ISRAEL AND THE INHERITANCE OF THE
LAND THROUGH ABRAHAM

At the heart of the 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. The land of Israel—a specific geographic region, a material territory, a piece of historic real estate—generates world-shaking concern. In parallel with this, underlying biblical considerations raise the question of disputed legitimacy for the Jewish people who have constituted the State of Israel since 1948, and thus regained the land, ha´aretz. While Jews, as individuals, are barely tolerated in their dispersal throughout the world, it is the current dispute over the land, especially in relation to the hostile claims of the surrounding Arab nations and Arab Palestinians, that continually threatens to bring about calamity of international proportions. It seems that Jewish individualism is endured, while at the same time Jewish nationalism is more strenuously opposed, even within the United Nations. So the land has especially become a trigger, a catalyst that ignites worldwide animosity to Zionism. For Zionism is rooted in the biblical concept of the land, which epitomizes an indivisible union between territory and people. Baruch Maoz, a Jewish Christian and Reformed Baptist pastor in Israel, explained 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

I repeat that while individual Jews are socially tolerated at best in Western society, their national identification with the land of Israel seems to awaken much greater controversy. This appears to be the case in the theological realm as well, particularly when replacement theology or supercessionismis considered. Jewish individuality is suffered, in a token sense, while the nation and territory of Israel are repudiated by means of such misguided epithets as “carnal Zionism,” “Dispensationalism,” “a temporal earthly shadow,” and so on.

Those who have no millennial sympathies that closely identify ethnic Israel with the land are usually quick to present a common objection, namely, that the NT revelation of the Word of God places no emphasis on the land of Israel in contrast with the OT where references are so numerous. These comments frequently arise in the consideration of Romans 9–11. With regard to Rom 11:25–26 Herman Bavinck commented,

Even 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, C. E. B. Cranfield wrote concerning Rom 11:26b-27,

There is here no trace of encouragement for any hopes entertained by Paul's Jewish contemporaries for the re-establishment of a national state in independence and political power, nor—incidentally—anything which could feasibly be interpreted as a scriptural endorsement of the modern nation-state of Israel.³

Martyn Lloyd-Jones was even more shrill in tone when, in preaching on vv. 25–32 during 1964 and 1965, he declared,

Where do you find any reference whatsoever to the land of Palestine or of Israel in this section? Where is there any mention of the restoration of the Jews to the land? Where is any mention of Jerusalem as such and the reigning there of the Lord for a thousand years?⁴

Finally, Bruce Waltke gave similar strong criticism that relegated the premillennial/dispensational understanding of the land 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 rabbi, who, especially in Romans 9–11, was so eager to maintain his passionate loyalty and love for ethnic Israel. In other words, he wrote as a Hebrew Christian, and it is a conspicuous weakness of some that they seem to avoid contemporary conservative scholarship that is rooted in a Hebrew Christian perspective similar to Paul's. Apart from such categorical Gentile criticism, where is there any breadth of Hebrew Christian scholarship that would add support with equal force to what these authors maintain? On the contrary, a preponderance of Hebrew Christian opinion does indeed repudiate such a Gentile understanding with equal vehemence.⁵Admittedly, amidst the dominance of contemporary Gentile Christianity this voice is not as influential. Nevertheless, ought not this neglected focus cause the Gentile student of the NT 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, Paul might respond with exasperation at that exegesis that, while strangely tolerating limited individualism concerning the contemporary situation of the Jews, most vigorously opposes any territorial nationalism that might still be rooted in the Abrahamic covenant. Arguing from the absence of the term “land” in Romans 9–11 is a dubious argument from silence. One might just as well argue against the validity of repentance from the absence of the term in the Gospel of John, or against the importance of love from the term's absence in the Acts of the Apostles. To suggest that though boldly confessing, “I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Rom 11:1), the apostle still disavows any attachment to the land is ludicrous. Such an argument evidences the Gentile tendency towards detachment and aloofness from the “natural branches” (Rom 11:17–24) that has been the blight of the Christian church for centuries.

The Land in the Old Testament

As Stephen pointed out, the land promise originated when “the God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he settled in Haran, and said to him: ‘Get out of your country [pagan Ur of the Chaldeans] and away from your relatives, and come to 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: “The LORD said to Abram: ‘Go out from your land, your relatives, and your father's house to the land [hā'āres] that I will show you” (Gen 12:1). When Abram arrived at Shechem, God confirmed the promise: “The LORD appeared to Abram and said, ‘I will give this land to your offspring’” (Gen 12:7). Hence, this specific territory is rooted in persistent promise (Gen 13:14–17) that is then covenantally, unilaterally signified or cut (Gen 15:7–21). The promise was in no way abrogated when, 430 years later, the temporary, intervening, foreshadowing administration of Moses “was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise had been made would come” (Gal 3:19; also Jer 11:7–8; Rom 5:20). Just prior to Israel's exodus from Egypt, God instructed Moses to reassure the captive people of their eventual inhabitation of the promised land according to the Abrahamic covenant (Exod 6:2–8). The subsequent necessity of the intervening Mosaic covenant was never intended to supersede or overshadow the promise. W. D. Davies incorrectly wrote, “In the Christological logic of Paul, the land, like the Law, particular and provisional, had become irrelevant.”⁷ The land was not promised to Abraham as a passing shadow, as something merely provisional. There is no such statement 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. The Abrahamic covenant promised the land, and the intervening Mosaic covenant involved temporal association with the land, yet the new covenant declares consummate fulfillment of that promise to Abraham with its specific references to the land, and not some extrapolated, abstract universalism. In particular, the new covenant describes Israel's return to the land from dispersion as “the land that I gave to your forefathers” (Jer 31:38–40; Ezek 11:17; 36:24,28).

So in terms of roots, the OT as a whole always originally identifies the land with the Abrahamic covenant, but never the subsequent Mosaic covenant. Certainly the Mosaic covenant draws on the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant (Exod 3:6–8,15–17; 13:5; 33:1–3; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27), but the Mosaic covenant can never nullify that which was inaugurated with unilateral finality 430 years earlier (Gal 3:17). While the NT frequently describes 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, despite its sign of circumcision (Col 2:16–17; Heb 8:3–6; 10:1). Circumcision was the sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham, but the land was never regarded as a sign of the covenant; rather, it was intrinsic to that covenant, and this is a most vital distinction to keep in mind (Gen 12:1,7). This is the reason the land is distinguished from Mosaic typology—it is an abiding reality in itself.

By way of summary, we may understand the land from different perspectives according to the ways in which it is described.

The land as promise, according to God's irrevocable covenant, His sworn oath (Gen 50:24; Exod 12:25; Deut 6:3; 19:8)
The land as holy, that is, set apart by God who is holy, from other lands for inhabitation by His people (Exod 15:13; Zech 2:12–13)
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).
The land as God's gift, according to His gracious bestowal to Abraham and his descendants (Deut 1:20,25; 2:29).
The land as the fathers' possession, that is, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen 31:3; 48:21; Exod 33:1).
The land as the Israelites' inheritance, possession, and permanent dwelling place, according to covenant promise (Gen 12:7; 15:7; 24:7; 28:4).
The land as security, blessing, and rest—a place flowing with milk and honey, that is, material and spiritual blessings (Exod 33:3; Lev 20:24).
The land as the center of the world, that is, its navel—the intention being that it will be a blessing to the world (Ezek 5:5; 38:12).
The land as God's dwelling place with His people, especially in holy and intimate union (Ps 37:9,11,22,29,34; 132:13–15; Isa 1:19).

The Land in the New Testament

The following compendium addresses the objection that the NT is silent about the land of Israel as a continuing divine heritage. During the 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 promise concerning the land was about to be rescinded or transcended. For that matter, it is just as unlikely that the Gentile Church at Antioch, having been granted great liberty by the Council of Jerusalem, would have concluded that the Jewish Church at Jerusalem had, by its decree in giving freedom to the Gentiles, at the same time established its own demise with regard to being distinctively Jewish. Surely this was never in the mind of Paul or Barnabas.

Some Biblical Indications

In the NT, “Israel” is used seventy-three times, eleven of which are found in Romans (9:6 [2x],27 [2x],31; 10:19,21; 11:2,7,25,26). “Israelite(s)” is used four times (John 1:47; Rom 9:4; 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22). Regarding the Synoptics, Mayer declares that “Israel stands for the people and the land (Matt 20:1; 21:1).”⁸ Concerning Paul's overall usage, and after consideration of Rom 2:29; 9:6; 1 Cor 1:18; Phil 3:3, Burton concludes that, “there is, in fact, no instance of his using' Iσραήλ [Israel], 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 on the apostle a Gentile perspective that he never remotely contemplated. In the light of the preceding, it is astonishing to consider once again a further aspect of Robert Strimple's earlier referenced definitive proposition concerning Israel (chapter 7):

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 divine 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 election as lost through disobedience! Berkouwer rightly asked,

Can a past that has been qualified by election ever come to naught? Can “election of 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

The emphatic inference here that God's election of Israel is absolute leads us to consider the related fact that the land of Israel is part of that election, and as such it too is part of the inviolate character inherent in the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, I believe the following references quite clearly give NT indications that the land of Israel has retained its validity during the Church age, particularly because “the gifts [emphasis added] and calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).

Matthew 24:30; also Revelation 1:7. “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the peoples of the earth will mourn; and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” In the phrase haiphulai ts gs, “the tribes of the earth,” if ts gs is uniformly translated in the NT as “the earth,” then the absence of any mention of the land of Israel there is virtually guaranteed. But the context suggests that Zech 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 In that case, reference is being made to the conversion of national Israel at the Second Coming. Indeed the subsequent declaration that Christ “will gather His elect from the four winds” Matt 24:31), and the parable of the fig tree, would all support the focus here being on national Israel. The same translation option arises in Rev 1:7 where in view of Zech 12:10,14 the translation should probably read, “the tribes of the land [of Israel],” not “the families of the earth.” Certainly reference to “the land” in Zech 12:11–12 offers further support to this interpretation.¹³

Luke 21:20–24, especially v. 24. “They [the Jerusalemites] will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles until [achri hou, as in Rom 11:25] the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Following the subjugation of Jerusalem and the land to Gentile dominion for many centuries, there will follow a reversal of this order in which the Jerusalemites, and hence the Jews, will regain dominion over the land and Jerusalem. Such a fulfillment would unquestionably validate Israel's covenant claim to the land at the close of this present dispensation. This restoration to tangible favor would include the climactic “fulfillment” experienced by Israel according to Rom 11:12. J. C. Ryle concluded,

While the nations of Europe are absorbed in political conflicts and worldly business, the sands in their hour-glass are ebbing away. While governments are disputing about secular things, and Parliaments can hardly condescend to find a 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 of 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.¹⁴

John 1:11. “He came to his own [embassy, residence, inheritance], and his own people did not receive [welcome] him.” That Christ came to his “own things/possessions” [ta idia] indicates his territory and all that it contains, that is, the land of Israel (2 Chr 7:20; Isa 14:24–25; Jer 16:18; Mal 3:1). The same expression is found in John 19:26–27: “Jesus saw His mother and the disciple He loved [John] standing there. …And from that hour the disciple took her into his home [ta idia, his own things/possessions].” In support of this territorial understanding, Westcott commented on John 1:11,

There can be no reasonable doubt that this phrase [ta idia], and the corresponding masculine which follows, “his own” 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 God, of Jehovah (Lev. 25:23; Jer. 2:7; 14:18; Hos. 9:3; Zech. 2:12).¹⁵

Romans 9:26. Quoting Hosea 1:10, Paul wrote, “And it will be in the place where they were told, you are not My people, there [ekei] they will be called sons of the living God.” Johannes Munck noted that “there” is “a natural designation for Palestine, in order to imply that the Gentile nations will gather in Jerusalem and the Messianic kingdom will be established there (cf. 11:26).”¹⁶

Romans 11:1. Here Paul is boasting that, “I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.” The last expression, phuls Beniamin, would, for a Hebrew Christian, undoubtedly include territorial meaning or divine land allocation. Tribal association for the Jews meant not only demographic personal identification, but also geographic territorial identification with a portion of the land. W. H. Bennett stated that “after the conquest [of the land] the tribes became essentially territorial.”¹⁷So before King Agrippa, Paul declared, “And now I stand on trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers, the promise our 12 tribes hope to attain as they earnestly serve Him night and day. Because of this hope I am being accused by the Jews, O king!” (Acts 26:6–7). Surely Paul not only had 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 such territorial regions will be eliminated when the Jews were converted. James began his letter, “James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ: To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion. Greetings.” The attempts to spiritualize this reference are numerous and betray a Gentile bent, though it is not difficult to sense that such a conclusion is doctrinally rather than exegetically driven, especially in the light of the Jewishness that “Diaspora” in this same verse clearly indicates.¹⁸ A similar problem is faced in Rev 7:4–7 where the 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel is commonly understood, according to frequent Gentile exegesis, as representing the Church, even though v. 9 describes a distinct Gentile assembly, as “agreat multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and people and tongues.”¹⁹ Of course, all these references to the tribes of Israel, their demographic Hebrew identity, inevitably suggest a territorial association as well.

Romans 11:26. More recently, many commentators have expressed a belief that this passage does indeed refer to an eschatological national conversion of Jews 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 national Jewish identity according to divine mandate. John Murray argued very persuasively for a future conversion of “the mass of Israel,”²⁰ according to covenantal promise. But he failed to explain the resultant status of converted Israel as a body, that is, whether Israel retains national distinction in the sight of God, which would then entail a relationship to the land.²¹ Morris similarly opted for a future national conversion of Israel, though he less distinctly concluded, “Paul then is affirming that the nation of Israel as a whole will ultimately have its place in God's salvation.”²² A number of writers convey the idea that while there will be some future Jewish ingathering, no national identity on a covenantal basis is in view here. Rather, such a corporate conversion will result in incorporation into the people of God, that is, the church, which has no identification with national and geographic Israel. John Stott commented,

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. …According to the apostles, the Old Testament promises are fulfilled in Christ and in the international community of Christ. A return to Jewish nationalism would seem incompatible with this New Testament perspective of the international community of Jesus.²³

To begin with, Stott's reference to “many Jews” is nebulous since any definition he might offer disallows fundamental Jewishness. Again we have here a condescension to temporal, vague individuality that seems almost offended at the thought of prospective national expression. But further inconsistency arises concerning this overall modern approach to Romans 11. By yielding to the obvious comprehensive meaning of references to “Israel” that are consistent throughout Romans 9–11 whereby some future form of national conversion is admitted, there is a reluctance to accept the obvious national associations that Paul makes with the term “Israelite” (11:1) as a converted Hebrew. Rather, the explicit boasting of Paul concerning his Jewishness in Rom 9:3–5; 11:1, particularly obvious territorial implications, must surely be associated with v. 26 and thus anticipate national 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 is 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 to 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 that same land, especially since there is no biblical indication that the land has been forever taken from the Jews. In other words, to speak merely nominally of the Jews in Romans 9–11 is to fly in the face of the Jewishness that Paul there upholds, especially in Rom 9:1–5; 11:1–2,28–29. Paul's ongoing Jewishness would find it quite unthinkable for him to uphold his Jewish national status and at the same time deny continuity with its territorial foundation.

A final, conclusive proof in this regard concerns the eschatological hope of Israel because of “their forefathers” (Rom 11:28). Surely reference here to the Abrahamic covenant must include the essential component of the land, which, as Matt Waymeyer pointed out, exegetically leads us back to the “all Israel” of Rom 11:26.

The antecedent of the supplied “they” in v. 28 is “them” ( autois) in v. 27, which refers back to “Jacob” ( Iakb) in v. 26b, which in turn refers back to “all Israel” (, pas Isral) in v. 26a. This is significant because it indicates that the group of individuals described in v. 28 describes the “all Israel of v. 26 and helps to establish its identity.²⁴

Put another way, “all Israel” in Rom 11:26 refers to the unbelieving nation of Israel in v. 28 plus the remnant of v. 5 as it accumulates, which in total remains an heir of the Abrahamic covenant which is inclusive of the land.

Romans 11:26–27. This verse appears to incorporate quotations of both Isa 59:20 and Jer 31:33–34, which passages contextually include restoration to the land as part of Israel's redemptive blessings (see Isa 60:21; Jer 31:23).

Romans 11:29. “God's gracious gifts and calling are irrevocable.” The plurality of the “gracious gifts” surely follows, by way of explication, that which is declared secure according to the Abrahamic covenant originating from “their [Israel's] forefathers” (v. 28). Of course, from a Hebrew perspective, the “gifts” include saving grace for Israel, yet surely more is included, such as the encompassing covenant blessings of Rom 9:4–5 that would unquestionably include the land.²⁵

Galatians 3:16 (see v. 21). “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as though referring to many, but and to your seed, referring to one, who is Christ.” While the usual focus here falls on 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 both to Abraham and consequently to Jesus Christ? Lacking specificity, Burton explained that “the promises here spoken of are those which accompanied the covenant and which constituted it on the side of divine grace.”²⁶ Lightfoot appears to be closer to the truth in his comment,

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 kai must be part of the quotation. These considerations restrict the reference to Gen 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.²⁷

Aside from Lightfoot's dismissal of the literal primacy of the land here with regard to the details of “the promises,” based on supercessionist pre-suppositions,²⁸ the parallel references to this covenantal term in Rom 9:4; 15:8 are instructive. 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 defined “the promises” as being “of the Land, and of the Messiah.”²⁹ Jewish commentator Joseph Shulam provides the most comprehensive explanation of the plurality here that 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. 1 Kgs. 2:24; 8:20; 2 Kgs. 8:19; Isa. 7:13–16; 9:6–7; 11:1–5; Rom. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:20; Gal. 3:16–22; 1 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. Deut. 8:3; 30:15–16; 32:39; Prov 3:16; 8:35; Hab. 2:4; 1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:4).³⁰

Of course “the promises” of Rom 9:4; 15:8 are rooted in the “forefathers...and from them, by physical descent, came the Messiah, who is God over all, blessed forever” (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 11:1), and thus in his terminology undoubtedly incorporates the land as part of the overall present inheritance.

Some Theological Indications

The argument from supposed silence put forward by Bavinck, Cranfield, Lloyd-Jones, Waltke, and others is based on the alleged absence of explicit and even implicit references to “the land” in the NT. The tone of these commentators is often quite categorical, and I suggest that such a response has Gentile undertones lacking the grace which Paul commends in Rom 11:18–20. Even if acknowledgment of the possibility of a national or mass conversion at the end of this age is granted on purely exegetical grounds,it remains a grudging admission that lacks Pauline enthusiasm. Few Jewish Christian commentators would support their reasoning. Rather I believe that the preceding biblical evidence, especially when viewed through a Jewish lens that most of the NT writers employed, provides both explicit and implicit references to the land which are intimately related to such expressions as “Israel” and “tribe,” as well as “Jerusalem,” “Zion,” etc. But it could also be argued that since the land was undoubtedly a divine bestowal up to the NT era, then it is necessary that evidence be provided of explicit land disinheritance that is irrevocable. Such evidence is patently absent.

Reference has already been made in chapter 6 to Willem A. VanGemeren's important article on Israel and prophecy. With regard to infrequent references in the NT to the restoration of the Jewish people, he provides two significant reasons which also relate to the question of the sparseness of references to the land when compared with the OT:

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 Shearim, and Tiberias). The excavation of ancient synagogues witnesses to a thriving and 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 of Judaism post-A.D. 70. A study of the historical and theological development of Judaism would help Christians have a proper understanding of Jews and Judaism.

Secondly, the apostolic concern is for the conversion of the Jewish people. The 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 land and remained in the land in large numbers for hundreds of years after the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). They voluntarily left the land in large numbers over a period of 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 on themselves as ‘olim (returnees), not golim (exiles).³¹

Baruch Maoz presented an insightful paper for the Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism in 1986. It was subsequently revised and included in The Land of Promise, edited by Philip Johnson and Peter Walker. Four of his principles are summarized here that emphasize the significance of the land as well as its relationship to the New Testament.³²

(1) The land is inseparable from God and His people. Israel as a people cannot truly fulfill its duties to God apart from the land. It is not “land” in general, nor even any land in particular, but only one certain and specific land. This is the land repeatedly designated in the Bible by way of its borders and its history. The land of Israel is not merely a piece of turf; it is God's blessing and God's presence. It is evidence of an ongoing relationship between God and the people of Israel. The land is the Abrahamic covenant made concrete.

(2) The land is intimately connected with God's people. The climax of blessing in the land is God's divine promise to His people: “I am the LORD your God” (Lev 25:17,55). The land is the epitome of God's promises to Israel and is an important part of the whole without which the remainder is incomplete. Nowhere in the Scriptures are the people of Israel considered to be blessed by God outside of the land. Nowhere is blessing promised by God to the people apart from the blessing of the land. Small wonder, then, that the people of Israel have come to love the land so vehemently.

(3) The land is the arena of salvation from covenant disloyalty. The people's right to enjoy the land of Israel is contingent on their covenant loyalty. Unfaithfulness results in stringent punishment. The people will be restored to the land if they repent, otherwise they will be brought back to the land and will there repent. Even then, the people and land will be inseparable. Spiritual restoration and a return to the land are linked so that the people are never considered blessed, forgiven, or redeemed except in the land promised to their fathers.

(4) The land is the arena of NT fulfillment. Israel as a people (and therefore in their divinely promised land) remains a focal point of NT expectation. This is not to say that OT expectations are now fully realized, or that whatever has not yet been fulfilled is now replaced with a different hope.

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 is described as having begun. After all, the New Testament claims to be a 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). … The New Testament makes it quite clear that the material [land] is the arena in which ultimate salvation is to take place (Rom 8:18–25), thus reconfirming Old Testament expectation. … Consequently, Israel is not displaced by the church. Rather, the church enters into enjoyment of Israel's blessings as a strange branch “grafted in … contrary to nature”, but never in place of the natural branches, who will be grafted in again (Rom 11:23–24).³³

The Land and Patrick Fairbairn

While Fairbairn's amillennial perspective has already been considered in chapter 6, his discussions of the land in his volume on typology as well as in his commentary on Ezekiel call for further comment. Anthony Hoekema has indicated his reliance on Fairbairn,³⁴ and this in turn has influenced Venema, Waldron, and others.

The Relationship between the Abrahamic
and Mosaic Covenants.

It is not uncommon for amillennialist/s to associate the temporal nature of the conditional Mosaic covenant with the abiding nature of the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, the result being that elements of the former are imposed on the latter. The promise of the land to Abraham in Gen 12:13 thus becomes absorbed into a conditional, typological frame of reference. As a result, this same land, having been forfeited through disobedience, is merely regarded as a micro-earthly representation of future macro-heavenly glory that the Church inherits on a universal scale. I have already addressed Palmer Robertson's representation of this concept in chapter 3. 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 of the cosmos. Because of the inherently limited scope of the land of the Bible, it is not to be regarded as having continuing significance in the realm of redemption other than its function as a teaching model.³⁵

Fairbairn expressed a similar approach, though over 150 years prior. He likewise wrote,

The relations of the covenant people, as connected with the occupation of Canaan, leads naturally to the conclusion, that their peculiar connection with that territory has ceased with the other temporary expedients and shadows to which it belonged.³⁶

In other words, the land is merely a basic type that projects through the Mosaic economy into the NT reality, and as such has no tangible relevance today. Hence one cannot but suspect that this association of the Abrahamic land promise with the Mosaic economy is most necessary, even if unbiblical, so that the former might, by association, be abrogated. For Fairbairn there is a necessary progression from Abraham to Moses:

The Mosaic religion did not start into being as something original and independent; it grew out of the Patriarchal, and was just, indeed, the Patriarchal religion in a further state 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 themselves, distinct and apart from those which descended from Patriarchal times.³⁷

This unsupported portrayal, however, is incorrect, and proof for what is a most necessary point to uphold this system that in fact would be difficult to produce. 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. The NT makes a clear distinction between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and especially their conditionality, along with the permanence of one and the abrogation of the other, as Gal 3:17 and Heb 8:13 make abundantly clear. Further, Paul's explanation concerning the purpose of the law, that it “was added because of transgressions” (Gal 3:19; see Jer 11:7–8; Rom 5:20), also conflicts with the idea of progression from Abraham.

Horatius Bonar Critical Analysis

Although we considered Bonar's general critical assessment of Fairbairn's eschatology in chapter 6, Bonar further challenged Fairbairn's amillennialism in a review article concerning Typology of Scripture. Bonar freely acknowledged the author's dignified manner, learning, and lofty views, but commented,

That with such powers and dispositions he has still so widely missed the truth, is owing, we think, to an undue influence by late German authors who have led him to mistake their false systems for the teachings of the word of God.³⁸

What then is the essential problem with Typology of Scripture? t is reflected in Fairbairn's subtitle taken from the first edition: “The Doctrine of Types, investigated in its 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.” Bonar summarized 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 Old 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 menentioned in them, and are philologically the subjects of their declarations.³⁹

The Hermeneutic of Supercession

Fairbairn's subtitle alerts us to the fact that far more than a mere consideration of types in the Bible is the author's intention. Rather, we have the proposal of a whole hermeneutical system whereby the OT revelation, as a complete unit, is regarded as typological and as fulfilled and superseded by the NT. Bonar rightly complained that this work

is nothing else than the theory of Origen reproduced under another name, and set off with much speciousness of learning and argument, but in fact without any ground for its 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 may be the means to us of that instruction for which they were designed, is altogether mistaken. Mr. F. proceeds throughout his volumes on the assumption, that were it not for a typical office, the persons and occurrences of which the ancient Scriptures present a record would be almost wholly uninstructive to us.⁴⁰

I believe this criticism to be especially true when it comes to the interpretation of OT prophecy. In this regard, it is fascinating to detect considerable correspondence here with the hermeneutic of “reinterpretation” that George Ladd advocated, whereby the OT has no independent, objective, prophetic significance except as expounded by the NT. Hence, we find ourselves in a period in which Fairbairn's considerable influence, especially as evidenced in the writings of Hoekema, Venema, Waldron, and others with regard to amillennialism, has led to a dominant typological hermeneutic. Since this in turn has resulted in objective textual and historic realities being subjected to NT categories, we need to reconsider Bonar's call for a return to one hermeneutic for the whole Bible and not two.⁴¹ Further, that hermeneutic needs to return to the apostolic Judeo-centric hermeneutic that is not obscured by means of typological reinterpretation that focuses through a Gentile lens. Then Judeo-centric premillennialism will come into its rightful place once again.

The Land and W. D. Davies

The scholarly contribution of W. D. Davies toward a Christian understanding of the land is substantial indeed, though supercessionism is clearly fundamental to his thought. We may nevertheless appreciate his exegetical conclusions, especially because of their influence on Colin Chapman, David Holwerda (later reviewed in this chapter), and O. Palmer Robertson. On the issue of “Paul and the land,” Davies summarized his conclusions as follows:

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 logic of 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 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.”⁴²

To begin with, concerning Eph 2:11–12, the alienation of the Gentiles was from “the citizenship of Israel, and...the covenants of the promise,” particularly as rooted in Abraham. But Christ knocked down “the dividing wall of hostility. In His flesh He did away with the law of the commandments in regulations” (Eph 2:14–15; see chapter 10). This abrogation by Christ was 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, with the use of terminology that speaks of “the land, like the Law,” is a common but unwarranted association. I also suggest that it is logically unnecessary or the doctrine of both Jews and Gentiles, who are both “in Christ,” to necessitate the “deterritorializing” of the original land promise. To 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 OT prophetically anticipates (e.g., Isa 60:1–4; 62:1–12; Mic. 4:1–5; Hag. 2:1–7; Zech 14:16–21). The same fallacy arises with regard to the frequent appeal to Gal 3:28 where in fact the unity incorporates a masculine and feminine diversity. The triunity of the only blessed God comprises the personal diversity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jonathan Edwards described the unity of the coming kingdom of Christ on earth that comprises Israel in the land, under its Messiah, as having harmonious relations with the surrounding Gentile nations.⁴³ While it is comforting to read of Davies' acknowledgment that his conclusion here is at best implicit, it would undoubtedly be discomforting for contemporary Jews 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?

The Land and David E. Holwerda

The volume Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? by David E. Holwerda of Calvin Theological Seminary is important particularly because it is a more recent Reformed estimate of Jewish national identity, especially in the light of Romans 11. He acknowledges God's present regard for unbelieving Jews as a whole, and not simply the Christian remnant. He also raises the question of nationality as well as the divine validity of the land. Nevertheless, it is this territorial aspect which is not answered with clarity. We now consider Holwerda's explanation, which certainly reflects sensitivity to a subject that is controversial within a Reformed environment. Clearly Holwerda was aware of criticism of much Reformed teaching in this regard when he commented,

The faith of many Christians has been more heaven-oriented than landoriented. 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.⁴⁴

The land is identified in a subheading as “an irrevocable promise,”⁴⁵though as with so many Reformed scholars, there is no interaction with the vital place of the unilateral signification of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15.⁴⁶ However, the land is then qualified in the next subheading as “a conditional possession”⁴⁷ according to the covenant stipulations promising blessing or cursing in conjunction with obedience or disobedience. Consequently, in continually breaking the covenant Israel reaped judgment through exile. The land is then described in the next subheading as “lost and promised again.”⁴⁸

Concerning this Holwerda stated,

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 as 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).⁴⁹

Yet how strange that the author makes no mention here that his reference to Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 is in regard to the new covenant made with “the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31) that replaces the old covenant and incorporates repossession of the land (Ezek 36:24,28). However, concerning the tension that inevitably arises between “an irrevocable promise” and “a conditional possession,” the following resolution is offered:

Even when Israel failed and lost the land, the promise of possession did not cease. The promise that the land will be possessed is irrevocable. But if possession is to be maintained, God's people must become holy as God is holy.⁵⁰

With this explanation we find ourselves in considerable agreement—that is, if it is accepted that such holiness is to be accomplished according to the eschatological promise concerning Israel's national regeneration (Ezek 36–37; Jer 31; see Matt 19:28; Acts 3:20–21). Furthermore, if the term “land” here continued to be understood according to the exact territorial meaning repeatedly invested within the OT, in the light of Holwerda's explanation here we might hope this understanding continued in the NT. But such is not the case. Also, the land was never lost since it was rooted in the unilateral, unconditional Abrahamic covenant. Though God's people were exiled from the land, the promise of Jeremiah was that they would return to it after 70 years (Jer 29:10). In the same way, the new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant and incorporates the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, including restoration to the land (Ezek 11:17; 36:24,28).

The most vital matter arises when we move on to consider Holwerda's understanding of the land according to the NT and the closely related eschatological Jerusalem. With obvious sympathy for W. D. Davies' explanation whereby the promises concerning the land have been “personalized” and “universalized” in Christ, Holwerda offers evidence from Eph 6:2–3. Here Paul's rendering of Deut 5:16 concerning the land is modified to “so that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”

By omitting this specification [concerning the land], Paul declares that now in Christ the promise applies to any land. The promise has indeed been universalized, but it has been universalized precisely with reference to land. What was once a blessing promised to God's people in the particular land of Canaan, given by God as a gift, is now promised to God's 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 should be forgotten. A universalized land is not an irrelevance.⁵¹

I would agree that at best we have a “hint” here of his proposal, especially since while Paul appears to adapt the Mosaic reference for the sake of his Gentile audience, he in no way denies the original territorial intent.⁵²Of greater concern is the further malleable use of terminology employed to suggest that God's saving intent with regard to the whole earth is somehow an indication of how He continues to have continued interest in “the land.” From a contemporary Reformed perspective, Robertson used the same hermeneutic.⁵³ To add some substance to his explanation, Holwerda refers to Paul's explanation in Gal 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 “that he 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.⁵⁴

Granted that Abraham “would inherit the world,” it is strange logic that concludes that this prospect would necessarily eliminate distinct national identity for Israel, especially since the original promise of Gen 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 is, to the Gentiles (Gal 3:8). This promise never indicated that there would be a final blending, an absorption whereby Israel would lose its identity, nor did subsequent confirmations of this promise. Thus Paul tells us “that Christ [the seed, Gal 3:16] has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises to the fathers, and so that Gentiles may glorify God for His mercy” (Rom 15:8–9). Here again we are faced with the same illogical, unbiblical suggestion that a universal truth 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 a 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 the new creation.⁵⁵

Yet again, Holwerda's definition of “the land” is linguistically reshaped whereby the land of the nations has both assimilated the land of the fathers and evacuated it of any distinctive Jewish heritage. Whether this process is called “transformational” or something else, what stands out here that is essentially replacement theology or supercessionism, is the eventual striping away of all things Judaic so that pure “Christian universalism” might remain. This does not appear to seriously heed Paul's warning to the Gentiles, “You do not sustain the root, but the root sustains you” (Rom 11:18). It will not do for Holwerda to identify the Jews as “all Israel,” and not merely the remnant alone, according to Romans 11,⁵⁶ and then at the same time take away national and territorial identity. As W. D. Davies made plain, “The Land is so embedded in the heart of Judaism, the Torah, that—so its sources, worship, theology, and often its history attest—it is finally inseparable from it.”⁵⁷ But more importantly I suggest that this is so according to the terms of the new covenant, as Ezekiel explains”

For I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries, and will bring you into your own land. I will also sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will place My Spirit within you and cause you to follow My statutes and carefully observe My ordinances. Then you will live in the land that I gave your fathers; you will be My people, and I will be your God (Ezek. 36:24–28; see 11:14–21; Jer. 31:31–37).

The Land and the Heavenly Jerusalem

As noted in chapter 7, one major problem in the interpretation of the Letter to the Hebrews that looms larger than how to understand the warning passages is the manner in which a number of OT quotations and inferences appear to be related to the author's new covenant teaching. In this regard I repeat John Owen's warning, “There is not any thing in 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.”⁵⁸ Let cavalier explanations of these OT references and intimations be shunned—those which simplistically suggest that the illustrative use of an OT passage in Hebrews automatically nullifies any original literal meaning. The truth is that the Hebrew author felt at liberty to quote with some variation in his hermeneutical methodology. I have referenced Kistemaker, Bonar, and Calvin in support of this contention (see chapter 7).

This leads to the suggestion that one of the most significant and yet neglected characteristics of this distinctive portion of Scripture is that the epistle was written by a 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 on a text that only Hebrew presuppositions can illuminate. Whereas Paul's letters were all addressed to Gentiles in the main, the distinctive character of Hebrews (whoever wrote it) is due to the fact that Jewish Christians are addressed by a Jewish Christian who presumes a Jewish mindset.

With these thoughts in mind, we may consider the most common objection to national Israel having title to the land promised to Abraham, whether in the present or the future. Several NT texts are set forth as evidence that the earthly ha aretz is indeed a former earthly hope that has been superseded by a more universal and heavenly one. These texts are Heb 11:10,16; 12:22, along with Gal 4:25–26. The proposal is that while Israel's land inheritance according to the OT economy was decidedly earthly, materialistic, and shadowy, the Christian's future, although rooted in the Abrahamic promise, is a more transcendently spiritual and heavenly hope. As an example of this popular understanding, especially where the repudiation of national Israel is concerned, consider 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 sacrificial 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 never 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). …If 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 be perceived only by faith.⁵⁹

Peter Walker's commentary is similar:

[In Hebrews 11] positive descriptions of the physical land, however, are then immediately eclipsed by his [the author's] insistence that the real focus of the promise to which Abraham “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 has prepared a city lor 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.⁶⁰

Several groups of contrasting expressions in Hebrews (and Galatians) are commonly understood as overlapping in meaning: “the present Jerusalem...the Jerusalem above” (Gal 4:25–26), “the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb 11:10), “a better land—a heavenly one” (Heb 11:16), “Mount Zion...the city of the living God (the heavenly Jerusalem)” (Heb 12:22). These weighty expressions all relate to Abraham.

Abraham, summoned by God and converted from paganism in Ur of the Chaldeans, entered Canaan via Haran and was confronted with more paganism in the land of promise. He explored his inheritance from north to south as an unsettled nomadic tent-dweller and, it is reasonable to assume (Deut 18:9–14; 20:17–18), continued to be appalled at its pervasive unholiness that only the future leadership of Joshua could begin to cleanse. His search for “a better country, that is, a heavenly one” must be understood not according to a Gentile worldview, but the Hebrew worldview of the author. Franz Delitzsch's comment on Heb 11:16 is important in this regard:

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 of the angel-ladder, and his wondering exclamation, “this is the gate of heaven” (Gen. 28:17), but even there no desire is expressed for an entrance into the heavenly land, but the promise renewed of future possession of the earthly Canaan; “The land whereon thou sleepest will I give to thee.”⁶¹

Then Delitzsch adds concerning Heb 11:10,

Here the heavenly Jerusalem is not contrasted with the earthly city, but with the frail and moveable dwellings of the patriarchs in their nomad life.⁶²

Abraham's hope was eschatological, but not in the sense of heaven's superiority to the earth, of the spiritual as superior to the material. Rather, his hope was of the future messianic age, the millennial kingdom in which heaven would be manifest on earth and residence there would be gloriously holy, permanent. George Peters explained this perspective as follows:

Evidently that which misleads the multitude in this matter is the statement of the apostle (Heb. 11:16), that “they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly.” Commentators, as Barnes, 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 is the third heaven. They forget that this phraseology would not mislead a Hebrew, who was 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 not mean “the third heaven,” but something that pertains to, or partakes of, the heavenly, as heavenly vision, body, calling, etc.⁶³

The hope of a “heavenly Jerusalem” was not a matter of a superior, exclusively spiritual or extraterrestrial location, but rather a fulfilled, holy, spiritually substantial regeneration of what was formerly polluted and imperfect. James Calvin De Young explained such a Hebrew hope:

This eschatological liberation [of Jerusalem] is the antitype of the liberation of the Israelites from the bondage of Egypt, but is, of course, far greater and more glorious. Israel will at this 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 future 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.⁶⁴

The challenge, then, as stated earlier, is to use a hermeneutical approach to these passages, especially in Hebrews, that relies on Hebrew perception. It is granted that rabbinical embellishment must be considered and purged. But C. K. Barrett, in making such an allowance, concluded that such eschatological language, as represented in Hebrews, looks 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 “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.⁶⁵

Such an approach to any supposed tension between the material and the spiritual, that 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 wrote,

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 and natural ones (1 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. 3:6,8; Num. 32:11; Deut. 30:20; Neh. 9:7–8).⁶⁶

Though amillennialist Samuel Waldron is not in the mainstream of Augustinian thought, I appreciate his confession of at this point:

The heavenly country is not a country in heaven, but a country from heaven. The heavenly kingdom is the kingdom from heaven and not the kingdom in heaven. …Though heaven is the happy abode of the disembodied righteous during the present age, in the age to come heaven comes to earth.⁶⁷

In conclusion, it is readily confessed once more that some manifestations of premillennialism are carnal with regard to a balanced or both/and comprehension of spiritual materiality. So with regard to national Israel, but especially the territorial factor, there are some manifestations of premillennialism that are carnal in their Zionist loyalty. Nevertheless, these deviant representations in no way nullify the essence of a biblical, Judeo-centric, premillennial eschatology. More specifically, this involves a future, holy, consummate messianic kingdom subsequent to the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and whose nature may be designated as spiritual materiality. It will be spiritually tangible. Even more specifically, this universal kingdom on a glorified earth will incorporate a blessed unity with diversity, that is, the regenerate nation of Israel will inhabit the fruitful promised land under the reign of Jesus Christ from Jerusalem surrounded by regenerate Gentile nations. In this setting of heaven come to earth, Israel and the Jewish people will be fulfilled (Rom 11:12), not superseded, and the Gentile nations will happily submit to this divine order as engrafted wild olive branches. To this end was the gospel sent forth (Zech 14:9; Acts 3:19–21; Rom 8:18–23).

1. B. Maoz, “People, Land and Torah: a Jewish Christian Perspective,” The Land of Promise (ed. P. Johnston and P. Walker; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000), 191–92.

2. H. Bavinck, The Last Things (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 107.

3. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle To The Romans (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 2.579.

4. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Romans, Exposition of Chapter 11 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1998), 231–35. Preaching during 1964–5, prior to the 1967 Six Day War, he was repetitive in this vein, even denying any relationship in this passage to the Second Coming. But one wonders if there was an adjustment in perspective by 1980, shortly before his passing in 1981. He said when interviewed by Carl Henry for Christianity Today, “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 seems to me that that took place in 1967—something crucially important that had not occurred in 2,000 years. 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 more spectacular may be indicated. We sometimes tend to foreshorten events, yet I have a feeling that we are in the period of the end. …I think we are witnessing the breakdown of politics. I think even the world is seeing that.Civilization is collapsing” (C. Henry, “Martyn Lloyd-Jones: From Buckingham to Westminster,” Christianity Today [February 8, 1980], 33–34).

5. B. K. Waltke, “A Response,” Dispensationalism, Israel And The Church (ed. C. A Blaising and D. L. Bock; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 357–9.

6. See 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.

7. W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of California, 1974), 179.

8. R. Mayer, “Israel,” Dictionary of New Testament Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 2.315.

9. E. D. Burton, Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1968), 358.

10. R. B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (ed. D. L. Bock; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 87–88.

11. G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 326–27.