The 'Land Promise' in the New Testament

Christians tend not to reflect on the significance of the New Testament scriptures that deal directly with the issue of the 'land of promise'.

Moreover, we tend not to think about the nature of the NT's way of dealing with such 'land' issues.

John 4

One reference I find highly instructive comes from John's gospel account where, in a well-known example, Jesus a Jew talks with a Samaritan woman at Jacob's well.


Jesus progressively reveals himself to her until he describes himself as the Giver of 'life-giving' water (Jn 4.14). But he later provokes her even more when he undercuts both Jewish and Samaritan worship ideas (Jn 4.21-24). 

'Neither in this mountain [Gerazim] nor in Jerusalem' is worship to be conducted (Jn 4.21) in the future. Jesus knows that with his death something fundamental is going to change re the temple sacrifices; he also knows that the Romans are going to destroy Jerusalem in AD68-70 (Matt 23.37-39) and finally again in AD135. 

Furthermore, he is teaching that worship will not be localised in some particular place but worship will be available anywhere because God is a Spirit.

Hebrews 11

This chapter wonderfully describes faith as, 'the substance [or reality] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' (v1). The hope of a group of faithful people (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah) is outlined thus:

¹³These all died in faith, not have received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. ¹⁴ For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. ¹⁵ And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. ¹⁶ But now they desire a better, that is a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them (Heb 11.13-16).

A remarkable scripture because 'the hope' these OT saints have is not one related to the material earth. For though they seek a 'homeland', their homeland is not one found on the earth but 'a heavenly country' (v 16) and in view of that, God has prepared for them a 'city' (v 16). 

What is more remarkable is that the long list of OT saints 'did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us' (Heb 11.39-40). 

So the group of Jewish Christians being addressed in this letter, in danger of sliding back into a faith without Jesus Christ, is being exhorted to remain in the faith of the patriarchs of old so that all may attain the perfection promised of old.

Although this letter was not written TO us in the 21st century -it was written FOR us, for our instruction 1 Cor 10.1-11, see vv 6, 11- it does indicate the oneness of the people of God. Both the OT and the Jewish NT believers in Christ are to be perfected together (v 40).

Hebrews 12

In this chapter the writer contrasts the old, terrifying Mt Horeb (Ex 19.12, 13) to Mt Zion (Heb 12.22-24) reminding his readers that they 'have not come' to earthly Horeb but to 'Mt Zion' which is the fortress of 'the city of the living God', 'the heavenly Jerusalem', peopled by 'an innumerable company of angels', 'the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven', 'to God the Judge of all', 'to the spirits of just men made perfect', 'to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, etc'.

We should notice immediately that Mt Zion is directly associated with 'the city of the living God,  heavenly Jerusalem'.

Thrice again in the NT, this heavenly Jerusalem will be referred to (Gal 4.26; Rev 21.1, 10). In the Galatians passage, Paul contrasts two covenants (one of bondage, Sinai; the other of freedom). The first covenant corresponds to present Jerusalem while the second to 'the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all' (Gal 4.26).

What is highly significant is that these terms 'heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God, Mt Zion' strongly suggest that a material realisation of a godly city of Jerusalem on the earth in Palestine peopled by righteous Jewish-Israeli folk believing in the Lord Jesus is highly dubious.

What is the Gospel (3)

Of course, I'm wondering with all this whether Scott McKnight has got it right. Certainly a few others think the same way. See here and here for examples. 

Not to say that McKnight isn't a writer to be read and listened to. I think he says some valuable things which the evangelical churches and mainline churches need to hear.

But just a few points that I noticed that I would need more detail about are:

• His distinction between gospel and salvation

I'm not sure that this distinction can be so easily sustained. I appreciate what McKnight is wanting to say: the message of the gospel is not the same as its effects (salvation); gospel doesn't equal salvation because God is more concerned about gospel than salvation it seems. For a theologian who is a theoretician by training distinctions are always important. However, when one gets into church ministry settings I wonder whether such issues have much moment.

Why did Jesus come? Jesus at his coming, 'abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel' (2Tim 1.10, emphasis mine).

In Ephesians, the gospel is called, 'the gospel of your salvation' (Eph1.13) which at least suggests that the link between the two is very close. 

Or further, it might suggest that the gospel is the message of salvation through Jesus the Messiah! Jesus we remember was called 'Jesus' because he was to save the people from their sins (Matt1.21)! Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost (Luk19.10).

I also wonder whether all the preachers and teachers beginning with the Reformation have been failing to preach the gospel simply because they are concerned about the salvation of their hearers. I don't think so. Rather I believe that when preachers focus on the salvation of the unsaved, they will also preach Jesus as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world.

• Is Jesus always to be preached as the fulfiller of the story of Israel?

We know that Paul didn't always do this type of preaching because of his ministries at Lystra and at the Areopagus. Paul adapts his message [the gospel] to his audience. These two audiences were mainly pagan. However, McKnight still wants to see Israel's story implied in Acts 13. Well I think that's a stretch! And I think it's a stretch to find this suggestion of Israel's history in the Acts 17 passage as well. Paul appeals to Genesis 1 and 2 and to the idolatry subsequent to the Fall but any direct reference to Israel's story is absent. 

It can't be argued that because Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17) that this means he preached about the Story of Israel: that line of argument is clearly begging the question! That's the point McKnight is trying to establish so he can't assume it proven as part of his argument in Acts 17.

I think it better to say that the gospel is adapted to the audience. When hearers know nothing about Israel's story one can then appeal to the God of creation who is also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Would the preaching of Jesus as the completion of Israel's story be of benefit to those outside the church today? I hardly think that too many within the church would understand the point much less those outside.

• The relevance of the ecumenical creeds

McKnight, it appears, has discovered the Ecumenical Creeds: the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene believing them to support his case. However, even a cursory look at these two creeds shows that McKnight is battling to argue that the creeds solely confess the gospel--as he understands it.

The Nicene says, 'For us and for our salvation/ he came down from heaven'. The creed is saying--just as the scriptures do--that Christ's coming was about sinful humanity; it was for our salvation, our rescue from the power and penalty of sin. And the Apostles' Creed (perhaps formulated originally to be used at baptism hence the use of the first person pronoun) finshes with 'I believe in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN'. These are distinctly present and future salvific terms. The Trinity and their work of salvation are confessed as an integral whole.

• 'Story'

This point is more a quibble than anything else but we do have to keep in mind that in talking about 'story' and narrative, we are leaving out the majority of the bible! When we talk about the Bible's story we are talking about a humanly created storyline that theologians have developed about the Bible's content.  Nothing wrong with that in itself. We are all in the same boat. Most of us wish to have some over-reaching theme that covers the Bible's content.

The Bible's text is made up of many different genres: saga, genaealogy, law and ordinance, prophecy, parable, psalm, narrative, epistle, and apocalyptic. Without doubt, a movement from beginning(s) to final consummation exists from Genesis to Revelation. Interestingly, this sweep of history used to be known as 'salvation history', 'covenant history' or 'redemptive history' and all of these terms do give insight into the nature of this history.

It's all right to call it a story or a drama but then we are left with the question as to what is the subject of the dramatic history. What is it about?

As you would expect various answers are given. Redemption, Jesus Christ and covenant are often mentioned. Another favourite is the Kingdom of God.

My point is that just talking about the drama or story of the bible is inadequate because it doesn't furnish us with a theme for the dramatic story.

Let me finish with a summary quote from the last link above proposing the Kingdom of God as the unifying theme/story of the Bible:

Like redemption, the covenant is definitely a unifying theme of the Bible, but it also seems to be inadequate to bring together the full range of Biblical revelation. By itself, the notion of covenant tends to be abstract and difficult to define. What we need is a theme that is broad enough to embrace every major Biblical idea, a theme that includes redemption, gives proper honor to Christ as the Creator and Savior, and also does justice to the centrality of the covenant.

Such a theme is the kingdom of God. In the kingdom of God, all of the other suggested major themes are included and given proper place. In addition, the kingdom of God includes other themes important for our understanding of the Bible, such as creation, the Biblical teaching about angels and demons, the doctrine of final judgment and everlasting punishment. Christ Himself remains a central theme of the Bible because as the King, He is the center of the kingdom, its very essence. Redemption as a central theme is the unfolding drama of God’s restoring the kingdom to its original purpose (p. 5).