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.
Since nearly the inception of the modern state of Israel over seventy-five years ago, there has been no shortage of skirmishes, terrorism, and warfare in the Middle East. Further, the ongoing Jewish-Palestinian conflicts, not least the horrific October 7, 2023 massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas, has again raised the question of how we should think of the modern state of Israel, Palestine, and the Gaza strip. These are complex geo-political questions, and for Christians, how we are to think about the state of Israel and the Palestinian conflict should be shaped by our understanding of Scripture. Specifically, the conclusions we draw out of Scripture flow from our understanding of the biblical covenants (the creation, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenant) and their interrelationships. The significance of the covenants to shape one’s view of national Israel is evident. On the one hand, dispensationalists and Christian Zionists appeal to the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, the land promises, and Old Testament restoration promises to advocate for modern Israel.1For examples, see Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, eds., The People, the Land and the Future of Israel: Israel and the Jewish People in the Plan of God, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014); Gerald R. McDermott, ed., The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2016). They warn of “supersessionism” and the dangers of “replacement theology” among evangelicals who view Christ or the church as the fulfillment of national Israel.2See, for example, Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? A Theological Evaluation (Nashville: B&H, 2010); and Stanley E. Porter and Alan E. Kurschner, eds., The Future Restoration of Israel: A Response to Supersessionism, McMaster Biblical Studies, Vol. 10 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2023). On the other hand, some theologians from a more covenantal perspective, who view more continuity between Israel and the church due to their understanding of the covenant of grace, articulate concerns regarding Christian Zionism and “separation theology” with its influences on the political state of affairs, often considered overly pro-Israel, surrounding modern Israel.3Philip A. F. Church, “Dispensational Christian Zionism: A Strange but Acceptable Aberration or a Deviant Heresy?” WTJ 71 (2009): 375-98; Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-Map to Armageddon? (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity, 2004), 106-205. See also, Colin Chapman, Christian Zionism and the Restoration of Israel: How Should we Interpret the Scriptures? (Eugene, OR; Cascade, 2021); Rob Dalrymple, These Brothers of Mine: A Biblical Theology of Land and Family and a Response to Christian Zionism (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015). How one understands the nation of Israel in God’s plan, specifically tied to the covenants, and in relationship to Christ and the new covenant, will directly impact how one thinks of the modern state of Israel, the promised land, and the larger Jewish/Palestinian conflict.
Rather than viewing the church as the replacement of Israel as articulated in some forms of covenant theology, or even magnifying national Israel to a pedestal or of concentrated biblical focus as in dispensationalism, is the mediating view of progressive covenantalism (PC).4For works on progressive covenantalism, see Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018); Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker, eds., Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course Between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theologies (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016); Stephen J. Wellum, Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, Vol. 1 (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 431–84; Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, eds., Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture (Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022). Its strength is that it interprets each covenant in its own redemptive historical setting as it traces the covenantal progression of God’s unfolding plan across the canon, which is necessary to formulate proper theological conclusions regarding Israel, Christ, and the church. PC argues that God’s eternal plan is revealed through the covenants with each covenant building on previous covenant(s), starting in creation and reaching its fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant. For PC, Israel and the church are not equivalent or essentially the same as in covenant theology, nor are they ontologically different as in dispensationalism. Instead, the church is new in a redemptive-historical sense, thus distinguishing it from both viewpoints. In other words, old covenant Israel, including the covenant promises to Israel, have reached their promised apex in Christ, and then through him, like a “spill-over” effect, the church also is the recipient of the Old Testament (OT) promises and covenant blessings. There is one people of God, but with the ratification of the new covenant by Christ, the church is the sole eschatological, end-time people of God, the new covenant community consisting of believers among both Jews and Gentiles, a people united to Christ by faith, and as such, Israel as a distinct sovereign nation today is prophetically and eschatologically of no biblical significance except in how God continues to save ethnic Jews as they are brought to faith in Christ and incorporated into the church.
While PC affirms that the church is the only new covenant community and that the modern state of Israel does not have any special covenant status, this does not mean the situation of the Israel and Middle East conflict is to be ignored, or that the modern state of Israel does not have the right of other sovereign nations, including the right to protect its citizens, wage just war, and receive support and aid from the United States as an ally. To develop these points in more detail from a progressive covenantal perspective, three areas are considered: PC and the nature of the covenants, the role and fulfillment of OT Israel with theological entailments for modern Israel, and lastly, the larger implications for the current state of Israel and the Palestinian conflict.
Progressive Covenantalism on the Covenants
PC is called such because God has revealed himself progressively, i.e., over time through a plurality of covenants (Eph 2:12), which not only reach their fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant (Heb 1:1-3; 8:1-13; 12:18-24) but also serve as the backbone of Scripture. In contrast to covenant theology, the covenants are not simply reduced to “the covenant of works” (i.e., law) and “the covenant of grace” (i.e., gospel), although theologically, the law-gospel distinction is true. Instead, God’s plan unfolds, starting with creation and Adam as the covenant head of humanity, and then in the aftermath of the fall, God graciously acts to provide a Redeemer for God’s elect, which is revealed in and through the covenants culminating in Christ. In this way, from Genesis 3:15 on, the promise of Christ and the new covenant is gradually revealed. Genesis 3:15, then, “is not the ratification of the covenant of grace (which is a theological category and not a specific biblical covenant). Instead, it is a gracious promise, grounded in Christ, which is progressively revealed through the covenants reaching their fulfillment in the new covenant.”5See Stephen Wellum’s article, “Conviction & Charity: Progressive Covenantalism” at https://g3min.org/conviction-charity-progressive-covenantalism/. Emphasis original. This understanding of the covenants allows each covenant to contribute to the Bible’s redemptive story, preserving the legitimate continuity and discontinuity between them.
When it comes to the nation of Israel, we must not merely link Israel to the Abrahamic covenant, but also back to Adam and the creation covenant.6Many dispensationalists do not affirm a covenant in Gen 1-3, which in turn has implications for their view of national Israel. See Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Conclusion,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, 253; Brent E. Parker, Christ Jesus, the True Israel: Progressive Covenantalism on Israel, Christ, and the Church (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2024), 137-38. In agreement with covenant theology, Adam is the covenant head of humanity to whom was promised eternal life conditioned upon obedience. But in his rebellion the human race was plunged into a state of sin, death, and judgment (Gen 3; Rom 5:12-21). Despite the fall, Adam remains the image-son of God and all subsequent covenant heads are later installments of him, not in terms of the ability to gain eternal life by obedience to the covenant, but in terms of the creation order and structures that continue. Themes of fruitfulness and blessing, the promise of seed/offspring, all pass from Adam to Noah (Gen 9:1, 7), Abraham (Gen 17:2, 6), Jacob (26:2–4; 28:3–4), and eventually to Israel (Exod 1:7; Deut 7:13) which is another “Adam,” called God’s son (Exod 4:22; Deut 14:1). Under the Mosaic covenant, Israel is constituted as the corporate people of God, becoming the nation promised in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:2), and called to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:5-6). In the Davidic covenant, the Davidic king becomes the representative of the people of God, the true Israel who is also God’s son (2 Sam 7:14), called to be obedient and the mediator of Israel’s covenant, exemplifying God’s rule to Israel, and ultimately reflecting what Adam was supposed to be in creation (2 Sam 7:19-24; Ps 2; 110). All these covenants and associated themes converge in the person of Christ and his new covenant work (Isa 42:6-7; 49:6-8; Jer 31:31-34; Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Rom 11:27; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 7:22; 8:6–13; 9:15–18; 10:24–22). Jesus is the last Adam (Rom 5:12-21; Heb 2:5-18), the true image of God (Col 1:15), the eschatological son of man (Dan 7:13-14), the true seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16; Luke 1:54-55, 72-73), the true Israel as he is the true son (Matt 2:15; cf. Hos 11; Matt 3:15-17; 4:1-11; John 15:1-6) and servant-Israel (Isa 42:1–9; 49:1–13; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12; 55:3; 61:1–3; cf. John 1:29; Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30; Rom 4:23-25; Gal 1:4; 1 Pet 1:19; Heb 5:5-10), and the true, obedient, exalted Davidic king (Matt 1:1; 28:18-20; Acts 2:32-36; 4:25-26; 13:33; Rom 1:3-4; Eph 1:9-10; Heb 1:5) who is anointed with the Holy Spirit (Isa 11:1-5; 61:1-2; Luke 4:14-21). Christ’s atoning sacrifice ratifies the new covenant, and the arrival of the Holy Spirit, also a new covenant prophecy to Israel (Ezek 36:27; 37:14; Joel 2:28-32) is a reality now as Jesus pours out the Spirit on his people (Luke 3:16-17; John 7:28-39; Acts 2; Eph 1:13-14).
With the dawning of the new covenant and new creation in Christ, there is a transformation in the people of God which was already anticipated in the OT. While old covenant national Israel was a “mixed” community of believers and unbelievers, Jesus’s followers, the new covenant community, is now the church, the end-time people of God (1 Cor 10:11), the heavenly (Eph 2:5–6; Col 1:12–14; Heb 12:22–24), Spirit-empowered, new humanity in Christ (Eph 2:15), which entails that they are a regenerate, believing, and justified people. The coming of the Holy Spirit “signals that the OT restoration promises, first given to Israel, are now taking place in Christ and the church, which entails that everyone in Christ has the Spirit and now participates in the promised age (something true only of believers).”7Wellum, “Conviction & Charity: Progressive Covenantalism.” Emphasis original. The church through union with the true seed of Abraham, is now constituted as Abraham’s seed by exemplifying the faith of Abraham (Gal 3–4; Rom 4). The church is the fulfillment of OT Israel in being the elect race, holy nation, and the people (1 Pet. 2:9–10; cf. Deut. 4:20; 14:2; Heb. 2:7; 4:9) set aside for God’s special possession
Progressive Covenantalism, OT Israel, and the Modern State of Israel
Given the above sketch regarding the covenantal progression and fulfillment in Christ, it follows that modern Israel does not have any special covenantal privileges as they did under the Mosaic covenant since all of the covenants have been fulfilled in Christ. In contrast to dispensationalism or Christian Zionism, there is nothing in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants that is still outstanding in terms of fulfillment: all of God’s promises are yes and amen in Christ. It is now in the church, which is constituted of believing Jews and Gentiles, that all of God’s promises are realized. Jesus as the last Adam and true Israel establishes his church, which means that all of God’s promise are received in and through Christ, the church being the beneficiary of those promises. This does not mean that ethnic Jews are unimportant or that God has replaced them with a supposed Gentile church (which in reality does not exist). No, the gospel still goes out to Jewish people so that they may be grafted back into the tree of the people of God (Rom 11:23-24), becoming part of his new covenant people. That modern Israel, or the land of Palestine, have no present-day covenantal significance is observed by two additional points.
First, the OT nation of Israel and the land promises are typological patterns that are fulfilled in Christ.8For a full-blown analysis of OT Israel as type with Christ as the antitype, with discussion points on the typological nature of the promised land, see Parker, Christ Jesus, the True Israel. As already noted, Jesus is the true son (=true Israel), the true Abrahamic seed, the true servant, and he is also the true vine who stands over and against the fruitless vine of Israel (John 15:1–6; Ps. 80:8–18). Israel’s vocation, calling, identity is all summed up and fulfilled in Christ as the ultimate prophet, priest, and king. The land promises are also typological as the land dovetails with themes of temple, rest, and inheritance. The original land promise to Abraham expands to cover the entire cosmos (Rom 4:13; 8:14-25; cf. Matt 5:5), a theme that also merges with the concept of the heavenly city (Heb 11:8-16; 13:12-14). The land promise looks back to Eden and Adam’s role to expand sacred space, and looks forward, anticipating a new transformed universe, an inheritance of a global kingdom involving a consummated new creation (Rev 21:2-3; cf. Isa 4:5-6; Heb 12:22). The inheritance of land does not await national, ethnic Israel in the future millennium and beyond; rather, the inheritance is enjoyed by all those baptized into Christ, conjoined to him by faith (Gal 3:27-29; cf. 1 Cor 12:13). Therefore, the OT land promises are fulfilled in Christ and the church, not in the modern state of Israel.
Second, modern-day Israel is not the covenant people of God any longer because the Mosaic covenant, Israel’s national covenant, is fulfilled in Christ. This covenant regulated Israel as a nation, explaining God’s character and ways, instructing Israel how to live before him with the sacrificial-tabernacle-temple system, food laws, feasts, Sabbath-keeping, priesthood, and so on. For all the emphasis on Israel as a nation today, it is interesting that the modern state of Israel does not follow the stipulations of the Law of Moses, but functions for the most part as a secular liberal democracy, not having the Torah as the basis of its laws. This shows us that modern Israel cannot be equated with ancient Israel and moreover, as already discussed, the heir of God’s promises to OT Israel is Christ and derivatively, the church.
It is important to highlight in this discussion that the Mosaic covenant is a unit, a single entity that was temporary in God’s plan as it was intended to be fulfilled in Christ (Matt 5:17-20; Rom 10:4; Gals 3:15-4:7; Heb 7:11-12). Covenant theology emphasizes the tripartite distinction of the law (moral, civil, ceremonial) and while the schema is heuristically helpful, Scripture does not make such distinctions. Rather, Scripture treats the law-covenant as an entire covenant package (Gal 3:10; 5:3; Jas 2:10). This is not to say that there are no distinctions in the law-covenant as there are some principles more critical and some matters of the law are weightier. Nor is it to deny that the Decalogue basically reflects God’s universal moral law (except the Sabbath command) as summed up by the Great Commandment. From creation on, God’s moral law has been given, which is certainly reflected in the Mosaic covenant. But moral law is best determined by seeing God’s moral universal demand from creation to Christ. As such, although the Mosaic covenant has been fulfilled as a covenant, it continues to be instructive for us as Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), having lasting relevance as prophecy, revelation, and wisdom. Now that Christ has come, Christians are not “under the law,” but under the law of Christ (1 Cor 9:20-21), which includes all of God’s moral demand from creation to Christ. In the end, the “New Testament repudiates all the Mosaic law-covenant, sees all Moses’s law replaced with Christ’s law, and reappropriates all Moses’s law as revelation of God’s character, as a pointer to Christ, and as a guide for Christian living. Scripture does not teach the threefold division of the law.”9Jason S. DeRouchie, Delighting in the Old Testament: Through Christ and for Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 217. For other helpful critiques of the tripartite distinction of the law, see Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 785-788; Stephen J. Wellum, “Progressive Covenantalism and the Doing of Ethics,” in Wellum and Parker, Progressive Covenantalism, 218-21; Joshua M. Greever, “Paul and the Tripartite View of the Law of Moses,” SBJT 26 (2022): 46-66; D. A. Carson, “The Tripartite Division of the Law: A Review of Philip Ross, The Finger of God,” in From Creation to New Creation: Essays on Biblical Theology and Exegesis, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner and Benjamin L. Gladd (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2013), 223-36; Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2010), 89-95. Under the new covenant, God’s universal moral demand is written on the heart. Israel’s national covenant is done away with, again highlighting that the modern, political state of Israel is not the covenantal nation of the OT nor is it the fruition of OT promises.
Progressive Covenantalism and the Modern State of Israel
If modern Israel is not under a specific covenant other than the demands of the Noahic covenant, then does this mean that it is of no concern for Christians? The answer is no. In God’s providence, after World War II and the Holocaust, the modern nation of Israel was created in 1948 with a government instituted, a constitution ratified establishing the rule of law, territorial boundaries, and the legal rights of citizenship. Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and other Islamic organizations may not recognize Israel’s right to exist, but Israel does exist as a nation and is recognized as such by other nations. As a nation, Israel has all the rights, privileges, and prerogatives that pertain to all sovereign nations. This also includes the right to self-protection and the right to wage just war, which entails legitimately taking military action to enact justice in preserving life, the nation, and in the pursuit of long-term peace.10For more on how Christians should think about modern Israel, see Stephen Wellum, “What Should Christians Think about the Nation of Israel Today?” https://christoverall.com/article/longform/what-should-christians-think-about-the-nation-of-israel-today/ and Tom Ascol, “What Should We Think About the Attack on Israel by Hamas?” https://founders.org/articles/what-should-we-think-about-the-attack-on-israel-by-hamas/ Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God is not finished with saving many ethnic Jews (Rom 9-11), and the preservation of the Jewish people over the years points to this fact.
The present-day conflicts including the October 7, 2023 attack and the challenges of Iran are important in God’s overall providential plan. Hamas, the ruling authority in Gaza since 2007, and Iran desire to establish Islamic states that replace the nation of Israel, i.e., eradicating Israel as a nation. This is not just some military conflict over some general dispute, but one that involves deep religious/worldview matters rooted in Islamic beliefs of antisemitism. Even as Israel seeks to wage just war and bring a lasting peace, as Christians we recognize the gospel is needed to bring transformation to the Middle East for both Jews and Palestinians. As for ending the current conflict, Christians should advocate for peace and justice recognizing that God has ordained governing authorities to uphold what is good, maintain order, and enact justice on evildoers, so that their citizens may flourish and live peaceful lives (Rom 13:1–7; 1 Tim 2:2; cf. 1 Pet 2:13–17). For governments to uphold what is “good” and “just” is not a general, vague notion, but what Paul means is that God’s standard of good and justice is maintained. For a nation to uphold what is good means that they follow God’s moral standards given to all people since the creation of the world, what can be identified as the moral or natural law. Though people suppress the truth in unrighteousness, all people know God’s moral standards (Rom 1:18–32). Although no nation is blameless and upholds God’s natural law in every way, support for Israel is important and warranted because of the democratic values that are observed there. Unlike so many nations, including those in the Middle East, Israel seeks to uphold the good by exerting the rule of law, maintaining human dignity, religious liberty, private property, and having free elections. Christians have a responsibility to hold Israel responsible to act justly in these conflicts just as Christians have a responsibility to uphold the United States to the moral standards of God.
As followers of Jesus, we should support Israel insofar as they wage just war and pursue peace. Likewise, we should support Palestinian Christians and pray for that the Palestinian extremists would repent of their evil beliefs and actions. In a conflict so complex and with nature of war being as it is, Israel’s response to protect her people by bringing a just response to Hamas and to defang Iran needs to be measured, minimizing the loss of life among noncombatants and women and children. As for the Gaza itself, Christians may differ as to who ultimately should govern that region. Israel and other nations, including the United States, need to ensure that no terrorist organization or authority rules over Gaza again. Nations need to support Israel in these endeavors not because of some divine blessing or cursing related to OT Israel which does not apply to modern Israel (Gen 12:3), but so that lasting peace may be secured.
Conclusion
With the present conflict in the Middle East and the great loss of life, Christians seek the welfare and good of all people – Jews and Gentiles – in proclaiming the gospel and seeking the fruit of the gospel which includes peace with God and neighbor. Christians also need to think rightly about modern Israel and the land of Palestine by properly understanding Scripture and the unfolding of God’s plan along the covenants. In my view, progressive covenantalism provides the best perspective on how to understand national OT Israel in Scripture and the fulfillment of Israel and the OT promises in Christ while also maintaining general support for modern Israel in the pursuit of stability, peace, and harmony in the Middle East.
