Does ‘Israel’ have a divine right to the land? part i
With the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Proclamation, one of the issues for Christians that arises again and once again is whether the beingness of the modern Country of State of israel is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. I am therefore reposting a pair of manufactures that I wrote in 2014, which explores carefully whether this is the case.
Martin Saunders (of Youthscape) wrote an excellent article highlighting four issues which often forestall evangelicals from understanding what has been happening in the Israel/Gaza conflict. First, he comments 'It's not as simple as good guys vs bad guys', something which I accept also been trying to indicate out, though social media is non helping with this. Second is 'The fear of accidental antisemitism', something we need to take really seriously, as the rising of antisemitism beyond Europe highlights.
But Martin'southward third point is that 'We're not clear what the Bible says' about Israel and the land.
For many Christians (often termed Christian Zionists), the Bible clearly states that God has a special programme for Israel which includes a lasting covenant with the concrete 'land'. For others, that covenant was fulfilled past the cross (Matthew 5:17)…Whatever we believe, we can't claim to hold a 'biblical' position if nosotros oasis't read scripture. In that location are no short-cuts; you can argue annihilation with a proof text. Only by reading the Bible as a whole, and past understanding the yard narrative of Scripture, tin can we truly understand God'southward relationship with the land and the people of Israel.
In the low-cal of this, I offer some reflections on the status of 'the land' in Scripture. Two things demand to exist considered at the outset. The get-go is that it is non possible to place 'Israel' in the Bible with 'Israel' the modern nation-state. Despite what the vast majority of commentators say, State of israel is not a 'Jewish' state, even though it privileges immigration admission to Jews in the global diaspora. Modern State of israel is in fact constitutionally a Western-style liberal commonwealth, whereas biblical Israel was for nigh of its history a monarchical theocracy.
Secondly, both in Hebrew and in Greek, the give-and-take for 'country' and 'world' (i.e. significant the whole world) are the same:eretz (Hebrew); andge (Greek). So, for example, in the first creation narrative the dry ground is called 'eretz' (Gen 1.10), yet the term specifically used for the territory promised to God's people iseretz State of israel.We need to look out for the way that the biblical writers can, at times, transform their meaning and vision on the ground of this linguistic ambiguity.
Perhaps the near striking thing nigh the 'land' within the OT narrative of Israel is that, contrary to ane dimensional claims nigh promise and inheritance, information technology really has multiple significance, and its theological meaning always eclipses its geographical significance.
The start dimension is the land every bit a sign of the unmerited generosity and gift of the sovereign God. This is found in the promise to Abraham in Gen 12.1–three:
"I will brand you into a great nation, and I volition bless you; I will make your proper name neat, and y'all will exist a blessing. I will bless those who bless yous, and whoever curses you lot I will curse; and all peoples on earth volition be blessed through you."
Already nosotros tin can run across the tension between the local and the global: the giving of the land to Abraham (how else can he become 'a nation'?) volition have global consequences of blessing—whether all peoples will exist blest or will 'bless themselves by you' (the Hebrew is ambiguous).
This theme of unmerited grace appears in a number of dissimilar forms in the narrative. Information technology is shown in the choosing of this (small-scale and insignificant) people in Deut 7.7:
The LORD did not set up his affection on you and cull yous because y'all were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples.
and in the repeated phrase 'a land flowing with milk and love' (e.chiliad. in Moses encounter at the burning bush, Ex 3.viii). The significance of 'milk and love' probably has to do with the fertility of the land, possibly that the blessing comes from unexpected sources, but also that these things occur naturally. Different growing and harvesting crops, these things simply come to you, as Samson on one occasion institute (Judges fourteen.8). This is paralleled in the Deuteronomic tradition with the inheritance of 'cities you lot did non build, cisterns yous did not dig, and groves you did not institute' (Deut six.11, Joshua 24.13).
Note that, in all this, the near of import matter is the truth that it points to about God (not about the people)—one who is an abundant generous giver to those who do not in any way merit this generosity. This truth in relation to the land (of Israel) is one that is writ big on the country (of the whole of creation), and is prominent in the creation narratives. The affluence of the creation is a reflection of the generosity of the creator.
This link is important in the second theme underlying the idea of 'the country': God'southward project of the restoration of humanity, and the part of State of israel in this project. The Abraham story follows hard on the heels of the business relationship of 'the autumn', which is found not simply in Gen 3, but in Gen 3–11; the turning from God in the garden which is known as 'sin' unfolds itself as a power which brings death and despair and disrupts relations in families and nations and destroys the fruitfulness and abundance of the earth.
The juxtaposition of this chaotic picture with the story of Abraham carries a strong implicit message: with Abraham God is showtime the chore of restoration of humanity, hence the global significance of the story of this individual. It is a link that Paul makes in Romans 1–4; these chapters start with humanity's idolatry which leads to unfruitfulness of the body, and they end with Abraham'due south obedience leading to surprising fruitfulness of his body. This new people, in this new land, are to exist a 'light to the nations', (Is 42.vi, Is 49.6) a destiny which is fulfilled in Jesus followers (Matt 5.14) because it is fulfilled in Jesus himself (John 8.12).
This has a fundamental related strand, which is particular emphasised in the 'Priestly' tradition in Leviticus. If the people given this land are part of the restoration of humanity from sin to holiness, then the occupation of the country must be inextricably linked with moral restoration. In fact, the expulsion from the land of the resident Canaanites is given a specific moral dimension: because of their unholy practices, the land has 'vomited them out' (Lev 18.25), and the life of the holy people of God is defined in contradistinction to those who lived there previously.
These 3 ideas—of divine grace and generosity, of the restoration of humanity, and of moral distinctiveness—are constantly brought together in the prophetic tradition. The promise of return following exile is a mark, not of the 'specialness' of the people, but of the faithfulness of God. No political power, and not even the past disobedience of the people, can thwart God's plans or undo his faithfulness. And because of this, God'south grace in restoration is destined to overflow ethnic boundaries—a detail theme of the second and third parts of Isaiah. And in light of this, the return to the land must involve a rediscovery of obedience to God'southward police—a particular theme of Ezra and Nehemiah.
All this ways that 'the land' has a particular theological meaning. Information technology is, on the one paw, the place of receiving God's blessings, simply on the other, the arena of obedience to God'southward commands. In fact, the country itself has about greater theological significance in these regards than the indigenous identity of God'due south people. The 'resident alien' who is not an indigenous member of God'due south people, but does reside inside the geographical space of 'the state', is to both relish the privileges and blessings of God's people, merely as well must accept on the responsibilities of observance (meet, for case, Lev nineteen.34). This idea volition be key when nosotros look at the fashion the New Attestation interprets this ideas in the adjacent blog mail.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you lot take valued this mail, would yous considerdonating £i.20 a month to support the production of this weblog?
If you enjoyed this, do share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, y'all can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skilful comments that engage with the content of the mail service, and share in respectful debate, tin add real value. Seek offset to understand, and so to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to larn from their perspectives. Don't view argue as a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-israel-have-a-divine-right-to-the-land-part-i/
0 Response to "Does ‘Israel’ have a divine right to the land? part i"
ارسال یک نظر