10. The Name “Palestine”

Offense seems easily stirred over the name applied to the Promised Land. Some have criticized my use of the name “Palestine” in the article “Palestine Belongs to the Meek.” To this let me say the following:

Over the ages, the Land promised to Abraham has been called by several names. Those names have changed with administrations. Where administrations have overlapped, the Land has been known by more than one name simultaneously.

At the time of first promise, the Land was called Canaan as it was occupied and administered by the Canaanites. The Torah repeatedly refers to it as the “land of Canaan.” This name was used through the time of Joshua’s conquest and the period of the Judges. In other words, it was still called the land of Canaan even though Israel had come to be in possession of it and it no longer belonged to the Canaanites.

The term “land of Israel” is introduced tentatively during the conquest and does not take hold until the time of Samuel and the kings. Many decades pass after the conquest before a complete name change occurs. The name “Israel” on the Land does not appear until the Book of Judges, which uses the term “land of Canaan” at the same time. This shows the overlap of occupation and administration by Israel and the Canaanites (including the Philistines.) As Israel flourishes, the Bible converts to using “land of Israel.”

But still not exclusively. Concerning parts of the Land Israel never went on to occupy, the prophets still make mention of Canaan, and even the “land of the Philistines.” Isaiah (23:11) refers to the area of Tyre as “Canaan,” while Zephaniah (2:5) refers to the Gaza strip both as “Canaan” and the “land of the Philistines” (alias, Palestine). These areas however were clearly promised to Abraham, and the Gaza was certainly within the Mosaic bounds of Numbers 34. (Is it possible the Holy Spirit actually inspired a prophet to refer to part of the Promised Land as Palestine??)

Meanwhile, under David and Solomon, Israeli administration stretched far beyond the area occupied by Israel. But the names of these areas were not changed to Israel, though they too fell within the bounds of Abrahamic promise.

After Israel rejected Yeshua, the Romans fulfilled the prophetic fear whereby the Jews justified rejecting Messiah when they said: “The Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” (Jn 11:48.) The Romans indeed did just that. After another rebellion in AD 135, the Romans permanently removed them and, to show their undisputed sovereignty over the region, renamed it Palestine.

So two things are significant about the renaming. First, it occurred under the larger administration of the Times of the Gentiles—times under which we are still living. Second, it really resulted from a prophetic self-judgment the Jews made on themselves. From this prophetic perspective, the Jews themselves are spiritually responsible for the renaming of the Land to Palestine.

Since AD 135 the Land remained called Palestine. Once the State of Israel was established, the name Israel began to be used again as the Land came under administration of the Jews—albeit according to the terms dictated by the 1947 United Nations resolution, which allowed for a Palestinian state to also be established.

The name “Israel” is particularly important to Messianics because they see the present State of Israel as the fulfillment of God’s reconquest and award of the Land to a sovereign State of Israel in reconstructionist fulfillment of the prophecies. To allow it to be called Palestine therefore only helps to diminish their claim on the Land.

All this however assumes that God’s award of the Land to the Jews was indeed one of independent sovereignty. But in fact, we have already shown, it was not. The Jews received it via conditional charter from the United Nations, signifying Israel’s remaining subjection under the Times of the Gentiles. (To this day, Israel remains a member of the larger world United Nations.)

Because all this is so—because there is really a “dual administration” over the Land—it can no more be an evil to refer to the Land as Palestine than it was for the Torah to refer to it as Canaan long after Israel’s first occupation, or for Zephaniah to essentially call the Gaza Palestine so much the later. (My use of the term intended no offense, but simply reflects what remains objectively true, which is that under the present dispensation, Israel does not possess indisputable sovereignty over the Promised Land.)

- The Prophetic Meaning of a Geographic Name

There is one other consideration here, and that is the prophetic perspective of a geographical name. Similar to the way we have seen how the Lord prophetically assigns names to peoples and nations according to their spiritual character without regard to physical descent, He can also re-name a land or city to identify it by its spiritual character and the influences governing it.

For instance, Isaiah, then later John the Apostle, refer to Jerusalem as “Sodom.” Hardly a more grievous name could be given to the city!⁹³ Similar other alterations of geographical names appear among the prophets.

If so, and seeing that the name Palestine really resulted prophetically due to a spiritual blindness still in effect, is it necessarily inaccurate or of such great offense to spiritually refer to the Land still as Palestine? Certainly (in my mind anyway) it is far more offensive to call present day Jerusalem Sodom or Hagar than it is for anyone to still use the name Palestine given the present compromised conditions of administration and blindness still governing the Land.

In any case, to call it such under present conditions is not without scriptural precedent. However, I assure all readers, I carried no motive one way or another in my use of that name.

NEXT – PART 29: THE MEANING OF “DIVIDING MY LAND”

[BACK TO TREATISE INDEX]

[RETURN TO A TRANSCENDENTAL PRESENTATION OF ISRAEL]

[BACK TO TOP]

[HOME]