Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Monday, October 30, 2023
The land of the Bible serves a purpose that will outlast its own existence. For eternity, people will praise God for many things. But high on the list will be significant praise for his handiwork in creating this land bridge of the continents, this place where he could carry out the work of redemption for sinners from all the nations of the world. As a grand stage set for carrying out the critical events of the drama of redemption, this land served God and man well.

Several different perspectives on the land of the Bible have arisen in the course of history. In many ways, these various views of the land belong distinctively to the age in which they developed. Yet it is also true that basic elements of these different ways of looking at the land have been present in every human era and are no less present today than they were when originally established. Five perspectives on the land of the Bible warrant special attention.
Five Perspectives on the Land
The Crusader Perspective
The energy spent and the blood spilt because of the Crusader perspective on Palestine is almost immeasurable. Almost a thousand years after the misguided Crusaders made their futile attempt to claim Palestine for Christianity, the land still shows the pockmarks that remain as a result of their presence. Remnants of walls, castles, churches, and cities protrude from the surface of the land wherever the traveler goes. At Caesarea, an impressive moat and fortress remain. With a spectacular view overlooking the Jordan valley, impressive remains of Belvoir Fortress still stand. This significant citadel withstood a four-year siege near the end of the twelfth century before it finally fell to Saladin. The shell of a Crusader castle dramatically occupies the peak of a mountain on the way toward snow-covered Hermon, and the ruins of another mark the halfway point on the way down to Jericho from Jerusalem. At Jerusalem itself, large parts of the city wall date back to the days of the Crusaders.
So what inspired this massive sacrifice of life, limb, fortune, and family? Obviously motivations must have been mixed. But undergirding the whole endeavor was the view that this land was holy and therefore could not remain in the hands of a Muslim community. To protect its sacredness, this holy ground must be wrenched from the infidels without regard for the cost.
Few people today would claim that their view of the land of the Bible agrees with the perspective of the Crusaders. Yet one wonders: is not the commonplace designation of this place as the “Holy Land” tainted with the twisted outlook of the Crusaders? Just what is it that makes this land “holy” in the minds of so many? So long as the “Glory,” the Shekinah, dwelt in the temple of Jerusalem, the land was made holy by the special presence of God. But the departure of the “Glory” meant that the land’s holiness, its sanctification by God’s abiding presence, was no more. Just as the burning bush in the wilderness sanctified the ground around it only so long as the glory of God remained, so this land was “holy” only so long as God was uniquely there.
Indeed, many people may affirm that they sense a special closeness to God as they ”walk today where Jesus walked.” But human feeling cannot be equated so simplistically with divine determinations. In fact, the specific teaching of Jesus was that the time would come when the presence of the holy God would be found neither in Jerusalem nor on the mount of Samaria, but wherever he was worshipped in Spirit and in truth (John 4:21, 23). Material locale simply does not have the capacity to retain divine holiness.
The Crusader perspective on the land of the Bible led well-meaning people astray for centuries. It cost countless families their husbands, their children, their fortunes, and their futures. The same misdirected zeal may not characterize people today who think of Palestine as the “Holy Land.” But this view can mislead severely and substitute a false form of worship for the true. Instead of accepting the biblical teaching that any location can be the most holy place on earth if the one true God is worshipped through Jesus Christ at that place, the land of the Bible is romanticized so that people suppose that if they are there God will be known with special power and truth.
The Pilgrim Perspective
All through the ages, people have felt a compulsion to travel to the land of the Bible. Most individuals make the trek because they naturally associate the land with the events recorded in the Bible. But throughout history, the motivation of many has been a sense of gaining merit with God. Even in the twentieth century, professing Christians travel halfway around the world to be “rebaptized” in the Jordan River, assuming that somehow this water has a greater capacity for cleansing from sins than any other. A yet more subtle version of this same view supposes that a pilgrimage to the land of the Bible will remove the soul’s haze and give a clear vision of the person of Christ.
But Scripture offers no specific blessing for the sinner as a consequence of his traveling to any particular place. Only faith in the sacrifice of God’s Son can bring peace between God and men, and this faith can be exercised equally from any place in the world. It actually brings into question the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to suggest that some physical relocation of the sinner will contribute to restoring him to fellowship with God.
The Zionist Perspective
The rebirth of the state of Israel in 1948 has rejuvenated the belief on the part of many Jews and Christians that the land of Palestine belongs forever to the Jewish people, and that all this land should be returned to them as its rightful owner. On the basis of the promise given to Abraham that the land belonged to him and his offspring forever, it has been concluded that the whole of the land of the Bible remains irrevocably entrusted to the Israelite people. This view has received strong impetus since the termination of World War II. Having witnessed the Holocaust in which six million Jews perished under Adolf Hitler’s “final solution” to the Jewish “problem,” the Western nations of the world have sympathized with the concept of a Jewish homeland. Early considerations proposed Uganda, among other places, as a possible location for displaced Jews. But in the end, everything pointed to the land of their ancestors. First in trickles against armed opposition and then by the tens of thousands, Jews from every part of the world flowed into the land of the Bible. The visitor today cannot but be amazed at the determination of these people who have come to the land. On the tops of obscure mountains, in the midst of barren deserts, up high-rise apartments among others who do not understand their speech, Ethiopian Jews, Russian Jews, Moroccan Jews, British, Canadian, and Spanish Jews live together. Despite world criticism and complaint, the Jewish people continue to claim this land as their own.
But in what sense is the land, the whole of the land of the Bible, the property of the Jews by right of divine gift and covenant? This question is answered in different ways today even by the Jews themselves. Some among the Hasidim (the most devout of the Orthodox Jews) insist that, by the covenant with Abraham, God gave the whole of the land to Abraham’s descendants in perpetuity. Others would be more modest in their appeal to the promises given to the patriarchs. To them the promise of the Lord insures some right of possession for the Jewish nation today, although their claims would not exclude the possibility of political compromise.
There is of course the difficult, unsolved problem concerning the identification of a “Jew.” For as a Jewish commentator on Genesis has noted, the “Jewish” people never have known “purity of blood”1. Since the time that God established his covenant with Abraham, any Gentle could become a full-fledged Jew by confessing the God of Abraham and, in the case of a male, being circumcised (Gen. 17:12-13). The prevailing definition of a Jew as anyone who has a Jewish mother may have some functional appeal, But since the time of Abraham, a “Jewish” mother might have had not one single drop of Abrahamic blood running through her veins.
Read More
Related Posts:

The subject of father-absence remains taboo among many black activists, even though the rate of father-absence among blacks is horrifying. For these activists, any attempt to discuss black cultural failures is a kind of victim-blaming and a distraction from what really ails the black community—the persistence of white supremacy.When my mother called me in from play one afternoon to meet the man seated in our living room, her introduction was redundant—I immediately knew who he was. And, right off, I did not like him. His absence had been a painful matter in my life. The house that we lived in explained some of it. It was unfit for human tenancy—a decaying hovel with a leaking roof, creaking structures, and a termite infestation. I was ashamed to let anyone other than my closest friends know where I lived.
I was 12 that year of 1956. This was the Jim Crow South where poverty was the default condition of the black masses. Black males were restricted to the lowly crafts of ditch digger, janitor, and farmer, unless they catered directly to the black community, in which case the jobs of preacher, teacher, and shop-owner were also open. Most worked the hardscrabble categories so there was poverty all around, and since my mother was the only breadwinner, our poverty was wretched.
But this is not a story of black victimhood. This is, instead, an essay about a flaw in black culture that is just as uncomfortable for me to speak about as it is for my black brothers and sisters to hear. But a problem must be acknowledged before it can be fixed. And the failure of black fathers is among the worst problems afflicting our community.
My mother was a maid. Since her $25-a-week salary did not go very far, I was a skinny kid with a constant cold, owing to a poor diet and a house that grew Arctic in the winter months. There was a wood stove in the living room and another in the kitchen but their heat did not radiate beyond those rooms. We only ever used the kitchen stove for cooking in order to save fuel. To keep warm during winter, we slept under five blankets. If a glass of water was left out overnight, it had iced over by morning. There was no hot running water.
The poverty programs back then were designed to ensure survival. They were not like those today which help a person through life. Even if programs like those had been available, my mother’s stubborn pride would not have allowed her to use them. I am not criticizing the safety net of our current welfare system. I am a liberal. But my mother’s code of honor was simply part of who she was—a tough lady.
Most devastating for me was the psychological impact of my father’s absence. The most miserable moments of my childhood were when other kids asked me where my father was. In the days before we understood conception, I could just tell them that I just didn’t have one. But after we all learned a bit of biology, the question became so upsetting that on a few occasions I had to walk away from play activities.
I didn’t know what to tell them because my mother refused to speak of this man, even when I asked. He was a forbidden topic in her house, and so I learned to keep my mouth shut. I found out later from an uncle that my father regularly beat my mother which is why she divorced him when I was born. This shows her grit and gumption, for in those days, women could scarcely fend for themselves economically, and so battered wives were condemned to suffer as punching bags. But not my mother.
Growing up without a dad made me feel as though I lacked the full humanity and manhood of my cousins, friends, and classmates. From what I can recall, every other black home seemed to have a father. Southern blacks were already second-class citizens and I felt even lower than those around me. And since I did not have the self-confidence and self-esteem of my male peers, I sought adventures later in life to compensate. In the Army, I volunteered for paratroop units, fought in Vietnam, and was disciplined for insubordination four times. I boxed as an amateur. I drove at 120 miles an hour on the German Autobahn. I ran marathons. I worked as a demolitions specialist and as a long-haul truck driver. And I would hang out with some of the most ferocious males I could find.
Does the criminal behavior of some young black males today owe something to a sense of lost masculinity? I feel sure that this is so. A friend who works as an Army recruiter told me that so many black males have criminal records, the military is no longer the instrument for building machismo that it was when I joined. So, in inner-city communities where viciousness defines manhood, darker paths have become the option.
In 1965, a controversial report entitled “The Negro Family: A Case of National Action” was published by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a sociologist working at the Labor Department. Moynihan concluded that a lot of the social problems affecting American blacks owed to the disintegration of the black family. “At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society,” he wrote, “is the deterioration of the Negro family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time.” He went on:
As a direct result of this high rate of divorce, separation, and desertion, a very large percent of Negro families are headed by females. While the percentage of such families among whites has been dropping since 1940, it has been rising among Negroes.
The percent of nonwhite families headed by a female is more than double the percent for whites. Fatherless nonwhite families increased by a sixth between 1950 and 1960, but held constant for white families.
It has been estimated that only a minority of Negro children reach the age of 18 having lived all their lives with both of their parents.
Once again, this measure of family disorganization is found to be diminishing among white families and increasing among Negro families.
These figures were troubling, but they only offered a hint of what was to come. By the time the “Moynihan Report, Revisited” was published in 2013, 73 percent of black children were born to unmarried mothers. The figure for non-Hispanic white children was 29 percent:

I was stunned. A few months ago, I mentioned this to a black activist who was working on the problem of black violence in a nearby town. He had been trying to figure out why violence seemed to be endemic among their young black males and had reached a dead end. When I suggested that father-absence was not properly socializing black youth and asked him if he had read the Moynihan Report, he told me that the report was written by racist right-wingers determined to condemn blacks for their own misfortunes. I didn’t bring it up with him again. For now, the town’s solution is recreation centers.
It was not the first time I had heard the report dismissed in this way. It was basically the attitude of the black community upon the report’s publication. The backlash from the community was so militant and damning—reviling its author in the process—that the Johnson Administration dropped the issue and turned its attention to the Vietnam War. This reaction was not entirely surprising, given the demonization of blacks by many whites since first contact in the 1400s. Denigration used to justify outrageous and dehumanizing treatment produced a hypersensitivity among blacks that reflexively prevents us from accepting criticism from outsiders. Criticism from insiders has become something like heresy.
Read More

My primary concern has never been politics, but has always been the spiritual health of individual people. I agree that, politically, the threat of actual White nationalism is negligible compared to the threat of progressive ideology. Neo-Nazi groups spout their propaganda from anonymous Twitter accounts, not from the podiums of prestigious universities. But Neo-Nazi race hatred is as harmful to the soul as the lies of queer theory. At an individual level, both are threats and both must be opposed. Additionally, our cultural location matters. The “greatest threat” to a church in downtown Portland is probably wokeness.

For the past 6 years, I’ve been reading, writing, and speaking extensively about critical theory. My work culminated in the publication of Critical Dilemma with Dr. Pat Sawyer, a thorough analysis and critique of the devastating effect that critical theory is having on the church and society.
During this time, I faced consistent resistance from the woke-sympathetic, who viewed my work as -at best- misguided and -at worst- racist. Then, about a year ago, I noticed an odd change. I began to face pushback not from the woke, but from the anti-woke. I began to see people insisting that I’d changed, that I was now a mushy third-way moderate, woke-adjacent, or even a secret progressive.
Consequently, I decided to try an experiment: I began posting quotes from sources which were, a few years ago (or even a few months ago!), viewed as unimpeachably anti-woke. How would people react? Surely, our discourse hasn’t evolved so rapidly that conservative statements from 2017 or 2019 or 2023 (!) are already viewed with skepticism?
But it has and they are.
In this essay, I’ll provide some illustrations of how evangelical perspectives on race are changing, and will then offer a few tentative explanations for this change: 1) CRT, 2) politics, 3) context, and 4) the (hopefully negligible, but troubling) acceptance of racism.
Examples
As I said, when I began noticing increasing criticism of my writing from the anti-woke, I decided to start posting verbatim statements from what had, until a few years ago, been regarded as canonically anti-woke conservative evangelical sources.
For example, on January 1, I posted the following statement:
“Racism is a sin rooted in pride and malice which must be condemned and renounced by all who would honor the image of God in all people.” 8:54 AM · Jan 1, 2024 186.9K Views
Here are a handful of the responses:
Define “racism”
What is “racism”? And even if you give a definition that would make “racism” genuinely sinful, would it coincide with how the term is actually used? If not, you’re just positing an idiosyncratic definition and insisting that we use it.
Wrong. You might be gaslighting. In group preference is displayed by every single race on earth. It is always normal, godly, and noble- except when white people do it, according to the world system we are not supposed to be taking our cues from.
Trashworld has one virtue and one sin, consent and racism. Racism mainly because it is a convenient tool to dominate others.
Racism is nifty actually. We should respect our own people and our families.
Universalist twaddle
What’s fascinating is that my post was a verbatim quote from the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, a 2017 document written by John MacArthur, Voddie Buacham, James White, Tom Ascol, and others. When this statement was originally published it was considered highly controversial because of how anti-woke it was. Seven years later, its condemnation of racism is considered ambiguous –at best– and a manifestation of woke “gaslighting,” “domination,” and “universalist twaddle” at worst.
Then, on Jan. 8th, I posted the statement:
“I utterly repudiate sinful ethnic partiality in all its forms.” 4:09 PM · Jan 8, 2024 102.9K Views
This sentence came from the Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel, a document written by self-identified Christian nationalists –including James Silberman, Dusty Deever, William Wolfe, and Joel Webbon– to explain their core beliefs.
Responses included:
Stunning. Brave.
Publicly self-congratulating one’s righteousness avails nothing for God’s kingdom. Luke 18:9-14
I don’t repudiate ethnic partially.
To “utter repudiate sinful ethnic partiality” in the present age of massive monstrous manic race consciousness and propaganda of humiliation & power over culture w a lying ideology is probably not a good idea, imho.
Then I repudiate the Gnosticism you call Christianity.
One final example:
On Feb. 7th I was preparing to teach a U.S. history class on the Civil Rights Movement and posted Norman Rockwell’s famous and deeply moving painting The Problem We All Live With, which portrays the hostility 6-year-old Ruby Bridges faced when she integrated her all-white elementary school. I offered no commentary, but simply posted the painting with its title and date.
In response, one commenter wrote:
That’s not the problem we live with now. The problem we live with now is a white child being beaten by a gang of black ‘teens,’ who go unpunished.
His comment received 125 likes. A second comment:
And how did that school fare? Did it get better? Was it more peaceful? Did it gain from diversity?
And a third:
Living with whites is not a human right.
What are possible explanations for these reactions, which I was not seeing 5 years ago, or even 18 months ago? I’ll offer four suggestions.
Read More
Related Posts: