PERSPECTIVES ON THE LAND OF THE BIBLE

I have never been to Palestine. The last time I was asked to go on achurch-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 hadsaid he saw no need of going on one of these trips as he would see the landfrom heaven one day, but largely because I was appalled by the fact that thetours were called “Holy Land Pilgrimages.” I had not read O. Palmer Robertson’sbookUnderstanding the Land of the Bible (P&R, 1996), at thattime, and could not quite enumerate or articulate the different perspectives,which Christians have with regards to Palestine. But my personal study of thebook of Hebrews, particularly chapters 11 and 12, had caused me to becomesuspicious of the church’s view of Palestine. And so calling the tours “HolyLand Pilgrimages,” which was reminiscent (at least for me) of the Muslim haj toMecca, 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 itgenerally reflects our attitude and perspective towards the land. “For out ofthe abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Mt 12:34). And as we are to betransformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2), it is crucial that ourperspectives and attitudes on anything that will affect our Christian life andspeech be biblically accurate. Does our perspective towards the Bible landaffect our lives? I believe it does, as we shall see, as we study briefly thefive common perspectives on it.

The Crusader Perspective

Since the time of the somewhat superstitious emperor Constantine, Palestine hadbeen regarded by European Christians as the “Holy Land,” while Jerusalem wasregarded as the “Holy City.” Constantine had built a costly church known as theChurch of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and his mother Helena had donesimilarly in Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives.

From time to time, pilgrimages to the “Holy Land” took place. Early in the 11thcentury, however, the Seljuk Turks conquered Palestine, and Christian pilgrimsto the “Holy Land” were subjected to harsh treatment and oppression by theMuslims. Many European Christians, infuriated by the reports they heard, becameconvinced that the Turks had to be dislodged by force: “The land is holy toGod, 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 CatholicChurch to recapture the “Holy City” and the “Holy Land” from the Turks (Historyrecords eight major Crusades against the Turks, but only the 1st [1095–1099],3rd [1187–1191], 6th [1228–1229], and 8th [1267–1272] were specifically toliberate the “Holy Land”). At least a few hundred thousand people died violentdeaths 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 isclear that the under-girding motivation, at least from the perspective of themedieval church, was that the land was holy and so had to be wrested from thepolluting hands of infidels regardless of cost.

Is this Crusader perspective of Palestine only a historicaloddity? I do not think so. I agree fully with Robertson’s assessment:

Few people today would claim thattheir view of the land of the Bible agrees with the perspective of theCrusaders. Yet one wonders: is not the commonplace designation of this place asthe “Holy Land” tainted with the twisted outlook of the Crusaders? Just what isit 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 thespecial presence of God. But the departure of the “Glory” meant that the land’sholiness, its sanctification by God’s abiding presence, was no more. Just asthe burning bush in the wilderness sanctified the ground around it only so longas the glory of God remained, so this land was “holy” only so long as God wasuniquely there.

Indeed, many people may affirm that they sense a special closeness to God asthey “walk today where Jesus walked.” But human feeling cannot be equated sosimplistically with divine determinations. In fact, the specific teaching ofJesus was that the time would come when the presence of the holy God would befound neither in Jerusalem nor on mount of Samaria, but wherever he wasworshipped in Spirit and in truth (John 4:21, 23). Material locale simply doesnot have the capacity to retain divine holiness.

The Crusader perspective on the land of the Bible led well-meaning peopleastray for centuries. It costs countless families their husbands, theirchildren, their fortunes, and their futures. The same misdirected zeal may notcharacterise people today who think of Palestine as the “Holy Land.” But thisview 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 mostholy place on earth if the one true God is worshipped through Jesus Christ atthat place, the land of the Bible is romanticised so that people suppose thatif 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. Thesetestimonies would then become advertisements for future trips. But alas, littleis said about the vexation of spirit that many a Spirit-filled child of Godwould have felt as they endured the numerous stopovers at grossly idolatroussites, which are supposed to have historical significance. In fact, I was toldthat one pastor, after a visit to the “Holy Land,” vowed never to return againas it was the most “unholy place on earth.” Could the designation of Palestineas the “Holy Land” during these trips also becomes occasion for dulling ofhearts against abominable idolatry?

The Pilgrim Perspective

Closely related to the Crusader perspective is the Pilgrim perspective onPalestine. The esteemed church historian, Philip Schaff, notes that thecompulsion to make pilgrimages is an instinctive phenomenon among religiouspersons. He says,

Pilgrimages are founded in thenatural desire to see with one’s own eyes sacred or celebrated places, for thegratification of curiosity, the increase of devotion, and the proving ofgratitude. These also were in use before the Christian era. The Jews went upannually to Jerusalem at their high festivals as afterward the Mohammedans wentto Mecca. The heathen also built altars over the graves of their heroes andmade pilgrimages thither. To the Christians those places were most interestingand holy of all, where the Redeemer was born, suffered, died, and rose againfor the salvation of the world (History of the Christian Church,3.7.89).

The difference between the Jews’ annual trek to Jerusalem and the Christianpilgrimages, however, is that the former is based on divine commandment (Ex34:23; Deut 16:16), whereas the latter is not.

It is, of course, not wrong to want to visit Palestine or Jerusalem for studytours. The impression that would be left in the mind of those who have theprivilege of seeing the land for themselves would no doubt vivify theirimaginations as they read the historical accounts in the Scriptures, or whenthey teach the accounts. However, many Christians today who visit Palestine doso, not so much out of the desire to learn the geography of the land or even tobe reminded of the historical events associated with the land, but out of adesire for some mystical romantic experience or to receive some specialblessing from the Lord. So even today, many would travel half-way round the worldto be re-baptised in the River Jordan, believing that somehow such a baptismwould have greater efficacy.

But of course, all these superstitious notions have no basis in the Bible. TheBible promises no special blessing for anyone visiting anywhere, and baptism isin no way enhanced by having it in the Jordan or anywhere else. In the sameway, those who claim to have enhanced intimacy with God while being in the“Holy Land” may be fooling themselves with some transient feelings based onsome warped ideas about God and about Christianity. The Scripture not onlydeclares God to be omnipresent, but that any spiritual blessings we may receivefrom God are founded solely on our union with Christ. Conditioning ourspiritual experiences of intimacy with God with the place that we are in (be itin Palestine or in a medieval cathedral) suggests unbelief in the sufficiencyof the sacrifice of Christ.

Let all Christian pilgrims (towards the celestial city) seek for intimacy withGod 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 arelikely also to hold to the Zionist perspective. These believe that the land ofPalestine 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 countingthe exile of the apostate Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C.); and thirdly whengeneral 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 fulfilledin May 14, 1948, when the modern state of Israel was constituted.

The problem with this view is, however, manifold. In the first place, a strongcase may be made for believing that when Isaiah says “the Lord shall set Hishand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people,” he wasreferring 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 Egyptiancaptivity!

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? Theprevailing definition of Jew, as being someone with a Jewish mother, cannot besupported biblically seeing that the Scripture refers to Jewish mothers withoutJewish blood, such as Rahab and Ruth. Neither is a Jew simply anyone who isdescended from Abraham. Ishmael and Esau both descended from Abraham, and evencircumcised, yet their descendents are not regarded as Jews or lawful heirs ofthe covenant. On the other hand, the law of Moses states that anyone whoembraces 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” orexcommunicated from his own people by being uncircumcised (Gen 17:14) or byfailure 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 qualifyaccording to this definition? I am afraid not in most cases, for it is awell-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, inthe New Testament, teaches us that:

He is not a Jew, which is oneoutwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But heis a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in thespirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Rom2:28–29).

What Paul is suggesting is that a true Jew is one who has had a heart changethrough the new birth. In other words, a regenerate Christian is a true Jew andlegitimate heir of the promise! “If ye be Christ’s,” says Paul, “then are yeAbraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The homebornJews, who do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah, are no longerto be regarded as children of Abraham or as true Jews. Confronting theunbelieving 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 theseven churches in Asia Minor, the Lord speaks of those “which say they areJews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (Rev 2:9; cf. 3:9). Who arethese but unbelieving Jews. These are no longer “the circumcision,” “for we arethe 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 embraceChrist as their Saviour and Lord are the true Jews, being “no more strangersand foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household ofGod;… [that they] should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers ofhis promise in Christ by the gospel” (Eph 2:19; 3:6).

There is, in other words, no biblical case for the Zionist perspective. TheZionist case is biblically contradictory and Christians who hold to theposition are in fact denying the biblical teachings on the subject. One whoholds that every baptised Christian has a legal right to the land of Palestinewould probably be able to make a better biblical case for his idea than theChristian 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 theLord Jesus Christ will return to establish a Jewish Kingdom in “GreaterIsrael,” 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 thousandyears; after which there will be a massive satanically instigated rebellion ledby unregenerate Jewish proselytes who live during the Millennium. At thisbattle of Gog and Magog (Rev 20:8), the enemies of Christ will be finallycrushed and the Final State will be ushered in.

Space does not permit us to critique these assertions at this point, though itboggles the mind to think of how glorified saints could dwell together withsinful men, and even if they can dwell together, it is hard to imagine howmortal sinful men, who must surely be well aware that glorified men will notdie and that Christ is gloriously sovereign, can presume to battle againstChrist and His army. Perhaps Satan who is loosed at the end of the Millenniumso 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 viewasserts that God’s promise to Abraham, in Genesis 15:18, that He would give theseed of Abraham the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, remains unfulfilledand awaits a future fulfilment in the Millennium. This is a strange assertionin view of Joshua’s declaration: “And the LORD gave unto Israel all the landwhich he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelttherein.… There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken untothe house of Israel; all came to pass” (Jos 21:43, 45). And if someone shouldobject that the geographic description given by Joshua does not tally with thisassertion, then surely the record of Solomon’s reign over the land from Egyptto Tiphsah (1 Kgs 4:21, 24) should suffice to convince one who seeks a literalfulfilment of the promise, that it has been fulfilled. Tiphsah is a city by theriver Euphrates. True, the Jews did not dwell in the greater part of the landfor any length of time, but the fact that the nation owned the land is itselfalready a (literal) fulfilment of the promise. And if it should be argued thatthe promise can only be fully fulfilled when the Jews dwell in it forever, itmay be countered, firstly by the fact that the Promised Land, understoodliterally, would cease existence after the supposed Millennium (Rev 21:1); andsecondly, while the promise is to all the descendants of Abraham (according totheir interpretation), only a very small portion of Jews (believing Jews) willactually inherit the land.

The fact is that the Millennial perspective of the land is fraught withdifficulties. The fact is that God’s promise to Abraham is impossible to fulfilliterally if the land and the seed are taken literally. The fact is that theNew Testament (and even the Old Testament) does not equate the seed of Abrahamwith the physical descendants of Abraham. Says the Apostle Paul: “Now toAbraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as ofmany; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal 3:16). The fact isthat the father of the Jews, Abraham, was not looking for a literal land butfor “a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb11:10), “an heavenly… city” (Heb 11:16).

The Typological Perspective

Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we are led to conclude that the landpromised to Abraham serves only a typological significance for a time so muchso that the essence of the promise is not the land itself, but eternalinheritance in Christ. This is why Abraham is said to be looking for a heavenlycity. This is why the New Testament no longer speaks of Abraham being heir ofthe land, but heir of the cosmos: “For the promise, that he shouldbe the heir of the world [Grk.kosmos], was not to Abraham, or to hisseed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:13).Palestine had ceased its typological significance with the illumination of itsmeaning by the Sun of Righteousness.

The writer of Hebrews, in 6:13–20, was referring to the covenant, which Godmade with Abraham in Genesis 15. It is true that Hebrews 6:13–14 alludes toGenesis 22:16–17; but Genesis 22:16–17 is referring to the oath or covenantthat God made to Abraham in Genesis 15:5ff. You see, in those days, oaths orcovenants were confirmed by the parties walking through a bloody path createdby using some animals, which have been hewn unto halves (cf. Jer 34:18). Thisis why, in the Hebrew language, covenants are “cut,” not “made.”

Now, God had asked Abraham to prepare the animals by dividing them and creatingthe bloody path (Gen 15:9–10). Normally, the two parties who were making thecovenant would walk through the path and pronounce a curse upon themselves ifthey fail to keep their promise. They may say something like: “Be it done untome ever so severely as done to these animals if I should break my promise.” Butthat day, Abraham did not pass through the pieces. He was, though aware of whatwas going on, in a deep sleep (Gen 15:12). Instead, a theophany (appearance ofGod) 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 apromise that cannot be broken because it depended not on man, but on GodHimself. Thus the writer of Hebrews asserts: “God, willing more abundantly toshew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it byan oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God tolie” (Heb 6:17–18).

Many have speculated on the meaning of the two immutable things. Some say theyrefer to God’s Word and promise, but they are really the same thing. A betterinterpretation is that they refer to God’s Word and His being. As God passedthrough the pieces He would have implicitly pronounced self-destruction onHimself if He were to fail to keep His promise. But God cannot be destroyed. Soit 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 referto 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 otherhand, must be symbolic of Christ, representing the elect of God or all who aretruly 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’spromise 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 literallytranslated “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 withAbraham, relative to the land promised in Genesis 15, was really amanifestation of the Covenant of Grace by which God promises unilaterally, andunconditionally (from our perspective) to bless “us with all spiritual blessingsin heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 1:3), that “we might have a strongconsolation, 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. Christlaid down His life in order to redeem us, who have broken God’s covenant, inAdam and by our own sin. But because Christ laid down His life for us, none whoare of the seed of Abraham will perish. The promises of the covenant will befulfilled to the uttermost. Every single person who is truly of the seed ofAbraham will inherit a spiritual inheritance in Christ. This happens when theyenter the “heavenly… city” (Heb 11:16), the “city which hath foundations, whosebuilder and maker is God” (Heb 11:10). When does this happen? This happens whena child of God is united by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, forthe “holy city, new Jerusalem” (Rev 21:2a) is constituted of the children ofGod, “arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousnessof 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, weare already part of that city of God,for the writer of Hebrews reminds us:

Ye are come unto mount Sion, andunto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerablecompany of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, whichare written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of justmen made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant… (Heb12:22–24a).

The student of Greek would be able to tell that the phrase “Ye are come” is averb 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 samebody as glorified saints who are dwelling in the presence of God. And we havealready begun to enjoy the spiritual blessings, which God promisedtypologically to Abraham.

The typological view of the land contrasts sharply with the Millennialinterpretation of the land promises, which drives a wedge between the people ofGod, whom God has united (Eph 2:13–17; Isa 19:24–25); and also make thefulfilment of the promises conditional upon the obedience of the physicaldescendants of Abraham. I am thoroughly convinced that this typological view ofthe land is the correct view.

Conclusion

Does it matter which view of the land of the Bible we take? I hope it is clearnow that it does. The Crusader view and the Pilgrim view of the land have notonly claimed many lives and gave Christianity a bad name for centuries; butthey are also superstitious views, which encourage a kind of unbiblicalesoteric and mystical intimacy with God which tends to demean genuine biblicalintimacy which every child of God can experience through the use of theappointed means of grace. The Zionist and Millennial views of the land haveresulted in a generation of Christians who are more excited about things happeningin Palestine than about the state of their souls and of their church, who wouldpray 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 manydisillusioned believers as they wait in vain for things to happen in Palestine according asthey have been told would happen according to the Bible. Moreover, if we arecorrect to say that the Zionist position is unbiblical, then one wonderspoignantly if all the wars in Palestine between the Jews and Palestinians, aswell as many of the senseless terrorist acts associated with the wars, over thelast half-century, may not in some sense be seen as resulting, at least inpart, from wrong theology. In saying all these, we are, of course, in no waysaying that we support the Palestinian cause, much less their criminal acts ofterrorism in Israelor around the world. But anyone who studies the events leading up to 1948 willno doubt discover that it was at least in part the Zionist perspective of theland that encouraged support for the Zionist cause.

I believe the typological view of the land is the only one that is consistentwith 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, andwhich entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for usentered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order ofMelchisedec” (Heb 6:19–20). It is a view which causes us to bend our knees topray earnestly, not so much for peace in literal Jerusalem, but to pray that the Lord may useall means to cause His elect among the Jews to renounce confidence in theirflesh and to turn unto the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, for their eternalsalvation. For even now, “at this present time also there is a remnantaccording to the election of grace” (Rom 11:5). It is also a view which instilsin us a desire to see Christ magnified through the church as we sing the Psalmsconcerning 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