5
2009
Genesis 17:8 and the Two State Solution
An article by 
God speaking to Abraham - “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.” Genesis 17:8 (NRSV)
Before we go any further, it is important to point out that many English translations of this passage use phrases such as “everlasting posession” indicating a gift that is in place eternally, rather than the phrase employed by the NRSV – “perpetual holding”. We’ll come to this very soon, because it is extremely important to this discussion.
I have decided to add another discussion about the biblical approach to the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict because this passage seems to be the central one informing the approach of many Christians to this Middle East crisis. I would like to have a place to point people when this verse comes up. This post will serve as that place.
This verse also informed the political approach of many who furthered the foundation of the modern Jewish state as a homeland for Jews being persecuted throughout Europe in the late 19th century through to the founding of the state in the mid 20th century.
Allow me to state emphatically that I support the existence of the modern nation of Israel, but unlike some Christians I have engaged in discussion, I see no biblical imperative to support any Israeli claim to legitimately controling and occupying the West Bank and Gaza (as furthered by many modern Christian groups who align themselves with said state) and I support a two state solution as a viable step towards lasting peace. In so doing, I support the division of Jerusalem to become the acting capital of two indepedent states. I support the peace initiative offered by the Arab states, who have long viewed the establishment of the modern state of Israel and the importation of Jews from around the world (largley fleeing persecution in the eary years) as an offense within their lands and to the sovereignty they have wished to have over their own region since the disestablishment of the Ottoman Empire.
In the minds of many Christians, my support for Palestinian control of the West Bank and Gaza and the division of Jerusalem is offensive. In their minds, supporting anything other than full Israeli control over the land defined as Canaan in Genesis 17:8 is to contradict the words of God, deny the full counsel of scripture and at worst, to call God a liar in relation to this specific verse and to consciously work against Him.
Here is an image giving a rough aproximation of the block of land referred to in this verse and whose area is defined in Genesis 1518-21:
The above is an aproximation but it demonstrates the nature of what many Christians believe is the modern state of Israel’s divine right according to the promise they believe to be eternally presented in Genesis 17:8 and then carried through in many references throughout the Old Testament. Notably it includes all of current Israel, as well as Gaza and the West Bank, but also some of the current states of Jordan, lebanon and Syria.
For many Christians, the modern dilemma is not just a historical and political crisis worth finding viable solutions to (however they may look), it is the playing out of a story that has its roots in the very first book of the Bible and to support anything that could stop the modern state of Israel obtaining that which they interpret as being promised to them is to negate the very words of the Bible. The dilemma within that when faced with current tensions is very clear and supporting modern Israel is a necessity of biblical proportions.
I understand this because it used to be the view I held, but it is no longer and delving into possible understandings of Genesis 17:8 was part of the journey that helped shift me to the positions I currently hold. Sadly, many who would share my overarching view of the region and it’s relation to Christian thought often neglect to address Genesis 17:8 and it takes a slightly awkward place when presented in discussions. Many who hold that a specific plot of land has no place in the New Testament often skirt around Genesis 17:8, so lets tackle it.
Genesis 17:8 (connected to Genesis 13:15 and 15:18-21) forms the foundation of ancient Israel’s claim to the land they eventually inhabited, a claim that was affirmed time and time again throughout the Old Testament. Common amongst ancient cultures was a spiritual connection to the land they inhabited (that world view is carried through to many cultures we are more familiar with in modern times as well), Israel was no different. The land was viewed as theirs by divine appointment and Genesis 17:8 was that very appointment. Many Christians carry this understanding through to the modern conflict.
Many English translations of this central passage portray the land as a promised gift that is “eternal” or “everlasting” as this is how they have chosen to translate an ancient Hebrew term – עולם (‛ôlâm). In many instances this term can very well be translated as “forever”, “eternal” or “everlasting” as it should be in places like Exodus 15:18 where it is a reference for the length of God’s reign. In Exodus 15:18 ‛ôlâm is translated as “forever and ever” in the TNIV and the NRSV.
Immediately, without thinking it through too much, we face an initial problem. From the point of the promise and the initial taking of some of the land in Joshua, the promised block of land has not always been controlled by those who would recognise themselves as descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israelites) and thus, immediately, we can see that the land has not been “forever” theirs in the way that “forever” is sometimes understood in the scriptures. The Christian who would hold that the land was “eternally” promised to the Israelites from this verse in Genesis actually view the picture of an eternal promise not from the point where the land was initially taken in the Old Testament, but from the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 and into the future. With this in mind, we immediately face the fact that if we are to take this understanding then we are inferring a different understanding of the word ‛ôlâm from other places where it means from the present moment and onward through eternity such as it is in the previously mentioned verse in Exodus when referring to God’s reign.
To hold such a fluid understanding of the word ‛ôlâm is perfectly consistent with scripture though. Its fluidity of meaning is evident again in the covenant regarding physical circumcision – the covenant is said to be “‛ôlâm”. As we know through the New Testament, this covenant lost its significance and the cutting of the flesh in this regard held no validity for the writers of the New Testament when they discussed citizenship in the Kingdom of God and aspects of holiness.
A fluid understanding of ‛ôlâm is also present in 1 Samuel 1:22 where Hannah is talking of presenting her son to the Lord (in His presence, His house, before His face… depending on translation) where he will dwell “‛ôlâm”. The proper understanding of this verse is not an ethereal concept of her son spiritually dwelling in the presence of God, but rather a commitment to present him to the priest (Eli) to serve in God’s house (where he will dwell “in God’s presence”). Obviously, this is not an idea of absolute eternity never to be unbroken, changed or made obsolete. The same could be said even if it was a reference to a spiritual dwelling with God, then it becomes a desire of hers and thus ‛ôlâm in this context still does not carry the need to be interpreted as a reference to absolute eternity.
In discovering this fluidity to ‛ôlâm we find a broader understanding of the term that does not necessitate absolutes. John Walton says it well in his commentary on Genesis when discussing this very term:
The implication of the terminology is that these agreements are not temporary, not stopgap, nor are they on a trial basis. They are permanent in the sense that no other alternative arrangement to serve that purpose is envisioned. This does not mean that the purpose it serves will never be obsolete.
The implications of this to discussions about the land of “Palestine/Israel” and Christian ideas about any divine right the modern state of Israel has to that land are immense. What it also demonstrates is the necessary humility we must have when approaching how we interpret even our English text and how we discuss such things with those we disagree with. Often, even the English words we are reading can betray the possible nuances of interpretation available to the reader in the original text.
Allow me to state that by presenting this, it is not my intention to say that the term ‛ôlâm must not be interpreted in Genesis 17:8 as a reference to absolute eternity, rather, that it is entirely feasible that someone could read scripture and hold that the promise of the land holds no place in modern theological thought since Christ and in no way be calling God a liar or saying that He was wrong.
It is entirely reasonable for someone to read the New Testament especially and come back to the reference of ‛ôlâm in Genesis 17:8 and read it as being contextually similar to the other references mentioned and thus demonstrating exactly what Walton describes. Now of course, this could be debated as to whether or not it should be read as such, but it is obvious that it can be.
It is with this reading in mind that I have no problem with and find no inherent contradiction in my understanding of scripture when I wholeheartedly endorse the two state solution. I endorse the desire for Israel to exist in peace in the land and I endorse the desire of the Palestinians to have a place in the land they can call home.
Related Posts
- TEAR Fund Podcast: Flotilla Attacked
- The Freedom Flotilla and the Exodus – Revolving History
Israel: Rogue State or Peacekeepers?- Some Reflections on a Visit to Palestine by Philip Church
About the Author: Frank Ritchie
Frank is the Education and Advocacy Manager for TEAR Fund NZ. Frank is a licensed Minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand and has a keen interest in biblical perspectives of Justice and how this connects to service to, with and for the poor, disadvantaged and marginalized people of the world.
16 Comments + Add Comment
Leave a comment
TEAR Fund New Zealand
Get Blog Updates Via Email
Recent Comments
- BuffCrIsoff on World’s Poorest Prove to be a Good Credit Risk
- hébergement de site internet on NZ Prostitution Law Review Committee: Report
- hoagsardell on Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh – Diary of a Humanitarian
- Twin Bed Frame on The Controversy of Easter. The Crucifixion & Freedom.
- Kelvin on Rebellious Media Conference
Blogroll
- Aid Watch
- Change.org
- Empire Remixed
- From Poverty to Power
- God's Politics
- Good Intentions are not Enough
- Just Comment
- Just.
- New Internationalist
- Restorative Justice
- Tax Justice Network
- The Distributist Review
- The Green New Deal Group
- The Thoughtful Campaigner
- Truth Dealer
- Wronging Rights
- ZNet – the spirit of resistance lives
Hi Frank
What an interesting topic! I welcome your comment “I have decided to add another discussion about the biblical approach to the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict because this passage seems to be the central one informing the approach of many Christians to this Middle East crisis.” I couldn’t agree more.
As you said many translations render this part of Gen 17:8 as “an everlasting possession” referring to the Land of Israel. It is many indeed, I have checked 17 translations, including the KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, as well as consulting Gesenius’s Hebrew Lexicon, the Masoretic Text published in the BHS and the Septuagint. I also notice that there are at least 52 references to this same promise using the same or similar words occurring in other places in scripture.
Your discussion of the word ‘olam’ in my view shows confusion in how we see things and how God sees them. For example you state that because Israel has never occupied the Land as described in Genesis then the word olam may have another meaning. I don’t think this is the case at all. It is worthwhile remembering that in Genesis 15 when God made the covernant with Abraham it was unconditional. Abraham played no part in it, he was asleep. God made it quite clear that whether we approve or not, God gave that land to Abraham’s decendants forever. You also mention that in the New Testament that this covenant lost its significance because the cutting of flesh was no longer valid for citizenship in the Kingdom of God. You are aware that this covenant has not changed at all for all male descendants of Abraham. Any Hebrew male child born since Abraham’s time has to go through circumcision to be reckoned a Jew. Yes, there is spiritual side of circumcising the heart, that was in existence even when Abraham himself lived and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
The word olam has several meaning but in this and many other cases all referring to the Land it clearly means everlasting. I have come across other so called Christian who do not believe that non believers go to eternal or everlasting punishment. This concept is difficult for them to get their heads around, and not fair as one put it. I wonder if we think heaven for believers is everlasting?
I guess you may consider that the 17 translations I have mentioned have chosen the wrong word or just lack understanding in these matters. However maybe we do not understand that when God says something He means it. Num 23:19 “God is not a man that He should lie.” Whether we understand it or not does not matter. He has said in several places that He will bring His word to come about not because of who Israel is or who we are but because of who He is. Deut 9:5 Not for your righteousness, or for the uprightness of your heart, do you go to possess their land. But for the wickedness of these nations Jehovah your God drives them out from before you, so that He may perform the Word which Jehovah swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
6 Therefore, understand that Jehovah your God does not give you this good land, to possess it, for your righteousness. For you are a stiff-necked people.
The idea of a two state solution is a nice idea but the division of Jerusalem again is clearly against what God has already said. Zec 12:3 “On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will gather against it.” Note “all the nations” is not just Rome.
According to scripture God loves the Land we call Israel Deut 11:12 “It is a land which Jehovah your God cares for. The eyes of Jehovah your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even to the end of the year.”
In my view scripture is clear about many things and this is certainly one of them.
Peter, thank you for your thoughts on this.
Hi Peter,
I enjoyed reading your comment – especially the fact that it was written kindly when you disagreed with the post, nice to see!
I wanted to ask something about this sentence: “Any Hebrew male child born since Abraham’s time has to go through circumcision to be reckoned a Jew.”
Not so much in relation to the intent of the post (a little above my head in a quick reading I’m afraid), but as a sentence by itself.
Does circumcision still play a part, in your opinion, today?
Is there a distinction between ‘being reckoned a Jew’ and being a Christian?
In my mind I’m thinking that circumcision is no longer a part of our lives in light of the NT.
Keen to hear your thoughts,
cheers, Flendolyn.
Hi Flendolyn
As we read through the Old Testament scriptures we see that there several covenants made between God and man. God made a covenant between himself and Abraham. In this covenant (Gen 17:1-14) God told Abraham that all of his descendants would have to be circumcised as a sign of the fulfillment of the covenant (Gen 17:11). They would be special, set apart as a holy people. These people are what we call Jews. Every male baby born to Jewish parents and wanting to be brought up as a Jew are required still to be circumcised, as was Jesus.
As well as the physical circumcision there is also a circumcision of the heart. This basically means having faith in God and repenting from our sins and turning towards Him. Many leading people in the Old Testament clearly had a great personal relationship with God, Moses, Abraham, David etc.
As gentile believers in Jesus the Messiah, it is not necessary for us to be circumcised in the flesh. As gentiles we are not Jews and therefore we are outside of that covenant. However we do need to be circumcised in our hearts both male and female. This simply means acknowledging our sin and repenting before Jesus and then following Him. This is a spiritual act of cutting away the sinful flesh around our hearts thus allowing us to turn to Him and have a relationship with Him.
In Jesus it does not matter if we are Jew or gentile, male or female, it is not important anymore. Although we are grafted into Israel our circumcision is spiritual not physical.
I hope this helps, if not please say if there are bits you don’t get.
Thanks for taking the time to write that Peter, appreciated.
In my mind I’m thinking (in a wondering, not yet fully educated way!) that the Jewish community have already played their part so to speak. That now that gentile believers have been ‘grafted in’, there is no longer any need for separation between Jew & Gentile. And from that thought, I’m thinking that claiming the geographical area ‘Israel’ is no longer for the new ‘Israel’ – which I’m thinking to be the joint Jew / Gentile population of believers. I’m wondering if the Jewish people & the Israel of old were there to point to something bigger, and that now we’re in a time where that has been done, and it is no longer necessary for them to used as a allegory (is that the right word?) for what God is doing on a much grander scale…
I’m also wondering that if circumcision is still necessary for Jews, then do they also need to hide from girls at certain times of the month & deal with mould in their houses in special ways?? Being a bit cheeky there, but there’s a serious question there also.
Its all depends how orthodox you are as to what you do or what the mix is. The orthodox certainly do follow as many of the 613 commandments as they can. It is worthwhile remembering that the commandments are all part of God’s teaching. We do or should follow a lot of them too. However there is a huge body of teaching called Rabbinic Judaism which Jesus was most critical of. I would propose that no one should follow that!
As to your other point why do you think that the Jewish community has played their part?
That comment probably stems from the fact that I’m just beginning to read up on this, think it through, enter into discussions. So my understandings are limited at this stage. I guess I’m thinking that the reason they were chosen was to point towards God in their time (meaning OT time), and then Jesus came, who was a complete picture of what they themselves were supposed to be, a representative of God.
So now we have Him, is there still a separate role for the Jewish community?
But I think I’m steering the conversation away from the original post, so this may not be the place to get into it.
Have appreciated your comments, definately food for thought.
F.
I wish you well in your search.
A comment I would make is that we cannot see the whole picture, we just get glimpses of it, but I believe with my whole heart that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and is therefore worth studying carefully.
I’d just like to add… just in case anyone reading this thinks that people like Peter (and others here) and myself are in complete disagreement, that I affirm the picture of a grafting in of Gentiles to the tree (representing the community already there – believing Israel). I in no way affirm replacement theology – the idea that the Church has replaced Israel.
Where we may disagree is simply on the outworking of this and its implications for the community of believers (both Jew and Gentile following Christ). Any disagreement is predominantly focused on the place of Old Testament promises, covenants, types, symbols etc since the entrance of Christ into the story of redemption and how these relate to the current community of believers (both Jew and Gentile).
The picture of some being grafted in is a beautifully gracious one in my mind and it affirms all that God had done up until that point. The foundation of his Kingdom community had been set and it was true and good. Since Christ, that community has grown and flourished and it’s inclusiveness is a thing of beauty.
In no way do I affirm an idea of replacement that disregards the roots of the tree and says they serve no purpose.
The picture of the tree is an awesome one that offers much to any such discussion.
…just thought I better throw that in there since I had a few spare minutes
oh, and I wholeheartedly endorse this:
That should inspire nothing but humility as we discuss these things.
What?
No mention of Economic Supersessionism or Partial Preterism Frank?
Darn, just when I thought I saw a chink in your armour.
You Idiot; you forgot to read the end of chapter 17 in Genesis where G-d excludes Ishmael from the land promise. You also forgot he excludes esav.
You Idiot the area of Israel is defined in Numbers chapter 34. Have you even read the bible. What a moron.
Hi Jew, thanks for your comment. I have read it, but I don’t know if you completely understood what I was saying. I understand that the nature of the promise had an element of exclusivity that carried down through Isaac, Jacob and their descendants. I am also well aware of the boundaries mentioned in the Bible (which differed through the various land promises)… my point was something else.
Thank you for visiting.
Read numbers 33 it says drive them out. Drive out those Palestinians.
Exodus ch 34 it says don’t make any peace deals
Deut ch 20 the Arabs must accept tribute and servitude.
Deut ch 17 no foreign brethren can rule the land ie. Arabs
Your a fool to think Jesud is some g-d. Just read Isaiah ch 2 and ch 11. Has the Temple mount been corrected. No because Jesud isn’t G-d and the arabs still have control over it.
Why thank you for your insightful comment. Our world is full of diverse opinions. I will take yours into consideration.