Dr. Couch, what do we say to those who say the "land of Israel" is not mentioned in the New Testament? And thus, the covenant that will be fulfilled is "land-less" in the New Testament?
ANSWER: First of all, we do not have to track with those who make the New Covenant spiritual only. Because the land is not mentioned in the NT only proves our point. For the Gentiles now, we benefit by the NT but the church does not receive the land. All the promises about the land are made in the OT and they are still there. They are going to be fulfilled! The land does not have to be mentioned in the NT in order to be fulfilled. The OT promises are still valid and will come to pass just as they were prophesied.
However, having said that, I contend that the land is mentioned in the NT when it is mentioning the New Covenant for Israel. We read in Romans 11:26, which is quoting Isaiah 59:20, "Thus all Israel will be saved, just as it is written, 'THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob, ..." Notice that it says "from Zion." is "ek" which means clearly "out of," or "away from."
But the Hebrew text of the Isaiah 59:20 passage says "a Redeemer will come TO Zion." The Hebrew word TO should be translated "FOR, FOR THE SAKE OF Zion." The consistent and normal reading of Zion means "Jerusalem, Israel, or the Land of Israel." Even the old scholar Nicoll writes:
"Paul is thinking of the historical people. Israel as a nation a part of the Messianic kingdom, is the content of his thoughts."
When Paul quotes the New Covenant in Romans 11:27: "This is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins," part of the context of the New Covenant, given there in Jeremiah 31:31-40, the prophet mentions the land issue. Jeremiah writes in that context: "When the city [of Jerusalem] shall be rebuilt" (v. 38), and "the valley … and the fields as far as the brook Kidron (which is on the East of Jerusalem), "to the corner of the horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the Lord, it shall not be plucked up, or overthrown anymore forever" (v. 40). This is part of the context of the New Covenant. Read Jeremiah 31:31-40.
Christ fulfills the Davidic covenant as mentioned in Luke 1:31-33. "The Lord God will give Him (Mary's Son) the throne of His father David." This then is expanded in Psalm 132 that makes it clear that this Covenant is fulfilled in Zion, "the Lord's resting place," and there "Your sons will keep My covenant (the Davidic), "For the Lord has chosen Zion; He had desired it for His habitation." "This will be a place for the Lord, a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob" (v. 5). ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT THE LAND! We don't need the Land to be mentioned again in the NT!
In Matthew 25:31-45 A LAND is clearly implied when the Kingdom is mentioned (v. 34). "The Son of Man will come in His glory … and will sit on His glorious throne" (v. 31) with all the nations gathered before Him (v. 32). This implies a place, a location, a geographic site, a headquarters, A LAND!
The resurrected come to life and "reign with Christ for a thousand years" (Rev. 20:4, 6). Where is it that they are reigning if not in the kingdom land? The forces of God and Magog "surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city, ..." (20:9). What is the beloved city, and where is it, if not in the city of Jerusalem during the kingdom reign? Is not this the LAND?
The prophecy of John the Baptist is given to us in Luke 1:76-77. This is a quote and a fulfillment of Malachi 4:5-6 which partly reads that John will turn the hearts of the children to their fathers "lest I come and smite the LAND with a curse."
So much about the LAND is implied and understood by the reader except those who want to get rid of such a reference. The land is the kingdom, and the kingdom is the land!
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (6/11)
