Wow, talk about a revelation!

Arab News reported in its October 23 (2010) edition that a Vatican synod on the Middle East declared that “Israel cannot use the biblical concept of a 'promised land' or a 'chosen people' to justify new settlements in Jerusalem or territorial claims.”

How could I have been so wrong?

For all of my adult life, I've been under the impression that the Land of Israel was promised unconditionally to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

“See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—to give to them and their descendants after them” (Deut. 1:8).

I'm being facetious, of course. This latest Vatican boondoggle is really nothing new. The liberal-ecumenical religious establishment (irrespective of whether it's Catholic or Protestant), with precious few exceptions, has never been a friend of the State of Israel or the Jewish people. Virtually all of the mainline religious denominations worldwide are anti-Zionist to one extent or another.

Some people have said the Jewish people forfeited their identity as the people of God (and the promises He made to them) because of their bad behavior in biblical times. However, the Bible says just the opposite. It tells us that the promises continue to be in force in spite of Israel's bad behavior:

Thus says the LORD: “If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the LORD” (Jer. 31:37).

In numerous instances, in fact, God went out of His way to make a distinction between Israel's behavior and His keeping of the covenant promises. Here's one example from the Torah:

“It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Deut. 9:5).

What about the passages in the Torah that talk about Israel's blessings being conditioned on her obedience? Here's one of the classic passages:

“Then it shall come to pass, because you listen to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the mercy which He swore to your fathers. And He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your land, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flock, in the land of which He swore to your fathers to give you” (Deut. 7:12-13).

So then, are the promises to Israel conditional or unconditional? It can't be both ways!

Let's begin by thinking about the distinction the NT makes between relationship and fellowship. A father-son relationship, for instance, cannot be broken. It's written into their DNA and even if they wanted to change it (which, sadly, sometimes happens), they couldn't. No matter what either of them does, they will always be father and son.

The Lord Jesus powerfully illustrated this truth in His parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). That young prodigal did everything he could to break his father's heart. He left home and squandered his inheritance on reckless, worldly pursuits. But when he came to himself and realized what a horrible mistake he had made (v. 7), his father gladly welcomed him back (v. 20).

Why? Because no matter what the young man did, he was still his father's son. They didn't have any fellowship while they were apart, of course; but the relationship was always there.

It's the same way with Israel collectively, as a nation. Even when the nation is out of fellowship with God, the relationship is still intact. It's in their spiritual “DNA,” as it were. It cannot be changed.

Another important distinction in this discussion about Israel and her Land is the one between ownership and possession. They are two different concepts. It's possible to own something without possessing it.

A lawyer friend once explained this to me. He said the distinction between possession and ownership is of particular importance in criminal law. In drug cases, for instance, being in possession of a cache of a controlled substance is not the same thing as being its owner. The owner may never have seen those drugs; but if he paid for them, and he controls them, they're his—even if they're not in his possession.

Israel's ownership of the Land is unconditional (you won't find the conditional word “if” anywhere in Genesis 12:1-3); however, her possession and enjoyment of it is always conditioned on obedience:

“You shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, His testimonies, and His statutes which He has commanded you. And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, that it may be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land of which the LORD swore to your fathers” (Deut. 6:17-18).

In some biblical passages, aspects of both concepts (ownership and possession) are intertwined; nonetheless, the distinction is still there.

Before we fall for the notion that God disinherited and disenfranchised His people Israel because they behaved badly, maybe we'd better consider our own situation. Does God disinherit us when we behave badly? Does he sever the relationship and turn the wolves loose on us?

Or is our heavenly Father more like the brokenhearted papa in the story of the prodigal son? The Bible doesn't say so, but I'm sure the old man prayed every day for his boy and scanned the horizon anxiously for some sign of his return. And when he finally got a glimpse of his wayward son off in the distance, he probably rubbed his eyes to make sure he wasn't seeing things—and then the Bible says he ran to meet his son, and hugged and kissed him (Luke 15:20).

The allegory applies to each of us individually, as God's children, and also to Israel corporately, as a nation. Someday, God will welcome His people Israel back “home.” They are, after all, His “son”—and He is their Father:

“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son'” (Ex. 4:22).

In the meantime, Israel owns the Land because God gave it to them. Is she entitled to possess it in her current state of unbelief? Of course not. But that's God's determination to make, not ours. There were many periods in OT history when Israel/Judah possessed the Land while in unbelief and/or idolatry.

My question for Pope Benedict and his Vatican colleagues is this: if Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) doesn't belong to the Jewish people, whose land is it?

Whatever answer you give to that question, sir, I hope you have Scripture to back it up.

Special thanks to Katherine Curry, a longtime friend of CJF Ministries from Colorado, who called this report from Arab News to our attention.