“God blesses those who bless Israel.”
“The land and people of Israel are blessed.”
“Israel is the Promised Land of the Bible being fulfilled today.”
If you identify as Christian, it is likely that you have heard these claims at some point or another. It is not uncommon for churches, pastors, social groups, and political consortiums to pledge their allegiance to Israel and cite their support as an inherently biblical practice. And for many Christians in the Western world, viewing Israel as the Promised Land is common, shared language. Many of us learn matter-of-factly in our churches and Bible lessons that God promised the land of Canaan to the people of Israel and that such a promise extends into our world today.
But where do these beliefs come from? And do the biblical texts they are based on say what we think they do? In what follows, I invite you to explore these questions with me.
In light of the recent uprisings and surging geo-political tensions in Israel-Palestine, many have begun to question what they really know about the land of the Bible and how it ought to be divided. As someone who has spent significant time in Israel-Palestine and invested my career in Christian and Jewish dialogue on the Bible and its lands, I wrestle with these questions daily.
Most common conceptions of the “Promised Land” are rooted in the stories of Abraham and his descendants—that they were promised land, progeny, and God’s favor, and that those promises were fulfilled in biblical times. An understanding that God historically favored the people of Israel (which we now understand to be the Jewish people), and that such a predilection remains true today, is also prominent among many Christian communities.
And although language of promise pertaining to the land of Canaan is present throughout the Hebrew Bible, we should take pause when we encounter claims regarding both the historic fulfillment of those promises and the authority they ought to hold in Israel-Palestine today. Though these beliefs may seem harmless, they influence policy-making that bears brutal consequences on those who dwell in the land, and most acutely on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
A popular interpretation of Genesis 12:1-3 is that God is speaking of the nation that will become Israel and, subsequently, that all who “bless” Israel will be blessed themselves. Among American Evangelicals, this belief often encompasses both an individual and national relationship, maintaining that America will stay in God’s good graces if it supports Israel.[1]These claims, however, rely on contemporary understandings of nation-states and assume that the promises attributed to Abram are viable for modern Israel as well.
In the world of the Bible, a nation is a far more localized concept than we might imagine, and, for Israel in particular, many scholars speculate that it is unlikely that Israel moved beyond its conceptualized nation-state into actualization. So although it might feel natural to read Bible stories as scenes from history, we might better approach the complexity of biblical texts by keeping in mind that they were written by communities seeking to make sense of their identity and relationship to the Divine, and that not all of their hopes and ideals came to fruition.
Another popular understanding of Israel as the Promised Land comes from Genesis 17, where God’s covenant with Abraham and his offspring is affirmed, and God promises to be the God of Abraham’s offspring and gift them the land of Canaan for “a perpetual holding.”
Since the 19th century, British Evangelical Christians interpreted this verse to mean that God promised the land of Canaan (contemporary Israel-Palestine) to the Jewish people for eternity.[2] This understanding, however, does not take into consideration the loose use of the term “forever” in the Hebrew Bible, and the contingencies upon which these claims often rested.
When biblical authors asserted that blessings or curses or rulers would last indefinitely, their language should almost always be understood as hyperbolic. King David’s throne does not endure forever nor does Israel remain in the land forever—nations comingle and conquer; Israel deviates from Yahweh; and God changes God’s mind often.
And regarding both the promise and conquest narratives in the Bible, biblical scholars widely understand those articulations of land claims as written by later authors and influenced by later political concerns and motivations.
In other words, it’s likely that the communities that wrote these scriptures containing God’s promises of land and abundance were already in the land (or hoping to dwell in it soon) and were seeking to explain their present by telling stories about the past. These texts are not predicting the future but rather are narrating the past, or at least a version of Israel’s past that they choose to tell.
If we understand the fulfillment of the biblical Promised Land as a clearly defined event in history, we also run into some issues when we take a closer look at the varying biblical accounts that reference this promise and its implementation.
In Deuteronomy, we see that Israel’s future inhabitance of the land of Canaan will be dependent on their obedience to Yahweh and that they can lose the land if they are unfaithful.[3] Israel is further warned by God that the land will “vomit out” its inhabitants if they do not follow God’s commandments.[4] And despite God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants will be given land and become a nation, there remains a persistent theme throughout the Hebrew scriptures that no one owns the land and that dwelling on it is a contingent gift from Yahweh.
Lastly, we see in the conquest narratives that Canaan is conquered both all at once and over time, and sometimes is not conquered at all.[5] We find in the biblical text less of an emphasis on an enduring promise, and far more of an insistence to live faithfully as a community of God’s people.
Although many of us have learned various explanations regarding why Israel is a holy or promised land, or why it ought to receive the unwavering support of Christians worldwide, it is likely that the inconsistencies in biblical stories regarding the promise and conquest of biblical Israel are less familiar. So, what are we to do when we encounter biblical texts that are not always in harmony with theologies, and sometimes political ideologies, that we have learned about Israel?
No matter how counter-intuitive it might seem, I am a firm believer that our thinking, reading, and worshipping become more meaningful when we respond to questions and unknowns with more questions. A faithful curiosity, if you will.
- “Does faithfulness to God imply the oppression of another?”
- “Does God favor and extend promises to a particular people? If so, who exists on the other/underside of that promise?”
- “In what ways do Bible stories invite us to think creatively about borders and land?”
- “How might we begin to shape a Christian ethic or theology that extends beyond borders?”
Add your questions to the list.
Just as there are many parts of the Bible that ought to be read with an understanding of their ancient contexts (agricultural sacrifices, communal rules, imperial politics, etc.), the patriarchal promises must be as well. As Christians who seek to be in solidarity with Jewish and Palestinian siblings, we must nuance our understandings of biblical history and the role of biblical narratives in our world today.
We do not double-down on Hebrew commandments regarding agricultural ethics or neighborly conduct, nor do we attempt to literally align the prophet’s pointed warnings with our own nations and provinces. So why do we do this when it comes to Israel? When we attempt to draw direct lines of connection from the Bible to geo-political contexts rife with oppression, we lose sight of the kernels of justice and mercy that these ancient stories bear.
[1] This support usually entails prayer and vocal support, but often materializes in the form of financial support as well. One of the anomalies of Evangelical support of Israel that often goes unexamined is that while proclaiming support and often love of the Jewish people, it is contingent on the theological belief that Jewish people who do not accept Jesus as the messiah will perish during end times. The contradiction of such beliefs is strikingly clear in lists such as this one, which both claims the Jewish people as God’s chosen/promised people and depicts their theology as deviant yet necessary to actualize a particular Christian eschatological belief.
[2] A troubling yet important aspect of this belief’s history is its anti-Semitic origins wherein British Christians conceptualized Palestine as a solution to “the Jewish problem”—as place where Europe could conveniently relocate its unwanted Jewish populations.
[3] See Deut. 6:18; 8:1 and Deut. 4:26; 28:63; 30:18; Josh. 23:16. Additionally, Christian biblical interpretation has historically been rife with anti-Semitism and supersessionism, often associating the Israel of the Hebrew Bible with sin and incompletion and choosing to interpret Christians as the rightful recipients of God’s promises to Israel. Such interpretations are another example of the self-seeking motives that are often embedded in Christian support or love of Israel.
[4] See Lev. 18:28; 20:22; Jer. 2:7; 3:1–2; Hos. 8:13; 9:3.
[5] In the Bible, we also see Israel inconsistently mixing with and adopting the religious and communal practices of the native inhabitants of the land, and observe that the borders of the land of Canaan are drawn inconsistently.
Jennifer Maidrand is a Ph.D. candidate at Drew University in the Bible and Cultures program. Her research interests are in Hebrew Bible, Womanist & Feminist Hermeneutics, Religion & the Environment, Archaeology, and Geo-politics of Israel/Palestine. She is a member of the UCC Church and is committed to fostering interfaith and intercultural community education and dialogue around sacred texts, the earth, and politics.
9 Responses
In reading the English translations of the Bible, how accurate are the English translations to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek regarding women and womanhood?
Just read the original language. It’s a huge help.
It is my understanding that for Israel to legally and ethically achieve settling in the promised land, they are also bound to obey to tbe best of their ability the commandments brought down by Moses, which clearly does not allow the methods they have been using. The only way whilst also obeying those laws is to intigrate with existing residents. They must not covet, steal, kill, displace, disrespect etc. in the process
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE3hV83SUsA
best explanation I have heard to date. Jesus is Israel now. He fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant that the Jews (the Israelites) could not. Fast forward to Jesus teachings in Mathew 25:31-45 & 10:42 and the “I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee from Genesis 12 becomes clear as to who He is talking about now and who he is not.
Those you call your “Palestinian siblings” are muslims who follow the Quran. The Quran urges muslims to kill “non-believers”….(that includes Christians)! Your “interpretation” of biblical verses is twisted to vague anti-Semitism. Since Jesus was born and died a Jew, pray for his forgiveness for the hatred you teach.
It might be instructive for you to do an AI search with the query:
Why did the prophet Mohammad instruct muslims to “kill all infidels”?
And the other query: Which historical periods of time have Christians and Muslims coexisted peacefully?
It should be fairly obvious that the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not now share this extremist ideology of perpetual “jihad”.
There are Christians in Palestine. The Semitic people includes, Jews (Judah), Arabs, Armeans, Phoenicians, and the Assyrians. The people committing genocide in both Gaza and Iran, hate Jesus. The Abrahamic covenant refers to Jesus Christ as the one who will bless all the nations. No where does it state if we bless Israel we will be blessed. The genealogy of Abraham extends to Jesus as His offspring as noted in Matthew. Revelation 2:9 refers to the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews and are not. Those in Christ (Faith and belief in the finished work of Christ on the cross for forgiveness of sin) are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise. Read Galatians 3; Romans 2, & 9. Looking at the term Jews, which is a derivative of Judah, those who were the last to survive and remain (although there is the 10 lost tribes who God knows where they are) and is a political identity as compared to the term Israelites -covenant identity, and Hebrews – which is the ethic blood identity. There are not 2 ways to God, Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, no one (Greeks or Jews) can come to the Father except through me! Current leadership of Israel follows the sins of murderers and liars! God is the God of peace not for the murdering of innocent women and children. Jesus will return when God says so and not a minute before I don’t care if the 3rd temple is built for sacrificing. Jesus represents the temple and believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Jesus paid in full the debt penalty for the sin of mankind. No further atonement needed.
Well, David’s throne continues in Christ. He is eternal. So, you’re wrong there.
1. The word translated “forever”
In the promise to Abraham, God says:
Genesis 17:8
“I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land where you are now residing—the whole land of Canaan—as an everlasting possession.”
The Hebrew phrase is “achuzat olam.”
The key word is Olam.
Olam can mean:
• forever / everlasting
• for an age
• for an indefinite or very long time
• as long as the conditions remain
It describes something beyond the visible horizon, not always mathematically infinite time.
For example:
• In Exodus, Hebrew servants could serve their master “forever” (olam) — clearly meaning for life.
• Hannah said Samuel would serve in the temple forever — meaning his lifetime.
So the word can be flexible depending on context.
2. But the Abrahamic covenant is different
When God speaks to Abraham, the promise is not just a casual statement. It is tied to a covenant.
Genesis 17 calls it an everlasting covenant.
That covenant includes three elements:
• descendants
• land
• God’s relationship with them
Later passages reinforce this idea.
For example:
Jeremiah 31:35–37 basically says that Israel will cease to exist only if the fixed order of the sun, moon, and stars disappears.
And Ezekiel says Israel will dwell in the land forever under a restored kingdom.
Because these promises are repeated across multiple prophets, many scholars argue that the word olam here is meant literally in the covenant sense — meaning permanent in God’s redemptive plan.
3. Why some scholars think it could be conditional
Some theologians point out that Israel was repeatedly exiled from the land.
Events like:
• the Babylonian Exile
• the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE
show that possession of the land was not continuous.
Because of this, some traditions interpret the promise as fulfilled spiritually or conditional on obedience.
But even those scholars usually acknowledge something important:
The covenant language with Abraham itself does not include a cancellation clause.
4. Why many Jewish and Christian scholars see it as literal
Many interpreters argue the promise is ultimately permanent, but its full realization unfolds over history.
In other words:
Temporary exile does not cancel the covenant.
It is seen as discipline within the covenant relationship.
This perspective is common in both:
• traditional Jewish interpretation
• many Christian theological traditions
5. The deeper biblical pattern
There is actually a recurring pattern in Scripture:
Promise
Loss or exile
Restoration
You see it with:
• Eden
• Israel
• the Temple
• the Kingdom
So many interpreters believe the land promise ultimately points toward the restored kingdom of God.
6. So was “forever” hyperbole?
It depends on what someone means by hyperbole.
Linguistically, the word olam can sometimes be flexible.
But in the Abrahamic covenant context, the repeated prophetic reinforcement suggests something stronger:
God intended the promise to be permanent within His covenant plan, even if Israel’s possession of the land experiences interruptions.
A simple way to say it
The promise of the land was not meant to describe an uninterrupted political possession, but it was meant to describe a permanent covenant reality.
Temporary exile does not cancel a covenant that God calls everlasting.
And trying to use the concept of a hyperbole when talking about a blood covenant is – well – not comparing apples to oranges – at least those are fruit – it’s like comparing apples to toolboxes or something equally ridiculous. The blood covenant is ETERNAL. Not until Abraham dies – for Abraham never walked the blood path – GOD DID – and He’s still alive and kicking – and in Jesus He even took the penalty of breaking the covenant for all those who have entered into it. So – yes… the land promise is and was an EVERLASTING thing.