How Should We View Israel?
Part 3.
In our last post, we looked at how Scripture uses the designation of a chosen people. Under the old covenant, it’s clear this label was applied to Israel as a collective body. Out of all the peoples on earth, the Lord chose them to be His own treasured possession to accomplish His purposes.
As God’s redemptive story unfolds, we find the prophets making reference to a subset within Israel; a remnant to whom He makes special promises. God’s plan to extend salvation to the nations originally pledged to Abraham, also becomes increasingly clear particularly in Isaiah:
“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (49:6; cf. 11:9-10, 25:7-9, 42:6, 60:3).
With the inauguration of the new covenant, the concept of a chosen people is both expanded and focused simultaneously. It now explicitly includes Gentiles but is limited to those who by grace are elected in eternity and saved in time through faith in Jesus Christ. This applies to both believing Jews and Gentiles in the promised Messiah. In Him the two are no longer separated but made one.
The corporate election of Israel is superseded by the spiritual election of both believing Jew and Gentile. The distinction our confessional standards make between the visible church and the invisible church is somewhat analogous to the general election of Israel and a remnant within Israel saved by grace. In the language of the New Testament, God’s choosing a people for Himself is exclusively consigned to elect believers.
While Jews and Gentiles have different ethnic origins, the gospel of grace has made this distinction irrelevant in the Church (see Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11). God’s chosen people are those who are united to Christ through faith. Therefore, this label cannot be applied biblically to Jews en masse or to the modern state of Israel — which is not solely Jewish, but ethnically diverse.
So how are Christians to view the modern state of Israel? This gets tricky because we immediately and often unconsciously import our own political beliefs into the equation. There are Christians who think we should unquestionably support Israel, while others have become increasingly disenchanted with their policies and actions since the war in Gaza. Admittedly, there were those opposed to the mentality and methods of Israeli leadership prior to the war.
Some personally sponsor Jewish causes and think the United States should continue foreign aid to Israel, while others maintain either for political or fiscal reasons that such aid should be withdrawn independent of the geopolitical consequences. Still others believe Israel has a biblical right to their land perhaps even beyond their present borders, while I would say a small fraction of Evangelicals argue their claim to the land is illegitimate given the “Great Displacement” of Palestinian Arabs — both Muslim and Christian — when it was established.
Yes, there are acute differences among Evangelicals. They existed longer than I imagined but these disparities surfaced in a very public way soon after the war in Gaza. The civilian death toll in Gaza (I honestly have no idea what the real numbers are) and the destruction of about half of the assessed housing units has severely soured the view of many. This negative outlook of Israel has intensified with the war against Iran. Some are convinced that Israel is the real instigator behind U.S. involvement and that America has no place being there. Others view this as conspiratorial and warn against finding omni-explanations in a world full of complexities. Whether we like it or not, these dissimilarities exist within the church.
As I mentioned at the outset of this series, these issues should not divide us. They are not fundamental to our beliefs and relationships within the church. The reason I decided to address this is because of the attention the subject has received and its potential to become divisive. Personally, I think of all of the rich theology and principles for Christian living summarized in our confession and catechisms. These are the things we should be concentrating on as we seek to build each other up.
Now, getting back to the question at hand:
Do you recall what the Lord said to the Samaritan woman in John 4? Jesus said to her,
“Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him” (vv. 21-23).
The point being, location will no longer matter. The gospel spreads outward from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria and the utter most parts of the earth (Acts 1:8). The new covenant made the old one obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). Under the new covenant, there is no longer a land set apart for God’s people since the church is global in scope.
The church is the temple of God; wherever His people gather to worship Him in spirit and in truth, He is there. Both believing Jews and Gentiles are looking forward to a better country, a heavenly one. Our hope is set on the New Jerusalem to come. While we appreciate the role ancient Jerusalem played in God’s plan, in life of our Lord and as a launching point for the gospel to the nations the city and land at this stage of redemptive history no longer carry vital significance for us.
The modern state of Israel is just that, a modern state. Independent of its origins, it is what it is. Throughout history, land has changed hands either through conquest or voluntary purchase, though some question whether “voluntary” is the appropriate word where is an imbalance of power. Examples of the voluntary acquisition of land that benefited the United States, for instance, include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Florida Purchase (1819), the Gadsden Purchase (1853), and the Alaska Purchase (1867). For most of history, however, land has changed hands by right of conquest.
Some have claimed — and still make the assertion today — that America belongs to Native Americans. Even if they got the raw end of the deal, the land now belongs to the United States of America. When people make claims about what land belongs to whom, the question inevitably arises, “How far back do you wish to go?” If we apply that question to the modern state of Israel, we’re going to come up with a variety of answers depending upon one’s interests.
Does the modern state of Israel have a right to the land? Yes and no. I would say politically they do because they are in power and have been since 1948. The circumstances surrounding their statehood are unique. In 1947 the United Nations passed a resolution recommending partition of the British Mandate territory into separate Jewish and Arab states. Jewish leaders accepted the plan but Arab leaders rejected it. Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948. Further territory was acquired in multiple wars, but some of it was returned or ceded to promote peace.
I strongly doubt those who believe Israel illegitimately controls land or ought to surrender land would say the same thing about America yielding back land to Native Americans, especially if those holding this position were currently residing on said land. What time parameters one selects to determine what party has a rightful claim to land can be highly subjective. As an independent state, Israel has a right to govern itself and protect its borders and citizens as it sees fit in accordance with international law.
Does the modern state of Israel have a rightful claim to the land biblically? In answer to that question, I would say no. There are two primary reasons for this. First, there is no sacred land in this stage of redemptive history. Second, ethnic Israel no longer has a unique, continuing covenantal status. The Reformers and those in our tradition contend the promises made to Israel are spiritually fulfilled in the church. This has been the dominant position of the Church since Augustine with even earlier indications found in the Apologists and Apostolic Fathers. Even if Israel did have an ongoing covenantal status, the overwhelming majority of Jewish citizens of the modern state of Israel would be regarded as covenant-breakers.
Why did the Lord send the Assyrians and Babylonians to invade the northern and southern kingdoms, respectively, and bring the people into exile? Because they broke covenant with God and failed to repent. Eventually, the Lord brought them back and led the people into covenant renewal as we see in our recent study of Nehemiah.
Most Israelis today are secular, and Orthodox Jews in Israel and around the world reject God’s promised Messiah. Covenant breakers are not owed anything by God. Moreover, the only way to be a member of the covenant community is to be a member of Christ’s Church. Everyone else falls under the covenant of works, which offers no hope for salvation. Naturally, we pray for repentance and ask the Lord to draw both Jews and Arabs to saving faith in Jesus so that they may enjoy all the benefits of the covenant of grace.
The modern state of Israel exists by God’s common grace, as does the United States. Neither is guaranteed an indefinite future. Since its inception, Israel has been attacked repeatedly by their neighbors and various terrorist groups. Despite the odds, they have been providentially sustained. This is a simple fact of history. I don’t think reading further into their preservation is biblically justified, any more than is God’s benevolence to the United States.
These conclusions may surprise you. Notice, I did not remark on what U.S. foreign policy should be toward Israel. That falls within the political domain. My goal has been to examine the issues from a biblical perspective. Granted, others may disagree. The question we must ask ourselves is whether our views are based on long standing assumptions or biblical / theological considerations.
In closing, I should note that some within the Reformed community believe ethnic Israel still holds a role in the future based on Paul’s comments in Romans 11. We’ll take up that subject in the next installment.