The Land of Israel in the New Covenant
It is quite remarkable that the land of Israel is not mentioned in any of the New Testament Epistles. There is not a hint of any continuing redemptive significance given to the land God once gave to the descendants of Abraham in the fuller revelation of Christ. There is, however, a clear example of the insignificance of the land found in Acts chapter 5. At the end of the chapter Luke notes, “Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.” Contrary to the Old Covenant precept not to sell the land inheritance, these converted Jews (as is clear from the reference to Barnabas being a Levite) sell their land since the inheritance has come in Christ. It is also interesting to note that the Levites were prefiguring this in the Old Covenant. They received no land from the LORD because the LORD would be their inheritance. In Christ this is true for every believer in the New Covenant. In step with this idea, it ought to fascinate us to find Barnabas, of the tribe of Levi, as the one who is first to sell his land. Barnabas understood the redemptive significance of the inheritance in Christ! Do you?
HT: Joel Smit
About Post Author
Thanks for the post. I would add that the land of Israel is mentioned in Hebrews 11:8-16, but it does so by saying the land proper wasn’t the point of the promise. The patriarchs sought a better country – the heavenly Jerusalem.
I wonder if the “economy” of their selling everything they had and having all things in common had anything to do with their later poverty (for which Paul famously raised money from the outlying churches).
Great post. Interestingly in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is portrayed as Yahweh who has come to fulfill his promises in the Prophets to meet his people in the wilderness in order to finally and permanently redeem them by taking them on a second exodus. Jesus’ ministry is characterized throughout Mark as taking place in the wilderness. The irony, there, is that the Promised Land of the old covenant has become the very wilderness from which they need to be redeemed. He meets them there, ministers to them there, prepares a table for them there, and does redeem them and lead them out to salvation and their eschatological inheritance when he goes into the deepest recesses of the wilderness, when he submits himself to death and the darkness of the tomb. And it is upon his resurrection and ascension that he blazes a path from death to life–from the promised land turned wilderness to the inheritance of the heavenly land.
Nick et al.
Joel has set us on a good track here. Feeding into this is the hermeneutical discussion over at Green Baggins on the New Testament interpreting the Old (july 29th), rather than the other way around.
Now I know we need to take great care in this statement, as if the NT is somehow superior revelation than the OT (which has been said recently and is utter nonsense!)But the eschatalogical drive and thrust of Scripture clearly shows us that what was in the Garden, what is in the here and now, and what will be in the consumation, are thematically linked and eschatalogically driven. The fact that the NT is so largely silent on the physical land, and even when the land is mentioned it is almost entirely in reference to the spiritual nature of it (new heavens and earth), suggests to me that we need to evaluate those lines of thinking that hark back to the theocracy of Israel with longing delight.
I’m thinking of theonomy and postmillenialism (of a certain kind) both of which appear to work with a physical re-establishment principle of the OT ideals and superimpose it on the NT. The fact that the NT, on this issue of the land – which itslef is so important to certain theonomists and some postmills – seems to point us in the other direction. Having passed from the physicall land, we are in an age of expectation for a better country. Indeed whenever the land is spoken of in the NT, it is not the physical nature that is described, but rather the spiritual nature that comes to the fore. The simple flow of redemptive history is the guide here – that is why we pay careful attention to the OT, examining it for its redemeptive historical themes (among other things!) and pursuing them throughout all of Scripture, culminating in the physical and spiritual perfection of the New Heaven and New Earth.
We all long for the New Heavens and New Earth – but they come after the day of judgment and not before.
Best wishes
Matt
Matt,
This is why having a Vossian Biblical Theology is so very important. If you get a chance read his chapter, “The Mosaic Theocracy,” in “The Eschatology of the Old Testament.” Vos argues quite persuasively that the Old Covenant was more earthly and preparatory in its typical sanctions and administration, and that the New Covenant is the Old Covenant spiritulized and eternalized. I think this is one of the most important articles on the subject.
Good observation about Acts 5. Never thought of that.
Here is my question: What do you make of Romans 4:13 which speaks not of land, but of the cosmos? In the OT, God promised land to Abraham, but Paul intentionally changes the word to cosmos here in his letter to the Romans. Is he denying land? Expanding it? Spiritualizing it?Delaying it?
I would contend that this is an epistolary example of “land-talk,” that addresses the concept of land, the whole cosmos in fact, without making specific reference to the land of Israel itself. Thoughts?
dss
David
Good point. I think that is what I was getting after when I mentioned the idea of the emphasis no longer being “land based”, rather it is of a cosmic redemption and inheritance (compare with Romans 8).
Abraham understood that the true import to the land promise was not a chunk of land in the Middle East, rather it was a inheritance which was better – why better? Because the land, as good as it was (later described as “flowing with milk and honey”) was only a temporary picture of that which was (garden)and that which is to come – a new earth where God and man once more dwell together. Now I realize that I am importing far more of Scripture into the picture than possibly Abraham knew, or maybe not?
So far from denying the land promise Paul is emphasising that there will be a land but it will be the whole earth. If Paul argues that Abraham had a “whole earth” perspective, that is good enough for me. Indeed, the Jews should have had a whole earth persepctive, for they of all people, knew what man had lost in the garden, and that God’s plan of redemption was to recover and improve that. The Garden of Eden was always a physical place with massive spiritual significance. So too was the land. So too is the New Earth. I think all that Paul is doing is telling us that Abraham saw the promises of God from an eschatalogical perspective, knowing that the great promise of land spoke of even greater physical and spiritual blessings that awaited him.
Hope I’m making sense.
Matt
David,
I remember how excited I was when I first read Romans 4:13 against the backdrop of the OT. I have often worndered if the dual use of the Hebrew word, “land” and “earth” is meant to carry this redemptive historical significance. Israel, as a nation, was only a typical microcosm of the antitype (i.e. the new heavens and new earth). This is what we receive by faith in Christ. The writer to the Hebrews picks up on this very early when he says that Christ is “heir of all things.” Later in the book he speaks of the saints looking for a heavenly city. This is what our Lord had in view when He said, “The meek shall inherit the earth,” quoting Psalm 37. It is also what Peter has in view when he says that we have an inheritance, incorruptable, undefiled and that does not fade away reserved in heaven for you…” And, it is what Paul has in mind when he speaks of a house “not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”
Pingback : A Theology of the Land of Israel in the New Covenant | Pilgrimage in Christ