Church of All Nations

An illustration from 'The Brick Testament' -- the Bible recreated in Lego

delivered 8 March 2009
by Rev. Dr John Evans

Genesis 17:1-8, 15-16
Psalm 22:23-31
Romans 4:13-25
Mark 8:31-38

The covenant between God and the aged Abraham and his wife Sarah, is in part recorded in the following way:

And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God. (Gen 17:7-8)

Does this promise still hold? Does this promise of God to Abraham and his descendants for the land of Canaan, as a perpetual holding, still apply?

We ought not underestimate the significance of the question – theologically: is God faithful, still faithful, to these covenants? And in a geopolitical sense – for us today in the 21^st century, we know the relationship between Israel and Palestine is THE international question driving most major crises. From the shooting last week of the Sri Lankan cricketers in Lahore, to our own nation’s engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the relationship of Israel and its Arab neighbours is at its heart. It is little wonder that the lectionary writer dropped Genesis 17:8 from our readings: those fateful words “I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land”!

But first we need to be clear on the theological dimension of this and our other readings this morning.

Abraham is seen as the great person of faith – respected within Jewish, Islamic and Christian traditions. Indeed Paul takes Abraham, in his discussion with the Christians at Rome about works and the observance of the law, as the great example of a person of faith. Abraham believed he would be a father of many nations. Paul says Abraham did not “weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was already as good as dead”. And in verse 20, “No distrust made him waiver concerning the promises of God”. This faith, Paul says, quoting the Hebrew scriptures, “was reckoned to him as righteousness”. It was, as Paul then concludes, his faith which put him right relationship with God, not, one might add, his works or observance of the law.

However, Paul in this passage also continues to wrestle with the nature of God – in particular how God can be a moral deity, holy if you like, and still seek to bring sinners and ungodly people into a relationship with God’s own self. And in this context the passage from Romans makes three critical affirmations about God. First, God is the one who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (4:17). God is about life, life in the face of the seemingly impossible. Faith, then, means giving space to the surprising power of God, refusing to settle for what is possible or what is reasonable. God is the creator.

The second affirmation about God in the text is that God does what God has promised (Rom. 4:21). The all-powerful God is not turned into a genie who redirects the course of bullets and guarantees that all our crises will have happy endings –- as we might want. Rather, the context for our reflection about God’s activity in the world and in our lives are God’s own divine promises. For us, the particular promise of Romans 4 that shapes our faith in God’s miracle-working presence is the pledge that God justifies the ungodly, and that in the day of reckoning it is not the deeds done or not done but the certain mercy of a forgiving Judge that will apply (vs. 4–5, 16).

The third affirmation made about God designates him as the one “who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (v. 24). God is the creator and affirmer of life; God is the promise keeper, but God is also the redeemer. What has been promised becomes gospel in Jesus’ death and resurrection. The One in whom both Abraham and Paul trusted has given a more complete self-revelation, has brought forgiveness of sins, and has set things right.

So this is how Paul uses the story of Abraham – but what do we make of God the promise keeper, when it involves “the pledge of the land of Canaan” to the Jews? Paul, grappling with this issue of the various covenants made with the Jewish people, is quite clear. Even though the Jews were unfaithful, their unfaithfulness does not nullify the faithfulness of God (Romans 3:2-4). The Jews have the covenants and “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).

However, down the ages – the church has struggled with this question and its own relationship with the Jews. Augustine and others have argued that the Jews lost their title to the land because they crucified Jesus. This is quickly becomes what we call supersessionism – the idea that Christianity supersedes Judaism – with its arrogance and anti-Semitism being plain for all to see.

At the other end of the scale, so to speak, we have those Christians who totally support the Jewish claim to the land – even to the exclusion of Palestinian Christians – because at this point the Jewish view of the end times and these people’s view of the end times requires Jewish occupation of the land – and even the rebuilding of the temple, in Jerusalem, as a precondition of the return of Christ. Christian Zionism it is called. And thus in the United States there is this powerful, and seemingly improbable combination, of very conservative Christians with Jewish groups, who are very pro-Israel on these questions.

Now usually at this point, Christians like ourselves despair. From supersessionists and holocaust deniers on the one hand, to those advocating the destruction of Palestinian settlements on the other – all in the name of Christianity. We are left flummoxed – and I might say, mildly annoyed. So we appeal to values like tolerance and justice. This should be the measure of how this particular issue should be resolved, we say. And of course that should be the case – indeed should always be the case in whatever circumstance.

But we still do have a problem. As I said at the start, when it comes to Genesis 17:8 and the covenant about the land of Canaan, does the promise still hold? It is a very concrete, practical issue with profound theological implications – or perhaps it is the other way around; a theological issue with profound practical implications.

Gary Anderson, in a very recent Christian Century article, suggests a way forward. He refers to the work of the Israeli Biblical scholar Uriel Simon. It is not a complete resolution of our issue, but it can help. Simon distinguishes two sorts of claims a people may make on a land. The first type pertains to the overwhelming majority of nations states: they make a natural claim, that is a certain piece of land belongs to them because that is where they have dwelt for many generations. There they have raised their children and buried their ancestors and created a distinctive local culture. Our Aboriginal brothers and sisters have this claim; and as we know, it clashes with what we call the sovereignty of the crown – but that is another story. I think you get the picture – there is a natural claim to the land.

Simon suggests that the Jews’ claim to land is of a different order – it is not by conventional circumstances – it came as a gift of God. It is a supernatural as opposed to a natural claim. Simon suggests that for a natural claim to the land, occupation and identity are closely linked. If a people are uprooted; driven off, the connection is broken. So when, for example, the Hittites were driven from their land (a very powerful nation in comparison to the Jewish nation in ancient times), their identity as a people came to an end. There are no Hittites today; but there are still Jews in Helsinki, Johannesburg, New York, Melbourne and Jerusalem. Simon asks, is this not part of a divine preference for this peculiar people? A part of this supernatural gift?

You see Israel’s claim to the land is not continuous – it is marked by rupture. Exile to Babylon, and then the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, are the two notable events. And when one looks at the Abraham story, the birth of the nation and the gift of the land were not an end in themselves. Rather, through that choice, God sought to bring blessing to a troubled world – to all. Through Abraham, the nature of God’s relationship with all humanity was to be known. And even when you look at the promise itself – Abraham’s descendants had to wait hundreds of years before they could take possession of it. Israel’s occupation of the land is conditional – as the many prophets remind us. These prophets saw Israel forsaking God’s ways, and so were carried off into exile. They lost the land. Only in the messianic age, the end times, will Israel’s settlement in the land be secure and final, but then the lion will also lie down with lamb and there will be God’s peace.

Through all of this Simon’s way of looking at this profound problem is helpful. Anderson writes:

If we construe Israel’s claim to the land as part of a providential right and presume, as Simon does, that though Israel’s claim to the land is continuous and eternal, its actual physical possession of it is not, then we are not put into the uncomfortable position of saying that any particular form of the Jewish state is divinely mandated from now until eternity. Rather, the uniqueness of Israel has been its ability to retain a corporate identity as a people in spite of long periods of exile.

So when Jews obtained Israel, perhaps miraculously obtained Israel, after WWII, this was not the end in itself; it was a physical, real enough sign – that the promise of God again was unfolding, and that a Jewish nation could be a blessing to the world. Unfortunately, it became false messianism – strict Zionism – in which there is the belief that by sheer human will the promises of God would be achieved, rather than having God, bring about God’s gift. At the end of the day, since the time of Abraham, the gift of the land is conditional.

The challenge for the church today is, can we move from our attitude of toleration and seeking justice; to bold theological affirmation – if you like, like what the Apostle Paul did in his letter to the Romans? An opening affirmation – amidst all of this could be – at the end of the day it is God, God the creator who owns, if that is the word, all the land. Israel, or any nation state, is just the steward of it. . . . a fact we are all too rapidly finding out in our current environmental crisis.

Secondly, any claim of Israel to the land, that it has that special relationship with the land – is conditional. Israel is to be a blessing to all. Indeed one of those conditions for having the land may be that it is not exclusively just for Jews. Even in his vision of restoration, Ezekiel calls for apportioning land to “the aliens who reside among you” alongside land allotted to the returning Jew. They, the aliens, “shall be to you as citizens of Israel.” So that is the geopolitical part.

The theological affirmations remain – God is faithful and just, God is the giver of life – the creator; and God in Christ redeems all people.