Editor’s Note: This article is part of our Biblical Covenants and the Conflict in the Middle East series, in which we bring together scholars with differing views on the relationship between the Biblical covenants and examine how their views affect the current conflict in the Middle East. Be sure to check out the book reviews we will post that align with each view represented.
My thanks to London Lyceum for the invitation to contribute this essay. I have chosen to write a theological narrative in response to the questions so the connections can be seen. I hope one can read it on its own as it tells a key story that theologically is one way to see the situation. This means the issue of land and the role of Israel as a people in God’s program permeates the entire essay and is the extended answer to question 4a and b (a. What is the Theological Role of Modern Israel? b. Do the land promises in the OT have any bearing on the modern nation-state of Israel?). So the core questions I will embed within the essay to point to where the specific answers can be found. One can read the essay and should read it with those questions in mind, but in part my answer is in the full narration I present.
1. Summarize your view on the connection with the Biblical covenants and why you hold to it.
The biblical plan of salvation from the Hebrew Scripture has two key elements: Israel and the covenants. How that continues through the rest of Scripture is a much discussed, even debated, issue. It is the covenants that reveal both the direction of God’s program and the place Israel has in it. I read these texts with an eye to who they address and would contend that the progress of revelation, even as it expands who gets addressed, does not eliminate who was originally addressed when it comes to promise. Ultimately fulfillment is tied to Jesus. I also contend that Jesus’s career as tied to both comings means that what he did in his earthly ministry and what he does now not does not exhaust what may be coming with him and who benefits from what remains. It is especially the covenants of promise that do and show this: the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants. They are the why and how of the way God’s promise of grace proceeds.
2. How do you view the covenant of grace, the covenant of works, etc.?
There are two other covenants I will not address with much attention because they are not covenants of promise in the context of God’s program rooted in grace. Those are the covenant of works, which I actually do not believe exists at all, but should rather be seen as the cultural mandate for why we were created (Gen. 1:26–28). We were created to honor God and collaborate together to make the creation functional. God still desires this of us. The other is the Mosaic Covenant. It functioned as an administrative covenant for Israel that showed how they should live as a distinct people of God until the promise came. The promise of the Christ Paul portrays as the heir who takes up the realization of what was promised, also teaching the role of the law has now changed with his coming. This is what Paul teaches in Galatians 3:15–4:7 and Romans 7:1-7. So I will proceed by laying out the direction of these three core covenants of promise as they are tied to Israel, take a side journey of how to think about the law of the Mosaic Covenant and then return to take a specific look at Israel’s role in all of this, past, present, and future. The covenants of promise are the ways of grace and the covenant of law fits underneath it as well as a guide until the promise comes. Grace is where God is headed with Israel and her inclusion in promise yet to come. That story to come also impacts how we are to see Israel today, even tough most Jews today do not believe in the messiah God also sent to and for her.
(Back to questions 1 and 4)
The Core: The Promise and the Covenants
It is important to note how widespread and specific this promise is from God to Israel. It is crucial to see how it is grounded in God’s character and so is in place for perpetuity. Let’s look at that now. The promise of a people and a land involves commitments God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3.1All citations are from the NET. The issue of the land leads off this promise in v. 1. It says, “Now the Lord said to Abraham, ‘Go out from your country, your relatives, and your fathers’ household to the land I will show you.’” The people of Israel are going to exemplify divine blessing in v. 2. That verse declares, “Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing”. This is part of what makes their testimony a lasting one. They function as a people as a witness to God. That witness is not just as seen in the person of Messiah. This very Israel is distinguished from the nations within this promise in v. 3. Blessing to the world will come through them and the seed of Abraham. Verse 3 states, “I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, so that all the families of the earth may receive blessing through you”. Genesis 12:7 speaks of this promise as being for Abraham’s descendants or seed. That verse reads “To your descendants I will give this land.” In Genesis 13:15-16 the seed promise is repeated, “I will give all of this land you see to you and your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone is able to count the dust of the earth, then your descendants also can be counted”. The seed of Abraham here is clearly a corporate plural.
Now in the New Testament, the seed is seen as Jesus the Christ (Gal. 3:16). He is seed par excellence as the executor of this promise, but Israel as a people among the nations is addressed and still remains as a part of that promise.
The promise is reiterated to the patriarchs of Israel in numerous places with the land for her being specifically mentioned. Land is specifically mentioned in the reaffirmation of the promise to Abraham (Gen. 15:5-7, 18-21; 17:1-8), to Isaac (Gen. 26:2-5), and Jacob (Gen. 28:3-4, 13-15). So one can conclude that the promise of blessing as a people involves the inclusion of a land for them that ultimately will be at peace among the nations. The book of Genesis ends with a promise about this land as Joseph was buried in a cave located in the field at Machpelah: “But God will surely come to you and lead you from this land to the land he swore on oath to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Gen. 50:24). This is a promise of a land for a specific nation of people. This promise is about God keeping his word, about his faithfulness.
This idea of a people and land is not limited to the book of Genesis. The Lord says to Moses in Exodus 6:4, “I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they were living as resident foreigners”. Also in v. 8, “I will bring you to the land I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob–and I will give it to you as a possession. I am the Lord.” This remark is a complete promise from God about the covenant’s inclusion of a land for this people as a core part of its content. When the point is made about a possession, there is no indication that possession is temporary. Nor is there an indication the promise of the land is conditional. Some argue that this promise of the land is conditional and disobedience meant loss of the land. This claim needs a closer look to see if it is so.
The first hint of the answer is in Deuteronomy 28:62 where the remark appears that “there will be very few of you left, though at one time you were as numerous as the stars in the sky, because you will have disobeyed the Lord your God.” Severe judgment for disobedience exists and is devastating, but it is not the last word. Vv. 63-64 say this judgment includes uprooting from the land and scattering among the nations. And yet Deuteronomy 30 speaks of a reversal of all of this horrible judgment as the Lord has pity on Israel as she turns back to God. Then the Lord brings them back to the land and blessing (Deut. 30:1-4). In v. 5 this blessing means more blessing beyond what their ancestors received. The section ends with a call to the nation to obey, with the note that disobedience means severe destruction, but repentance brings restoration (Deut. 30:11-20). God never gives up on restoring Israel, even when her back is turned to him. Deuteronomy 32 even has a Song of Moses to commemorate all of this. A blessing on each of the twelve tribes follows in Deuteronomy 33.2Ephraim and Manasseh are combined under the blessing to Joseph. Nothing in this suggests that the door is closed to Israel permanently nor that the land will not be theirs at some time of the future. What is needed when the land is lost is a turning back to God. This pattern was seen within the Old Testament when Assyria and Babylon overran the land with the prophets explaining what had taken place.
There is a similar cycle to this noted in Ezekiel 20. That summary of disobedience, judgment followed by restoration ends this way in Ezekiel 20:40-41: “When I bring you out from the nations and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, I will accept you along with your soothing aroma. I will display my holiness among you in the sign of the nations. Then you will know I am the Lord when I bring you to the land of Israel, to the land I swore to give to your fathers.”
The picture of God’s faithfulness to Israel in the midst of unfaithfulness is also the picture of the prophet Hosea. It is God’s grace and the commitment of his word that is central to understanding how the covenants impact the role of Israel in Scripture.
Two things are of note here. First, this is a promise of Israel’s fate as she exists among the nations. The picture prevents a reading that simply absorbs Israel into the nations or transferring these references to the church. Second, the original covenant promise to Abraham is the basis for the action. God keeps his word.
Isaiah 2:1-4 speaks of all nations streaming to Jerusalem in a time of peace. Isaiah 2:2-3 reads, “In future days, the mountain of the Lord’s temple will endure as the most important of mountains and the most prominent of hills. All the nations will stream to it; Many peoples will come and say, ‘Come let us go up to the temple of the God of Jacob so he can teach us his requirements, and we can follow his standards’ For Zion will be the center for moral instruction; the Lord’s message will issue from Jerusalem”. Nation’s disputes will be judged by the Lord there. This foresees Israel at peace in her land in the midst of the nations. Those nations are also at peace with her and with God.
Isaiah 19:16-25 picks up this image and sees a highway running from Egypt to Assyria that also includes participation by Israel. All three will worship God together on this earth, nations and people united yet each with their own identity as well. Isaiah 19:25 reads, “The Lord of Heaven’s Armies will pronounce blessing over the earth saying, ‘Blessed be my people, Egypt, and the work of my hands, Assyria, and my special possession, Israel.” All are blessed by the Lord: Egypt as my people, Assyria as the work of God’s hands and Israel as God’s special possession. This act of reconciliation is not a nationalism, but a building block to final shalom on earth. It does foresee a people of God made up on many nations, one of the impacts of Christ’s coming.
The New Testament supports this idea as in Acts 3:18-22 after the Christ has come. Peter speaks of the restoration to come with Jesus’s return that the prophets of old spoke about as they held out hope for the nation and her deliverance. Here are vv. 21-22, linking the future hope to the Christ and to what the prophets of old taught (underlining how the two points): “This one heaven must receive until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through his holy prophets. Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you.”
Does Jesus’s coming and Israel’s lack of response to him change any of this. The short answer is no. Despite current rejection, the New Testament looks to a day when Israel will turn and enter into blessing again, something Paul refers to in Romans 11 when he foresees the natural branches being grafted back into the tree after having been pruned away. Jesus’s coming brings in the other two covenants of promise. The Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7 looks to a dynasty in the house of David that culminates in a decisive faithful, delivering line and a time of peace for Israel in the land. The key part of this promise is in vv. 10-11 (again the underlines how a key point): “I will establish a place for my people Israel and settle them there; they will live there and not be disturbed anymore. Violent men will not oppress them again, as they did in the beginning and during the time when I appointed judges to lead my people Israel. Instead, I will give you relief from all your enemies. The LORD declares to you that he himself will build a dynastic house for you.” That line culminates in the hope of a Messiah.
To this, even in a period of Israel’s unfaithfulness, a hope appears in the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31. This text is said specifically to be for Israel and Judah. The promise’s original audience could not be more specific with the addition of Judah. This is to the people of Israel. That others will come to participate in this does not mean Israel is excluded from the hope it represents for her. It is a covenant “not like the old covenant” (v. 32) made with the ancestors. That shows the difference between this line of promise and the Mosaic Covenant. Here is that promise in v. 33: “But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD.77 “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” This is the promise of restoration in the face of disobedience. The gospel of Jesus, who fulfills this promise, includes this dimension for Israel and the Jews. It does require response, but it also is a part of what God has committed himself to do.
3. How Does the Law Fit with the “tri-partite distinction” and if the law extends from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant?
The role of the law is as Galatians 3:24 states it, as a pedagogue to the promise. These covenants of promise are part of the law and prophets. The promise was embedded in the law. So one can read the law as stipulations or in light of the promise. The NT reads often reads the law in light of promise. Still the law has a role in guiding us as Romans 15:4 contends: “.For everything that was written in former times was written for our instruction, so that through endurance and through encouragement of the scriptures we may have hope.” In other words, the law is not ultimately to be seen as stipulations nor does one wrestle with any tripartite division in the law, but is seen as the preparation for and directed towards the promise. It does set a tone for the pursuit of righteousness and a manner of living that is distinct, but it core goal is to point to the need for a deliverer, calling for a response to that need. Romans 7:4-5 says it this way: “So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful desires, aroused by the law, were active in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the law, because we have died to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code.” Paul is saying the realization of the New Covenant is found here.
4. What about Israel Today and in the Era to Come? Do the land promises in the OT have any bearing on the modern nation-state of Israel? Does the present-day conflict have any specific prophetic significance, or is it primarily a geopolitical issue to be understood through general principles of justice and mercy?
So where does that leave Israel today, an Israel en masse who have not been responsive to the gospel? Israel today is not in obedience to God when it comes to covenant promise and responding to the Christ. However, that does not mean the nation has no right to the land and a place in the Middle East. As the above texts abundantly indicate, God’s promise is not negated by disobedience. All the eschatological promises of deliverance in the Hebrew Scripture assume Israel is in the land in the midst of Gentile nations. Isaiah 19 could not make that any clearer, when it refers to Israel, Egypt, and Assyria. The promise of Christ’s blessings and promises extending to others does not mean the original recipients cease to be in view, especially when the promise of the land specifically for her is said to be forever (Gen. 13:15; Exod. 32;13; Ezra 9:12; Jer. 33:11; Ezek. 37:25). Some of these promises come from Jeremiah and Ezekiel to a people who also are in disobedience. So these promises, that imply a nation-state, do apply to Israel. The significance of the land is not so much about prophecy nor a geo-political issue only to be seen through the eyes of justice and mercy. It is rooted in the character and promise of God to the people through whom he chose to show his grace. God keeps his promises.
5. Treatment of Palestinians and Unbelievers. 5a: Does God have an unconditional covenant with the modern people of Israel to save them all and give them their land? If not, what Scriptural basis should drive Christian advocacy for peace and justice? How should we decide/support who gets the land? 5b: How can Christians support Israel without neglecting the prophetic call for justice and mercy for all people?
I am thinking about this question from the standpoint of Israel’s promised presence in the land from Scripture and the progression of the promise. What is said of Israel here is not said for the sake of Israeli nationalism. Israel has a responsibility to treat its neighbors well. Her moral obligations always exist. The hope of ultimate peace in the region as Isaiah 19 foresees is in view. This is where the ethnic cleansing going on and the use of non-proportional violence are problematic (this is not genocide as total eradication is not the point, but displacement). Both points violate justice and mercy, while the second also exceeds normal Humanitarian standards for international conflicts. Ultimately through Christ, who is the source of fulfillment and blessing, the land is to be a place of blessing for all, even if it is destined for Israel to occupy much of it.
Another qualification on all of this is also necessary as it is a complicating factor as well as a catalyst for elements of the regional violence. This additional factor is especially important in thinking about our present situation. The current conflict is not just about Palestinians and Israel. There is a third party that has wreaked much havoc in the region. One should never forget this. This is Hamas and its sponsor, Iran. They want to remove Israel from the region totally and have done all they can to attempt to do this. I know there are deep debates about what has taken place and how over the last hundred years or so. That is what is said by those who defend Hamas. However, anyone looking at the region should not forget this goal for the political-theological ideology that moves violence from those who seek to fight for Palestinian interests. This also is a major part of the recent cycle of violence that began with the brutal attack of October 7. The expression “from the river to the sea” means no place for Israel in the land, period and in toto. It is about removing Israel’s presence. So to embrace this idea is to ignore commitments God has made to Israel.
To say this is not to affirm that all Israel has done in response to the violence is to be supported. The use of violence, even in defense of one’s well-being, should be proportional, basically in self-defense. What has been taking place does not fit that standard for engaging in conflict. It is evil and morally wrong.
The current situation in the Middle East is a mess to which both sides have contributed. Complicating everything is that the theological explanation I have given is rooted in a faith that not everyone in the region shares, including most of those who live in the region. This means those most impacted by what is going on are coming from radically different orientations to the land and the issues of justice and mercy tied to it. These differences in even the starting point adds to the mess that resides in the region.
The story of conflict here is an old one, not just involving the last several decades or even the last few centuries, but millennia. All sides now are contributing to the cul de sac of violence that now exists. Even the question who is more responsible for the violence misses the point since sin is rampant in the region. What is needed is for the violence to subside so that a solution for how to change the region can be pursued. Another real current problem is that even a hint of what that could or should look like is not even on the table. Without a vision for what could be, people dig in and defend their turf or fight for it violently leading to more violence. So Christians should defend Israel’s right to exist because they should be permitted to live in the land in peace. However, the Palestinians also have rights as humans that need to be recognized. Christians, whether Palestinian, messianic, or from former Muslim faith, also need to be a source of concern for those who share faith in Christ. This is why we have to lend our ear to hear from all sides of the church, even hear things we may not agree with.
Christians need to understand how the violence, even in this latest cycle, also is rooted and was catalyzed in part by an ideology that denies Israel’s right to exist. That reality is why Israel has felt so threatened, seeing the violence against her as a real and complete existential threat. That threat, supported by Islamic Jihad ideology from many Muslims and some Muslim nations, is what has caused the depth of her reaction. When people with distinct senses of privilege collide, conflict, even intense conflict, results. Nonetheless, Christians also need to appeal to a need to limit the level of violence in the region no matter where it comes from. They also should support efforts to be sure people have access to food and shelter. This is one basic way to apply justice and mercy to the region. It also is a litmus test for the presence of evil. Are basic human needs in view and to what degree? Two key initial goals must be the ability to get to a cease fire and the seeking of a guarantee from both sides for the renunciation of violence which has been an ongoing problem in the region. Then people can work on how to have everyone in the region figure out how to live together requires stepping back from the current level of violence.
The current tensions point to the international need to allow Israel to live in peace in the land, determine how to deal with the genuine issues that exist for Palestinians, and call for the refraining from the use of violence that triggers an eye for eye and tooth for tooth response in the region. None of that can take place in the current violent context. The reconciliation that Christ seeks when it comes to human violence is advanced in these moral commitments.
- How do promises of divine blessing or cursing related to Israel [e.g., Genesis 12:3] apply to other nations’ involvement in the conflict?)
There is no guarantee Israel can expect blessing when she is in disobedience before God, but the same is also true of those who fight against her. In fact, to fight against Israel and the direction of God’s commitment to her also leaves one vulnerable to God’s judgment. That judgment sometimes is exercised through national conflict. Perhaps the impasse is evidence both sides are at fault until it stops. In saying this I am not trying to engage in moral equivalence. I have worked hard to avoid asking who is more to blame when there is plenty of blame to go around. To be honest such judgments are beyond my pay grade. I only try and observe what contributes to the extreme dysfunction that currently resides in the region.
- How does the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant provide a framework for understanding the complexities of the current conflict?)
The ultimate solution is to embrace the hope of Christ and the New Covenant he offers to both Jew and Gentile, to the people of Israeli and of Palestinian descent as well as to Muslims. In the end, all blessing comes through the forgiveness the Christ offers and the new life and corporate reconciliation through Him that moves toward peace with God and others. It is that hope that comes as part of embracing the gospel. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, prayed for such and looked forward to such a hope including Israel as Romans 9–11 also shows. That is because God keeps his promises and calls us to be responsive to his acts of mercy and forgiveness so we all can experience ultimate peace.
