The majority of American Christians believe Israel is destined to get the full land of Canaan back as a permanent possession at the end of time. There is probably no doctrine upon which more Christians agree than this.
Genealogical Jews are “God’s people,” and the land promised to Abraham will be theirs in the end. Case closed. No further discussion necessary.
Despite the popularity of this view, however, there are numerous issues with it from a biblical standpoint. When taken in their totality, they are so profound as to call the entire doctrine into question.
This article will review those issues and posit a final answer to the question, Will Israel ever get its land back?
Will Israel get its land back? The Reigning Paradigm
Where Israel and the land of Canaan are concerned, the prevailing belief is that the commitment of God to give Israel the full, physical land of Canaan as promised in the Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect. Even though the Messiah has come, the New Covenant has been inaugurated, and the church has been established throughout the world, this commitment remains.
Cliff McManis, in his book What the Bible Says About Israel, articulates this position very succinctly:[1]
In his perfect timing Yahweh will bring Israel back to the land, completely, once and for all, as an entire nation, to be his stewards over the promised land, where they will enjoy the benefits of the land to its full extent for the first time in history.
The primary basis for this argument is the use of the term everlasting (or its equivalent) in the Old Testament promises regarding the land. McManis again:
God’s promise to Israel was an everlasting promise. And the endless nature of this promise was based on the foundation of God’s character.... He told Abraham that his covenant with Abraham’s descendants, the Jews, was an everlasting covenant and that he would give Israel the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. [emphasis added]
Indeed, in the covenant with Abraham, God uses the word “everlasting” when referring to the promise of the land. Genesis 17:7-8 reads:
And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you...for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. [emphasis added]
Similar language is used in many places in the Old Testament referring to the Abrahamic Covenant and its various components, including the land.
At face value, this seems an open and shut case. God said this was an unending promise, and we know God cannot break his promise, so, no matter what, Israel will get its land back at some point in the future. But like many things in the Bible, the issue is much more complex than it first appears.[2]
To demonstrate the weaknesses of this paradigm, the following problems will be addressed:
Problems with the word “everlasting”
Problems arising from undisputed alterations to the Abrahamic Covenant
Problems in the New Testament with a future possession of the land
Problems with the Word “Everlasting”
The first problem with this argument is with the word “everlasting” itself. The Hebrew term used in the Genesis 17 passage quoted above is ôlām. The word has a range of meanings including, “long duration, antiquity, forever, everlasting, and perpetual.”[3]
It is frequently translated as everlasting, but it is also translated as forever (Ex. 12:24), perpetual (Lev. 3:17), old (Deut. 32:7), old times (Josh. 24:2), never (Judges 2:1), long (Ps. 143:3), long time (Isa. 42:14), long ago (Lam. 3:6) and ancient (Jer. 18:15).[4]
The issue is not with the range of definitions, for many of them support the idea that the promise of a physical land is unending. The problem is that many times when God uses the term, as several of the English translation options indicate, he clearly does not mean forever without end. Consider a few examples.
Examples of everlasting not meaning forever
Deuteronomy 28:45-46
Text: “Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever (ôlām).”
Issue: The Jews clearly disobeyed and fell under these curses. But are their effects truly never ending? Hasn’t God through Christ brought an end to the curses of those who disobey the Law?
Jeremiah 17:4
Text: “And you, even yourself, shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; and I will cause you to serve your enemies in the land which you do not know; for you have kindled a fire in My anger which shall burn forever (ôlām).”
Issue: Did God’s anger at Judah truly burn forever? Did he not satisfy that anger on the cross?
Jeremiah 23:38-40
Text: “Because you say this word, 'The oracle of the Lord!' and I have sent to you, saying, 'Do not say, “The oracle of the Lord!’” Therefore behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you and forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and will cast you out of My presence. And I will bring an everlasting (ôlām) reproach upon you, and a perpetual (ôlām) shame, which shall not be forgotten.”
Issue: Did God actually place an unending reproach on Israel? Will their shame actually be without end? What about redemption through Christ?
2 Chronicles 2:4
Text: “Behold, I am building a temple for the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to Him, to burn before Him sweet incense, for the continual showbread, for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths, on the New Moons, and on the set feasts of the Lord our God. This is an ordinance forever (ôlām) to Israel.”
Issue: Are the temple, offerings, and feast days all forever? Doesn’t the New Covenant make these obsolete?
What this means for the promise of the land
The principle that can be drawn from this is just because the Bible uses the word ôlām, it does not necessarily mean forever, as in time without end. In the cases noted above, the word most often means a very long time or, more precisely, a very long time according to the plan of God.
This latter application can be seen in Isaiah 42:14. There, the Lord says, “I have held My peace a long time (ôlām), I have been still and restrained Myself. Now I will cry like a woman in labor, I will pant and gasp at once.” In context, this refers to God’s incredible patience in waiting to destroy Israel for its disobedience. God would have been justified to execute his wrath earlier, but he waited.
Notice the translators chose to render ôlām here as “a long time” instead of “forever” or “everlasting.” Why did they make this choice? Because they knew just how long he waited. The giving of the Law occurred in 1446 BC, while the Babylonian invasion occurred in 586 BC. That is 860 years. So, God did indeed wait a long time, but he did not wait forever.
This demonstrates that God’s use of the word everlasting in the Abrahamic Covenant may mean something less than forever without end. The undisputed alterations to the Abrahamic Covenant that are accepted today add further fuel to this possibility.
Undisputed Alterations to the Abrahamic Covenant
While many believers reject any suggestion of changes to God’s promise to Abraham regarding the land, most have no problem accepting alterations to the other elements of this covenant. The promise of the land is given special treatment and cannot be altered, but other elements have been changed for thousands of years and no one offers even a cursory objection.
Before reviewing those changes, it would be helpful to identify the components of the covenant itself.
Component parts of the Abrahamic Covenant
God’s covenant with Abraham can be broken down into four core components as revealed in Genesis 12 and 17. They are listed below:
God will multiply Abraham’s offspring so that his descendants will become a great nation (Gen. 12:2) and eventually produce many other nations (Gen. 17:5-6).
God will give his descendants the land of Canaan where they can live as an organized people (Gen. 17:8).
God will bring a blessing to the entire world through Abraham (Gen. 12:2b and 3b).
God requires all male children to be circumcised as a sign and confirmation of the covenant (Gen. 17:10-12).
It is important to point out that this covenant is made up of more than the promise of land (item 2). God commits to increase the number of Abraham’s children (item 1), to bless the world through him (item 3), and to demand a seal of the covenant through circumcision (item 4).
Now, consider the ease at which believers today have accepted alterations to the literal meaning of these other elements.
Accepted alterations to the covenant
Item 1: Descendants multiplied
Item 1 states that Abraham will have a great number of descendants. In Genesis 17:6, the Lord says he will “make [Abraham] exceedingly fruitful” so that he will be a “father of many nations.” The fulfillment of this promise is evidenced in the growth of the people in Egypt before the Exodus (Ex. 12:37), as well as the non-Israelite nations that came from Abraham, including the Ishmaelites, Amalekites, and Midianites (Gen. 25:1-18).
But do modern Christians see this promise as only limited to Abraham’s physical descendants? Of course, not. Upon hearing this promise, believers rightly think of the millions of Gentile believers that have become sons of Abraham by faith (Gal. 3:7). Even though this is a correct extension of this covenant, it is not what the promise actually says.
Item 3: Blessing to the world
Item 3 indicates Abraham will bring a blessing to the world. Genesis 12:2b and 3b says, “You [Abraham] shall be a blessing” and “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” It is not until Genesis 26:4 that Abraham’s descendants are identified as the source of this blessing: “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.” However, while the source of the blessing is identified in this passage, the actual blessing is not. So, what is this blessing?
Christians today see it as redemption through Christ. Jesus came to extend salvation to all nations of the world, and this redemptive expansion is how Abraham brings the greatest blessing to the world. But would Abraham and the Old Testament Jews have interpreted it this way? Highly doubtful.
The blessing of Messiah unknown to Old Covenant Jews
The Jews would not have understood this part of the covenant applying to a future Messiah because they had very little, if any, understanding of this concept to begin with. This can be seen in the teaching of the apostles. From the very beginning of their ministry, they found it necessary to connect this element of the Abrahamic Covenant to the coming of Christ. Consider two examples.
Israel Defense Force soldier taking position near a building in Gaza on February 4, 2024. Expanded war in the Middle East brings the Old Testament promise of the land to the forefront once again. Photo by Ran Zisovitch, Shutterstock.
In Acts 3:25-26, Peter said, “You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”
Paul concurred in Galatians 3:8: “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed.’” Later in that same chapter, he even instructed them regarding who the “seed” in the covenant actually was: “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ” (16).
Now, if the Jews always connected this promise to the coming of the Messiah, why did the apostles have to take such pains to teach them about this once the New Covenant was inaugurated?
Jacob’s blessing a precursor to Israel’s blessing
One indication of what they thought this blessing was can be found in Jacob’s interaction with Laban, Jacob’s uncle on his mother’s side, in Genesis 30. When Jacob’s period of servitude to Laban was complete (he had offered to work for him in order to marry his daughter, Rachel), he asked permission to leave and go back to his homeland. Laban did not want him to leave, however. In fact, he offered to pay Jacob any price he named to get him to stay.
Laban gives his reasons in verse 27, “And Laban said to [Jacob], ‘Please stay, if I have found favor in your eyes, for I have learned by experience that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.’” Jacob expounds on this statement in verses 29-30, “So Jacob said to him, ‘You know how I have served you and how your livestock has been with me. For what you had before I came was little, and it has increased to a great amount; the Lord has blessed you since my coming.”
The mere presence of Jacob brought blessing to all that Laban possessed. Inasmuch as Jacob would become the father of the twelve tribes, and his very name would be changed to Israel, by which those tribes would be known, it is no great leap to conclude that the Jews may have seen in Jabob’s experience what this element of the Abrahamic Covenant would eventually produce, material blessings for the nations of the world.[5]
Item 4: Circumcision’s nature and application
Abraham’s part in the covenant was to ensure that the males born to him were physically circumcised eight days after birth. Genesis 17:13 says, “He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting (ôlām) covenant.” Notice the requirements literally spelled out here:
Circumcision was physical. It required the foreskin of the penis to be cut off.
Circumcision was for men only. It was not required for women.
Circumcision was “everlasting.” Its duration was referred to with the same Hebrew word used for the other elements, ôlām.
But how do Christians view circumcision today? Do they still see it as a physical act required for every believer? Moreover, do they see it applying to men only? No on both counts.
Believers understand it as something the Spirit of God does inside a person, an immaterial, spiritual mark that is given to both men and women. Again, this is the correct view, but it is not what the actual words of the Abrahamic Covenant specified.
Why bring this up?
The reason these examples are pertinent is that they show that believers have already accepted the non-literal, non-physical meaning of all parts of the Abrahamic Covenant but the land. Christians rightly believe the blessing that Abraham would bring to the world would come through the Messiah’s atonement for sin and that circumcision is not physical but spiritual.
To be consistent, then, they must accept the possibility that the ultimate, final fulfillment of the promise of a land for Israel is something different than the literal words would indicate.
Now that the issues associated with the word everlasting and the inconsistency in views about the meaning of the Abrahamic Covenant elements have been addressed, it is time to consider the problems found in the New Testament.
New Testament problems with a Future Possession of the Land
The New Testament poses serious challenges to the view that the physical land of Canaan will be given back to Israel at the end of time. The most significant ones are as follows:
The promise of the land is not affirmed in the New Testament, even in the most obvious places.
The pillars of Old Covenant faith are shown to be inferior, inadequate, and in need of replacement.
God’s unfolding plan provided better promises than those given in the Old Covenant.
References to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, shift from a place in Palestine to a city coming down from heaven.
Problem 1: The promise of the land not affirmed
Given the centrality of the promise of a physical land in the Old Covenant, and the expectation of believers that this land is still committed to Israel, it is shocking that the New Testament does not explicitly affirm this promise, even when it would be natural and expected given the context. Consider several examples.
Matthew 5:5—Jesus, the meek, and the “earth”
In Matthew 5:5, Jesus says the meek will “inherit the earth.” The word translated “earth” is gē in Greek and can also be translated “land.” As this is the start of Jesus’s ministry, and his opening statement refers to land, this would be a perfect time to reiterate the promise of the land as Israel’s future inheritance. So, is this what Jesus means here? Is he saying the meek will inherit the land of Canaan? Not likely for two reasons.
He does not actually say “the land of Canaan” or any similar term. As the Jewish Messiah, he was infinitely aware of the promise regarding the land, and yet he did not specify it here. He could have easily added the phrase “of Canaan” or referred to it as the “Promised Land.” But he didn’t. This is an unimaginable oversight if that was what he meant.
The word “earth” not “land” seems to correct translation in this context. Gē is typically only translated as “land” when it precedes the name of a specific area (by way of a prepositional phrase), which it doesn’t here. For example, in Matthew 10:15, Jesus talks about the “land of Sodom and Gomorrah.” In this same book, Matthew speaks of the “land of Judah” in 2:6, and the “land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali” in 4:15. “Earth” is the preferred translation when a specific area is not mentioned, and many times this translation is certain given the context. In Matthew 5:35 (the same sermon where he mentioned the meek inheriting the earth), Jesus says the earth is God’s footstool; it is difficult to imagine he means the land of Canaan here. In Matthew 6:19 (again, same sermon), Jesus instructs us not to lay it up “treasures on earth”; this doesn’t make any sense if this is the land of Canaan. Finally, in Matthew 11:25, Jesus says the Father is “Lord of heaven and earth”; clearly, the land of Canaan is not in view here.
Acts 3 and 13—Big opportunities missed
Acts provides at least two occasions when the promise of the land could have been mentioned.
Acts 3:25 In Acts 3:25, Peter, when preaching to the Jews at the temple in Jerusalem, said, “You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’” Here the Abrahamic Covenant is specifically called out, but no mention of the land. Granted, Peter’s goal here was to show that Jesus was the seed that would bring blessing to the earth, and the promise of the inheritance of the land was not required to do that. However, if this was as important in Peter’s mind as it is to modern believers, he would have had a convenient opportunity to at least mention it, and yet he does not.
Acts 13:19 Unlike Acts 3, Acts 13 mentions the land specifically. In verse 19, Paul says, “And when [God] had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.” Here, the apostle is making the point that Jesus was the son of David who would serve as the eternal king of Israel (in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant). In so doing, he briefly recounts Israel’s history up to the crowning of David. This includes the taking and settling of Canaan. But his comments related to the land end there. He says nothing else about it. He focuses on the salvation that Christ has provided, which is completely understandable given the argument he is making. However, if the land was truly an everlasting possession of Israel, and that possession would be brought about by the power of the Messiah, why not say that here? It would be as easy as adding a simple phrase to the end of verse 19, like “the land which you will one day possess forever.” But he doesn’t. It is as if the land is no longer a factor, for Paul or Peter, or, for that matter, the entire book of Acts. But why?
Romans 11—A restored people but no land?
Romans 11 directly addresses the future of Israel. In this chapter, Paul goes to great lengths to show that Israel’s rejection of the Messiah will not last forever. God has turned away from them for a season to extend salvation to the Gentiles. But, at the end, a vast number of Jews will receive Christ and be saved.
Some commentators see in this chapter the renewal of the promise of a return to the land. On this point, McManis writes:
In his perfect timing Yahweh will bring Israel back to the land, completely, once and for all, as an entire nation, to be his stewards over the promised land, where they will enjoy the benefits of the land to its full extent for the first time in history.[6]
To support this statement, he offers Deuteronomy 30:1-10 and Romans 11:25-31 as references. Deuteronomy 30 supports his point because God indeed does promise that if, at some point in the future, he casts the Jews out of their land, he will bring them back if they return to him. The Romans 11 passage, however, does not.
The problem is that the text mentions nothing about Israel getting the physical land back. It simply does not say, “The deliverer will bring Israel back to its land,” or, “This is my covenant with them, that I will give them back their land.” Those words would have been easy to add should Paul have chosen to do so, but they are conspicuously absent.
The inclusion of the land has been inferred from verse 29, which says “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” But what gifts and calling are in mind here? Is the land one of the gifts indicated?
Verse 26-27 provides some insight: “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” These words are taken from Isaiah 59:20-21. Here is the full context:
“The Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” says the Lord. “As for Me,” says the Lord, “this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,” says the Lord, “from this time and forevermore.”
Isaiah is clearly describing the New Covenant, a monumental change in how God will deal with his people. At its inception, God would provide payment for sin through the Redeemer and a knowledge of his will through the Spirit. But does this covenant include a promise to restore Israel to its physical land?
Jeremiah 31:31-32 sheds light on this question. The prophet writes, “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt….”
The covenant Jeremiah is discussing is “not according to the covenant” that was given when the Lord led the people out of “the land of Egypt.” What covenant is that? The Mosaic Covenant, of course. And since Deuteronomy 30 is an integral part of the Mosaic Covenant, the teaching of Romans 11, which references the New Covenant, cannot be connected to it. They are referring to different covenants.
Romans 11, then, does not refer to the land of Canaan as one of the “gifts” that are irrevocable. It has nothing to do with the land.
Problem 2: Pillars of Old Testament faith inferior
A second problem with the view that the promise of a physical land is still in effect is that the New Testament declares the staples of the Old Covenant are inferior, inadequate, and in need of replacement.
God systematically replaces Old Covenant elements
Paul makes this clear in Galatians and Colossians. In Galatians 4:9-10, he scolds the Galatian believers, saying, “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years.”
The days, months, seasons, and years were the feasts and activities of the Old Testament Jewish calendar, like the feasts of Passover, Weeks, and Tabernacles. To Paul, given what God had done in Christ, these were now “weak,” a word meaning “sick,” and “beggarly,” meaning “powerless.”
He repeats this criticism in Colossians 2:16-17, adding an important qualifier. He writes, “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ.” The central elements of the Old Covenant, which were so significant in the eyes of the Jews, were only “shadows” of the real thing, and, as such, inferior.
The shadow metaphor is expanded in the book of Hebrews. In Hebrews 8:1-2, the writer calls the temple and its processes “the copy and shadow of the heavenly things” and declares that the “sanctuary and the true tabernacle” were built by God in heaven.
In 9:23-24, he points out that the sacrifices on earth only purified “the copies of the things in the heavens,” which are themselves purified with “better sacrifices.” And in 10:1, he plainly states that the law was a “shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things.”
Inferior Old Covenant pillars and the promise of the land
What does this have to do with the promise of the land? It establishes that, through the New Covenant, God was systematically replacing the pillars of the Jewish faith with superior elements. And while these verses do not state that the promise of the land was experiencing the same upfit, it does show his willingness to replace the most significant, sacred components of the Old Covenant system with something better.
If God would replace the temple with something new, the high priest with something new, and the sin offering with something new, it should be no surprise if he also replaced the promise of the land with something new.
Objection: But these come from the Mosaic Covenant
“But the things spoken of in these verses apply to the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant,” someone objects. Yes, but only if you assume these covenants are separate, a common error today. A closer inspection of the way they are referred to in the Bible shows they are very much intertwined.
Deuteronomy 27:1—Abrahamic and Mosaic spoken of as one
Consider Deuteronomy 27:1, which says, “Now Moses, with the elders of Israel, commanded the people, saying: ‘Keep all the commandments which I command you today. And it shall be, on the day when you cross over the Jordan to the land which the Lord your God is giving you….” In the first half of the verse, Moses requires the people to keep the commandments which he had given them. What commandments were these? The commandments of the Mosaic Law. But then he transitions directly to speaking about “the land which the Lord your God is giving you.” Where does the promise of a land come from? The Abrahamic Covenant. So, here we have the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants mixed together and spoken of as one.
2 Chronicles 7:17-20—Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic spoken of as one
You also see this in 2 Chronicles 7:17-20. There, God tells Solomon what he must do to maintain his throne and protect the people from judgment. He says,
17 As for you, if you walk before Me as your father David walked, and do according to all that I have commanded you, and if you keep My statutes and My judgments,
18 Then I will establish the throne of your kingdom, as I covenanted with David your father, saying, “You shall not fail to have a man as ruler in Israel.”
19 But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods, and worship them,
20 Then I will uproot them from My land which I have given them; and this house which I have sanctified for My name I will cast out of My sight, and will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples.
As with the passage in Deuteronomy, this text includes a reference to doing “all that I [the Lord] have commanded you” by keeping “My statutes and My judgments” (17). This is clearly a reference to the Mosaic Law. The text then connects obedience to the Mosaic Law to maintaining a presence in the land (20), which is the Abrahamic Covenant.
In fact, three covenants are spoken of here as if they are one, the Mosaic, the Abrahamic, and the Davidic. In verse 18, God connects Solomon’s obedience to the Mosaic Law to the continuation of the Davidic Covenant. “I will establish the throne of your kingdom,” the Lord declares, “as I covenanted with David your father.”
(For examples of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants being combined in the New Testament, see Galatians 2:3 and 16.)
While believers often think of these as separate, siloed covenants, the Bible sees them as connected according to God’s ultimate design.
Problem 3: God providing better promises
The replacement of these elements reveals God’s intent to provide something superior under the New Covenant. For this reason, the author of Hebrews refers to the New Covenant as being a “better covenant” built on “better promises.” In Hebrews 8:6, he writes, “But now [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.”
Is the Old Covenant promise of the land “better”?
In every case mentioned in this article so far—from circumcision, to the temple, to the sacrifices, to the mediator, to salvation—God has provided in the New Covenant something far superior to what he established in the Old. His promises post-Jesus are truly superior to the ones pre-Jesus.
So, what about the land? Does this promise experience no such upgrade? Is it fully and finally word-for-word what it was when it was given to Abraham? Consider the following limitations if it is:
The limit of size. The Bible talks about the descendants of Abraham being as numerous as the sand of the sea, but the actual land of Canaan promised to Abraham only consisted of about 10,000 square miles.[7], [8]
The limit of time. However long Israel would occupy that land in the future, it would not be forever. The Bible clearly says that, following the Day of Judgment, the current earth, which would include the land of Canaan, will be completely destroyed by fire and replaced by an entirely new earth (2 Pet. 3:13).
The limit of peace. Most who hold that Israel will receive the land in the future also believe the nations of the earth will gather around it to destroy it toward the end of time. Not exactly an eternal peace.
Is this kind of fulfillment consistent with what God has done in all other areas of the Abrahamic Covenant? Clearly not. Doesn’t it make sense, then, that God may have something far better in store for the full and final fulfillment of the promise of the land? It seems reasonable that it does.
Are Gentile believers second to genealogical Jews?
Before moving on to consider what God has in mind for the final fulfillment of the promise of the land, it would be helpful to clarify the relationship between genealogical Israel and Gentile believers in Christ. This relationship will have an important bearing on determining the nature and extent of God’s plan for the land in the future.
When the subject of Israel comes up among Christians today, particularly regarding the land and the future of the Israel itself, believers will often say, “Well, they are God’s people.” Sometimes this response takes on the flavor of worship. One can almost see the Gentile believer bowing his head in reverence as he talks about national Israel. It is as if genealogical Jews are some kind of superior spiritual race to non-Jews who love and serve Christ.[9]
Believers also think of the promises made to the Jews as different from those made to non-Jews. The promises made in the Old Testament were for the Jews, the reasoning goes; Gentiles benefit from some of those promises but not all. McManis made this argument in his book:[10]
These three covenants [Abrahamic, Davidic, and New] were made with Israel in the Old Testament. They were not made with gentiles or the church. Gentiles partake in some of the blessings of these covenants, but their complete fulfillment awaits the national restoration of Israel at the end of the age. [emphasis added]
Is this true? Are Jews a superior block of God’s children, and are non-Jewish believers relegated to having some limited, secondary set of promises?
No distinction between believers in the New Testament
The New Testament knows no such thing as a distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish believers or the promises that apply to them. The apostle Paul is emphatic on this point. Consider his comments in Romans and Galatians:
Romans 2:28
Text: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit.”
Teaching: Real Jews believe, regardless of their heritage.
Romans 8:14
Text: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.”
Teaching: The sons of God are not the physical sons of Jabob but those who obey God’s Spirit.
Galatians 3:7
Text: “Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.”
Teaching: A man can be an actual descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and not be a son of Abraham. The sons of Abraham, and, therefore, the subjects of the Abrahamic Covenant, are not physical Jews—they are those who put their faith in Christ, regardless of their lineage.
The promises to the Jews are fully the Gentile’s as well
As such, the covenants and promises made in the past to Abraham and his descendants are now totally the Gentiles’ as well. Ephesians 3:6 says, “The Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel.” Gentiles are “fellow heirs” with believing Jews. A fellow heir is someone who shares in the same inheritance as the other party, not a secondary or inferior one.
This is confirmed in Romans 8:16-17: “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.” Gentiles are "heirs of God," and, as such, full recipients of God’s promises (see also Galatians 4:7). Moreover, they are not only fellow heirs with believing Jews, but fellow heirs of Christ, meaning they get all that Christ gets, and Christ gets all, including whatever inheritance remains in the land.
Ephesians 2:11-13 directly connects the promises made to Israel to non-Jewish believers:
Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Paul talks here about the “covenants of promise” that were given to “the commonwealth of Israel.” There is no way to see these as anything but the promises made to Abraham, Jacob, and David, among others, during the Old Covenant period. Gentile believers were not parties to these covenants in the past, but now, due to the work of Christ and their being joined to him by faith, they are theirs equally.
There are not some promises for one group and others for another. Whatever promises were made to Israel, from the time of Christ on became fully and eternally the possession of Gentiles as well as the Jews.
What does this have to do with the land?
In terms of the promise of the land, if genealogical Jews are promised to take possession of the physical land of Canaan, then this promise is also for Gentiles. Because both are heirs of the promises, they both must be heirs of the physical land, if that promise is still in effect.
“The Israel of God”
This oneness between believing Jews and Gentiles is so complete that Paul refers to the Gentiles in an absolutely shocking way at the end of Galatians. The book itself is about defeating the teaching that Gentile believers must be physically circumcised to be saved. At its heart, it is about the legitimacy of Gentile faith in Christ.
After making his arguments, including that true sons of Abraham are those who believe (3:7), Paul concludes by saying this: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (6:16).
This must have gone up like a mushroom cloud in the middle of the Jewish community. Not only is Paul saying Gentiles are included in the covenants of promise, but he is now actually calling them “Israel.”[11]
In Paul’s mind, there is one Israel, but it is no longer genealogical Jews plus believing Gentiles. It is those who believe, period. To speak of Israel with a continued distinction between Jew and Gentile is not consistent with New Testament doctrine.
The true Israel
In his numerous cries for genealogical Israel to repent and return to him, God demonstrates what he is truly looking for in a covenant people, a people who would love him from their hearts, desire more than anything to please him, and strive continually to expand and promote his purposes on the earth. Through his own gracious effort, this is what he gets in the New Covenant.
Through the atonement of Christ and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit, those who embrace this covenant become what God’s heart has always desired. And this is why Paul calls Gentiles the “Israel of God.” They, along with believing Jews, make up the covenant people he always planned to have. This is the true Israel, the one God intended all along.
The true Israel indicated from the beginning
The seeds of this plan were sown throughout the Old Testament:
Genesis 17:12 included not only a promise to bless all nations through Abraham but also to allow non-Jews to participate in the covenant itself.
Exodus 12:48 allowed non-Jews to keep the Passover.
Leviticus 23:22 required farmers to leave a portion of their crops “for the stranger.”
Joshua 6:25 states that Rahab, the non-Jew prostitute, saved the spies and was spared judgment.
Ruth 4:18-22 reveals that Ruth, the non-Jew migrant, became the great-grandmother of David and a progenitor of Christ himself.
Hosea 2:23 predicts that God will declare to non-Jews, “You are my people.”
Looking back through the Old Testament understanding what God has revealed in the New provides insight into God’s full intent in the Abrahamic Covenant, even though those who lived at that time would not have seen it. It was not that God altered his intent at some point along the way but that he had a broader intent all along.
The broader intent of the promise of the land
How does this apply to the promise of the land? It applies in that the same broader intent seen in other elements of the Abrahamic Covenant is at play in the promise of the land. The pledge of a small, physical plot in Palestine was never God’s full intent when he made this covenant. He had always planned to take that inferior promise and make it into something spectacular for his true Israel, Jews and Gentiles who aligned themselves through faith, not genealogy.
This is why so little is said about the land in the New Testament. This is why Jesus says the meek will inherit the earth but not the land; why the apostles did not promise the land to Israel; and why Paul talks about restoring the Jews to faith but not to the land.
The promise of the land, like so many of the promises made to the Jews, has been expanded without measure. It no longer refers to a patch of dirt on a fallen planet; it now means what it was always intended to mean, the inheritance of an entirely new earth, an entirely new heaven, and an entirely new life.
But where does the New Testament indicate this? The next section will provide the answer.
Problem 4: Jerusalem no longer on the earth
While the Old Testament focuses on the physical land of Canaan, the New Testament shifts to something above and beyond it. This can be seen in Hebrews 13:14, which says, “For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come.”
The Jews who were being persecuted for their faith in Christ (the subject of the book) were encouraged to look beyond Jerusalem, the city that had rejected them, to another city, one that would appear in the future. But what city was this?
Paul hints at the answer in Philippians 3:20 when he says, “Our citizenship is in heaven.” Believers live on the earth, but they legally belong to a locality in heaven.
In Galatians 4:26, Paul gives this locality a name: “But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.” The city is “the Jerusalem above,” which is the “mother” of believers (in that their faith flows from someone in it, namely, Christ). Hebrews 12:22 then expands the city’s description, calling it “Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.”
The New Jerusalem of Revelation
The Book of Revelation refers to this place as the “New Jerusalem”[12] and elaborates extensively on its nature and purpose. Jesus mentions it first in the letter to the church at Philadelphia. In Revelation 3:12, he said,
He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. [emphasis added]
Here, New Jerusalem is said to be the city of God, which will descend out of heaven to the earth.
At the end of Revelation, John saw the city Jesus described. In Revelation 21:2, he wrote, “Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” And a few verses later, he added, “[The angel] carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God” (21:10).
This event occurs after the new heaven and the new earth are created. In Revelation 21:2, just before John saw New Jerusalem come down, he said, “Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.”
According to Peter in 2 Pet. 3:10 and 13, this new heaven and new earth will be created after God destroys the present heaven and earth with fire:
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. … Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
What is the New Jerusalem?
Some fantastical efforts have been made to view the new Jerusalem as an actual, physical city. These efforts produce nonsensical descriptions and violate the basic laws of hermeneutics, attempting to make something literal out of a figurative description.[13] It is also unnecessary, for the text itself identifies what this New Jerusalem is.
In Revelation 21:2, John said it was “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” And in Revelation 21:9, the angel speaking to John said he was going to show him “the bride, the lambs wife.” In the next verse, the angel carries him to a high mountain and shows him “the great city the holy Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God.”
This city is not a physical place. It is the people of God (the “bride of Christ”; see also 2 Cor. 11:2) coming down from heaven with God. When the Lord brings down his holy city, he is bringing down his holy people to the new earth he has created where they will dwell with him righteously, peacefully, and eternally.
This is exactly how John describes what happens when the city appears in Revelation 21:3-5:
And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.
“And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
Does Israel ever get the land back?
The inheritance of the land, like the other promises, is still in effect. But, like those other promises, it is not bound by a literal, narrow understanding of the original words of the promise. God will indeed keep his word, but he will keep it in a way no one of the Old Covenant period could have understood, even Abraham. He will not bestow a small plot of land to his people; he will give them an entire new earth and universe.
The full and final fulfillment of the promise of the land is salvation in its totality, a new heaven, a new earth, and a new life. All with God. All eternal.
And all a result of New Covenant grace.
But God said he would give them that specific plot of land!
In spite of these arguments, many will still have difficulty accepting this conclusion. Some will see it as saying God has not fulfilled each literal word he spoke to Abraham. If he has not, then he has broken his promise, which, of course, God could never do.
Furthermore, others will see this as an example of “spiritualizing” the text, changing promises from their literal Old Covenant meaning to make them apply to New Covenant believers.
So, is God breaking his word if he expands the promise of the land as suggested, and is this an example of spiritualizing the text? No on both counts.
God kept every word of his promise
First, God did literally keep every single word he promised to Abraham. An analysis of the four components of the Abrahamic Covenant reveal that God literally, physically accomplished everything he said he would.
Abraham’s descendants did become a great nation, and other nations were spawned from them; Israel was a blessing to the people of the world[14]; and countless Jews were physically circumcised as a sign of the covenant.
Moreover, the Bible declares unequivocally that Israel took and lived in the entire land promised to Abraham. Joshua 21:43-45 states this expressly:
So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers.
And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass. [emphasis added]
Not spiritualizing, finalizing
It is important that believers watch out for interpretations that disregard the contextually understood meaning of a verse. But it is not spiritualizing to view Old Testament promises through the contextually understood statements of the New Testament. That is what has been done here.
The approach is not spiritualizing; it is finalizing. The goal is to understand the full and complete meaning God had in mind when he made these promises. The New Testament makes this possible. It provides a means to look back and see God’s plan unfolding, from the time of Abraham onward. And then it allows a peek forward to the final fulfillment the future will bring.
God cannot be caught up in his own words
The problem believers face here is not allowing God to interpret his own words. God very clearly had a more complete purpose in mind for circumcision, for who would make up his people, and for what the promise of the land would be (among other things). But believers today struggle to accept this because they have fallen into the same trap as the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, getting caught up in letters and words instead of intent and meaning.
God cannot and will not be caught up in his own words. His intent, sometimes that which he must later clarify, is always that upon which he will act. As students of God’s sayings, we must always pay attention to his words; do not misunderstand me. But we must be sure we understand the full meaning of those words, particularly when they come from Old Covenant promises or prophecies.
P. Jewett, in a scholarly article on eschatology, noted the importance of allowing God to interpret himself through the revelation of the New Testament. His words provide a fitting conclusion to this article:[15]
If the final meaning of the Old Testament is revealed in the New, what shall be made of the fact that the New Testament says nothing of the restoration of Israel to the land? Paul, the only New Testament writer to discuss Israel’s future in detail (Rom. 9-11), deals only with the spiritual aspect of the promises made to the fathers.
It seems best, therefore, to take the many prophecies of restoration to the land as having…their final fulfillment in terms of those blessings of a heavenly land, secure to all God’s people in Jesus Christ.
Conclusion
The reigning paradigm regarding the future inheritance of the land of Canaan is challenged on many points in Scripture. The use of the word “everlasting” does not always mean “unending”; believers already accept alterations to the other parts of the Abrahamic Covenant; and the New Testament not only fails to affirm the promise of the land but also points beyond it to a greater, eternal inheritance in the new heaven and new earth.
In the end, the promise of the land was fulfilled to national Israel during the time of Joshua and will be finally fulfilled for all believers, Jews and Gentiles, at the end of time. The challenge for believers in accepting these teachings is allowing God to interpret himself through the pages of the New Testament.
NOTES:
[1] What the Bible Says About Israel: Past, Present, and Future, by Cliff McManis, 2020, p. 73.
[2] It should be noted that, while believers may have different views on the future of Israel, the land, and biblical prophecy and eschatology in general, they should not divide over these issues. It is perfectly acceptable, and even expected, that sincere, knowledgeable Christians disagree on the meaning of these complex biblical teachings. Believers must fight the urge to fight one another and divide over doctrines no one can know for sure.
[3] “Ôlām,” Biblestudytools.com, Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon. https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/owlam.html
[4] The translation referred to here, and used throughout this document, is the New King James Version.
[5] This is consistent with Israel’s preoccupation with interpreting God’s commandments in a physical, literal way, as well.
[6] This last phrase, “for the first time in history,” is called into question by Joshua 21:43-45:
“So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.”
[7] “Conquest Confusion at Yale,” by Bryant G. Wood. https://biblearchaeology.org/research/conquest-of-canaan/2994-conquest-confusion-at-yale.
[8] To those who argue this was not the full land promised to Abraham, consider two things.
First, the unequivocal declaration of Joshua 21:43-45 that the full land was taken: “So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass” [emphasis added].
Second, even if there was much more land to take, in the grand scheme it is still a relatively small land mass. Estimates vary, but some suggest the full land may be as large as 60,000 square miles (https://christiananswers.net/dictionary/canaan.html). This area (or most of it) was eventually taken by Solomon. If Israel occupied this territory today, it would only be the 92nd largest nation by land mass in the world today, hardly a vast inheritance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area).
[9] These comments should not be construed to imply that the Jews are inferior to Gentiles. As part of the human race, they are made in the image of God and are due all the respect, dignity, and fair treatment that any other human being is entitled to. The point here is that Gentiles sometimes glorify the Jews because of their role in God’s redemptive plan in the Old Testament. This is inappropriate for two reasons. One, their rejection was because of obstinate unbelief, an unbelief that continues today. And two, the New Testament does not present them this way, which will be established later in this section.
[10] Cliff McManis, 2020, p. 138. See earlier reference detail.
[11] Could the phrase “Israel of God” refer to Jews and not Gentiles? No. The full verse of Galatians 6:16 is, "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." The "this rule" Paul speaks of is found in verse 15, which reads, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation." He is asking a blessing upon those who believe that circumcision is irrelevant to faith in God and inclusion in his kingdom. Those who are the Israel of God are those who hold to this, which, by definition, excludes genealogical Jews alone.
Furthermore, the entire letter is exclusively to Gentiles, and, in the section that precedes this statement, Paul argues vehemently that circumcision does not profit (11-15); in other words, he is openly critical of established Judaism. His entire letter is one long critique of genealogical Jews and their arrogant demands that Gentile converts subject themselves to their legalistic rules. In this context, he would not then pronounce a blessing upon them. These words are a final, loud hammer blow to their contention that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved.
[12] Why refer to a city and not the nation? Why the New “Jerusalem” as opposed to the New “Israel”? This is an example of synecdoche, the substitution of a part of something for the whole. For example, in the statement, “Give us this day our daily bread,” “daily bread” is substituted for “our physical and material needs as human beings.”
Here, Jerusalem, a part of Israel, means all Israel. For examples, see the use of Jerusalem in Jeremiah 3:17 as the place all nations will gather to, as well as Jesus’ criticism of Jerusalem as the place that stones the prophets in Matthew 23:37. In both cases, Jerusalem is used to mean the entire nation.
[13] It is perplexing to see the number of believers who completely ignore the fact that much of prophecy and almost all of Revelation are figurative in nature. Numbers, individuals, places, and events are clearly, and even sometimes openly, identified as metaphorical or allegorical, but the believer interprets them literally anyway. To correctly understand teachings of this type, the Bible student must take more seriously into account the genre of the literature.
[14] Among other things, Joseph saved many nations during widespread famine and the reign of Solomon brought wisdom and peace to a great part of the known world.
[15] “Eschatology,” by P. Jewett, in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 2, 1976, p. 345.