PERSPECTIVES ON THE LAND OF THE BIBLE
I have never been to Palestine. The last time I was asked to go on a
church-organised tour, I was held back partly by numerous speaking engagements,
partly by lack of funds, partly by the comment of a respected pastor who had
said he saw no need of going on one of these trips as he would see the land
from heaven one day, but largely because I was appalled by the fact that the
tours were called “Holy Land Pilgrimages.” I had not read O. Palmer Robertson’s
bookUnderstanding the Land of the Bible (P&R, 1996), at that
time, and could not quite enumerate or articulate the different perspectives,
which Christians have with regards to Palestine. But my personal study of the
book of Hebrews, particularly chapters 11 and 12, had caused me to become
suspicious of the church’s view of Palestine. And so calling the tours “Holy
Land Pilgrimages,” which was reminiscent (at least for me) of the Muslim haj to
Mecca, became a very strong deterrent for me from joining the tour.
Does it really matter what we call those tours? I believe it does, for it
generally reflects our attitude and perspective towards the land. “For out of
the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Mt 12:34). And as we are to be
transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2), it is crucial that our
perspectives and attitudes on anything that will affect our Christian life and
speech be biblically accurate. Does our perspective towards the Bible land
affect our lives? I believe it does, as we shall see, as we study briefly the
five common perspectives on it.
The Crusader Perspective
Since the time of the somewhat superstitious emperor Constantine, Palestine had
been regarded by European Christians as the “Holy Land,” while Jerusalem was
regarded as the “Holy City.” Constantine had built a costly church known as the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and his mother Helena had done
similarly in Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives.
From time to time, pilgrimages to the “Holy Land” took place. Early in the 11th
century, however, the Seljuk Turks conquered Palestine, and Christian pilgrims
to the “Holy Land” were subjected to harsh treatment and oppression by the
Muslims. Many European Christians, infuriated by the reports they heard, became
convinced that the Turks had to be dislodged by force: “The land is holy to
God, how could infidels be allowed to rule it?”
The result of that kind of thinking was that between the years 1096 and 1291,
at least four major crusades were organised or sanctioned by the Roman Catholic
Church to recapture the “Holy City” and the “Holy Land” from the Turks (History
records eight major Crusades against the Turks, but only the 1st [1095–1099],
3rd [1187–1191], 6th [1228–1229], and 8th [1267–1272] were specifically to
liberate the “Holy Land”). At least a few hundred thousand people died violent
deaths during those bloody Crusades, including men, women, children, knights,
peasants, dukes and commoners, Christians and Muslims.
Whatever might have been other motivations for these poignant battles, it is
clear that the under-girding motivation, at least from the perspective of the
medieval church, was that the land was holy and so had to be wrested from the
polluting hands of infidels regardless of cost.
Is this Crusader perspective of Palestine only a historical
oddity? I do not think so. I agree fully with Robertson’s assessment:
Few people today would claim that
their view of the land of the Bible agrees with the perspective of the
Crusaders. Yet one wonders: is not the commonplace designation of this place as
the “Holy Land” tainted with the twisted outlook of the Crusaders? Just what is
it that makes this land “holy” in the minds of so many? So long as the “Glory,”
the Shekinah, dwelt in the temple of Jerusalem, the land was made holy by the
special presence of God. But the departure of the “Glory” meant that the land’s
holiness, its sanctification by God’s abiding presence, was no more. Just as
the burning bush in the wilderness sanctified the ground around it only so long
as the glory of God remained, so this land was “holy” only so long as God was
uniquely there.
Indeed, many people may affirm that they sense a special closeness to God as
they “walk today where Jesus walked.” But human feeling cannot be equated so
simplistically with divine determinations. In fact, the specific teaching of
Jesus was that the time would come when the presence of the holy God would be
found neither in Jerusalem nor on mount of Samaria, but wherever he was
worshipped in Spirit and in truth (John 4:21, 23). Material locale simply does
not have the capacity to retain divine holiness.
The Crusader perspective on the land of the Bible led well-meaning people
astray for centuries. It costs countless families their husbands, their
children, their fortunes, and their futures. The same misdirected zeal may not
characterise people today who think of Palestine as the “Holy Land.” But this
view can mislead severely and substitute a false form of worship for the true.
Instead of accepting the biblical teaching that any location can be the most
holy place on earth if the one true God is worshipped through Jesus Christ at
that place, the land of the Bible is romanticised so that people suppose that
if they are there God will be known with special power and truth (op. cit.,
136–137).
Many of us would have met individuals who have gone on “Holy Land Pilgrimages,”
who have returned claiming how close they felt to God during the trip. These
testimonies would then become advertisements for future trips. But alas, little
is said about the vexation of spirit that many a Spirit-filled child of God
would have felt as they endured the numerous stopovers at grossly idolatrous
sites, which are supposed to have historical significance. In fact, I was told
that one pastor, after a visit to the “Holy Land,” vowed never to return again
as it was the most “unholy place on earth.” Could the designation of Palestine
as the “Holy Land” during these trips also becomes occasion for dulling of
hearts against abominable idolatry?
The Pilgrim Perspective
Closely related to the Crusader perspective is the Pilgrim perspective on
Palestine. The esteemed church historian, Philip Schaff, notes that the
compulsion to make pilgrimages is an instinctive phenomenon among religious
persons. He says,
Pilgrimages are founded in the
natural desire to see with one’s own eyes sacred or celebrated places, for the
gratification of curiosity, the increase of devotion, and the proving of
gratitude. These also were in use before the Christian era. The Jews went up
annually to Jerusalem at their high festivals as afterward the Mohammedans went
to Mecca. The heathen also built altars over the graves of their heroes and
made pilgrimages thither. To the Christians those places were most interesting
and holy of all, where the Redeemer was born, suffered, died, and rose again
for the salvation of the world (History of the Christian Church,
3.7.89).
The difference between the Jews’ annual trek to Jerusalem and the Christian
pilgrimages, however, is that the former is based on divine commandment (Ex
34:23; Deut 16:16), whereas the latter is not.
It is, of course, not wrong to want to visit Palestine or Jerusalem for study
tours. The impression that would be left in the mind of those who have the
privilege of seeing the land for themselves would no doubt vivify their
imaginations as they read the historical accounts in the Scriptures, or when
they teach the accounts. However, many Christians today who visit Palestine do
so, not so much out of the desire to learn the geography of the land or even to
be reminded of the historical events associated with the land, but out of a
desire for some mystical romantic experience or to receive some special
blessing from the Lord. So even today, many would travel half-way round the world
to be re-baptised in the River Jordan, believing that somehow such a baptism
would have greater efficacy.
But of course, all these superstitious notions have no basis in the Bible. The
Bible promises no special blessing for anyone visiting anywhere, and baptism is
in no way enhanced by having it in the Jordan or anywhere else. In the same
way, those who claim to have enhanced intimacy with God while being in the
“Holy Land” may be fooling themselves with some transient feelings based on
some warped ideas about God and about Christianity. The Scripture not only
declares God to be omnipresent, but that any spiritual blessings we may receive
from God are founded solely on our union with Christ. Conditioning our
spiritual experiences of intimacy with God with the place that we are in (be it
in Palestine or in a medieval cathedral) suggests unbelief in the sufficiency
of the sacrifice of Christ.
Let all Christian pilgrims (towards the celestial city) seek for intimacy with
God through the means appointed by Him, especially through worship and prayer,
by which we may approach the throne of grace with all boldness (Heb 4:16).
The Zionist Perspective
Many today who hold to the Crusader perspective and the Pilgrim perspective are
likely also to hold to the Zionist perspective. These believe that the land of
Palestine belongs to the Jews forever because of God’s covenant with Abraham.
The Jews were three times displaced: first in Egypt when Jacob was patriarch;
secondly during the Babylonian conquest between 606 and 581 B.C. (not counting
the exile of the apostate Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C.); and thirdly when
general Titus marched into Jerusalem and razed her to the ground in A.D. 70.
Christians who hold to the Zionist position believe that Isaiah 11:11 was fulfilled
in May 14, 1948, when the modern state of Israel was constituted.
The problem with this view is, however, manifold. In the first place, a strong
case may be made for believing that when Isaiah says “the Lord shall set His
hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people,” he was
referring to the return of the Jews during the days of Zerubbabel and Ezra,
rather than to 1948 (cf. Jer 29:10–14). The first return was from Egyptian
captivity!
In the second place, there is the problem concerning the identification of a
“Jew” who qualifies to be the legal heir of the land promise. Who is a Jew? The
prevailing definition of Jew, as being someone with a Jewish mother, cannot be
supported biblically seeing that the Scripture refers to Jewish mothers without
Jewish blood, such as Rahab and Ruth. Neither is a Jew simply anyone who is
descended from Abraham. Ishmael and Esau both descended from Abraham, and even
circumcised, yet their descendents are not regarded as Jews or lawful heirs of
the covenant. On the other hand, the law of Moses states that anyone who
embraces Jehovah worship and is circumcised is to be treated as a “homeborn”
Jew (e.g., Ex 12:48–49). And furthermore, a homeborn Jew can be “cut off” or
excommunicated from his own people by being uncircumcised (Gen 17:14) or by
failure to observe some important religious restrictions (e.g., Ex 12:15, 19;
Ex 30:33; etc.).
It appears then that the biblical definition of a Jew, from the Old Testament,
is one who truly embraces Judaism. Do the Jews in Palestine today qualify
according to this definition? I am afraid not in most cases, for it is a
well-known fact that the majority of the Jews in Palestine today are atheistic,
agnostic, and anti-religious in their personal sentiments.
To make matters even more problematical (for the Zionist), the Apostle Paul, in
the New Testament, teaches us that:
He is not a Jew, which is one
outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he
is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the
spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Rom
2:28–29).
What Paul is suggesting is that a true Jew is one who has had a heart change
through the new birth. In other words, a regenerate Christian is a true Jew and
legitimate heir of the promise! “If ye be Christ’s,” says Paul, “then are ye
Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The homeborn
Jews, who do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah, are no longer
to be regarded as children of Abraham or as true Jews. Confronting the
unbelieving Jews, the Lord said of them: “Ye are of your father the devil…
because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not” (Jn 8:44–45). Addressing the
seven churches in Asia Minor, the Lord speaks of those “which say they are
Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (Rev 2:9; cf. 3:9). Who are
these but unbelieving Jews. These are no longer “the circumcision,” “for we are
the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus,
and have no confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3). Gentiles who have embrace
Christ as their Saviour and Lord are the true Jews, being “no more strangers
and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of
God;… [that they] should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of
his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Eph 2:19; 3:6).
There is, in other words, no biblical case for the Zionist perspective. The
Zionist case is biblically contradictory and Christians who hold to the
position are in fact denying the biblical teachings on the subject. One who
holds that every baptised Christian has a legal right to the land of Palestine
would probably be able to make a better biblical case for his idea than the
Christian Zionist.
The Millennial Perspective
Going hand-in-hand with the Zionist perspective is the Millennial perspective.
There are many varieties in this view, but the most common asserts that the
Lord Jesus Christ will return to establish a Jewish Kingdom in “Greater
Israel,” after having gathered all the Jews back to the Promised Land. Christ,
according to this view, will rule from His throne in Jerusalem for a thousand
years; after which there will be a massive satanically instigated rebellion led
by unregenerate Jewish proselytes who live during the Millennium. At this
battle of Gog and Magog (Rev 20:8), the enemies of Christ will be finally
crushed and the Final State will be ushered in.
Space does not permit us to critique these assertions at this point, though it
boggles the mind to think of how glorified saints could dwell together with
sinful men, and even if they can dwell together, it is hard to imagine how
mortal sinful men, who must surely be well aware that glorified men will not
die and that Christ is gloriously sovereign, can presume to battle against
Christ and His army. Perhaps Satan who is loosed at the end of the Millennium
so blind their eyes that they were ready to go on a suicide mission. Perhaps.
Our concern, in this article, is really on the land. The Millennial view
asserts that God’s promise to Abraham, in Genesis 15:18, that He would give the
seed of Abraham the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, remains unfulfilled
and awaits a future fulfilment in the Millennium. This is a strange assertion
in view of Joshua’s declaration: “And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land
which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt
therein.… There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto
the house of Israel; all came to pass” (Jos 21:43, 45). And if someone should
object that the geographic description given by Joshua does not tally with this
assertion, then surely the record of Solomon’s reign over the land from Egypt
to Tiphsah (1 Kgs 4:21, 24) should suffice to convince one who seeks a literal
fulfilment of the promise, that it has been fulfilled. Tiphsah is a city by the
river Euphrates. True, the Jews did not dwell in the greater part of the land
for any length of time, but the fact that the nation owned the land is itself
already a (literal) fulfilment of the promise. And if it should be argued that
the promise can only be fully fulfilled when the Jews dwell in it forever, it
may be countered, firstly by the fact that the Promised Land, understood
literally, would cease existence after the supposed Millennium (Rev 21:1); and
secondly, while the promise is to all the descendants of Abraham (according to
their interpretation), only a very small portion of Jews (believing Jews) will
actually inherit the land.
The fact is that the Millennial perspective of the land is fraught with
difficulties. The fact is that God’s promise to Abraham is impossible to fulfil
literally if the land and the seed are taken literally. The fact is that the
New Testament (and even the Old Testament) does not equate the seed of Abraham
with the physical descendants of Abraham. Says the Apostle Paul: “Now to
Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of
many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal 3:16). The fact is
that the father of the Jews, Abraham, was not looking for a literal land but
for “a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb
11:10), “an heavenly… city” (Heb 11:16).
The Typological Perspective
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we are led to conclude that the land
promised to Abraham serves only a typological significance for a time so much
so that the essence of the promise is not the land itself, but eternal
inheritance in Christ. This is why Abraham is said to be looking for a heavenly
city. This is why the New Testament no longer speaks of Abraham being heir of
the land, but heir of the cosmos: “For the promise, that he should
be the heir of the world [Grk.kosmos], was not to Abraham, or to his
seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:13).
Palestine had ceased its typological significance with the illumination of its
meaning by the Sun of Righteousness.
The writer of Hebrews, in 6:13–20, was referring to the covenant, which God
made with Abraham in Genesis 15. It is true that Hebrews 6:13–14 alludes to
Genesis 22:16–17; but Genesis 22:16–17 is referring to the oath or covenant
that God made to Abraham in Genesis 15:5ff. You see, in those days, oaths or
covenants were confirmed by the parties walking through a bloody path created
by using some animals, which have been hewn unto halves (cf. Jer 34:18). This
is why, in the Hebrew language, covenants are “cut,” not “made.”
Now, God had asked Abraham to prepare the animals by dividing them and creating
the bloody path (Gen 15:9–10). Normally, the two parties who were making the
covenant would walk through the path and pronounce a curse upon themselves if
they fail to keep their promise. They may say something like: “Be it done unto
me ever so severely as done to these animals if I should break my promise.” But
that day, Abraham did not pass through the pieces. He was, though aware of what
was going on, in a deep sleep (Gen 15:12). Instead, a theophany (appearance of
God) passed through the pieces in the form of a “smoking furnace• and a
“burning lamp” (Gen 15:17). It was to be a unilateral, unconditional covenant.
Or at least it was a covenant that would be kept by God Himself. It is a
promise that cannot be broken because it depended not on man, but on God
Himself. Thus the writer of Hebrews asserts: “God, willing more abundantly to
shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by
an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to
lie” (Heb 6:17–18).
Many have speculated on the meaning of the two immutable things. Some say they
refer to God’s Word and promise, but they are really the same thing. A better
interpretation is that they refer to God’s Word and His being. As God passed
through the pieces He would have implicitly pronounced self-destruction on
Himself if He were to fail to keep His promise. But God cannot be destroyed. So
it is logically impossible for God’s promise to fail. An even better interpretation,
which I am quite convinced now is right, is that the two immutable things refer
to the two theophanies of “smoking furnace” and “burning lamp.” I believe the
“smoking furnace” is symbolic of God the Father representing the Triune God.
“For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29). The burning lamp, on the other
hand, must be symbolic of Christ, representing the elect of God or all who are
truly of the seed of Abraham. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Light of the world
(Jn 8:12). It is not surprising then that the writer of Hebrews speaks of God’s
promise as being “confirmed… by an oath” (Heb 6:17). The word rendered
“confirmed” is not the usual word for “confirmed” which is bebaioô (Grk.)
(cf. Heb 2:3; Mk 16:20; Rom 15:8; 1 Cor 1:6; etc.). Rather, the word is mesiteuô (Grk.).
This word occurs only once in the New Testament; and may be literally
translated “mediated,” for it is related to the word mesitês (Grk.)
or “mediator” (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; 1 Tim 2:5).
What does all these mean? It means that the covenant that was made with
Abraham, relative to the land promised in Genesis 15, was really a
manifestation of the Covenant of Grace by which God promises unilaterally, and
unconditionally (from our perspective) to bless “us with all spiritual blessings
in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 1:3), that “we might have a strong
consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us”
(Heb 6:18).
Though it is unconditional for us, it was not unconditional for Christ. Christ
laid down His life in order to redeem us, who have broken God’s covenant, in
Adam and by our own sin. But because Christ laid down His life for us, none who
are of the seed of Abraham will perish. The promises of the covenant will be
fulfilled to the uttermost. Every single person who is truly of the seed of
Abraham will inherit a spiritual inheritance in Christ. This happens when they
enter the “heavenly… city” (Heb 11:16), the “city which hath foundations, whose
builder and maker is God” (Heb 11:10). When does this happen? This happens when
a child of God is united by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, for
the “holy city, new Jerusalem” (Rev 21:2a) is constituted of the children of
God, “arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness
of saints” (Rev 19:8). One day this “new Jerusalem” will be manifestly
“prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21:2b). But even today, we
are already part of that city of God,
for the writer of Hebrews reminds us:
Ye are come unto mount Sion, and
unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable
company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which
are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just
men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant… (Heb
12:22–24a).
The student of Greek would be able to tell that the phrase “Ye are come” is a
verb in the plural perfect tense indicating that all believers are already in Mount Sion,
in the city of the living God, in the heavenly Jerusalem. Believers are already in the same
body as glorified saints who are dwelling in the presence of God. And we have
already begun to enjoy the spiritual blessings, which God promised
typologically to Abraham.
The typological view of the land contrasts sharply with the Millennial
interpretation of the land promises, which drives a wedge between the people of
God, whom God has united (Eph 2:13–17; Isa 19:24–25); and also make the
fulfilment of the promises conditional upon the obedience of the physical
descendants of Abraham. I am thoroughly convinced that this typological view of
the land is the correct view.
Conclusion
Does it matter which view of the land of the Bible we take? I hope it is clear
now that it does. The Crusader view and the Pilgrim view of the land have not
only claimed many lives and gave Christianity a bad name for centuries; but
they are also superstitious views, which encourage a kind of unbiblical
esoteric and mystical intimacy with God which tends to demean genuine biblical
intimacy which every child of God can experience through the use of the
appointed means of grace. The Zionist and Millennial views of the land have
resulted in a generation of Christians who are more excited about things happening
in Palestine than about the state of their souls and of their church, who would
pray for literal Jerusalem, but forget to pray for the peace of new Jerusalem
(cf. Ps 122:6). Sadly, these views will, no doubt, also lead to many
disillusioned believers as they wait in vain for things to happen in Palestine according as
they have been told would happen according to the Bible. Moreover, if we are
correct to say that the Zionist position is unbiblical, then one wonders
poignantly if all the wars in Palestine between the Jews and Palestinians, as
well as many of the senseless terrorist acts associated with the wars, over the
last half-century, may not in some sense be seen as resulting, at least in
part, from wrong theology. In saying all these, we are, of course, in no way
saying that we support the Palestinian cause, much less their criminal acts of
terrorism in Israel
or around the world. But anyone who studies the events leading up to 1948 will
no doubt discover that it was at least in part the Zionist perspective of the
land that encouraged support for the Zionist cause.
I believe the typological view of the land is the only one that is consistent
with the Scriptures and logically defensible. It is a view which promotes hope,
“which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and
which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us
entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of
Melchisedec” (Heb 6:19–20). It is a view which causes us to bend our knees to
pray earnestly, not so much for peace in literal Jerusalem, but to pray that the Lord may use
all means to cause His elect among the Jews to renounce confidence in their
flesh and to turn unto the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, for their eternal
salvation. For even now, “at this present time also there is a remnant
according to the election of grace” (Rom 11:5). It is also a view which instils
in us a desire to see Christ magnified through the church as we sing the Psalms
concerning God’s salvation of His beloved Israel (cf. Ps 22:3, 23; 14:7; 41:13;
50:7; 53:6; etc., etc.).
—J.J. Lim
