Can modern Israel really still claim God's promise to Abraham?

[1LoverofGod]

EDITED as of 10:41 Saturday PST, 10-4-25...so sorry for the typos...it was late. It should read much more straight forward for any who might have already given it a shot. A very important issue of discussion. Amen...and blessings.

Thanks Pastor. lol. I believe I was answering the wrong question. Forgive me brother. Originally i was thinking it was how we might view if the Abrahamic covenant is in effect today and if so how. lol. Although you were kind of asking that in reference to their land, I think I decided to take it into another county. Wow. So sorry. Ok, so as far as the land, yes, as TT pointed out. They will have it in the millennial kingdom. I guess how i might understand it specifically is that prior to 1948, they may have had a right to it, but experientially only when God would determine the end of the diaspora. But yes, that land given to them in the Old Testament is theirs forever. Amen. In that sense though, in diaspora they did not have God's permission to dwell in the land promised for 2,000 years. On account of their chastisement from the first century.

The point I was going after like a cat playfully attacking a string of yarn like, was even though they are on their land as promised, they will in the short term (Ezekiel 38) lose some of it for a minute from that war. From discipline + a likely entrance into the tribulation....the cat walk unto the thousand year reign.

Although God promised an eternal covenant with Israel, they would be susceptible to chastisement if they themselves did not honor it. For example the 70 years in captivity, not permitted to their land for that time. And Lamentations capturing what it looked like for Israel to cling to their land during a period God would not permit them to dwell therein. I would see that same aspect of their wondering the desert (even at their initial timeframe to receive that land). And a 40 year interval of God not permitting Israel to receive their promise, even initially again because of discipline.

I agree pastor it is an eternal covenant initiated and kept by God, thus the burning furnace and pillar of cloud passing between the pieces. What i was just referring to earlier would be like Gen 17:10, where even in this covenant made and kept by God alone, Israel being able to benefit from and experience its core blessing, they were to remain obedient. So a promise that is eternally secure for Israel, and kept by God as an eternal promise and eternal offering. Yet, Israel's ability to experience it would seem to have some notions of Israeli obedience to experience the fullest blessing of it. So like God does not keep that promise dependent on their obedience--as example they live there today...not so obedient. So God keeps it always and does not end or annul the covenant based on Israel's obedience. But for Israel to lay hold of that promise biblically would seem accessed through faith in living action of obedience.

Again, the promise itself is set forever. The endowment fully realized concerning Israel would seem to have conditions though, no? If their dwelling in their land is symbolic of that eternal promise, it is enjoyed by Israel in their obedience. And from an historic view, it would seem that the world gets to see God provide them with their land regardless of their obedience (but still, wow, with a lot of contemporary tension...that is for sure). A graced expressed of the God of that covenant to them before all. That the fact that Israel is dwelling there in Ez 37 manner, amidst all the controversy...testifies to the "eternity" of that promise God gave to Israel.

I would though suggest "this" [the following] sense is a part of what is expressed in God's word too though brother. Experientially in noticing how that functioned in their wandering the desert for 40 years, and the Babylonian exile for 70.

9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your [j]descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.

14 But as for an uncircumcised male, one who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Blessings.

God has chastised His people Israel for their disobedience and rebellion every time they did so. They are still in disbelief, and are in temporary spiritual blindness, but God's plan for Israel is a promise God will keep.

Exile from the land has been one way God has chastised them, but even in exile the land has Always belonged to the nation of Israel.
Removing the land ownership itself was never part of the chastisement.
God never took the covenant promised land away from them, but whenever God led them back to the land it was because that is where God chose for His people to be.
The land of Israel a permanent residence for His people, that is why Jerusalem was chosen by God to be where is presence would be for the nation of Israel to worship Him.

Speaking of Jerusalem....

"But you are to seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for His dwelling. To that place you must go” (Deuteronomy 12:5).

God never took the land away from Israel, even when they were scattered among the nations.
The land is prominently God's land, and when He chose to bring Israel back into the land, whether from Egypt or from all the nations, the land God gave to them is prophetically part of God's plan to ultimately restore the nation of Israel in completeness, in salvation, reconciliation with God, and the covenants promises coming to fruition, when they receive Messiah Jesus as their Savior during Jacob's trouble, and during the Millennial Reign of Jesus into the New Heavens and New Earth forever

 

[1LoverofGod]

It should be encouraging to know God never breaks His promises.
God doesnt change.
Gods promises to Israel and how He has dealt with them sheds light on how His Love and Mercy abounds, and that should give us hope in that same Love and Mercy God has towards the church as His children who we are.

The Character of God is unchanging.

“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed."
Malachi 3:6

"For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope."
Romans 15:4

God wouldn't break His promise even for a time, because everlasting means everlasting......

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.
8 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.”
Genesis 17:7-8

 

[TCC]

So the you in Genesis 12:3 is best considered as: Abraham and his (genetic) descendants throughout the ages?

Because of Galatians, it kind of means both I believe. Let's ask this question, who is more important here, Christ or Abraham? We don't see types of Abraham in the old testament. But we do of Christ. I am just being a little playful here. But the things is, I think because of Galatians it has to mean both. And ultimately it means Christ and all in Him...not descended Jews who did not believe (although generically it is true "a bunch of people" saved and unsaved will come from his lions).

To me I am not concerned with replacement theology. I was in the reformed camp for 25 years. So i'm not really thrown by is it physical Jews or spiritual. I do believe ultimately because of Christ the Seed is Him. But since the Jews (Gods chosen people) and the covenant as it relates to that line and the promise God made, it also refers to all the Jews since. And the ones going through the tribulation. And the ones saved in it. And the ones who will rule with Christ from Jerusalem on earth for 1,000 years.

So for me its not either or but both and. However i don't use that argument to not land soundly on either side. I am hopeful i am sound on both sides. So on the side that deals with Israeli land (which is what the thesis is for this thread) i would say that that land is promised to them eternally. And they will reign on it. But as we have seen over the centuries God has used keeping the land from Israel (even though promised) is generally related to their cooperation. Not the promise of it. That is not affected. And will be theirs no matter what for the 1,000 year reign. It is a divine appointment. Israel will not lose it. It is guaranteed. No matter what.

But in the meantime we have seen how God has kept it from Israel at times of discipline. Heck, even Moses was not allowed to go on it though Abraham was promised it for them prior. Because why? Because Moses dishonored God. That does not mean that the promise is subject to obedience. That just means that whether God permits them to experience fully what was promised is kind of sovereignly in His hands. This make sense though, yes? I am just not sure why might be confusing though. Not that you are confused by what i might mean. You are just asking. But I just stated what i did earlier because...

Well just generally what i have seen in eschatology circles is like the church's role is to quarterback how Isreal is doing in relation to that promise. Things like, "Israel should not go with the Abraham Accords because its a trap," as if Israel was under some kind covenant with God at the local level. Israel is by no means coming from obedience. So it does not make sense, at least in my mind, if Israel should go left or right. Either way, they are moving in rejection of Christ. And great stories and theories are formed on presuming Israel is in some state of obedience. If we say the Abrahamic Covenant is without condition then who cares what Israel does or does not do. It does not matter. But yet it seems some how evangelicalism has because of a genuinely good vibe to want to honor God in loving on Isreal somehow seems to create like a story board thing where the church can discern what is all going on up in Israel.

So for me, i am just saying, they are not honoring God in obedience. The Abrahamic Covenant is God doing whatever He wants with it...because ultimately He will have them on that land ruling with Him. In the meantime its quite enough to understand the middle east in flux eschatologically. But it might be even more difficult if we see Israel in some sense honoring God or in some covenant that has them doing something. They are partially hardened and there is no real response from them. So God in His mercy is showcasing His Abrahamic Covenant with them in what Israel does not deserve in their partially hardened state. And the whold dang world is high octane involved with that. Which is awesome precious. Likely this story in the age of grace ends with Israel losing 2/3rds of their people. And God reviving them for the tribulation.

I apologize if i am not tracking with the best purpose and intent of this thread. I am very interested in this subject and have had many discussions on it. I can always learn more though. But I get the feeling I am not really discussing this in the framework intended. If so I apologize. But it would be great for some guidance in the thesis that is best for this thread. Blessings.

 

[TCC]

God has chastised His people Israel for their disobedience and rebellion every time they did so. They are still in disbelief, and are in temporary spiritual blindness, but God's plan for Israel is a promise God will keep.

Exile from the land has been one way God has chastised them, but even in exile the land has Always belonged to the nation of Israel.
Removing the land ownership itself was never part of the chastisement.
God never took the covenant promised land away from them, but whenever God led them back to the land it was because that is where God chose for His people to be.
The land of Israel a permanent residence for His people, that is why Jerusalem was chosen by God to be where is presence would be for the nation of Israel to worship Him.

Speaking of Jerusalem....

"But you are to seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for His dwelling. To that place you must go” (Deuteronomy 12:5).

God never took the land away from Israel, even when they were scattered among the nations.
The land is prominently God's land, and when He chose to bring Israel back into the land, whether from Egypt or from all the nations, the land God gave to them is prophetically part of God's plan to ultimately restore the nation of Israel in completeness, in salvation, reconciliation with God, and the covenants promises coming to fruition, when they receive Messiah Jesus as their Savior during Jacob's trouble, and during the Millennial Reign of Jesus into the New Heavens and New Earth forever

I agree with everything said here. Amen. I started off on the wrong foot thinking this thread was leaning perhaps a certain way i got into. But ok so my "guess" is that maybe it might sound like i mean that God takes the land back from Israel? If so i never said that at least intentionally. But like for 2k years God would not let them take possession. I would not say God took the land back from them and broke His promise. I would just say, He would not allow them to experience the fullness of what is theirs. Which as i say that kind of rings a bell in my own life...lol. So this is edifying amen.

But if i had to pin the tail on some donkey, I would pin it on this one: "Is it ok for the Trump Admin to keep Israel from annexing Gaza?" Now that might be a thesis mirror. If so, I used to be on JD's side where the Deal of the Century seemed to break up Jerusalem. Jack Hibbs argued it was ok. JD argued it was not. At the time i sided with JD because i had never been anywhere else on that issue before. But apparently what happened is that it would seem Trump pulled a fast one and did the Abraham Accords instead. lol. So i think most of us knew Palestine would never agree to terms anyway. So it was just a paper gesture we were arguing about at the time.

But now? If we are going to be adamant (not saying we are....but this is where i would see grooves possibly in the discussion surface) about how things might go lets say for Gaza, then i think we should get a group of Christians together, team up with insider Israeli's and do one million man sit in around the Aqsa Mosque and demand this site be given back to Israel for their temple mount proper. And die sitting in if necessary. But instead its like we hear arguments about Gaza this or that.

So i am just saying the above because i see Gaza as still in the Lord's discretion of discipline toward Israel. He may let them have it all. He may not let them have much of Gaza. In a way in the big picture this is all heading toward Ez 38 anyway...so whatever goes down there in my view will be very temporary, i believe. I understand the principle of the thing. A lot of people want to see Israel have Gaza back. I agree. I want that too. But what i want more is whatever God in His sovereignty will do with that for them. I feel like we are talking about the same thing though. Am i missing something?

 

[1LoverofGod]

I agree with everything said here. Amen. I started off on the wrong foot thinking this thread was leaning perhaps a certain way i got into. But ok so my "guess" is that maybe it might sound like i mean that God takes the land back from Israel? If so i never said that at least intentionally. But like for 2k years God would not let them take possession. I would not say God took the land back from them and broke His promise. I would just say, He would not allow them to experience the fullness of what is theirs. Which as i say that kind of rings a bell in my own life...lol. So this is edifying amen.

But if i had to pin the tail on some donkey, I would pin it on this one: "Is it ok for the Trump Admin to keep Israel from annexing Gaza?" Now that might be a thesis mirror. If so, I used to be on JD's side where the Deal of the Century seemed to break up Jerusalem. Jack Hibbs argued it was ok. JD argued it was not. At the time i sided with JD because i had never been anywhere else on that issue before. But apparently what happened is that it would seem Trump pulled a fast one and did the Abraham Accords instead. lol. So i think most of us knew Palestine would never agree to terms anyway. So it was just a paper gesture we were arguing about at the time.

But now? If we are going to be adamant (not saying we are....but this is where i would see grooves possibly in the discussion surface) about how things might go lets say for Gaza, then i think we should get a group of Christians together, team up with insider Israeli's and do one million man sit in around the Aqsa Mosque and demand this site be given back to Israel for their temple mount proper. And die sitting in if necessary. But instead its like we hear arguments about Gaza this or that.

So i am just saying the above because i see Gaza as still in the Lord's discretion of discipline toward Israel. He may let them have it all. He may not let them have much of Gaza. In a way in the big picture this is all heading toward Ez 38 anyway...so whatever goes down there in my view will be very temporary, i believe. I understand the principle of the thing. A lot of people want to see Israel have Gaza back. I agree. I want that too. But what i want more is whatever God in His sovereignty will do with that for them. I feel like we are talking about the same thing though. Am i missing something?

While God permits things to happen, it doesnt mean He is leading it nor approving of it.
God permits evil, but not because He approves of it.
The Gaza issue doesnt necessarily have to be over God's disciplinary actions towards Israel.
Evil exists from among Israel's adversaries without it having to be Israel's fault.
Its not that God would let them have Gaza as though its His will to let them have it, but He would allow the dividing of Israel to happen because He knows the end from the beginning, and God has already made it known in His Prophetic Word in advance that His land would be divided, but while He allows it to happen its for His purpose, so all will know He is The Lord when He judges the nations for doing harm to His people, and for dividing His land, according to Joel 3:2.

I think even in Israel's disobedience, God has continued to demonstrate that He is still doing good in behalf of His people. Only God could be the One Who has kept Israel from genocide and complete annihilation from her enemies.
Israel is surrounded by enemies. If they all attacked Israel together, Israel would be gone. But it wont happen, because God wont let it happen.
Israel has survived because of God's Mercy and Grace because He knows they will receive Jesus in acknowledgement as their Messiah for the completion of God's plan for them.

 

[TCC]

Good point. I agree. Discipline, however, has a familiar history concerning their land. Whatever else God might do aside providentially is not as easy of a landing the plane type of understandable. And would be almost too hugely speculative though to demonstrate consideration as example reasons as for why God might permit dividing. We talk about not dividing Israel as something many see as something to "stand" with Israel regarding. And well we should, amen. Its a covenant God has over Israel. But just as it may not be for disciplinary reasons, for what ever reasons, it has not been made known to us the reasons for Israel not to annex Gaza. We know God does not want Israel divided. But since we don't know for what reason He might permit Israel not to have Gaza for now, I would not think affirming that God not permitting Israel Gaza be answered with conclusions the church may make. Like understanding God does not want Isreal divided, is true. But what might also be equally true is God may permit here, for unknown providential reasons, a granting of Gaza to remain not theirs, yet for a time. And with that being true (if it were) understanding their division as something God has promised He does not want may not mean He won't allow it for strategic ends. And if He permits it to divide for strategic providence, we would not know some things according to His unfolding plans in that. Which in His sovereign care, might mean something other for His purposes.

For example believers asserted for the Deal of the Century not to divide Israel. But on paper it would have seemedt to have been strategic toward the formation of the Abraham Accords No one saw that coming. @Hol had noted it is believed the reason why Trump said he won't let Bibi annex Gaza is to get some overt conservative Israeli group off from pressuring Bibi. And if that is true, it is likely that there would be something likely coming that is perhaps to be a surprise. And if so, it would have been the strategic hand of God possibly selling the appearance of not allowing Israel to annex. Like some creative way to annex Gaza no one is thinking like. In a potential like that, to believe that Trump is turning on Israel and becoming closer friends with Israel's enemies (which i am not saying you are saying...but some are) may not be the best way to consider how to think upon the various players involved, was kind of my point. Just like Abraham Accords. At least in some circles we made it about not divided Jerusalem. But in reality (because Palestine would never go for it anyway) some had concern that Jerusalem might have been divided. But that was a "look over there, not over here," optic. That worked. This Gaza issue has similar earmarks. If that makes sense?

 

[mattfivefour]

I'm not sure I understand the disconnect though pastor. How is it conflating though? Well, the way I am asking it is like this: If we look at Gen 15 and say it is eternal and whatever is made in 17 has no bearing...I am not sure of the point on that. Surely 15 does not mean that Israel would occupy its land from the time of capture and forevermore. If we say "eternal" in that respect, then 40 years they did not have their land, and 70 years they did not have their land, and 2,000 years they did not have their land. So they are on their land experiencing the eternal covenant. The fact that we can say, "they are back" means God would not let them have their land for 2,000 years providentially. Respectfully brother to just say I'm conflating i don't think helps clarify the reality that the land of Israel belongs to them experientially under conditions. Because that is kind of what we have seen for centuries, no? That is not to say chapter 15 is not eternal. But what it does not mean is that Israel could have insisted to God after rejecting their Messiah that He keep their land because of the eternal Gen 15 promise, though, and not let Rome chase them from their own land, correct? What am i missing?

Maybe I just did not understand your points, brother. I saw both Genesis 15 and 17 mentioned almost in one breath and it seemed to me --perhaps erroneously (for which I sincerely apologize if I misunderstood)-- that you were not differentiating between the covenant in Genesis 15 which is unconditional and the one in Genesis 17 which I believe is clearly largely conditional.

 

[mattfivefour]

I apologize if i am not tracking with the best purpose and intent of this thread. I am very interested in this subject and have had many discussions on it. I can always learn more though. But I get the feeling I am not really discussing this in the framework intended. If so I apologize. But it would be great for some guidance in the thesis that is best for this thread. Blessings.

I think you're tracking right on target, brother. You bring some fresh ideas. And that provokes discussion, obviously. But that is good, as we seek to understand this topic more fully.