Skip to main content

A Nation with No Land? Give Me a Break!

The relationship between God, Israel, and the land has been a topic of theological and geo-political significance since the establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant in approximately 1900 B.C.  With the birth of the modern state of Israel on 14 May 1948 questions about God, Israel, and the land have taken on new urgency for both politics, academia, and the popular press. Politically, Israel’s right to occupy their biblical homeland is under diplomatic and military assault.  In the academy, recent studies deny that God has made an eternal promise to provide and preserve a homeland for Israel.  In addition, books aimed at a popular audience, blogs, and ministry leaders are also denying that God has committed Himself to the preservation of a land for Israel.

Politics, academics, and culture converge every two years at the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference.  Munther Isaac is the driving force behind this conference.  Here is how he describes it: "In this conference we continued as Palestinian Christians to challenge Christian Zionism.  We have done this in the first conference. We have done this in the second conference, the third, and the fourth, and we will do it again. Because we continue to see that theology as a threat to us, let alone in our opinion, the way we read it is not compatible with the teachings of Jesus."  Tommy Ice has an excellent account of his visit to the 2016 conference at the Pre-Trib Research Center.  Just click on that last sentence to go check it out.

The purpose of this post is to expose a fundamental exegetical error that Munther Isaac makes, and which in turn leads him astray regarding the land of Israel.  In his book From Land to Lands, From Eden to the Renewed Earth: A Christ-Centered Biblical Theology of the Promised Land he states that "The initial call to Abraham (Gn. 12:1-3), however, does not include a promise of a possession of land. (p. 78)

Yet in Gn. 12:2 God promised to make Abraham a "great nation".  Nation translates the Hebrew gôy.  This term was used in Gn. 10:5 (2x), 20, 31, 32 to describe the nations formed from the sons of Noah after the flood. In contrast is the word ʿam usually translated “people”.  The former is used with reference to the population of a territory while the latter stresses blood relationship.[1]  Gottwald comments that ʿam is a social or cultural term while gôy is a political one.[2]  Similarly Wenham writes, “A “nation” (gôy) is a political unit with a common land, language, and government, whereas “people” (ʿam) primarily draws attention to the consanguinity of the group”.[3]  Frequently ʿam is used as a generic reference to Israel.  Yet when Israel as a chosen nation is intended the term gôy is employed.  On occasion the two terms are used together but this typically occurs in poetic usage where they are used in synonymous parallelism.[4]  Merrill summarizes the implication of the use of the term gôy when he comments that “nation presupposes such features as (1) consanguinity; (2) common language; (3) definable boundaries; (4) a strong central government; (5) a bureaucratic establishment; (6) a sense of political, social, and military cohesion; and (7) a sense of history and destiny as a socio-political entity.”[5]  

Therefore, contrary to Isaac's assertion,  intrinsic to the promise to make Abraham a nation is the promise to provide him with a land.  God's intention in making a sovereign, unilateral, unconditional, and eternal covenant with Abraham included providing a specific land in which they would dwell as a national entity forever.

[1] Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 183.
[2] Norman Gottwald. The Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 1979), 241.
[3] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Incorporated, 1998), 275.
[4] Dt. 4:6, 4:33—34, 26:5, 2 Sm. 7:23, 1 Chr. 17:21, Is. 1:4, 9:3, 51:4, Jer. 2:11, 33:24; Ez. 37:22–23, Zep. 2:9, Hg. 2:14

[5] Eugene H. Merrill, “Israel According to Torah”, in The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel, eds. Darrell L. Bock, Mitch Glaser. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2014), Kindle Location 6988.


Popular posts from this blog

The Heresy of Inerrancy

Over the weekend I listened to an interview with Mike Licona and Richard Burridge on the Unbelivable? Podcast.Burridge is Dean of Kings College London and Licona clearly identified himself as a Burridge fanboy.At about the 14:30 mark in the Podcast Burridge makes the outlandish statement that inerrancy is a 19th century heresy!
Of course, this would have been a shock to Jesus who in Mt. 5:17—18 said that even the smallest letters of the Hebrew scriptures would be fulfilled.He might have saved Himself some embarrassment if He had known that the idea that the scriptures were preserved down to the jot and tittle was actually a heresy.
Of course, Jesus’ detractors would have been happy since in Mt. 22:32 Jesus was trying to reason with them on the basis of the tense of the Hebrew verb.Also in Mt. 22:44 Jesus has hanging His argument on one of those small Hebrew letters that makes the difference between “Lord” and “My Lord”. It is a wonder that His opponents didn’t answer by pointing out…

Create Not Make

There is a world of difference between creating something and making it. To make is to re-form or re-fashion something that is already in existence.  What is made is limited by the nature of the material that is used and by the skill and experience of the person using the material. The Wright brothers made their airplane out of cloth, wood, bits of string and ropes, and a small engine.  The result was an aircraft that flew for less than a minute and traveled a few feet off the ground for a distance of 852 feet.  In contrast, today’s aircraft are made from lightweight, high-strength carbon fiber alloys, are controlled by sophisticated guidance and navigational systems, and are powered by jet engines capable of generating as much as 94,000 pounds of thrust.  In the time between the Wright brothers first flight and the high performance jets of today are advances in the formulation of materials and the skill to use them.  Yet, as amazing as the Wright brothers initial flight was, and the …