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:

Image source.

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:

1. Israel -Biblical Perspectives on ‘The Land’
2. Land “Rights”
3. Israel Cutting Palestinian Water
4. Obama’s State of the Union Address: Pushing it Uphill