Israel has a right to exist in the land and that we have a moral and political obligation to stand with her against all enemies. But this is not the same thing as saying that Israel has a biblical or covenantal right to the territory over which so much blood has been shed in recent years (indeed, in recent centuries). Nor does it address the question of what role, if any, the “promised land” will have in God’s redemptive purposes for his people and this earth.

Recently a friend wrote to me, asking my opinion on whether or not Israel has a biblical right to the Holy Land. That is to say, can Israel appeal to the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as grounds for their presence in and possession of the land of Palestine? My friend wondered if the view I espouse is what many have called “Replacement” theology. Let me take this opportunity to address the point.

Before I do, two words of introduction are needed. First, I want to make an appeal to all who engage in this debate that we do so with civility and generosity towards those with whom we disagree. I make this request because I have noticed that to disagree with what has come to be known as “Christian Zionism” exposes one either to the charge of anti-Semitism or a demonically induced blindness. I hope we can all agree that this is an issue that requires careful and patient examination of the Scriptures and a willingness to dialogue with an open mind.

Second, while I was ministering in Georgia recently I read a disturbing article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Thursday, October 27, 2005). Then again a day later I read a similar news item on The Drudge Report. Both articles reported that the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ah-madinejad, called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” He also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it. According to the article, the Iranian president declared that “anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.” After numerous heads of state denounced the Iranian president for these comments, mass demonstrations broke out in Iranian cities that expressed rage and contempt for the existence of the nation of Israel.

Let me be perfectly clear. I hope and pray that all American citizens, whether Christian or not, would stand firmly in their opposition to this sort of evil and irresponsible rhetoric. I believe that Israel has every right to exist and flourish as a nation and I hope that the United States will maintain its vigilance in defense of Israel against all such Islamic threats and future attacks.

Clearly, then, I believe Israel has a right to exist in the land and that we have a moral and political obligation to stand with her against all enemies. But this is not the same thing as saying that Israel has a biblical or covenantal right to the territory over which so much blood has been shed in recent years (indeed, in recent centuries). Nor does it address the question of what role, if any, the “promised land” will have in God’s redemptive purposes for his people and this earth. To that particular issue, I now turn.

First, I believe that when God established his covenant in Genesis 12, he affirmed that the seed (some translations render it “offspring”) of Abraham would inherit the land of Canaan (among other things) in fulfillment of the promise.

But we must never read such promises, or anything in the Old Testament, as if Jesus had not come and the New Testament had not been written. Or to put it in more positive terms, the Old Testament must always be read in light of the New. I never read such OT texts without immediately asking, “Does the NT shed additional light on how I am to understand the nature of such promises and their recipients?”

There are several texts that shed considerable light on how we are to understand the covenant made with Abraham and his progeny.

(1) Consider Romans 9:6-7. The context of this passage is Paul’s response to the charge that God cannot be trusted because so many Israelites, his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (9:3), are in unbelief. If God cannot be trusted to fulfill his covenant promise to OT Israel, how can he be trusted to fulfill any of his promises to the NT Church?

Or again, we could put it this way: If Israel is God’s covenant people, to whom so many glorious privileges have been given (Romans 9:4-5), why are so few Israelites saved? Why are so many of them “accursed, separated from Christ?” Has God’s word failed? Has God’s covenant promise and eternal purpose come to nothing? Has the rejection of Jesus Christ by the majority of Israelites thwarted God’s purpose? Have the trustworthiness and finality of God’s word been undermined by the unbelief of so many Jews? His response to the question is a resounding No!

If God’s word of promise and covenant is that all ethnic Israelites, i.e., all those who are physically descended from Israel, are to be saved, then clearly his purpose has failed and his word is void. But Paul denies that God ever intended to save all ethnic Israelites. His purpose has always been to save a remnant within, but not the entirety of, ethnic Israel. This is the force of his declaration that “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (9:6).

There is an Israel within Israel. There is a spiritually elect remnant within the physicalnation. John Murray sums up: “The purpose of this distinction is to show that the covenantal promise of God did not have respect to Israel after the flesh but to this true Israel and that, therefore, the unbelief and rejection of ethnic Israel as a whole in no way interfered with the fulfillment of God’s covenant purpose and promise. The word of God, therefore, has not been violated” (10).

Simply put: Not every person who is a physically ethnic Israelite is a spiritually elect Israelite.

Doug Moo summarizes this way:

“If the OT teaches that belonging to physical Israel in itself makes a person a member of God’s true spiritual people, then Paul’s gospel is in jeopardy. For were this the case, the gospel, proclaiming that only those who believe in Jesus Christ can be saved (cf. 3:20-26), would contradict the OT and be cut off from its indispensable historical roots. Paul therefore argues in [Romans 9] vv. 6b-29 that belonging to God’s true spiritual people has always been based on God’s gracious and sovereign call and not on ethnic identity. Therefore, God is free to ‘narrow’ the apparent boundaries of election by choosing only some Jews to be saved (vv. 6-13; 27-29). He is also free to ‘expand’ the dimensions of his people by choosing Gentiles (vv. 24-26)” (569).

Read More