The Loss of the Land

“This stone … will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God” (Josh. 24:27, author’s translation).

It is often said that God made an unconditional covenant with Abraham and the Jewish people, to give them the land of Palestine forever. On this basis, it is concluded that anything the current state of Israel does to possess the entirety of the land of the Bible should be approved by Christians. Even if Israel finds it necessary to take extreme measures to possess this divine promise, and even if it is not perfect in the way in which it proceeds, yet it is on God’s side. As a consequence, its overall efforts must be approved.

But Joshua’s renewal of the covenant at the end of the conquest of the land includes a clear “IF!” He says, “ ‘If you forsake the covenant Lord … He will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after He has been good to you’ ” (Josh. 24:20, author’s translation). God clearly has placed an unalterable condition to the promises of His covenant. To better understand the conditional nature of the covenant, consider the following:

First, there is only one covenant of redemption, stretching from Adam to Christ. It embraces God’s covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David, and it includes the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is simply not the case that God first made an “unconditional” covenant with Abraham, followed by a “conditional” covenant with Moses, followed by an “unconditional” covenant with David. Scripture plainly states that God introduced His covenant with Abraham with a command, which was followed with a promise. “ ‘Leave your fatherland,’ ” the Lord demanded (Gen. 12:1, author’s translation). Then, and only then, would he possess the land. If Abraham had refused to exercise his faith in leaving the idols of his fatherland, would he ever have possessed the promise of the land? Of course not. Still further, God commanded that Abraham and his descendants walk before Him in perfection and be circumcised (Gen. 17:1, 9–10). Any Israelite who refused to be circumcised was to be “ ‘cut off from his people’ ” (Gen. 17:14). The later specifics of the Mosaic covenant add nothing of substance to the all-embracing conditions of the Abrahamic covenant.

Nowhere in the Bible do you find the term “unconditional” applied to God’s covenants. Apart from faith in the one true living God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, no one can inherit the covenantal promises of God. Apart from faith in Jesus as the promised Christ, the Jewish people are not heirs of any of God’s covenantal commitments.

Second, national Israel already has been dispossessed from the land of the Bible twice, and it could happen again. In 722 and 586 B.C., the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were driven into exile. And in 70 A.D., Israel was expelled from the land by the Romans. In each case, the lack of faith that led to moral corruption brought the covenant’s curses on the nation.

Why was Israel dispossessed from the land? As Jesus said so clearly, “ ‘The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit’ ” (Matt. 21:43, NIV). Israel did not produce the fruit of a living faith in the God of the covenant. The people did not fulfill the conditions for enjoying the blessings of the covenant.

Do the conditions of the covenant still hold today? Of course they do. It must not be assumed that the nation of Israel today can possess the promises of God apart from saving faith in Jesus as the Christ and apart from bearing the proper fruits of that faith.

In the current situation of today, people are too inclined to focus on the predictive message of the prophets while ignoring their moral message. They were bold in applying the conditions of the covenant to their contemporaries, and the spokesmen of the church should do the same today. If the people of Israel are guilty of the sin of unbelief regarding Jesus as their promised Messiah, how can it be supposed that they will possess the land in perpetuity? In renewing the covenant, Joshua made the point as plainly as possible—the land will be lost to covenant-breakers.

Third, “Israel” is not simply “Israel,” and the “land” is not simply the “land.” It must be noted that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6) and that the “Promised Land” cannot be restricted to the land of the Bible. All who believe in Jesus as the Christ, regardless of their racial background, are the seed of Abraham and heirs of the covenantal promise regarding the land (Gal. 3:29). But the Promised Land is merely a picture of paradise. As the New Testament itself says, Abraham was promised that he would be “heir of the cosmos” (Rom. 4:13, author’s translation). A “return” of “Israel” to the “land” cannot fulfill the intent of God’s covenant promise to remove the curse from a fallen world. Instead, it is the “resurrection” of “God’s elect people” to the enjoyment of a “restored paradise” that will fulfill the promise of the covenant.

Let the people of God today enlarge their vision of the promise of the covenant so that it fits the greatness of our God. Let us recognize that God is glorified in His justice when He decrees the loss of the land to all unbelievers. And let us live in the hope of the restoration of all things at the return of Christ.