Email this article to a friend Fill out this form to email a link to this article to your friend.
Your Name:
Your Email:
Your Friend's Name:
Your Friend's Email:
Message to Friend:
Word Verification:	(This prevents web bots from submitting this form.)
Cancel
Privacy Notice: The information submitted in this form will not be used in any other manner than to deliver the email. We will not resale the information.

I. The Basis: TheUnconditional Covenants

Closelyconnected and intertwined with Israel's election are the four unconditionalcovenants God made with the nation. An unconditional covenant can be definedas a sovereign act of God whereby God unconditionally obligates Himself tobring to pass definite promises, blessings, and conditions for the covenantedpeople. It is a unilateral covenant. This type of covenant is characterizedby the formula I will which declaresGod's determination to do exactly as He promised. The blessings are secured bythe grace of God.

CovenantTheologians have misinterpreted what Dispensationalists mean by"unconditional." Their claim is that Dispensationalism teaches thatthese covenants contain no conditions whatsoever. By simply citing one or moreconditions contained in these covenants, they feel they have disprovenDispensationalism. Either these critics have not bothered to read exactly whatDispensationalists have been saying about these covenants (a case ofintellectual dishonesty) or have deliberately distorted what Dispensationalismbelieves to make their own position look better (a case of intellectualperversion). Let it be stated as clearly as it can be that Dispensationalismdoes believe there are conditions in the unconditional covenants. What theymean by "unconditional" is that God's fulfillment of His promises areunconditional and He will accomplish all promises stated in the covenants. Inother words, the conditions stated in those same covenants are not the basis bywhich the covenants will be fulfilled. God intends to fulfill the content of thecovenants, those promises dependent upon God for fulfillment, regardless ofwhether Israel fulfills her's.

Beforedealing with two of the four unconditional covenants individually, five thingsshould be noted concerning their nature. First, they are literal covenants andtheir contents must be interpreted literally as well. Second, the covenants Godmade with Israel are eternal and are not conditioned by time. Third, it isnecessary to re‑emphasize that these are unconditional covenants whichwere not abrogated because of Israel's disobedience. Because these covenantsare unconditional and totally dependent upon God for fulfillment, they can beexpected to have an ultimate fulfillment. The fourth thing to note is thatthese covenants were made with a specific people: Israel. This is brought outby Paul in Romans 9:4:

. . . who are Israelites;whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of thelaw, and the service of God, and the promises;

This passage clearly points out that these covenants weremade with the covenanted people and are Israel's possession. This is broughtout again in Ephesians 2:11‑12:

Wherefore remember, that once ye,the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which iscalled Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that timeseparate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangersfrom the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

The four unconditional covenants belong to the people ofIsrael and, as this passage notes, Gentiles were considered strangers fromthe covenants. Fifth, while a covenant ismade at a specific point of time, not all of the provisions go immediately intoeffect. At the time a covenant is signed or sealed, three things happen: somedo go immediately into effect; some go into effect in the near future; and somego into effect only in the distant or prophetic future. Examples of this will begiven in the study of the covenants themselves.

A. The AbrahamicCovenant

1. Scripture

There are six different passages ofScripture which pertain to the Abrahamic Covenant. First is Genesis 12:1‑3:

Now Jehovah said unto Abram, Get theeout of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto theland that I will show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I willbless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing: and I will blessthem that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shallall the families of the earth be blessed.

Second, Genesis 12:7:

And Jehovah appeared unto Abram, andsaid, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an alter untoJehovah, who appeared unto him.

Third, Genesis 13:14‑17:

And Jehovah said unto Abram, afterthat Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from theplace where thou art, northward and southward and eastward and westward: forall the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man cannumber the dust of the earth, then may thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walkthrough the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for unto theewill I give it.

Thefourth and fifth passages dealing with the Abrahamic Covenant are Genesis 15:1‑21and Genesis 17:1‑21; these more lengthy segments of Scripture, not quotedin this study, contain many of the covenant provisions. The emphasis of Genesis15 is on the signing of the Abrahamic Covenant. God signs and seals theAbrahamic Covenant and spells out the exact borders of the Promised Land asextending from the River of Egypt in the south to the great river, Euphrates,in the north. The manner in which this covenant is signed and sealed renderedthis covenant unconditional. There are similarities and dissimilarities withthe ancient Near-Eastern covenant-making customs. The similarities are found inthat animals were slaughtered so as to make it a blood covenant and then the animalswere cut up and the pieces lined up in two parallel rows. Then thedissimilarities began. Normally, both parties making the covenant would walktogether between the pieces of the animals rendering the terms mandatory onboth parties. If one failed to keep his terms, it would free the other fromkeeping his. In this way, the covenant was conditional. In this case, however,it was not God and Abraham who walked between the pieces of the animals, butGod alone, binding only Himself to the terms of the covenant. This rendered thecovenant unconditional. Its fulfillment is based purely on God's graceregardless of how often Abraham or his seed may fail.

Theemphasis of Genesis 17 is on the token of the covenant: physical circumcisionon the eighth day of the boy's life. Just as the rainbow was the token of theNoahic Covenant, circumcision is the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. This alsorendered the covenant a blood covenant.

Thesixth passage is Genesis 22:15‑18:

And the angel of Jehovah called untoAbraham a second time out of heaven, and said, By myself have I sworn, saithJehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son,thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I willmultiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is uponthe sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.

2. The Provisionsof the Covenant

Inthese six passages, the persons involved are God and Abraham. In this covenantAbraham stood not for all humanity (as was the case with Adam in the Edenic andAdamic covenants and Noah in the Noahic Covenant), but for the whole Jewishnation; the representative head of the Jewish people. A list gleaned from theseGenesis passages shows a total of fourteen provisions in this covenant.However, for this paper, only one concerns the topic; it is the promise of theLand: A great nation was to come out of Abraham, namely, the nation of Israel(12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 17:1-2, 7; 22:17b); and he was promised a landspecifically, the Land of Canaan (12:1, 7; 13:14-15, 17; 15:17-21; 17:8).

Theseprovisions of the Abrahamic Covenant can be categorized in three areas: toAbraham, to the Seed (Israel), and to the Gentiles. Concerning Abraham, thepromises made to Abraham individually included possession of all of thePromised Land. Concerning the Seed (Israel), when the term seed was used as acollective singular, it was a reference to Israel, and promises made to thenation included the possession of all of the Promised Land. The fact that thepromise of the Land was made to both Abraham and his seed shows that theseblessings have not yet received a complete fulfillment but await the MessianicKingdom.

3. TheReconfirmations of the Covenant

Abrahamhad eight sons by three different women. The question was: through which sonswould the Abrahamic Covenant be confirmed? God revealed that it was to bethrough Sarah's son, Isaac, only (Genesis 26:2‑5, 24). In the confirmationof the covenant to Isaac, the Land is promised to both Isaac and Isaac's seed(26:3b, 4b); the seed will be multiplied (26:4a, 24b); Gentiles will someday beblessed through the Seed (26:4c); and, the basis of the confirmation isGod's covenant with Abraham (26:3c, 5, 24c).

Isaachad two sons and God chose to confirm the covenant with Jacob only (Genesis 28:13‑15).In the confirmation of the covenant to Jacob, one specific provision was made:The Land is promised to both Jacob and Jacob's seed (28:13, 15). After that, itwas confirmed through all of Jacob's twelve sons who fathered the twelve Tribesof Israel (Gen. 49).

4. The Continuityof the Covenant

TheAbrahamic Covenant became the basis for the Dispensation of Promise. Becausethe Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, it is still very much in effect thoughit has remained largely unfulfilled. The ultimate fulfillment will come duringthe Kingdom Age. The unconditional nature of the covenant is affirmed andreaffirmed a number of times. For example, although it is clear that Israel inEgypt and Israel in the Wilderness was not a righteous nation, since themajority constantly had a tendency to rebel and murmur, yet God rescued themand brought them into the Land on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant. Exodus 2:23‑25states:

And it came to pass in the course ofthose many days, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighedby reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God byreason of the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered hiscovenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God saw the children ofIsrael, and God took knowledge of them.

Exodus 6:2‑8 reaffirms:

And God spake unto Moses, and saidunto him, I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and untoJacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them. And Ihave also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan,the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned. And moreover I haveheard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep inbondage; and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children ofIsrael, I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of theEgyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you withan outstretched arm, and with great judgments: and I will take you to me for apeople, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah yourGod, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I willbring you in unto the land which I sware to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and toJacob; and I will give it you for a heritage: I am Jehovah.

Thisis further reaffirmed in Nehemiah 9:7‑8, I Chronicles 16:15‑19,II Chronicles 20:7-8, and Psalm 105:7‑12.

Inconjunction with the choosing of Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt, he wasalmost disqualified because of his failure to circumcise his son in Exodus 4:24-26:

And it came to pass on the way atthe lodging-place, that Jehovah met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporahtook a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; andshe said, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. So he let him alone.Then she said, A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the circumcision.

Moses endangered his life by failing to circumcise his sonin keeping with the penalty of the Abrahamic Covenant contained in Genesis 17:14for failure to circumcise meant being cut off from among his people.

Itwas on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant that God finally brought Israel intothe Promised Land as God's last words to Moses made clear in Deuteronomy 34:4:

And Jehovah said unto him, This isthe land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I willgive it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thoushalt not go over thither.

Although Israel in the Land had a long history ofdisobedience and idolatry, and although God frequently disciplined the nation,yet He promised the nation would always survive on the basis of the AbrahamicCovenant. On that basis, Moses pleaded with God to spare Israel from His divinewrath in Exodus 32:11-14:

And Moses besought Jehovah his God,and said, Jehovah, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, that thouhast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mightyhand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, saying, For evil did he bring themforth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of theearth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest bythine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars ofheaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, andthey shall inherit it for ever. And Jehovah repented of the evil which he saidhe would do unto his people.

Another example of this is II Kings 13:22‑23:

And Hazael king of Syria oppressedIsrael all the days of Jehoahaz. But Jehovah was gracious unto them, and hadcompassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant withAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them fromhis presence as yet.

While God used the Syrians to punish Israel, Syrian damagecould only go so far because of this covenant. Certainly God expected Israel tobe obedient, but Israel's obedience did not condition God's fulfillment of Hispromises. This is exactly what Dispensationalism means by an unconditionalcovenant.

Itwas on the basis of this covenant that the Messiah came to bring redemption toIsrael, according to Luke 1:54-55:

He hath given help to Israel hisservant, That he might remember mercy (As he spake unto our fathers) TowardAbraham and his seed for ever.

And also according to Luke 1:68‑73:

Blessed be the Lord, the God ofIsrael; For he hath visited and wrought redemption for his people, And hathraised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of his servant David (As hespake by the mouth of his holy prophets that have been from of old), Salvationfrom our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To show mercy towardsour fathers, And to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware untoAbraham our father, . . .

Itwas on the basis of this covenant that Jesus taught the fact of theresurrection when confronted by Sadducees who did not believe in it (Matt. 22:23-33).Paul made the same point in Acts 26:6-8.

InGalatians 3:15-18, Paul drew a contrast between the Abrahamic and the MosaicCovenants, pointing out that the Mosaic was temporary, while the Abrahamic waseternal.

Theauthor of Hebrews 6:13-20 derived his assurance of salvation on the basis ofthis covenant.

Finally,it is on the basis of this covenant that the final restoration will occur,according to Leviticus 26:40‑42:

And they shall confess theiriniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, in their trespass which theytrespassed against me, and also that, because they walked contrary unto me, Ialso walked contrary unto them, and brought them into the land of theirenemies: if then their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and they then accept ofthe punishment of their iniquity; then will I remember my covenant with Jacob;and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will Iremember; and I will remember the land.

Justas God fulfilled His promises to Israel in the past, He will do so again in thefuture because of the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic Covenant.

TheAbrahamic Covenant, being an unconditional covenant, is still very much ineffect. In history, it was the basis for the Dispensation of Promise.

5. The Timing ofthe Provisions of the Covenant

Asstated earlier, while a covenant may be signed and sealed at a specific pointof time, this does not mean that every provision goes immediately into effect.Three things happen. Some go into effect immediately, such as the changing ofAbram's and Sarai's names and circumcision. Some go into effect in the nearfuture, such as the birth of Isaac (25 years) and the Egyptian sojourn,enslavement, and the Exodus (400 years). Some go into effect in the distant future,such as the possession of all of the Promised Land by the patriarchs and theirdescendants.

6. TheUnconditional Covenants in the Church Age

CovenantTheologians of all three schools insist to a lesser or greater degree that thebiblical covenants are now being fulfilled in, by, or through the Church. Somebelieve that these covenants were made with the Church from the very beginning.Others admit that they were made with Israel, but have now been transferred tothe Church. As for Israel, all that was promised either has already beenfulfilled or has been forfeited through Jewish unbelief. Even CovenantPremillennialists, who do see a future for ethnic Israel, still insist thatIsrael is amalgamated into the Church.

Dispensationalists,though very clear as to how the unconditional covenants work out inrelationship to Israel Past and Israel Future, have been far less clear withIsrael Present. Chafer took the view that the Jewish covenants are now in"abeyance," and Pentecost failed to recognize the existence of theremnant today. No such view of the covenants is necessary or defensible. Thefact is that all four unconditional covenants are not only still in effect, butalso still operative at the present time. The Church does, indeed, have a relationshipto these covenants, but it is not that described by Covenant Theology.

Again,however, a point of observation is in order. It must again be stressed that,although a covenant may be made at a specific point of time, it does not meanthat all provisions of the covenant go immediately into effect. Some do, butsome may not for centuries. The Abrahamic Covenant is a good example. Some ofGod's promises did go immediately into effect, such as providing for Abraham'sphysical needs in the Land, his change of name, and circumcision. Others werefulfilled only later. For example, Abraham was promised a son through Sarah,but had to wait twenty‑five years before that promise was fulfilled.Other provisions were fulfilled only later in Jewish history, such as thedeliverance from Egypt which was also part of the covenant. Finally, otherprovisions are still future never having been fulfilled, such as Abraham'sownership of the Land and Israel's settlement in all of the Promised Land. Itis important to note that although a covenant is made, signed, and sealed at acertain point of history, this does not mean that all the promises orprovisions go immediately into effect. It should come as no surprise that notall of the provisions of the unconditional Jewish covenants are presently beingfulfilled to, in, or by Israel today. This is not necessary for the covenantsto still be in force. Nor is this a valid reason to teach that the Church hastaken over these covenants or that they are now being fulfilled to, in, or bythe Church.

TheAbrahamic Covenant promised a seed, land, and blessings among its manyprovisions. The seed was to develop into a nation, and so it did at the foot ofMount Sinai. Today, Israel is a scattered nation but still a nation. Just asIsrael remained distinct in Egypt, the Jewish people have remained distinctthroughout the Church Age. No other nation that lost its national homeland andwas dispersed for centuries survived as a distinct entity. On the contrary,where they scattered they intermarried and disappeared into a melting pot. Notso the Jews, whose distinctive history is easily traceable throughout the yearsof Jewish history. The fact that Jews have continued to survive as a people inspite of so many attempts to destroy them shows that this covenant hascontinued to operate.

Asfor the Land, within the confines of the Church Age there has been no realindependent government in the Land since A.D. 70. The Land has beenoverrun many times and ruled by many people, but always ruled from somewhereelse. It has been controlled by Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, and Britons.Even under Arab control, no independent Arab government was ever set up; it wasruled from somewhere else: Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, Amman, etc. Though renamed"Palestine" by Hadrian, there never was a Palestinian state with aPalestinian government or a Palestinian flag. The first time an independentgovernment was set up in the Land since A.D. 70 was in 1948 with the Stateof Israel. The history of the Land also shows that the Abrahamic Covenantcontinues to be fulfilled with the people of Israel.

7. The Church'sRelationship to the Unconditional Covenants

Itis at this point that some confusion has arisen as to the Church's relationshipto the New Covenant because, according to Jeremiah, the covenant is made notwith the Church, but with Israel. Nevertheless, a number of Scriptures connectthe New Covenant with the Church (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:14‑20;I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6; Heb. 7:22; 8:6‑13; 9:15; 10:16, 29; 12:24;13:20).

Thisis the point of confusion. Covenant Theologians try to solve the problem by atheology of replacement or transference. Dispensationalists, with their literalhermeneutics, are unable to do so; thus, some have tried to resolve the problemby the invention of two new covenants. The problem with this view is that thereis no indication in Scripture that there are two covenants with the same name.Any mention of a new covenant would cause Jews to think only of the one inJeremiah. Verses used by adherents of this view as speaking of the New Covenantfor the Church still cite the Jeremiah passage which speaks of the New Covenantfor Israel. A better solution, and quite consistent with Dispensationalism, isto remember that these covenants contained two types of promises: physical andspiritual. The physical promises were, and still are, limited to Israel andwill be fulfilled only to, in, or by Israel. However, as early as Genesis 12:3,the first passage of the first covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, it was alreadypromised that the spiritual blessings would extend to the Gentiles. Actually,the solution is not difficult since it is clearly explained in Ephesians 2:11‑16and 3:5-6:

Wherefore remember, that once ye,the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which iscalled Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that timeseparate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangersfrom the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood ofChrist. For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wallof partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law ofcommandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of thetwo one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one bodyunto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

. . . which in othergenerations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now beenrevealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to wit, that theGentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakersof the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, . . .

Thepoint of this passage is that God made four unconditional covenants withIsrael: the Abrahamic, the Land, the Davidic, and the New Covenants. Many ofGod's blessings, both physical and spiritual, are mediated by means of thesefour covenants. However, there was also a fifth covenant, the conditionalMosaic Covenant. This was the middle wall of partition. Essentially, it keptthe Gentiles from enjoying the spiritual blessings of the four unconditionalcovenants. For a Gentile to receive the blessings of the unconditionalcovenants, he had to totally submit to the Mosaic Law, take upon himself theobligations of the law and, for all practical purposes, live as a son ofAbraham. Only Gentiles as proselytes to Mosaic Judaism could enjoy thespiritual blessings. Gentiles as Gentiles were not able to enjoy the spiritualblessings of the Jewish covenants and hence were strangers from theCommonwealth of Israel. They did notreceive any of the spiritual benefits contained in the covenants. However, whenMessiah died, the Mosaic Law, the middle wall of partition, was broken down.Now Gentiles as Gentiles can by faith enjoy the spiritual blessings of the fourunconditional covenants. That is why Gentiles today are partakers of Jewishspiritual blessings; they are not taker‑overs.

Therelationship of the Church to the New Covenant is the same as the Church'srelationship to the Abrahamic, the Land, and the Davidic Covenants. Thephysical promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, as amplified by the Land andDavidic covenants, were promised exclusively to Israel. However, the blessingaspect amplified by the New Covenant was to include the Gentiles. The Church isenjoying the spiritual blessings of these covenants, not the material andphysical benefits. The physical promises still belong to Israel and will befulfilled exclusively with Israel, especially those involving the Land.However, all spiritual benefits are now being shared by the Church. This is theChurch's relationship to these four unconditional covenants between God andIsrael.

Theblood of the Messiah is the basis of salvation in the New Covenant and this wasshed at the cross. The blood of the Messiah ratified, signed, and sealed theNew Covenant (Heb. 8:1-10:18). The provisions of the New Covenant cannot befulfilled in, by, or through the Church, but have to be fulfilled in, by, andthrough Israel. It is true that the Covenant is not now being fulfilled withIsrael, but this does not mean it is therefore being fulfilled with the Church.Again, not all provisions go immediately into effect. The Church is related tothe New Covenant only insofar as receiving the spiritual benefits of theCovenant (salvation benefit), but the Church is not fulfilling it. The Churchhas become a partaker of Jewishspiritual blessings, but the Church is not a "taker-over" of the Jewishcovenants. The Church partakes of the spiritual blessings and promises, but notthe material or physical promises or blessings.

8. The Possessionof the Land

a. The Basis: TheAbrahamic Covenant

Onefacet of the final restoration of Israel is the possession of the Landencompassing two aspects: its total boundaries and its productivity. The basisfor this facet is the Abrahamic Covenant as found in various passages of theBook of Genesis. The first passage to deal with the Land aspect is Genesis 12:1‑3.At the time the covenant was initially made, Abram was simply told to leave fora land that God would show him. When he arrived in the Land, God again revealedHimself to Abram in Genesis 12:7. In this verse, the promise is stated in sucha way that it is Abram's seed that is to possess the Land. From this passagealone, it might be concluded that Abram himself was never to possess the Land.That is not the case, however, as another passage on the Abrahamic Covenantmakes clear, Genesis 13:14‑17. Although for the time being the area ofgrazing was divided between Abram and Lot, ultimately all the Land that Abramcould see is to be possessed by him (vv. 14‑15). The promise isclearly made that the Land is to be possessed by Abram personally as well as byAbram's seed. Since Abram's seed is to possess the Land as well, the populationof Israel will greatly increase at that time (v. 16). Abram was thendirected to walk throughout the Land in order to get to know it well, forsomeday he will possess it (v. 17). Thus far, Abram was only told that allthe Land he could possibly see would be possessed by him, but no exactboundaries were given. Later however, as God confirmed the covenant, the exactboundaries were given in Genesis 15:12‑21. At the time of the signing andthe sealing of the Abrahamic Covenant, God spelled out the future history ofAbram's seed prior to their initial possession of the Land (vv. 12‑16).Then God signed and sealed the covenant (v. 17) and declared what theboundaries of the Land will be (vv. 18‑21). The borders are toextend from the Euphrates River in the north to the River of Egypt in thesouth. Yet, Abram died having never possessed any part of the Land except for afew wells and a burial cave which he had to purchase. In order for God tofulfill His promise to Abram, two things have to occur. Abram must beresurrected, and the Land must be restored to Israel.

AfterAbraham, the covenant was reconfirmed to and through Isaac, in Genesis 26:2‑5.Isaac is commanded to stay in the Land and not leave it (v. 2), for it isto Isaac and Isaac's seed that the Land will be given (v. 3). It should benoted that the promise of possession of the Land is not merely to Isaac'sdescendants, but to Isaac himself, requiring Isaac's future resurrection andpossession of the Land. As for Isaac's seed, it will be greatly increased innumber (v. 4). It is to Isaac, and not Ishmael, that the AbrahamicCovenant is reconfirmed (v. 5).

AfterIsaac, the Abrahamic Covenant is reconfirmed to and through Jacob in Genesis 28:13‑15.It is to Jacob, and not to Esau, that the covenant is now reconfirmed(v. 13a). The promise is made that the Land will be given to both Jacoband to Jacob's seed (v. 13b). Again, the possession of the Land is not apromise to the seed only, but to the individual, Jacob, as well. For thisreason Jacob must also be resurrected and possess the Land. As previously, theseed will be greatly multiplied at that time (v. 14). As for Jacob himself,who was now departing from the Land, God will bring him back in his ownlifetime (v. 15).

Sothen, it is on the Abrahamic Covenant, which is reconfirmed through Isaac andJacob and then to all of Jacob's descendants (Gen. 49), that Israel's finalrestoration and possession of the Land is based.

b. The PropheticDevelopment

Thepossession of the Land was further developed in both the law and the prophets.As far as the law is concerned, it is found in Leviticus 26:40‑45. Followingthe regeneration of Israel (vv. 40‑41), God will fully carry out thepromises of the Abrahamic Covenant concerning the Land (v. 42). On thebasis of the Abrahamic Covenant, He will restore to them the Land that has laiddesolate for so long (vv. 43‑45).

Theprophets of Israel developed this facet even further in both the Major andMinor Prophets. One passage is Isaiah 27:12. In this passage, the first aspect(the borders of the land), is brought out. The northern (Euphrates River) andthe southern (the Brook of Egypt) boundaries are possessed for the first timein all of Israel's history. Israel will be able to settle in all of thePromised Land. In another passage, Isaiah 30:23‑26, the second aspect(increased productivity of the land) of the third facet is stressed. The Landwill be well watered and will produce abundant food both for men and animals(vv. 23‑25). Furthermore, there will be a tremendous increase oflight with the moon shining as brightly as the sun, while the light of the sunwill be increased seven times what it is today. As for the deserts of Israel,Isaiah 35:1‑2 states:

The wilderness and the dry landshall be glad; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shallblossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing; the glory of Lebanonshall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon: they shall see theglory of Jehovah, the excellency of our God.

Isaiah later brought out the productivity aspect again in 65:21‑24.With the possession of the Land of Israel, not only will the Jews be able tobuild houses and plant vineyards and crops (v. 21), but they will alsoenjoy the work of their hands, for no enemy will take it from them (vv. 22‑23).They will enjoy it until a ripe old age (v. 24).

Anothermajor prophet, Jeremiah, also stressed the greater productivity of the Land inthe final restoration. According to Jeremiah 31:1‑6, because of God'severlasting love for His people (vv. 1‑3), He intends to restore andbuild them again (v. 4). Once again for Israel there will be a time ofplenty (v. 5), and the hills of Ephraim will echo with the call to comeand worship God in Jerusalem (v. 6). Later, in the same passage, Jeremiahreturned to the theme in 31:11‑14. After the redemption of Israel(v. 11), they will be restored to the Land which will produce an abundance(v. 12), giving joy to all the inhabitants of the Land (vv. 13‑14).

AfterJeremiah, the next major prophet, Ezekiel, picked up the motif of thepossession of the Land in Ezekiel 20:42‑44. Israel is to be brought backinto their Land in accordance with the promises of God to the forefathers inthe Abrahamic Covenant (v. 42). Israel will turn away from her sins of thepast and will detest them (v. 43) and now serve God alone (v. 44).Later, in Ezekiel 28:25‑26, following her regeneration and regathering,Israel will then possess the Land in accordance with the Abrahamic Covenant(v. 25). The security in which Israel will live and enjoy the works of herhands is then emphasized (v. 26). The security aspect, along with theelement of increased productivity, is the theme of Ezekiel 34:25‑31.Since there will no longer be any wild beasts in the Land, Israel will be ableto enjoy the Land in total security (v. 25). The rains will come in theirproper time and in proper amounts (v. 26) increasing the productivity(v. 27a). Not only is Israel to be secure from the wild beasts, but alsofrom all her enemies of the past (vv. 27b‑28). None will come todestroy the crops (v. 29). In every way Israel will be rightly related toGod and will be His peculiar possession (vv. 30‑31). Nor is this theend of the subject as the prophet continued in Ezekiel 36:8‑15. In spiteof years of desolation, the Land is to be tilled again (vv. 8‑9) andpopulated; that is, the inhabitants of the Land will be greatly increased(vv. 10‑11). Israel will again possess the Land (v. 12), andthe production of the Land will be tremendous (vv. 13‑15). Later inthis passage, the prophet further elaborated in Ezekiel 36:28‑38. Ezekieldeclared that Israel will again possess the Land (v. 28) as a result ofher regeneration (v. 29). The reproach of Israel will be removed(v. 30), and Israel will detest her past sins (v. 31). It is not forIsrael's glory (v. 32) that the regeneration (v. 33), possession(v. 34) and the rebuilding of the Land (v. 35) will occur, but it isfor God's own glory among the nations (v. 36). As for Israel, thepopulation will increase and the desolate places will be rebuilt (vv. 37‑38).

Thepossession of the Land is also promised in the Minor Prophets, such as in Joel 2:18‑27.God will be jealous for His Land (v. 18), and this burning jealousy willbring about a great productivity in the Land (v. 19). The Land will besecure from any further invasions (v. 20), and it will produce abundantly(vv. 21‑22). The rains will come at the proper seasons and in properamounts (v. 23), causing a tremendous amount of surplus in their storage(v. 24), recuperating all previous losses due to pestilences (v. 25).Israel will never again be shamed (v. 26), but will have a specialrelationship to God (v. 27). Later, in Joel 3:18, the prophet declaredthat there will be an abundance of water in the Land. The increasedproductivity of the Land is again pointed out in Amos 9:13.

Tosummarize, for the first time in Israel's history, she will possess all of thePromised Land while the Land itself will greatly increase in its productivityand be well watered, all on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant.

B. The LandCovenant

Forlack of a better name, the second covenant is known as the Palestinian Covenantfor it largely concerns the Land known for centuries as Palestine. This is now anunfortunate term for two reasons. First, it was a name given to the Land by theRoman Emperor Hadrian after the Second Jewish Revolt under Bar Cochba (A.D.132-135) for the purpose of erasing any Jewish remembrance of the Land as partof his policy to "de-judaize" the Land. Second, due to the historicalevents in the Middle East since 1948, the name is associated more with Arabsthan with Jews. A better title to use now is "the Land Covenant"since "Palestine" is not a biblical designation anyway.

Thecontent of the Land Covenant is found in Deuteronomy 29:1‑30:20. Althoughthis covenant is within the fifth book of Moses, Deuteronomy 29:1 clearly showsthat the Land Covenant is distinct from the Mosaic Covenant:

These are the words of the covenantwhich Jehovah commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the landof Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

Deuteronomy30:1‑10 states the key provisions of the Land Covenant. Verses 5-10 ofthis passage relate some of the Lord's promises to His people, Israel:

. . . and Jehovah thy Godwill bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shaltpossess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. AndJehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to loveJehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayestlive. And Jehovah thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and onthem that hate thee, that persecuted thee. And thou shalt return and obey thevoice of Jehovah, and do all his commandments, which I command thee this day.And Jehovah thy God will make thee plenteous in all the work of thy hand, in thefruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thyground, for good: for Jehovah will again rejoice over thee for good, as herejoiced over thy fathers; if thou shalt obey the voice of Jehovah thy God, tokeep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of thelaw; if thou turn unto Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thysoul.

Thecovenant was made between God and Israel. Eight provisions can be gleaned fromit. First, Moses prophetically spoke of Israel's coming disobedience to theMosaic Law and subsequent scattering over all the world (29:2‑30:1). Allremaining provisions speak of various facets of Israel's final restoration.Second, Israel will repent (30:2). Third, Messiah will return (30:3). Fourth,Israel will be regathered (30:3‑4). Fifth, Israel will possess thePromised Land (30:5). Sixth, Israel will be regenerated (30:6). Seventh, theenemies of Israel will be judged (30:7). Eighth, Israel will receive fullblessing, specifically the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom (30:8‑10).

1. Its Importance

Thespecial importance of the Land Covenant is that it reaffirmed Israel's titledeed to the Land. Although she would prove unfaithful and disobedient, theright to the Land would never be taken from her. While her enjoyment of theLand is conditioned on obedience, ownership of the Land is unconditional.Furthermore, it shows that the conditional Mosaic Covenant did not lay asidethe unconditional Abrahamic Covenant. It might be taken by some that the MosaicCovenant displaced the Abrahamic Covenant, but the Land Covenant shows thatthis is not true. The Land Covenant is an enlargement of the original AbrahamicCovenant. It amplifies the Land aspect and emphasizes the promise of the Landto God's people in spite of unbelief.

2. ItsReconfirmation

TheLand Covenant received its confirmation centuries later in Ezekiel 16:1‑63.In this very important passage concerning God's relationship to Israel, Godrecounts His love of Israel in her infancy (vv. 1‑7). Israel waschosen by God and became related to Jehovah by marriage and hence became knownas the Wife of Jehovah (vv. 8‑14). Israel, however, played theharlot (vv. 15‑34); therefore, it was necessary to punish Israel bymeans of dispersion (vv. 35‑52). Yet this dispersion is not final,for there will be a future restoration on the basis of the Land Covenant(vv. 53‑63).

TheLand Covenant, being an unconditional covenant, is still very much in effect.

3. Has the LandCovenant Been Fulfilled?

The Land Covenant promised a finalworld‑wide regathering following a world‑wide dispersion. While thefinal regathering is still future, the world‑wide scattering is a presentfact and has been so since A.D. 70. Furthermore, it promised that the Jewswould suffer persecution in the dispersion and the Land would become desolateover the centuries. The fact that all these promises have and are beingfulfilled shows that this covenant is still working itself out.

Akey point of the Land Covenant was to teach that while Israel's enjoyment ofthe Land was based on obedience, her ownership or title deed to the Land wasnot. The failure of all other occupiers of the Land to set up an independentgovernment again shows that this covenant continues to operate.

ManyCovenant Theologians insist that God's promises to Israel concerning the Landhave already been fulfilled and use passages such as Joshua 11:23 as evidence:

So Joshua took the whole land,according to all that Jehovah spake unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for aninheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And theland had rest from war.

However,this verse, like all verses of Scripture, must be kept in context and must beviewed within the Book of Joshua as a whole. Keeping in mind that originallythe Book of Joshua did not have chapter divisions, the verse simply states afact which is then followed by exceptions to the fact. Joshua 11:23 is followedimmediately by chapter 12 which lists the Canaanite kings killed by Israel.Joshua 13:1‑6 shows that a great deal of territory did not fall into thehands of the Israelites and is a sizable exception to the statement of Joshua 11:23.Nor did much of this territory fall into Jewish hands in the immediate futurefollowing Joshua. Jerusalem remained under Jebusite control (Josh. 15:63) untilDavid (II Sam. 5:6-9), and the city of Gezer was held by the Canaanites(Josh. 16:10) until Solomon (I Kings 9:16). The Tribe of Dan had to movebecause they could not take their territory from the Philistines. While Davidand Solomon extended Jewish control close to the borders of the Promised Land,it was not total since Phoenicia (Lebanon) retained its independence to thevery end. Even if Phoenicia had fallen, it would not have fulfilled thecovenant promises for, under David and Solomon, most of the non‑Jewishterritory, such as Syria, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, etc., was merely undermilitary control and they had to pay tribute (I Kings 4:21). This ishardly a fulfillment of a promise which concerned actual possession andsettlement in the Land and not merely military control. This did not happenunder Joshua as the context of 11:23 clearly shows. The first chapter ofJudges, recording events which took place after the death of Joshua (1:1),records how various tribes failed to take the territory allotted to them (1:19,21, 27, 29, 30, 31‑32, 33, 34‑36). Never in Old Testament historydid Israel possess, dwell, and settle in all of the Promised Land. Nor did itever happen in Jewish history since. However, the Land Covenant guarantees thatsome day it will.

4. The PropheticDevelopment

Theregathering of Israel, following the regeneration, is another high point ofprophetic revelation to be found in many of the prophets. In Isaiah 11:11‑12:6,the final regathering is described as the second of the world‑wideregatherings of Israel. The first regathering is the one in unbelief prior tothe Great Tribulation in preparation for judgment. The regathering described inthis passage is the second one (v. 11a), in faith and in preparation forthe millennial blessings. This regathering is not merely local from the nationsof the Middle East (v. 11b), but from all over the world (v. 12).Isaiah then goes on to develop certain characteristics of Israel's finalregathering. First of all, the unity between Israel and Judah will be restored(vv. 13‑14). Second, the final regathering will be accompanied bymiracles (vv. 15‑16): The tongue of the Egyptian Sea, the Gulf ofSuez, will dry up while the Euphrates will be smitten and split up into sevensmaller streams so as to make the regathering that much easier. As a highwaywas made for Israel at the Exodus, there will likewise be one again in thefinal regathering. This will result in songs of praise (vv. 1-6). Later,in Isaiah 27:12‑13, the prophet emphasized the totality of theregathering, for every Jew one-by-one will be brought back into the Land ofIsrael. The magnitude of the final regathering of Israel is described in Isaiah43:5‑7. As far as locality is concerned, the regathering will beworldwide and, to emphasize the fact, all four points of the compass arementioned (vv. 5‑6). The magnitude is then illustrated by the usageof three words: created, formed, and made (v. 7). These three words areused interchangeably in the creation account of Genesis 1‑2. Hence, fromGod's perspective, the final regathering will be on the magnitude of theoriginal creation.

Thecomparative magnitude of the final regathering with previous works of God issomething Jeremiah also pointed out. In Jeremiah 16:14‑15 it is comparedwith the Exodus. Throughout Jewish history, the Exodus has been considered thehigh point of Jewish history, but after the final regathering this will change(v. 14). In the future it will be the final regathering of the Jews thatwill become the high point of Jewish history (v. 15). Later, in Jeremiah 23:3‑4,the prophet stated that from all over the world the Jews are to be regatheredinto the Land where they will produce much fruit (v. 3). Furthermore, Godwill provide righteous leaders who will feed the people with righteousness,justice, and understanding (v. 4). Then there is another comparison withthe Exodus in Jeremiah 23:7‑8. One other passage in Jeremiah that speaksof the regathering is found in 31:7‑10. Following the regeneration ofIsrael (v. 7), all the Jews will be regathered, regardless of their stateof health and regardless of their location (v. 8). There will be nohindrances whatsoever to the regathering (v. 9), for the same One who wasable to scatter them will also be able to regather them (v. 10).

Ezekielpicked up the same motif in 11:14‑18. The same God who scattered Israel(vv. 14‑16) has every intention of regathering them back into theirown Land (v. 17) so that regenerate Israel can cleanse the Land of allpollution (v. 18). Later, the prophet restated this doctrine in Ezekiel 36:24.

TheMinor Prophets were not remiss in speaking of the regathering. One suchprophecy is in Amos 9:14‑15. The emphasis of Amos is on permanency.Israel is to be regathered in order to rebuild the Land (v. 14). In thefinal regathering, God will plant them in the Land so that they will neveragain be uprooted and dispersed out of the Land (v. 15). The prophetZephaniah, whose whole theme was one of judgment, closed his book with apromise of the final regathering in Zephaniah 3:18‑20. The judgment metedout against Israel is the result of her sins (v. 18‑19). Thesejudgments will not have a destructive effect, but a corrective one. Oncecorrection takes place, the regathering will indeed occur, and the finalregathering will cause Israel to be a name and a praise among the Gentilenations (v. 20). The final prophet of the Old Testament to speak of theregathering is Zechariah in 10:8‑12. As Zechariah portrayed the finalregathering, he saw it in terms of "hissing," which is the call of a shepherdfor his scattered sheep (v. 8a). The regathering will be a result of theredemption and regeneration of Israel (vv. 8b‑9). While theregathering is to occur from around the world, there will be a special emphasisupon the Middle East nations (vv. 10‑11). Once all the Jews areregathered, they will never again depart from the Lord (v. 12).

Inthe New Testament, the final regathering revealed by the Old Testament prophetsis summarized in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27. In this passage, Jesus statedthat the angels will be involved in the final regathering and they will bringthe Jews back into the Land. As to locality, the emphasis is on the world-wideregathering. The two passages are a simple summary of all that the prophets hadto say about the second facet of Israel's final restoration. The Matthewpassage is based on Isaiah 27:12-13 and the Mark passage is based onDeuteronomy 30:4. Its purpose was to make clear that the world‑wideregathering predicted by the prophets will be fulfilled only after the secondcoming.

II. A RESPONSE TOSTEPHEN SIZER

InEngland, on March 18, 1997, a debate was held on the topic of "Whose PromisedLand: Israel and Biblical Prophecy." Stephen Sizer essentially argued in favorof Replacement Theology. The purpose of this section is to note the argumentthat he used and respond to them. Some arguments have already been dealt within the earlier part of the paper, and those will be summarized here while moredetail will be given to other arguments.

WhileSizer affirms that Israel does have the right to exist "within secure butinternationally recognized borders," he relegates that to being strictly a "politicalquestion" rather than a theological one. He states that he opposesanti-Semitism, but then states, "remembering that the Arabs are a Semitic racealso." That is a new tactic taken by people who are anti-Semitic but are notactually affirming it. The assumption is that if they are pro-Arab they are notanti-Semitic. However, the person who first coined the phrase "anti-Semitism"made it clear that he was applying it only to Jews and not to other Semiticgroups such as Arabs. Historically the term is applicable only to Jews.

Furthermore,concerning Israel's right to exist at the present time, it is not purely a"political question." It must be recognized that the Bible speaks of twodifferent worldwide regatherings to the Promised Land. The second worldwideregathering is in faith in preparation for the blessings of the MessianicKingdom, and this was discussed earlier in the paper. However, the firstworldwide regathering is in unbelief in preparation for the judgment andtribulation, and this was spoken of in passages such as Ezekiel 20:33-38;22:17-22; Zephaniah 2:1-2; et al.Israel's present place in the Land is indeed not purely a political issue butis very much a theological issue as well. Whether there will be a temporaryPalestinian State set up in the near future is something only God knows. At thepresent time, leaders of the major parties in Israel are in favor of it. But,that is a political question. However, Israel's right to the Land whether nowor in the future is a theological issue and is not purely political.

Noris the issue about Palestinians having "fundamental human rights and freedomsenshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Yet, if thePalestinians were willing to live in peace with Israel, they would have all ofthese rights even now. As long as their aim is to destroy Israel as it exists,whether it is the present borders or the pre-1967 borders, they have to betreated as enemies and cannot be given total freedom.

Theway Sizer presents the case is as follows:

The central theological questionis this: Does possession of the Land by Jewish people today, and existence ofthe State of Israel, have any theological significance in terms of thefulfillment of biblical prophecy within the purposes of God? Or should webelieve that this understanding of the Land is inconsistent with the Gospelproclaimed by, and summed up in, Jesus Christ? The question is whether we havegood biblical and theological reasons for giving whole-hearted support to theZionist vision? Or do we find in Scripture grounds for criticising andrejecting this ideology as sub-Christian or heretical?

Sizergoes on to present seven propositions, and his citations are from people whocome from an Amillennial perspective.

Hisfirst proposition is "The Relationship of the Old Covenant to the NewCovenant." In this section the author claims that certain passages show thatthe latter "fulfills and annuls the former." He goes on to claim that we should"read the Scriptures with Christian eyes, and that we interpret the OldCovenant in the light of the New Covenant, not the other way round." Thepassages he presents include Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 8:1-6; and 10:1.However, none of these passages say that the covenantal passages discussedearlier have been annulled. The only covenant that has been renderedinoperative by Messiah's death is the Mosaic Covenant, but as has been shownearlier, this does not apply to the other Jewish covenants, particularly theAbrahamic and Land Covenants. If Deuteronomy 29 has been literally fulfilledwith the worldwide dispersion of the Jews, equally chapter 30 should also befulfilled, which calls for the final restoration of the Jewish people back intothe Land. Proving that the Mosaic Covenant has come to an end does not proveSteven Sizer's point since the Land Promises were given in the Abrahamic andLand Covenants and not in the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant declaredthat the enjoyment of the Land was conditional on obedience but did not negateownership of the Land due to disobedience. Furthermore, it is incorrect to saythat the Old Testament should be interpreted by the New Testament because ifthat is the case, the Old Testament had no meaning and seemed to be irrelevantto the ones to whom it was spoken. On the contrary, the validity of the NewTestament is seen by how it conforms to what was already revealed in the OldTestament. The Book of Mormon and other books by cultic groups fail to standbecause they contradict the New Testament. By the same token, if the NewTestament contradicts the Old Testament, it cannot stand. It is one thing tosee fulfillment in the New Testament, but it is quite another to see the NewTestament so totally reinterpret the Old Testament that what the Old Testamentsays carries no meaning at all. That is Sizer's fallacy. He states, "Thequestion is not whether the promises of the covenant are to be understoodliterally or spiritually. It is instead a question of whether they should beunderstood in terms of Old Covenant shadow or in terms of New Covenant reality.This is the basic hermeneutical assumption I will make." However, this is afaulty hermeneutical principle. Rather than deriving his hermeneutics fromScripture, he imposes his hermeneutic on the Scripture. Whether he admits it ornot, he does favor a spiritual hermeneutic in place of a literal one. Sizerdoes point out correctly that the New Testament shows that Jesus did fulfillvarious facets of the Old Testament such as the sacrificial system, the mannafrom Heaven, the water from the rock, and the serpent on the pole. All of theseare typologies and he can prove this very easily since the New Testament makesthese very specific designations. However, the New Testament nowhere says thatthe Land Promise has already been fulfilled, and as has been shown earlier, theNew Testament assumes that the Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled yetin the future (i.e., Matthew 24:31).

Sizer'ssecond proposition is "The Meaning of the Abrahamic Covenant." As the authorbegins to deal with the Abrahamic Covenant he makes the statement, "We mustbegin our consideration of the Abrahamic Covenant not in Genesis 12 but Genesis2." He does this to try to show that the Garden of Eden is the first placethere is a mention of land, and of course, Adam and Eve lost that with thefall. He states, "This land of paradise was lost in the Fall but a foretaste ofheaven is reflected in the imagery of the promise made to Abraham." In tryingto interpret Genesis 12 by Genesis 2, the author can do away with a physicalland and simply see images of Heaven. That is his own connection and the Bibleitself never makes this connection. Never in the Abrahamic Covenant is thereany illusion to the Garden of Eden. When he deals with the promise of the AbrahamicCovenant and how God defined the Land to Moses, he focuses on the Land filledwith milk and honey. He goes on to say that "These images are paradigms. Theland of the Bible is not and never did flow with milk and honey." That againallows him to move into a symbolic and allegorical interpretation and not aliteral one. However, what he ignores is that even the ten spies who said suchbad things about the Land agreed that it was a land filled with milk and honey.That was simply a figure of speech meaning the Land was a good land for grazingcattle (milk) and growing products (dates and honey). The fact that this figureof speech was used to describe the Land did not take away from the literalLand. To claim that the literal Land was not God's focus is quite a stretch,especially since the specific borders are given. The author states, "The landin the Old Covenant was not an end in itself," and this is true, however, itplays a major role in God's prophetic program. He also makes the point, correctly,"The tabernacle, the place of worship in the Old Covenant was never intended tohave a settled location in God's plan of redemption. It pointed to Christ whowould tabernacle among His people in the incarnation." This is all true, butit is also a smoke screen because it does not deal with the specific issue ofthe Land of promise. Yes, the New Testament does say that the death of Jesusfulfilled the function of the tabernacle. But, the New Testament does not saythe death of Jesus fulfilled the promise of the Land. Because of hisAmillennial approach, the author sees only the heavenly cities as being whatGod promised to Abraham, and then states, "This is the only legitimateinterpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant." How could that be "the only legitimateinterpretation" if it ignores the obvious statements that the Jews were topossess all of the Promised Land from the Euphrates River in the north and theRiver of Egypt in the south? The fact that Abraham's son was to possess thisLand is not fulfilled by his mere entry into Heaven. What God told Abraham todo in Genesis 13:17 was to walk through the whole Land because everywhere hewalked he would someday own it. This walk becomes meaningless if all God waspromising Abraham was Heaven. While the author keeps denying that he isresorting to an allegorical interpretation that is exactly what he is doing.The writer goes on to make another correct statement with a faulty conclusion,"One more thing about the Land. The Land never belongs to Israel in the Torah."True enough, the Land belongs to God, but God keeps saying over and over againthat He will give the Land to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to thedescendants of the Patriarchs. Again, he is using a true statement to make asmokescreen while ignoring other Scriptures that would negate what he issaying. The writer then uses the passage in Joshua, which was dealt withearlier, to prove that the Land Promise has already been fulfilled. This hasalready been dealt with earlier in the paper.

Sizer'sthird proposition is "The Promise of Exile and Return." In this section, unlikeother Replacement Theologians, he admits that the Jewish people never possessedall of the Promised Land and not even in the days of Solomon did they possessall of the Promised Land, commenting that their slipping into idolatry kept itfrom happening. He goes on to admit that there were prophecies of a moreglorious future after the return from Babylon, but goes on to state:

But God's prophets were notdistracted from their vision of the greatness of God's redemptive work. In factthey paint a picture of restoration so glorious that it cannot be containedwithin the boundaries of the Old Covenant form of realization. Haggai andZechariah, for example give us a picture of what is to come to God's peoplethat breaks all the bonds of the Old Covenant shadow forms. Zechariah 2 saysthat Jerusalem shall be a city without walls, so expansive it cannot bemeasured. Instead it would have a wall of fire around it. The reconstructed templewould manifest a greater glory than Solomon's magnificent structure.

Having said all of this, he doesnot take these Scriptures literally but takes them allegorically while he stillclaims that the issue is not a difference between a literal and an allegoricalinterpretation. Because the focus is on spiritual redemption and not adding toit the promise of physical redemption, he really does miss the point.Therefore, all of it is allegorized as having already been fulfilled with theNew Covenant with no future fulfillment to be expected. He interprets this asfollows, "This vision found its fulfilment (sic) only in the days of the NewCovenant since when people worship not in Jerusalem or Samaria but everywheresince the shekinah glory of God is present with every child of God. So,according to the irreversible fulfilment (sic) values of the New Covenant, itis the Jerusalem above not the Jerusalem below that is the mother of us all."For him, that is the totality of the fulfillment, but that is hardly anywherenear as glorious as what is originally described. Even Hebrews 12:22 isallegorized when he says, "whenever we assemble for worship, we are meeting inthe presence of the angels in the real Jerusalem." But the author of Hebrewswas describing that passage as something that was taking place in Heaven nothere on earth. Sizer then concludes that once we have achieved what we havethrough Christ, "never again would the revelation from God suggest that hispeople should aspire to the paradigms of the Old Covenant." What he fails toanswer is the question of where in the Old Testament does it say that thoseprophecies will not be fulfilled in the future? Proving that the function ofthe tabernacle was fulfilled by the Messiah's death is not the same as provingthat the Land Promise was fulfilled by His death. Furthermore, the tabernaclewas a literal structure with a known sacrifice of animal blood, and the deathof Christ was a literal death with Messiah's blood. Why allegorize away so muchthat can be taken at face value? Again, his method seems to be that if youprove point one then you have automatically proven point two. But, that doesnot follow. Yes, he has proven point one, the tabernacle and temple werefulfilled with the death of Christ, but he has not proven that the Land Promisewas fulfilled in the same way. He is trying to prove things by analogy and notby exegesis. Where passages do contradict him, he simply allegorizes it away.

His fourthproposition is "The Ethical Requirements of the Covenant Relationship." Hisopening paragraph here is, "The promise of land was never an unconditionalright, but always a conditional gift." What this shows is a lack of reading thetext in a careful manner. In fact the promise of the Land was unconditional. Itwas the enjoyment of the Land that was conditional. The prophecy is clearlystated that if Israel is disobedient there will be exile from the Land and theywill be scattered throughout the world. The same prophecies (and there is noneed to allegorize them away) go on to state that someday there will be anational repentance and God will bring them back to "their land." Here again,he tries to prove point two by proving point one. He proved correctly thatIsrael had been disobedient, but he does not prove that therefore, there is norestoration. He tries to assert that Israel in its previous disobedience hasrendered null and void any possible future promises. Yet, the promise is madein many passages that someday there will be a national repentance and thenthere will be a final restoration. Again, there is no question that Israel'snational salvation is the prerequisite to Israel's final restoration, whichwill occur before the second worldwide regathering. That will certainly fulfillthe ethical requirements of the covenantal relationship. At the same time, hetotally ignores the prophecies that speak of a worldwide regathering inunbelief in preparation for judgment. But, even that regathering is somethingGod accomplishes. He keeps quoting verses that state the requirement ofIsrael's righteous living, but the point he misses is that the prophecies statethat someday Israel will attain that righteousness when they turn to God infaith. The author asserts from Deuteronomy 30:1-5 that "repentance is always acondition of return." Again, that is correct as far as the final return infaith in preparation for the blessings of the Kingdom, and that will not comeuntil Israel turns away from rejecting the Messiah to accepting Him. Hereagain, that was not the condition of the regathering in unbelief. He states,"The assertion that the events subsequent to the founding of the State ofIsrael in 1948 indicate God's blessing on the Jewish people is totally withoutfoundation in Scripture." He would be correct if he was only asserting that itdoes not fulfill the promises of Israel's final restoration. But, he isincorrect in asserting that Israel has no right to exist because he ignores theprophecies of their regathering in unbelief, and more to the point, he ignoresthe clear statements of Scripture that Israel's ownership of the Land iseternal and unconditional. His article continues to confuse the differencebetween ownership of the Land and enjoyment of the Land. He keeps assertingthat Israel has no right to the Land apart from "faith and obedience." However,that was not the basis for the promise of ownership of the Land, which wasstrictly unconditional. The issue was the enjoyment of the Land either by exileout of the Land, or living in the Land in peace. His place of confusion can beseen in the following paragraph:

My question to Christian Zionistsis therefore this. If you appeal to Genesis to claim the promise of the Land,what about Exodus and the commandments not to steal, kill and covet? If youbelieve in the predictive element of prophecy, what about the prophetic demandfor justice? Isn't the present Israeli governments (sic) policy of forciblyJudaizing occupied East Jerusalem a 20^th century parallel to Ahabstealing Naboth's vineyard? Where are the Elijah's (sic) among the ChristianZionist's (sic) who, out of love for the Jewish people, are prepared to speak aprophetic warning to the Ahab's (sic) in the government of Israel today? Ibelieve we have every right to insist, that the stronger the claim to the Landis made allegedly on the basis of scripture, the more Christian Zionists mustexpect and indeed invite the whole world to judge what the Jews have done inthe Land by the moral standards of those same Scriptures.

It should be noticed that theauthor makes it an either/or proposition instead of making it both/and. One canappeal to the promises of Scripture that the Land belongs to Israel and at thesame time insist that Israel maintain religious standards and equal rights forall of its citizens. (Palestinians, except for Israeli Arabs, do not haveIsraeli citizenship nor do they want it.) Here again, the author makes thisaspect of the Mosaic Law a condition for ownership of the Land, but that neveroccurs. Moses describes Israel as both being driven from "their Land" and beingbrought back to "their Land." In other words, it is always Israel's Land givento them unconditionally. However, the enjoyment of the Land is conditioned onobedience. Therefore, they might be in the Land but experiencing conflict,which is the case at the present time. They might also be exiled from the Landas happened in AD 70. To live in the Land in total peace would require anational regeneration, and the prophecies clearly state that this will somedayoccur. Furthermore, the author has been clearly victimized by press reports andseems to totally ignore the Israeli side of the equation even from a purelyhuman standpoint.

The fifth proposition is "The Landin the Teaching of Jesus." His opening paragraph states, "Teaching about theLand is conspicuous by its absence in the teaching of Jesus." He does go on ina subsequent paragraph to state, "There are less than five explicit referencesto the Land in the Gospels and these are indirect." Then he goes on to deny theliteral impact. The author is guilty of a double fallacy. First, based upon theassumption that the Land is not mentioned or is barely mentioned in the NewTestament, it therefore proves that the Land promise no longer applies. That isa fallacy. A second fallacy is that the lack of mention proves that Jesusalready fulfilled the Land Promise and, yet, the New Testament never makes thatstatement as it does with the other facets that He did fulfill. It has alreadybeen shown earlier in the paper that while the New Testament does not say asmuch about the Land as the Old Testament, it does have some things to say thatclearly parallel the Old Testament prophecies. Furthermore, the New Testamentdoes not have to mention something specific from the Old Testament to maintainthat the Old Testament promise is ongoing. What the author needs is a clearstatement that says all the Land Promises have been fulfilled in at least aspiritual way, but this does not exist in the New Testament. Again, provingpoint one does not prove point two. He is trying to include a lot ofconclusions based upon an argument from silence but it is no more than that: anargument from silence. While he states that in Luke 19:41-44, Jesus promisedthe judgment upon the Jewish people, but "did not promise there would beanother return to the Land," on the other hand the author does not deal withLuke 21:20-24 that goes on to say the Jews will be scattered until the Times ofthe Gentiles be fulfilled. That clearly implies that following the Times of theGentiles there will be a restoration.

His sixth proposition is "The Landin the Teaching of the Apostles." In response to the question raised by theDisciples in Acts 1:6 as to whether He will at this time restore the kingdom toIsrael, the author states, "Jesus' reply shows him correcting not only theirconcept of time but also their view of ministry." And yet, the response ofJesus only stated it was not for them to know "the times and seasons" when thekingdom would be restored to Israel. The timing of that event is in theFather's hand. Their responsibility now is to perform a ministry, but thisministry is not in place of Israel's final restoration but in addition toIsrael's final restoration. His claim, "They are sent out into the world butnever told to return," reads too much into the verse. They are never told notto return either. But, they are to make sure the Gospel gets out to the Jewfirst and also to the Greek. Throughout this segment, all the Land Promises aresimply allegorized away claiming that "Land in the New Covenant context has nowcome to fulfillment in the purposes of God." For him, the Land Promises havebeen fulfilled with the Great Commission: "The limitations of the land typeunder the Old Covenant has been broken so that it stretches as far as the GreatCommission to the uttermost ends of the earth." He derives all of this from theanswer of Jesus to the Disciples. But, a reading of the passage shows it simplystates that it was not for them to know the timing of the restoration of thekingdom for Israel, but their function will be to do the work they arecommissioned to do in the Book of Acts. The thrust of the passage is thatsometime in the future God will restore the kingdom to Israel. While the authorresorts to Paul's type of allegorical usage in Galatians 4:20-31, he makes afalse application from it. True, Paul did use a type of logical and/orallegorical interpretation, but it was for the purpose of illustrating a point,not for the purpose of denying a literal truth. For example, he in no waydenies there was a literal Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Hagar, Rebecca, andJerusalem. These were obviously literal persons and events in the Old Testamentand they typify certain truths in the New Testament. That is far from sayingthat these people never existed. What the author does in his allegory is to usethis to justify saying that the Land Promises are not to be fulfilledliterally. It is one thing to use the Land to typify a spiritual truth, but itis quite another to say that the Land will never literally be returned toIsrael. Just as Paul's examples were all literal people that typified spiritualtruth, by the same token, the Land is literal land that can also typifyspiritual truth. The author concludes this segment stating, "There is nosuggestion that the Apostles believed that the Jewish people still have adivine right to the Land, or that the Jewish possession of the Land would be animportant let alone central aspect of God's plan for the world. In theChristological logic of Paul, the Land, like the Law, both particular andprovisional had now become quite irrelevant." However, the very question theApostles raised in Acts 1:6 shows they still saw the Land as important and stilllooked forward to a future time when the Kingdom would be restored to Israel.They had simply come to realize that it would not happen in their lifetime, butthey realized it would someday indeed happen. Note again that the author triesto compare the Land and the Law as being in the same category. Again, he triesto prove point two by proving point one. Yes, it is correct that the Law hasbeen rendered inoperative with the Messiah's death. A number of passages teachthis. But, where is there one passage in the New Testament that teaches thatthe promise of the Land has also been rendered inoperative? In spite of hisdogmatic assertion, he has not actually produced a single verse to establishhis claim and he ignores all of the passages noted in this paper that showedthe opposite. Furthermore, the Land Promise is not based on the Mosaic Law buton the Abrahamic Covenant, which Paul taught was ongoing.

His seventh proposition is "TheFuture of the Jewish People." While he admits that "Paul looks forward to amore glorious future for the Jewish people (Romans 9-11)," he insists that thisdoes not include the Land. He quotes Romans 9:4-5 and points out that "Paulomits only one blessing, the Land." What he ignores is that Paul mentions thecovenants, and as was shown in thebeginning of the paper, the Land Promise is a major facet of the covenants. Ifyou take away the covenants, you can take away the Land: but, since the authorincludes the covenants, you cannot take away the Land. There again, he issuesan argument purely from silence: "Paul's silence about the Land does notsuggest that he still held on to a Jewish theology of the Land, rather that hehad modified it very considerably." On the contrary, Paul's silence shows thatthe issue of the Land was not something that was a point of debate but was aforegone conclusion that God will bring the Jews back into the Land. This isimplied in Romans 11:25-27. The fact that Paul never says that the death ofJesus fulfilled all of the Land Promises in some spiritual way is evidenceenough that it did not happen. The author desperately needs such a statement,but he does not have it and has to resort to a faulty argument from silence.

These are the seven propositionsthe author makes, and furthermore, they will stand or fall determined by therejection or acceptance of his hermeneutical principle that one must interpretthe Old Testament by the New Testament. It is more correct to interpret theNew Testament by the Old Testament since that came first. But, more to thepoint, every passage must be interpreted within its own context and the meaningmust be determined by what it means in that context. Since no Scripture willcontradict another, then it can be seen how the promise extends further down.If the Old Testament in its own context promised a worldwide dispersionfollowed by a worldwide restoration, both parts of that prophecy must be seento be fulfilled in the same way: literally. The Jews were dispersed throughoutthe world and they must someday be regathered from all parts of the world. Theauthor raises this question towards Christian Zionists: "What difference didthe coming of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus make to the traditionalJewish hopes and expectations about the Land and People?" This is not the wayto ask the question. The proper way to ask the question is, "What differencedid the coming of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus make to theprophecies of the Old Testament?" Can these prophecies be rendered null andvoid? In so far as the First Coming prophecies, they were all literallyfulfilled. By the same token the prophecies of the future Israel must also beliterally fulfilled. Whatever else will be gained by the coming of the Messiah,it cannot be the rendering of God's previous promises null and void.

The author goes on to state, "Wecannot interpret the Old Covenant as if the coming of Jesus made little or nodifference to these particular aspects of the hopes of first century Judaism." Here again, he is stating the issue the wrong way. The issue is not how itaffected "the hopes of first century Judaism," but how it affects the totalityof the messianic concept of the Old Testament. If the Jews in the first centuryhad some wrong conclusions, those could easily be rendered null and void. Thatis a far cry from saying that the actual prophecies of the Old Testament wouldbe rendered null and void. That is the kind of false logic the author makes.

The author draws a conclusionclaiming we have only two options to choose from: "The choice before us isultimately a choice between two theologies. One based primarily on the shadowsof the Old Covenant and one based on the reality of the New Covenant." Hereagain is a very faulty presentation. The issue is not two theologies becausethere is only one biblical theology that permeates both testaments. The realissue is a choice between taking all of these prophecies literally, unless thetext tells us otherwise, or taking them allegorically when there is noobjective reason to do so.

That is the essence of his argumentalthough he closes with some statements that Israel cannot have peace in the"Occupied Territories" until "she acts with justice and reciprocity toward thePalestinians." This is more political than biblical, but I can say this much.First, he ignores the actual reason why Israel has occupied these territoriessince 1967. She has done this because masses of armies were gathering along theGaza Strip, the Sinai Border, the Syrian Border, and the West Bank with theintent to destroy Israel. Israel defeated this threat in the Six Day War.Second, the Palestinians have consistently rejected all peace efforts byIsrael, both before and after that conflict. Even when Barak offered them over95% of the territory they wanted, he was turned down with no counteroffer. Whatthe author is ignoring is that, thus far, the Arab aim has not been to merelyestablish a Palestinian State that will live side by side with Israel but theattempt to destroy Israel as a State. No true Koran-believing Moslem couldever accept Israel's right to exist. As long as the Palestinians refuse torecognize Israel's right to exist, refuse every peace offer, and insist onterrorist attacks (even having their own children blow themselves up just forthe sake of killing Jews), there cannot be peace. Israel is not totallyinnocent in all of her actions, but the author has blamed everything on Israel.In spite of his claim that Israel has a right to exist, he has not extended asingle blame on what the Arab side has done. This is selective reading of thepolitical news. But for us, the final issue is not what is politicallyexpedient, but what is biblical.