‘Revised’ Church of Scotland Report Disappointing but not Surprising
![]()
I suspect there may be some in the Church of Scotland who regret having taken up the occupation of Palestine as a topic for debate this week. After all, doing so has made them the subject of an intense campaign of Jewish pressure, which puts them in the unenviable position of trying to appease angry Jews on the one hand, while at the same time remaining faithful, at least somewhat so, to their principles and the teachings of Jesus on the other. How well have they succeeded in this?
That perhaps remains to be seen. The church’s annual General Assembly is in progress this week and the controversial report—“The Inheritance of Abraham? A Report on the ‘Promised Land’” has yet to be voted on. But the “revised version” of the report is now up on the church’s website, here, and it is considerably watered down from the original.
(The original version can still be accessed here.)
To the church’s credit, it has remained consistent on two key conclusions: that the Bible does not confer upon any people a guaranteed, divine right to any land, and that the current situation between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is characterized by an inequality in power. But elsewhere we see considerable compromises in wording and content. Consider the following passage—found in the original report, but deleted from the revised version:
As long as Zionists think that Jewish people are serving God’s special purpose and that abuses by the state of Israel, however, wrong and regrettable, don’t invalidate the Zionist project, they will believe themselves more entitled to the land than the Palestinian people. A final difficulty is Jewish ‘exceptionalism’, with its interpretation of the covenant in Exodus 19:3-6:
“Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, ‘This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I have carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you here to me. If only you will now listen to me and keep my covenant, then out of all peoples you will become my special possession; for the whole earth is mine. You will be to me a kingdom of priests, my holy nation. Those are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
As I say, the entire passage above, including the remark about Jewish exceptionalism and the quote from Exodus, has been deleted in the revised version.
As I reported in my previous article on this issue, the report in its original form was posted on the Church of Scotland website in early May, but quickly taken down following a voicing of complaints from Jews, and replaced with a statement that included the following:
The Church of Scotland and representatives of the Jewish Community in Scotland and the United Kingdom, held useful discussions facilitated by the Council of Christians and Jews this afternoon, Thursday 8 May. We agreed that the drafting of the report published by the Church and Society Council for discussion at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has given cause for concern and misunderstanding of its position and requires a new introduction to set the context for the report and give clarity about some of the language used.
Interestingly, the original introduction has remained pretty much intact in the revised report. However, it has been preceded by a “Preface” as well as an additional section entitled “Context.” The preface acknowledges that the original report “has been the subject of international controversy,” and goes on to express regret about the “anxiety” and “concern” arising in the Jewish community as a result of its release:
Whilst no stranger to controversy, working as we do on difficult issues at the interface of religion and politics, we have become aware that some of the language used in the report used to describe attitudes and beliefs held by some members of the Christian and Jewish communities have caused worry and concern in parts of the Jewish Community in Israel and beyond. This was never our intention. We can be robust in putting our point across, but in this instance we acknowledge that some of the words we have chosen may have been misunderstood, which created an anxiety in the Jewish Community. It is in this light that we are happy to offer this clarification.
One can only ask the question: is it really necessary for Christians to apologize when the teachings of Jesus cause “anxiety” in the Jewish community? How much commiserating are we required to dish up, how much succor are we expected to offer, when emotionally taxed members of the “Jewish Community” start feeling concerned and worried over something?
Perhaps nowhere in the report have the changes been more dramatic than in the section entitled “A Land with a Universal Mission,” so let’s examine closely the modifications and alterations that have been made here. Below are a “before” and an “after” version, the first passage showing the section as it appeared in the original report, while the second gives us the “revised version.” You’ll notice that in the revised version, one whole textual part, including a quote from the Gospel of Luke as well as remarks about Jesus having offered a “radical critique of Jewish specialness and exclusivism,” has been entirely eliminated; other paragraphs, while not excised entirely, have nonetheless undergone changes in wording, some of them significant.
A land with a universal mission (original version)
An adequate Christian understanding of the ‘promised land’ must take into account two further points, in addition to the conditional nature of promises in the Hebrew Bible:
i. There are different meanings attached to “land” in different contexts and in the theological and political agendas of the various authors of the Hebrew Bible.
ii. The New Testament contains a radical re-interpretation of the concepts of “Israel”, “temple”, “Jerusalem”, and “land”.
i. The Hebrew Bible
The boundaries of the land are described in different ways in different situations. Abraham’s descendants, “numerous as the stars in the sky”, will receive “all these lands”, and through them “all nations on earth will be blessed” (Genesis 26:4). This suggests a more inclusive picture than “the land of Canaan” (Genesis 12:5) or even “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates” (Genesis 15:18). The lack of detailed archaeological evidence supports the view that the range of scriptural material makes it inappropriate to try to use the Hebrew scriptures to determine an area of land meant exclusively for the Jewish people.
The prophetic writings especially were developing a different understanding. In Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, force is used to achieve Israel’s nationalistic goals. This is continued by the Maccabees in the 2nd century BC and the Zealots in AD 1st century. That exclusivist tradition implied Jews had a special, privileged position in relation to God. But the prophetic tradition stood against this. Narrative of the Babylonian captivity demonstrated that God was not confined to ‘their’ land, or was concerned only for ‘them’.
The book of Jonah is a key text for understanding the Hebrew Bible’s promise of land to Abraham and his descendants. Written at a time when Jewish people were turning inwards, the book presents Jonah as a Jewish nationalist to drive home the point: God’s universal, inclusive love is for all. God in Jonah is merciful, gracious, a liberator of the oppressed and sinful who looks for just living. The people of God even include the hated Assyrians. So Jonah suggests a new theology of the land, because God was not confined within the land of Israel, but also embraced the land of Assyria.
Kairos Palestine (2.3):
We believe that our land has a universal mission. In this universality, the meaning of the promises, of the land, of the election, of the people of God, open up to include all of humanity, starting from all peoples of this land.
ii. New Testament
The New Testament is even clearer about a process in the unfolding of God’s purposes of good for humanity, Hebrews 1:1-2: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a son whom he appointed heir to all things.”
Previous experiences of land, including the peaceful returns from exile, were stages towards a wider future. This is the understanding throughout the New Testament. The Good News of Jesus is inclusive. The incident that follows the ‘Nazareth Manifesto’ in Luke 4 (verses 25-30) makes the point clearly:
“‘But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up for three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.’ When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage. They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way.”
Jesus offered a radical critique of Jewish specialness and exclusivism, but the people of Nazareth were not ready for it. John’s gospel speaks of Jesus being lifted up and drawing all people to himself (John 12:32). Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple means not just that the Temple needs to be reformed, but that the Temple is finished. Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 makes it clear that God is no longer confined to the place of the Temple. Temple and land give way to a new understanding so Paul can say that all the barriers that separated Jews from the rest are down– “there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male or female in Christ Jesus.” The new ‘place’ where God is found is wherever people gather in the name of Jesus.
If Jesus is indeed the Yes to all God’s promises the promise to Abraham about land is fulfilled through the impact of Jesus, not by restoration of land to the Jewish people. Jesus gave a new direction and message for the people of God, one which did not feature a special area of land for them. From the day of Pentecost his followers were sent to work for a different kind of kingdom. When the apostle Paul spelt it out for the emerging church in Rome he began to answer the question about the Jewish people who were not following Jesus. His conclusions that “all Israel will be saved”, and that “God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (Romans 11:26, 32) have tested all subsequent interpreters, but most recent ones see a vision of a reconciliation beyond this age. No part of the New Testament gives any support to a political state of Israel beyond that to any other state. All are challenged to the same requirements for justice and the protection of human rights for all their inhabitants.
A land with a universal mission (revised version)
We believe that an adequate Christian understanding of the ‘promised land’ must take into account two further points, in addition to the conditional nature of promises in the Hebrew Bible:
i. There are different meanings attached to “land” in different contexts and in the theological and political agendas of the various authors of the Hebrew Bible.
ii. The New Testament contains a radical re-interpretation of the concepts of “Israel”, “temple”, “Jerusalem”, and “land”.
i. The Hebrew Bible
The boundaries of the land are described in different ways in different situations. Abraham’s descendants, “numerous as the stars in the sky”, will receive “all these lands”, and through them “all nations on earth will be blessed” (Genesis 26:4). This suggests a more inclusive picture than “the land of Canaan” (Genesis 12:5) or even “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates” (Genesis 15:18). The lack of detailed archaeological evidence supports the view that the range of scriptural material makes it inappropriate to try to use the Hebrew scripture to determine an area of land meant exclusively for the Jewish people.
The prophetic writings especially were developing a different understanding. In Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, force is used to achieve Israel’s goals. This is continued by the Maccabees in the 2nd century BCE and the Zealots in CE 1st century. That tradition implied a special, privileged position in relation to God. But the prophetic tradition stood against this. Narrative of the Babylonian captivity demonstrated that God was not confined to one land, or was concerned only for one people.
For Christians the book of Jonah is a key text for understanding the Hebrew Bible’s promise of land to Abraham and his descendants. Written at a time when the people were turning inwards, the book presents Jonah as a nationalist to drive home the point: God’s universal, inclusive love is for all. For Christians, God in Jonah is merciful, gracious, a liberator of the oppressed and sinful who looks for just living. The people of God even included the hated Assyrians. So to Christians, Jonah suggests a new theology of the land, because God was not confined within the land of Israel, but also embraced the land of Assyria. In saying this, we recognize that a Jewish Theological interpretation of Jonah may not go as far as a Christian one, perhaps being more contextualised in time terms.
Kairos Palestine (2.3):
We believe that our land has a universal mission. In this universality, the meaning of the promises, of the land, of the election, of the people of God, open up to include all of humanity, starting from all peoples of this land.
ii. New Testament
For Christians, the New Testament is even clearer about a process in the unfolding of God’s purposes of good for humanity, Hebrews 1:1-2: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a son whom he appointed heir to all things.”
Previous experiences of land, including the peaceful returns from exile, were stages towards a wider future. This is the understanding throughout the New Testament. The Good News of Jesus is inclusive.
John’s gospel speaks of Jesus being lifted up and drawing all people to himself (John 12:32). Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple means not just that the Temple needs to be reformed, but that the Temple which by its order, kept some people separate from others is finished. Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 makes it clear that God is no longer confined to the place of the Temple. Temple and land give way to a new understanding so Paul can say that all the barriers that separated people from one another are down– “there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male or female in Christ Jesus.”
If Jesus is indeed the Yes to all God’s promises then for Christians the promise to Abraham about land is fulfilled through the impact of Jesus. Jesus gave a new direction to his followers, one which did not feature nor was it confined to a special area of land for them. From the day of Pentecost his followers were sent to work for a different kind of kingdom.
A comparison of the section entitled “Conclusion” is also instructive. What follows is the opening paragraph of that section, as found in the original report:
From this examination of the various views in the Bible about the relation of land to the people of God, it can be concluded that Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jewish or any other people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess particular territory. It is a misuse of the Bible to use it as a topographic guide to settle contemporary conflicts over land. In the Bible, God’s promises extend in hope to all land and people. Focussed as they are on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, these promises call for a commitment in every place to justice in a spirit of reconciliation.
Now here is the same paragraph from the revised version:
From this examination of the various views in the Bible about the relation of land to the people of God, it may be concluded that Christians should not be supporting any claims by any people to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess particular territory. We believe that is a misuse of the Bible to use it as a topographic guide to settle contemporary conflicts over land. In the Bible, God’s promises extend in hope to all land and people.
You’ll note that the last sentence in the original version, beginning with the words “Focussed as they are on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ…” has been omitted. By making changes of this nature, the Church of Scotland has essentially made its report “more Jewish.” In addition to dropping the referenced sentence about the resurrection of Jesus, the final version’s “Conclusion” section also inserts the following paragraph not found in the original:
This theological approach is what we bring from our Christian perspective to the place of dialogue with people of other faith communities grappling with the issues of land in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It does not judge the faith of others nor suggest that one perspective supersedes another but it does challenge the manifestations of faith expressed by some on the question of land in these troubled places.
What does the above mean? That when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” he didn’t mean it? Or that we should simply disregard all of his criticisms of the Pharisees, since to do otherwise might cause “anxiety” to Jews?
None of this is surprising, for results of this kind are almost always the product of “interfaith dialog” between Christians and Jews. As noted previously, the report’s original version was canned as a result of discussions with Jews which took place on May 8. The Jewish organizations represented at that discussion were The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Movement for Reform Judaism, and Rabbis for Human Rights—and as I have shown here, the result has been a compromising and weakening of the report. Yet for some reason, I’m not sure why, the Church of Scotland seems to find such dialog productive and plans to continue with it:
The Church and Society Council [of the Church of Scotland] welcomes dialogue with Scotland’s and Britain’s Jewish community for whom the land of Israel is understandably special and may be considered part of their self-identity. Talking has helped increase both our faiths’ understanding, and has underlined the importance for continued dialogue. This is not about Christianity taking one side and Judaism the other. Both our faiths have a widespread and diverse membership, with a wide range of views on theological as well as political matters. What can bring us together is our commitment to understanding and engagement, and our willingness to work together, and to keep talking.
I have said it before and will say it again here: as a Christian, I am totally opposed to any further interfaith dialog with Jews—for the reason that it invariably is a one-way street, with Jews making all the demands and Christians doing all the compromising…compromising of their values, as well as their faith. This has been the history of it for the last 50 years, going all the way back to the Second Vatican Council. In all this time, I have never seen a single instance of Jews changing or rewriting reports or any other texts they have produced, or altering their interpretation of their own scriptures, at the insistence of Christians.
As I said above, the church did stand firm on a couple of its key conclusions, including its refutation of the notion that the Bible accords the Jews a privileged or divinely-recognized claim over the land of Palestine. And that at least is good, but when compared with the original, the revised version of the report can only be viewed as pallid and anemic. The following are some additional passages that the Church of Scotland saw fit to put into the original report but which were deleted from the revised, presumably in the interest of alleviating Jewish “anxiety”:
How do we view the narratives on the occupation of the ‘promised land’ in Joshua and Judges? (Violent ethnic cleansing was apparently condoned by God in some passages, while others suggest assimilation.)
For example, the occupation of the land by Jewish immigration in recent times and the violence used to deprive some 750,000 Palestinian people from their homes at the time the State of Israel was established in 1948? (This is known by the Palestinian people as Al Nakba—the catastrophe.
Clarence Wagner describes the creation of the modern state of Israel as a ‘miracle.’ What is meant by ‘miracle’? Was Al Nakba a ‘miracle’—driving people from their ancestral land and property with no right of reclaim; the creation of the Gaza Strip; all the refugee camps; the occupied Palestinian territory with the destruction of community life; and the impoverishment of the Palestinian people?
Possession of any land is clearly conditional. The question that arises is this: Would the Jewish people today have a fairer claim to the land if they dealt justly with the Palestinians?
Braverman challenges, too, what he calls ‘revisionist Christian theology’, more widely known as Western post-Holocaust theology, i.e. theology which takes away Jesus’ radical critique of Jewish theology and practice in order to provide no excuse for Christian anti-Semitism
Will the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly vote to accept the revised version of “The Inheritance of Abraham? A Report on the ‘Promised Land’” when the matter comes up for a vote later this week? Since the report has been significantly watered down, does it even matter? Unfortunately this is a pattern we see played out in one church general assembly after another. We saw it last year with the Methodists and the Presbyterians, and we are seeing it this year with the Church of Scotland.
Update:
You can follow the General Assembly debate live at the church’s website.
River toSea![]()
Uprooted Palestinian ![]()
I suspect there may be some in the Church of Scotland who regret having taken up the occupation of Palestine as a topic for debate this week. After all, doing so has made them the subject of an intense campaign of Jewish pressure, which puts them in the unenviable position of trying to appease angry Jews on the one hand, while at the same time remaining faithful, at least somewhat so, to their principles and the teachings of Jesus on the other. How well have they succeeded in this?
That perhaps remains to be seen. The church’s annual General Assembly is in progress this week and the controversial report—“The Inheritance of Abraham? A Report on the ‘Promised Land’” has yet to be voted on. But the “revised version” of the report is now up on the church’s website, here, and it is considerably watered down from the original.
(The original version can still be accessed here.)
To the church’s credit, it has remained consistent on two key conclusions: that the Bible does not confer upon any people a guaranteed, divine right to any land, and that the current situation between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is characterized by an inequality in power. But elsewhere we see considerable compromises in wording and content. Consider the following passage—found in the original report, but deleted from the revised version:
As long as Zionists think that Jewish people are serving God’s special purpose and that abuses by the state of Israel, however, wrong and regrettable, don’t invalidate the Zionist project, they will believe themselves more entitled to the land than the Palestinian people. A final difficulty is Jewish ‘exceptionalism’, with its interpretation of the covenant in Exodus 19:3-6:
“Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, ‘This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I have carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you here to me. If only you will now listen to me and keep my covenant, then out of all peoples you will become my special possession; for the whole earth is mine. You will be to me a kingdom of priests, my holy nation. Those are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
As I say, the entire passage above, including the remark about Jewish exceptionalism and the quote from Exodus, has been deleted in the revised version.
As I reported in my previous article on this issue, the report in its original form was posted on the Church of Scotland website in early May, but quickly taken down following a voicing of complaints from Jews, and replaced with a statement that included the following:
The Church of Scotland and representatives of the Jewish Community in Scotland and the United Kingdom, held useful discussions facilitated by the Council of Christians and Jews this afternoon, Thursday 8 May. We agreed that the drafting of the report published by the Church and Society Council for discussion at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has given cause for concern and misunderstanding of its position and requires a new introduction to set the context for the report and give clarity about some of the language used.
Interestingly, the original introduction has remained pretty much intact in the revised report. However, it has been preceded by a “Preface” as well as an additional section entitled “Context.” The preface acknowledges that the original report “has been the subject of international controversy,” and goes on to express regret about the “anxiety” and “concern” arising in the Jewish community as a result of its release:
Whilst no stranger to controversy, working as we do on difficult issues at the interface of religion and politics, we have become aware that some of the language used in the report used to describe attitudes and beliefs held by some members of the Christian and Jewish communities have caused worry and concern in parts of the Jewish Community in Israel and beyond. This was never our intention. We can be robust in putting our point across, but in this instance we acknowledge that some of the words we have chosen may have been misunderstood, which created an anxiety in the Jewish Community. It is in this light that we are happy to offer this clarification.
One can only ask the question: is it really necessary for Christians to apologize when the teachings of Jesus cause “anxiety” in the Jewish community? How much commiserating are we required to dish up, how much succor are we expected to offer, when emotionally taxed members of the “Jewish Community” start feeling concerned and worried over something?
Perhaps nowhere in the report have the changes been more dramatic than in the section entitled “A Land with a Universal Mission,” so let’s examine closely the modifications and alterations that have been made here. Below are a “before” and an “after” version, the first passage showing the section as it appeared in the original report, while the second gives us the “revised version.” You’ll notice that in the revised version, one whole textual part, including a quote from the Gospel of Luke as well as remarks about Jesus having offered a “radical critique of Jewish specialness and exclusivism,” has been entirely eliminated; other paragraphs, while not excised entirely, have nonetheless undergone changes in wording, some of them significant.
A land with a universal mission (original version)
An adequate Christian understanding of the ‘promised land’ must take into account two further points, in addition to the conditional nature of promises in the Hebrew Bible:
i. There are different meanings attached to “land” in different contexts and in the theological and political agendas of the various authors of the Hebrew Bible.
ii. The New Testament contains a radical re-interpretation of the concepts of “Israel”, “temple”, “Jerusalem”, and “land”.
i. The Hebrew Bible
The boundaries of the land are described in different ways in different situations. Abraham’s descendants, “numerous as the stars in the sky”, will receive “all these lands”, and through them “all nations on earth will be blessed” (Genesis 26:4). This suggests a more inclusive picture than “the land of Canaan” (Genesis 12:5) or even “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates” (Genesis 15:18). The lack of detailed archaeological evidence supports the view that the range of scriptural material makes it inappropriate to try to use the Hebrew scriptures to determine an area of land meant exclusively for the Jewish people.
The prophetic writings especially were developing a different understanding. In Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, force is used to achieve Israel’s nationalistic goals. This is continued by the Maccabees in the 2nd century BC and the Zealots in AD 1st century. That exclusivist tradition implied Jews had a special, privileged position in relation to God. But the prophetic tradition stood against this. Narrative of the Babylonian captivity demonstrated that God was not confined to ‘their’ land, or was concerned only for ‘them’.
The book of Jonah is a key text for understanding the Hebrew Bible’s promise of land to Abraham and his descendants. Written at a time when Jewish people were turning inwards, the book presents Jonah as a Jewish nationalist to drive home the point: God’s universal, inclusive love is for all. God in Jonah is merciful, gracious, a liberator of the oppressed and sinful who looks for just living. The people of God even include the hated Assyrians. So Jonah suggests a new theology of the land, because God was not confined within the land of Israel, but also embraced the land of Assyria.
Kairos Palestine (2.3):
We believe that our land has a universal mission. In this universality, the meaning of the promises, of the land, of the election, of the people of God, open up to include all of humanity, starting from all peoples of this land.
ii. New Testament
The New Testament is even clearer about a process in the unfolding of God’s purposes of good for humanity, Hebrews 1:1-2: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a son whom he appointed heir to all things.”
Previous experiences of land, including the peaceful returns from exile, were stages towards a wider future. This is the understanding throughout the New Testament. The Good News of Jesus is inclusive. The incident that follows the ‘Nazareth Manifesto’ in Luke 4 (verses 25-30) makes the point clearly:
“‘But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up for three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.’ When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage. They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way.”
Jesus offered a radical critique of Jewish specialness and exclusivism, but the people of Nazareth were not ready for it. John’s gospel speaks of Jesus being lifted up and drawing all people to himself (John 12:32). Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple means not just that the Temple needs to be reformed, but that the Temple is finished. Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 makes it clear that God is no longer confined to the place of the Temple. Temple and land give way to a new understanding so Paul can say that all the barriers that separated Jews from the rest are down– “there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male or female in Christ Jesus.” The new ‘place’ where God is found is wherever people gather in the name of Jesus.
If Jesus is indeed the Yes to all God’s promises the promise to Abraham about land is fulfilled through the impact of Jesus, not by restoration of land to the Jewish people. Jesus gave a new direction and message for the people of God, one which did not feature a special area of land for them. From the day of Pentecost his followers were sent to work for a different kind of kingdom. When the apostle Paul spelt it out for the emerging church in Rome he began to answer the question about the Jewish people who were not following Jesus. His conclusions that “all Israel will be saved”, and that “God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (Romans 11:26, 32) have tested all subsequent interpreters, but most recent ones see a vision of a reconciliation beyond this age. No part of the New Testament gives any support to a political state of Israel beyond that to any other state. All are challenged to the same requirements for justice and the protection of human rights for all their inhabitants.
A land with a universal mission (revised version)
We believe that an adequate Christian understanding of the ‘promised land’ must take into account two further points, in addition to the conditional nature of promises in the Hebrew Bible:
i. There are different meanings attached to “land” in different contexts and in the theological and political agendas of the various authors of the Hebrew Bible.
ii. The New Testament contains a radical re-interpretation of the concepts of “Israel”, “temple”, “Jerusalem”, and “land”.
i. The Hebrew Bible
The boundaries of the land are described in different ways in different situations. Abraham’s descendants, “numerous as the stars in the sky”, will receive “all these lands”, and through them “all nations on earth will be blessed” (Genesis 26:4). This suggests a more inclusive picture than “the land of Canaan” (Genesis 12:5) or even “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates” (Genesis 15:18). The lack of detailed archaeological evidence supports the view that the range of scriptural material makes it inappropriate to try to use the Hebrew scripture to determine an area of land meant exclusively for the Jewish people.
The prophetic writings especially were developing a different understanding. In Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, force is used to achieve Israel’s goals. This is continued by the Maccabees in the 2nd century BCE and the Zealots in CE 1st century. That tradition implied a special, privileged position in relation to God. But the prophetic tradition stood against this. Narrative of the Babylonian captivity demonstrated that God was not confined to one land, or was concerned only for one people.
For Christians the book of Jonah is a key text for understanding the Hebrew Bible’s promise of land to Abraham and his descendants. Written at a time when the people were turning inwards, the book presents Jonah as a nationalist to drive home the point: God’s universal, inclusive love is for all. For Christians, God in Jonah is merciful, gracious, a liberator of the oppressed and sinful who looks for just living. The people of God even included the hated Assyrians. So to Christians, Jonah suggests a new theology of the land, because God was not confined within the land of Israel, but also embraced the land of Assyria. In saying this, we recognize that a Jewish Theological interpretation of Jonah may not go as far as a Christian one, perhaps being more contextualised in time terms.
Kairos Palestine (2.3):
We believe that our land has a universal mission. In this universality, the meaning of the promises, of the land, of the election, of the people of God, open up to include all of humanity, starting from all peoples of this land.
ii. New Testament
For Christians, the New Testament is even clearer about a process in the unfolding of God’s purposes of good for humanity, Hebrews 1:1-2: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a son whom he appointed heir to all things.”
Previous experiences of land, including the peaceful returns from exile, were stages towards a wider future. This is the understanding throughout the New Testament. The Good News of Jesus is inclusive.
John’s gospel speaks of Jesus being lifted up and drawing all people to himself (John 12:32). Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple means not just that the Temple needs to be reformed, but that the Temple which by its order, kept some people separate from others is finished. Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 makes it clear that God is no longer confined to the place of the Temple. Temple and land give way to a new understanding so Paul can say that all the barriers that separated people from one another are down– “there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male or female in Christ Jesus.”
If Jesus is indeed the Yes to all God’s promises then for Christians the promise to Abraham about land is fulfilled through the impact of Jesus. Jesus gave a new direction to his followers, one which did not feature nor was it confined to a special area of land for them. From the day of Pentecost his followers were sent to work for a different kind of kingdom.
A comparison of the section entitled “Conclusion” is also instructive. What follows is the opening paragraph of that section, as found in the original report:
From this examination of the various views in the Bible about the relation of land to the people of God, it can be concluded that Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jewish or any other people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess particular territory. It is a misuse of the Bible to use it as a topographic guide to settle contemporary conflicts over land. In the Bible, God’s promises extend in hope to all land and people. Focussed as they are on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, these promises call for a commitment in every place to justice in a spirit of reconciliation.
Now here is the same paragraph from the revised version:
From this examination of the various views in the Bible about the relation of land to the people of God, it may be concluded that Christians should not be supporting any claims by any people to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess particular territory. We believe that is a misuse of the Bible to use it as a topographic guide to settle contemporary conflicts over land. In the Bible, God’s promises extend in hope to all land and people.
You’ll note that the last sentence in the original version, beginning with the words “Focussed as they are on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ…” has been omitted. By making changes of this nature, the Church of Scotland has essentially made its report “more Jewish.” In addition to dropping the referenced sentence about the resurrection of Jesus, the final version’s “Conclusion” section also inserts the following paragraph not found in the original:
This theological approach is what we bring from our Christian perspective to the place of dialogue with people of other faith communities grappling with the issues of land in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It does not judge the faith of others nor suggest that one perspective supersedes another but it does challenge the manifestations of faith expressed by some on the question of land in these troubled places.
What does the above mean? That when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” he didn’t mean it? Or that we should simply disregard all of his criticisms of the Pharisees, since to do otherwise might cause “anxiety” to Jews?
None of this is surprising, for results of this kind are almost always the product of “interfaith dialog” between Christians and Jews. As noted previously, the report’s original version was canned as a result of discussions with Jews which took place on May 8. The Jewish organizations represented at that discussion were The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Movement for Reform Judaism, and Rabbis for Human Rights—and as I have shown here, the result has been a compromising and weakening of the report. Yet for some reason, I’m not sure why, the Church of Scotland seems to find such dialog productive and plans to continue with it:
The Church and Society Council [of the Church of Scotland] welcomes dialogue with Scotland’s and Britain’s Jewish community for whom the land of Israel is understandably special and may be considered part of their self-identity. Talking has helped increase both our faiths’ understanding, and has underlined the importance for continued dialogue. This is not about Christianity taking one side and Judaism the other. Both our faiths have a widespread and diverse membership, with a wide range of views on theological as well as political matters. What can bring us together is our commitment to understanding and engagement, and our willingness to work together, and to keep talking.
I have said it before and will say it again here: as a Christian, I am totally opposed to any further interfaith dialog with Jews—for the reason that it invariably is a one-way street, with Jews making all the demands and Christians doing all the compromising…compromising of their values, as well as their faith. This has been the history of it for the last 50 years, going all the way back to the Second Vatican Council. In all this time, I have never seen a single instance of Jews changing or rewriting reports or any other texts they have produced, or altering their interpretation of their own scriptures, at the insistence of Christians.
As I said above, the church did stand firm on a couple of its key conclusions, including its refutation of the notion that the Bible accords the Jews a privileged or divinely-recognized claim over the land of Palestine. And that at least is good, but when compared with the original, the revised version of the report can only be viewed as pallid and anemic. The following are some additional passages that the Church of Scotland saw fit to put into the original report but which were deleted from the revised, presumably in the interest of alleviating Jewish “anxiety”:
How do we view the narratives on the occupation of the ‘promised land’ in Joshua and Judges? (Violent ethnic cleansing was apparently condoned by God in some passages, while others suggest assimilation.)
For example, the occupation of the land by Jewish immigration in recent times and the violence used to deprive some 750,000 Palestinian people from their homes at the time the State of Israel was established in 1948? (This is known by the Palestinian people as Al Nakba—the catastrophe.
Clarence Wagner describes the creation of the modern state of Israel as a ‘miracle.’ What is meant by ‘miracle’? Was Al Nakba a ‘miracle’—driving people from their ancestral land and property with no right of reclaim; the creation of the Gaza Strip; all the refugee camps; the occupied Palestinian territory with the destruction of community life; and the impoverishment of the Palestinian people?
Possession of any land is clearly conditional. The question that arises is this: Would the Jewish people today have a fairer claim to the land if they dealt justly with the Palestinians?
Braverman challenges, too, what he calls ‘revisionist Christian theology’, more widely known as Western post-Holocaust theology, i.e. theology which takes away Jesus’ radical critique of Jewish theology and practice in order to provide no excuse for Christian anti-Semitism
Will the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly vote to accept the revised version of “The Inheritance of Abraham? A Report on the ‘Promised Land’” when the matter comes up for a vote later this week? Since the report has been significantly watered down, does it even matter? Unfortunately this is a pattern we see played out in one church general assembly after another. We saw it last year with the Methodists and the Presbyterians, and we are seeing it this year with the Church of Scotland.
Update:
You can follow the General Assembly debate live at the church’s website.
River toSea
Uprooted Palestinian 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!