David Pawson, in his book Defending Christian Zionism, asserts that there are not one or two, but five covenants in the Bible.  They are: 1. Noahic, 2. Abrahamic, 3. Mosaic, 4. Davidic, and 5. Messianic.  Pawson asserts, quite properly, that the New Testament only ever refers to the Mosaic covenant as ‘old’ and therefore replaced by the ‘new’ (Messianic) covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24).  As Grudem explains (Systematic Theology, p521), ‘the Mosaic covenant was an administration of detailed written laws given for a time to restrain the sins of the people and to be a custodian to point people to Christ (Gal 3:19, 24).’

The Abrahamic covenant, however, with its promise of ‘the land’ (Gen 12:1-3; 15:18-21; 17:2-9), has never been annulled.  It remains in force to this day and (according to Pawson) provides the Jewish people with a divine mandate to occupy their ancient homeland.

Robert Lightner (The Last Days Handbook) echoes this.  In answer to the question: ‘Who has a legitimate right to control Palestine, including Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and Gaza?’ Lightner responds:

‘The nation of Israel, and no one else…God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12 was unconditional, that is, God gave certain things to Abraham regardless of the behavior of Abraham and his descendants—and the land of Israel is one of those things.

In fact, Lightner adds:

‘Israel’s legitimate borders are much larger than what she currently occupies. God describes its dimensions in Deuteronomy 11:24, 25: “Every place on which the sole of your foot treads shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the River Euphrates, even to the Western Sea, shall be your territory. No man shall be able to stand against you; the Lord your God will put the dread of you and the fear of you upon all the land where you tread, just as He has said to you.”’

However:

‘While Israel has a right to the land, she does not, as yet, have the right to the blessing of God in the land. And just because Israel has retaken Palestine doesn’t mean that her covenant with God has been fulfilled. Israel is in unbelief, and her title to the land doesn’t mean that everything she does—particularly with regard to the Palestinians—is justified. As the Word talks about in Ezekiel 37, God is going to use the nations—including Palestinians and Arabs—to discipline Israel until she at last comes to believe in her Messiah and embraces God’s conditions for blessing.’

In response, we can accept the premise (that the covenant with Abraham has not been annulled or replaced) but not the conclusion (that today’s Israelites therefore have a divine right to the land).

Again, it’s about how the New Testament regards the Abrahamic covenant as having been (not annulled or replaced by, but) taken up into and fulfilled in the Messianic covenant (that is to say, in Christ).

The New Testament teaches that the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled in Abraham’s ‘seed’, Christ, Lk 1:72-73; Jn 8:56; Gal 3:16, 29, and that those who are ‘in Christ’ are God’s ‘chosen people’, Col 3:11-12.  God has one people, not two, and his people are the true children of Abraham – those who have faith in Christ, whether physically descended from Abraham or not.

The inheritance we (believing Jews and believing Gentiles together) share is not a piece of real estate, but something far greater.  The land of Israel was ravaged by invading armies, defiled by lawlessness and idolatry, and drought-stricken through God’s judgement. But our inheritance, on the other hand, is sure. Peter (1 Pet 1:4) has to describe this inheritance in terms of what it is not, because the reality is beyond our comprehension. It is not a city, or a land, it is ‘salvation’, it is everything that God has for us.

Writing in the Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Gerard Van Groningen notes that many evangelical Christians teach that God promised the land to Abraham and his progeny unconditionally and as an eternal possession.  They cite Deut 28 in support of this contention.  According to Van Groningen, the following qualifications should be made (numbering added):-

1. Moses emphatically stated that obedience was a basic requirement to inherit the land and to remain blessed possessors (Deut. 4:25–31; 28:15–68).
2. the term translated “everlasting” is often translated correctly “for a long time,” “for ages.” The term cannot mean eternal, in the sense of never-ending, for at the Lord’s return at the end of time, the order of the renewed heavens and earth will be ushered in.
3. God fulfilled his promises regarding the land and its extent at the time of David and Solomon (2 Sam. 8:1–4; 1 Chron. 18:1–13; 1 Kings 4:20–21; Ps. 72:8).
4. the prophetic promise of a return to the land after the exile was fulfilled when a remnant returned (Ezra 2).
5. the New Testament does not refer to Israel as a nation possessing the land forever; rather, it speaks of Abraham’s believing covenant offspring inheriting the world (Rom. 4:13).

It might be added that ‘the oft-cited but tendentious argument, that because the Land was given by God to the Jewish people in perpetuity therefore no portion may at any time be relinquished, is refuted by reference to Genesis 13:8-9 and the precedent created by Abraham when he traded land for peace with Lot and his family.’ (John Ross, Christian Zionism)