Personally I don’t see that the bible is intended to be a history book, nor is it intended to be the basis for determining modern national borders. On the other hand, many Christians have a much more literal understanding of scriptures including Old Testament passages about the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 6:8). Many believe that Christians should support the modern state of Israel based on scriptures.
I am curious about their understanding of passages from the New Testament that appear to take a different view. Here is one example:
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. Galatians 4:24-26 NIV
Paul says that Jews who did not accept Jesus are effectively the descendants of Ishmael and instead of Isaac. What does that imply for the land promised in Exodus to the descendants of Isaac?
As background, here is a video that goes through other passages from the New Testament that appear to run counter to support for the modern state of Israel. For convenience, I have included links to the passages cited in the video.
Personally, I think that the world would be much better off if US policy in the Middle East were based on these words from Micah rather than Old Testament passages about slaughtering Canaanites.
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
31 “I will establish your borders from the Red Sea[a] to the Mediterranean Sea,[b] and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you.”
Yeah in Israeli politics that’s called “greatest Israel.”
Greater Israel is the current territory plus formal annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. Greater + Jordan Israel is essentially the entire territory of historical Palestine. Then Greatest Israel is similar to the layout mentioned in that verse, all the way into modern Iraq.
Issue is that politically that would be difficult and no one in the Israeli government takes those plans seriously.
They would be absorbing a ton of Arabs, who would really hate this new structure. Israel can barely contain its Palestinian issue. Much less 100 million or so new Arabs.
Israel doesn’t have the economy to really run that much territory.
To be fair, Ismael got a raw deal out of that whole situation.
But the truth is the same. Most of the world’s issues can be traced back to Abraham deciding he needed two baby momma’s and the baby momma drama that came with it.
Every step along the way. Every begetting (whether or not it was within the Law of God). Every sin. Every victory. It all added up to the factors that culminated in the birth of Jesus the Christ. By some Faith traditions, it was all necessary. (Likewise, what each individual does and chooses and fails at today builds into something that comes generations from now.)
Maybe end-time adherents are missing the point today. What if God is waiting for Islam to be converted to Christianity? (Or vice versa.)
Could be. In Christianity the only way to salvation is through the Grace of Christ. In Islam, God’s nature is understood to purely singular; to Muslims he had no sons, there is no concept of a Holy Spirit, there is simply God (Allah). I’ve always been of the opinion that Muhammad gathered together elements from both Christianity and Judaism together to form Islam since a ton of elements are shared between the three. But Islam and Judaism both see the original Covenant with Abraham (or Ibrihim for Muslims) as still binding whereas Christ created a new Covenant for both the Jews and the Gentiles.
Islam is interesting, IMO, in that it isn’t so much a complete message but instead it is seen as the completion of a message. Which is why all of the old Judeo prophets are so revered (each as seen as speaking elements of the message to prepare mankind for the final message from Muhammad, which he was instructed by Gabriel) and Christ is seen as very important figure in Islam. They reject the divinity, but he is generally considered the second or third most important prophet (only Abraham and Muhammed are ranked higher to Muslims, although some sects rank Jesus as higher than Abraham).
It’s also why reading the Quran is honestly kind of weird and I noticed it when I started it. The Quran expects you to know quite alot of biblical stories already. The Biblical Creation, the story of Abraham, the Passion of Christ, those sorts of things. The Quran doesn’t delve too deep into those. It kind of expects you to already know it. I think it’s like that because most of the early Muslims from outside of Arabia were either Jewish or Christian originally so they would have a deep understanding of it already while those in Arabia were converting from a Polytheistic background so they really only needed to know the Creation story, which the Quran does dive into a bit.
Gal 4:22 “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”
Spiritual Jerusalem is above and free.
There is nothing holy or sacred about dirt. Earthly Jerusalem.
