Concepto Tierra - Land PDF

Concepto
Tierra/Land
AYBD: Land
LAND. The frequent occurrence of various terms designating land,
and the central role land plays in certain narratives, testify to the
importance of this concept in the Bible. But while the concept is
ubiquitous, the different units of the OT provide various ideological
perspectives and theological nuances. Similarly, while the use of this
term in the NT displays an awareness of the centrality of this concept,
its meaning is further transformed through the motivations of its
individual authors.
A. Old Testament
1. Terminology
2. Israel’s Land
3. Theology: The Land Theme in the OT
B. New Testament
1. Terminology
2. Theology
A. Old Testament
1. Terminology. In the vast majority of instances (RSV ca. 1620 times)
“land” translates Hebrew ʾereṣ, a word that can also be rendered by
“earth” (RSV ca. 660 times), “ground” (RSV 107 times),
“country” (RSV 83 times) and by several less frequent terms (see
EARTH for cognates and for a discussion of original meaning). In
addition, “land” frequently translates ʾădāmâ (RSV ca. 105 times),
also rendered “ground” (RSV 67 times), “earth” (RSV 37 times),
“soil” (RSV 6 times), “country” (RSV 2 times), and occasionally, śadeh
(usually rendered “field”). In spite of their frequent rendition by the
same English “land,” ʾereṣ and ʾădāmâ are seldom synonyms (never,
according to Rost [1965: 77, 80], but Plöger [1967: 128] offers a few
exceptions for Deut 4:38, 40; 11:8f.; 12:1; 26:2, 15).
“Land” is the usual translation of ʾereṣ when it refers to (a) a specific
geographical region (e.g., “land of Ararat,” 2 Kgs 19:37), or (b) the
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 1

territory of a specific people (e.g., “land of the Kenites,” Gen 15:19);
while “earth” is the usual translation when ʾereṣ refers to the realm of
human habitation (generally EARTH). The plural (ʾĕrāṣôt) is
compatible with this usage, though relatively infrequent (ca. 70 times;
e.g., Gen 41:54). In some instances, however, the translation of ʾereṣ
as “earth” or “land” will depend on more complex exegetical
decisions (e.g., Lev 25:23).
In the majority of instances of type b, the land in question is identified
in some way as promised to, claimed, or possessed by Israel or a part
of Israel (e.g., “land of Judah,” Deut 34:2), although the explicit
designation “land of Israel” is rare (see below). At other times,
genitive combinations or adjectival phrases characterize the extent
and quality of the land (e.g., “the whole land,” Gen 13:9; “fatness of
the land,” Gen 27:28; “fertile” [lit. “good”] land, Judg 18:9). Often
“land” locates a group of people (e.g., “elders of the land,” Gen 50:7).
On occasion, “land” can be personified (e.g., “captivity of the land,”
Judg 18:30; “the land rested,” Josh 3:11; “the land mourns,” Hos 4:3).
ʾădāmâ is primarily a nonpolitical term designating the agricultural
land that sustains a sedentary population, in contrast to
“wilderness” (midbār), while ʾereṣ includes the latter (Rost 1965: 77,
81). As such, ʾădāmâ is usually owned by a person (head of
household) or group (e.g., “your/their land,” Deut 7:13). God’s
ultimate ownership is assumed and expressed (Isa 14:2 [ʾadmat
YHWH], cf. Hos 9:3; Josh 22:4 [ʾereṣ ʾĕḥuzzatkem]), and Israel owns it
by virtue of his gift (Deut 26:15). The expression “land of
Israel” (ʾadmat yiśraʾēl), however, is peculiar to Ezekiel (16 times),
which Rost (1965: 78) takes to express the nonpolitical nature of that
prophet’s land expectations. While all agricultural land forms a
collective unity—there is only one instance of the plural (ʾădāmôt, Ps
49:12—Eng 49:11); the reference in numerous OT contexts is to the

portion of Israel or subgroups of Israel. In this respect, ʾădāmâ, like
ʾereṣ, is a key term sustaining the OT’s land theology.
2. Israel’s Land. a. Israel’s Relationship to the Land. In the majority
of contexts, “land” is identified as the land to which Israel has a claim
(see “Theology,” below). It is characterized as anticipated (e.g., “the
whole land before you,” Gen 13:9), as highly desirable and
praiseworthy (Deut 8:7–10), as the “good land” (especially in
Deuteronomy), and as a “land flowing with milk and honey” (e.g.,
Exod 3:17).
Parenthetically, the two common English designations “Promised
Land” and “Holy Land,” though correctly expressing central
theological concerns (see “Theology,” below), are not characteristic
for the OT. The Hebrew language has no words for “promise, to
promise”; where such occur in Eng translation (e.g., Deut 9:28, RSV),
they usually render the common Hebrew verbs “to speak” or “to say.”
The term “Holy Land” (ʾadmat haqqōdeš) occurs only in Zech 2:11—
Eng 2:12, with reference to the eschatological future, and then in 2
Macc 1:7 (cf. Davies 1974: 29f.; Hanhart 1983: 128, 130). Its holiness,
where expressed or implied, is not an inherent status, but totally
dependent on God’s decision to be present in or withdraw from it.
The most frequent designation of the land is also a reminder that it
did not belong to Israel originally: “land of Canaan/the
Canaanites” (JE, P, e.g., Gen. 12:5; 23:2; seldom in Deuteronomy
[Deut 1:7; 11:30; 32:49]). Frequently this point is made in a formulaic
listing of the original owners:
I promise that I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt, to the
land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the
Hivites, and the Jebusites, a land flowing with milk and honey. (Exod
3:17)
This listing appears in the earliest Pentateuchal sources already, but
finds its echoes elsewhere within and beyond the Pentateuch, up to
the time of Ezra (9:1) and Nehemiah (9:8). In the majority of cases,
the list contains six members, generally those of Exod 3:17 (above),

with the Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites vying for first position,
and the Jebusites almost always at the end. However, the list never
became a fixed formula; it ranges from three members (Exod 23:28)
to ten (Gen 15:19f.), with variations in nations listed and in their order.
Thus it is safe to assume that it is not merely repeated as a cliché, but
gives evidence of ongoing reflection in Israel on the fact that nations
other than Israel were the original owners of the land (see
“Theology,” below). Of course, this previous ownership can be
expressed with reference to one nation only, above all, the
Canaanites (e.g., Josh 17:16) but sometimes the Amorites (Num
21:31), though it appears that the latter are frequently limited as to
residency (e.g., east of the Jordan, Josh 7:7; the hill country, Num
13:29; etc.).
This previous ownership and Israel’s subsequent acquisition of the
land, are appropriately expressed by a characteristic verbal
vocabulary. God promises (ʾāmar [lit., “says”], dābar [lit., “speaks”;
Piʿel]) or swears (šābaʿ [Nipʿal]) to bring Israel into the land (bôʾ
[Hipʿil]), or to give the land to Israel (nātan). Israel is to go (go up,
enter) into the land (bôʾ, ʿālâ), go over [the Jordan] into the land
(ʾābar), possess the land (yāraš), receive the land as inheritance
(naḥălâ), divide the land (ḥālaq [Nipʿal]), and dwell in the land
(yāšab). Thus Israel receives a land not originally her own, by God’s
initiative and agency, but cooperates in its takeover. (Of course, there
are many passages that simply assume Israel’s eventual acquisition of
the land and refer to the latter, in some way or other, as Israel’s land,
either by possessive adjectives [e.g., “your land,” Deut 28:24], or by
contextual implication.)
Israel’s relationship to this land is further characterized by the nouns
“inheritance” (naḥălâ), “possession” (ʾăḥuzzâ), and “rest” (mĕnûḥâ),
together with their respective verbal stems. “Inheritance” designates
the land as transferred to Israel by God without the right of sale

(Wanke THAT 2: 56; cf. 1 Kings 21:3f.). The emphasis falls on God as
the one who has authority to dispose of land belonging to him, and
on Israel’s inalienable right to retain such land as God confers.
As to the nature of the transfer, two interpretations have been
proposed: (a) Scholars generally have derived naḥălâ from the realm
of inheritance law; (therefore the Eng “inheritance”). (b) Forshey
(1973), on the other hand, has plausibly argued for the origination of
naḥălâ as a term of special land tenure granted by a feudal lord to a
devoted servant as a fief. Since such a fief was hereditary, the term
was eventually extended to include the meaning “inheritance” in later
OT sources. He cautions, however, that the root nḥl has very wide
connotations, making it impossible to interpret it in terms of a single
model (235). In either case, the giving of naḥălâ points to a very
personal bond between God and Israel, rather than to an impersonal
commercial, legal, or military transaction.
The transfer itself is described variously as made to the tribes of Israel
with their subdivisions, or to Israel as a whole. Division of the naḥălâ
among the tribes is found mainly in Numbers (e.g., 26:52–56), Joshua
(e.g., 11:23; 13:7–8), and Ezekiel (e.g., 48:29). It is to take place by lot
(e.g., Num 26:55; Josh 11:23; Ezek 45:1) each tribal unit receiving its
“allotment” (ḥeleq; e.g., Josh 11:23). Only the Levites are excluded
from this distribution; their inheritance consists of the tithe (e.g.,
Num 18:21–26; 26:62), certain cities (e.g., Num 35:2; Josh 14:4), their
share in the sacrifices (e.g., Josh 13:14; Deut 18:1f.), and ultimately
God and his service (e.g., Josh 13:33; 18:7; Deut 10:8f.; cf. Ezek 44:28).
The apportioning of the naḥălâ to Israel as a whole is found mainly in
Deuteronomy (e.g., 4:38; 12:9; 15:4). Occasionally, naḥălâ refers to
the land holdings of individual Israelite household heads (e.g., Josh
4:9; 1 Kgs 21:3f.; Ruth 4:5, 10).
Less frequent is the designation of the land as God’s naḥălâ, probably

with reference to his claim to original ownership (e.g., 1 Sam 26:19;
Jer 2:7; just as Israel, his people, is often called his naḥălâ, e.g., Deut
4:20; 32:8f.). Forshey (1973: 236f.) points out, further, that the
reference to Israel as God’s naḥălâ, largely exilic, may have been a
theological means to link the people closely to Yahweh in spite of
their removal from the land. He suggests the translation “possession”
as appropriate for most instances.
Another term defining Israel’s relationship to the land as acquired
ownership is “possession” (ʾăḥuzzâ). Its verbal root “seize, grasp, take
hold” suggests again that the land, now Israel’s “possession,” had
once been in other hands. The land of Canaan was given by God to
Israel as its possession (e.g., Lev 14:34; Deut 32:49). Like naḥălâ, it
can refer to the land holding of Israel as a whole or of individual
tribes, clans, and households. In most instances it refers to land and
real estate that is handed down through the generations and should
not be sold (e.g., Lev 25:10ff. passim; 27:22–24). Sometimes, however,
it is extended to include property generally. Its closeness to “land”
and “inheritance” is expressed in such construct phrases as “land of
your possession” (RSV: “your land;” ʾereṣ ʾăḥuzzatkem; Josh 22:19),
“inheritance of their possession” (naḥălat ʾăḥuzzātām; Num 35:2),
and “the possession of our inheritance” (ʾăḥuzzat naḥĕlātēnû; Num
32:32). In spite of their closeness of connotation, however, naḥălâ
and ʾăḥuzzâ are not fully synonymous; ʾăḥuzzâ is the more general,
juridicially abstract concept designating possession of land (Horst
1961: 155).
The land is also the destination of Israel’s wandering, and as such, its
place of rest. Both the verbal expression “give rest” (ňaḥ, [Hipʿil]) and
its nominal derivative “rest” (mĕnûḥâ) express this, particularly within
Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic theology. As a distinctive aspect of
God’s land promise, rest can be expected by Israel only upon crossing

the Jordan and occupying the heartland of Canaan (Deut 12:9f.; 25:19;
cf. 3:20, see below). There God grants rest to his people in stages,
beginning with the conquest (Josh 1:13, 15; 14:15; 22:4; 23:1) and
culminating in the era of David and Solomon (2 Sam 7:1, 11; 1 Kgs 5:4;
8:56). The essence of this rest is “tangible peace granted to a nation
plagued by enemies and weary of wandering” (von Rad 1966b: 155).
Just as the land can be called God’s inheritance, the land (and
particularly the temple) can also be called his rest (Ps 95:11; 2 Chr
6:41). That Israel’s access to God’s gift of rest is contingent on
faithfulness and endangered by rebellion, is the warning of Ps 95:11.
While the concepts inheritance, possession, and rest emphasize the
divine intention and authorization for Israel to possess this land and
find rest in it, other texts maintain God’s ultimate ownership of the
land, and Israel’s calling to live in it as “strangers and
sojourners” (gērı ̂m wĕtôšābı ̂m) in the land/on the earth (Lev 25:23; cf.
Josh 22:19; Pss 24:1; 39:13—Eng 39:12; 119:19; Jer 2:7; 16:18).
However, the eventually expected appellation of the land acquired by
Israel as “land of Israel” (ʾereṣ yišrāʾēl) occurs only once in an older
text (1 Sam 13:19, besides a few references to the N kingdom only), 3
times in Ezekiel (27:17; 40:2; 47:18; for ʾadmat yišrāʾēl, see above),
and 5 times in Chronicles (1 Chr 13:2 [MT pl.]; 22:2; 2 Chr 2:17—Eng
2:16; 30:25; 34:7). Wildberger (1956: 407, n. 15) sees this as a
conscious, theologically motivated avoidance of a known term, while
Ohler (1979: 58) ponders whether Israel was unable to perceive this
“land” as a unity. The latter seems highly unlikely, however, in view of
Israel’s focused land theology (see below). Israel’s contingent hold on
a land not originally hers may have been the theological motivation
for the reserve in the use of “land of Israel,” but we cannot be sure.
b. The Extent of Israel’s Land. A perplexing question concerns the
extent of Israel’s land. Two comprehensive “maps” are respectively
reflected in many passages:
1. Num 34:1–12 explicitly defines the “land of Canaan” as extending

from the Brook of Egypt (naḥlâ miṣrayim) to the Entrance of Hamath
(lĕbôʾ ḥĕmāt), and from the Jordan/Dead Sea to the Mediterranean
Sea. East Jordan is excluded. Many passages and events mark Israel’s
crossing of the Jordan as the beginning of the occupation (e.g., Deut
12:10; Josh 5:10–12). Numbers 32 and Joshua 22 offer a legitimation
of the actual settlement of parts of East Jordan (called “unclean,” in
contrast to Canaan, “the LORD’s land,” Josh 22:19) by Israelite tribes.
2. Deut 11:24 offers much broader boundaries, including East and
West Jordan, “from the River, the river Euphrates, to the western
sea.” In keeping with this picture, Deuteronomy 2 promises East
Jordan, except the territories of Moab and Ammon, to Israel and sees
the crossing of the Arnon as the beginning of Israel’s holy war of
conquest against the nations. The settlement of Israelite tribes in East
Jordan apparently presents no problem (Deut 3:12–20; Josh 13:8–12).
Weinfeld (1983: 59–75, esp. 65f., leaning on B. Mazar and R. de Vaux)
has plausibly argued that the first “map” (Num 34:1–12) represents
Israel’s older, pre-deutero- Ÿ nomic claim, patterned on the old
Egyptian province of Canaan as it emerged after the battle of Kadesh
(ca. 1285 s.t.). It is reflected, in addition to the texts mentioned, in
Josh 13:4; Judg 3:3; 1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 14:25; Amos 6:14; and it also
offered the blueprint for Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek 47:16–20). The second
“map” (Deut 11:24), in this schema, originated in the expansive era of
the Davidic-Solomonic empire, was formulated in grand, utopian
ancient Near Eastern royal terminology (river to river, sea to sea,
etc.), and received its final crystallization by “the so-called
Deuteronomic author or school” in the Josianic era. This perspective
is reflected or presupposed, besides the passages listed, in Gen 15:18;
Exod 23:31; Pss 72:8; 80:12—Eng 80:11; 89:26—Eng 89:25; Josh 1:4;
Deut 1:7; Zech 9:10; and others.
The characterization of map 2 as Deuteronomic is not without
problems, however. Diepold (1972: 29–41, 56–64) distinguishes
between a land limitation to West Jordan in Deuteronomy, with
occasional redactional additions taking the wider view (e.g., 11:24),

and a perspective of the Deuteronomistic History (including most of
Deuteronomy 1–3 and 34) that envisions the land to include East
Jordan up to the Euphrates. Numerous literary-critical decisions
underlie both hypotheses, and it seems doubtful whether we can
reach clear territorial definitions for Israel’s land beyond conclusions
for a particular canonical document or a limited historical context and
period.
It is significant that several, especially later, documents exhibit much
less well-defined geographical conceptions of the land. Thus
Jeremiah, with his prominent theology of land (Diepold 1972: 105–39,
155–76; Martens 1972; Brueggemann 1974; Epp-Tiessen 1981;
Zimmerli 1985), reflected little on its extent, assuming it to be
basically the West Jordan area where the people of God actually lived,
while the Deuteronomistic additions to Jeremiah reflect the remnant
area of Judah, together with the lost southern territories of the
Shephelah, the hill country, and the Negeb (Diepold 1972: 54f., 70f.).
In the postexilic era, limited terms like “Judah and Jerusalem”
increasingly describe the land (e.g., Ezra 4:6). The very freedom with
which the documents and their redactors vary in their perspectives
indicates that the concept of Israel’s land is held together by an inner
core of identity (see “Theology,” below) rather than by geographical
or ideological definition.
For our geographical understanding of Israel’s land in the OT
generally, a multiple perspective must be maintained: its heartland
was the West Jordan region “from Dan to Beersheba” (e.g., Judg
20:1), with the exclusion of more or less of the Mediterranean coastal
plain. Based on the reality of settlement and political control, the
East Jordan region, excluding Edom, Moab, and Ammon, was
generally also included. Occasionally, perhaps inspired by the extent
of David’s kingdom, all the lands up to the Euphrates were included in
visionary statements (e.g., Deut 1:6–8; 11:24; Josh 1:3–4).
3. Theology: The Land Theme in the OT. The land theme is so
ubiquitous that it may have greater claim to be the central motif in
the OT than any other, including “covenant” (cf. the theological

surveys of Wildberger 1956: 404–22; von Waldow 1974: 493–508;
Davies 1974; and esp. Brueggemann 1977). It is nuanced differently in
different books and compositional units, yet the tensions thus
created are never such as to deflect altogether from a broad central
narrative thrust pervading the canonical documents. An attempt will
be made to sketch that narrative. Historical, form-critical, and
traditio-historical matters will be considered from time to time.
a. The Pentateuch. The Pentateuchal narrative identifies the earth
(ʾereṣ) as God’s creation (Gen 1:1, 9f.), intended to be the source of all
plant and animal life (1:11, 24), and as the habitat for human beings
who are to administer it (1:28f.). Through his very name, the
collective “Adam” (ʾādām), and the image of his formation “of dust
from the ground” (ʾădāmâ), the human creature is closely linked to
the soil (2:7). He is to experience it first in the garden graciously
provided by God (2:8). To “till and keep” (lit. “to serve and watch
over”) this garden is to be his (after the creation of woman, their) task
as God’s steward(s), enjoying its produce within God-set limits (2:15–
17). When humans claim the master role, “like God” (3:1–7), their task
of filling the earth and caring for it is encumbered by a “heavy
burden” (ʿiṣṣābôn, RSV: “pain” in 3:16, “toil” in 3:17); they are driven
from the garden (3:22–24), but their task remains, and the earth
(land) will continue to be the source of their livelihood (3:19, 23).
Abel and Cain continue this task as “keeper of sheep” and “tiller of the
ground” (ʿōbēd ʾădāmâ). When Cain spills his brother’s blood,
however, he becomes “cursed from the ground,” the latter no longer
yielding “its strength” to him; paradigmatically for later “defilers” of
the land, he becomes “a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth
(bāʾāreṣ),” though not without God’s protection (4:8–16). Sin
continues to endanger human existence on the earth through the
great Flood, God preserving only a remnant of animate life (6:5–7:24).
God graciously confirms the human commission to fill and administer

the earth (8:17; 9:1–2, 7), promising that he “will never again curse the
ground (hāʾădāmâ) because of man” (8:21). A repeated human effort
at establishing an autonomous identity (“a name”) through
entrenching themselves geographically by building “a city, and a
tower with its top in the heavens” evokes the judgment of God who
“scattered them abroad from there over the face of the earth
(hāʾāreṣ)” (11:1–9).
In this manner, the two traditionally assumed literary sources J and P
intertwine in the Primaeval History (Genesis 1–11) to present a
theology in which land is God’s gracious gift and task for humanity
under the sovereign rule of God. These are constantly threatened by
the human tendency to seek autonomous rule over the land, resulting
in its loss and in a life of uprooted wandering, but it is precisely then
that God’s grace and protection become most palpable. Thus a
dialectic results, between “landedness” as God’s greatest gift and
man’s greatest temptation, and “landlessness” as God’s judgment
and yet the context for the highest experience of God’s grace
(Brueggemann 1977 passim). It is this paradox that governs much of
the subsequent land motif in the OT.
Abraham is promised a great name, many descendants, and God’s
blessing, on the provision that he uproot himself from his
Mesopotamian homeland to go “to the land that I will show
you” (12:1–3). The unknown land sought by Abraham in faith is later
identified as Canaan (12:6–7), and the promise of its possession is
repeated to Abraham and his descendants throughout the
Pentateuch (Gen 13:15; 15:7, 18; 17:8; 22:17; 26:3; 28:4, 13; 35:12; 48:4;
50:24; Exod 3:8; 6:4–8; 13:5; 32:13; 33:1; Num 10:29; 14:23; 32:11; Deut
6:18, 23; 8:1; 9:5, 28; 10:11; 11:8–9, 21; 26:3, 15; 28:11; 31:7, 20; 34:4;
cf. Josh 1:6; 5:6; Judg 2:1). Nonetheless, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
live in the land as sojourners (Gen 17:8; 23:4; 26:3; 28:4; 35:27; 36:7;
37:1; Exod 6:4), until the family of Jacob/Israel, overtly driven by
famine, but on a deeper level, guided by God, leaves Canaan again to
settle in Egypt. Only a burial plot, the field and cave of Machpelah,

bought by Abraham to bury Sarah, becomes their permanent
possession in Canaan, and therewith a proleptic sign of the fulfillment
of God’s promise (Genesis 23). In Egypt, Israel multiplies to become a
great people in accordance with God’s promise, in the fertile but
foreign land of Goshen (Gen 47:5–6; Exodus 1).
According to A. Alt’s widely accepted characterization of Patriarchal
religion (Alt 1966b), the land promise originated in the faith of
seminomadic groups that the God of the Father would grant them
land, in a limited context and in their own lifetime. R. C. Clements
(1967: 23–46), partly based on Cross (1962) and others, sees the
historical kernel of the land promise in an ancient covenant in which
the El-deity (possibly El Shaddai) at Mamre, as owner of that
territory, promises the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, and
Kadmonites to Abraham and his descendants. This promise was
eventually extended to all of Judah and, through David, to all Israel
and the whole land of Canaan. As such, it became the dominant
theological theme of the Hexateuch, the expectation of immediate
fulfillment having been advanced to the conquest under Joshua and
to the Davidic-Solomonic era (Clements 1967: 57; von Rad 1966d: 83).
The book of Exodus introduces the Israelites as a numerous people
enslaved in a foreign land (Exodus 1). Moses becomes God’s chosen
instrument to lead them out of Egypt toward the goal of the land
promised to the Patriarchs (Exod 3:7–8; 6:2–8). The faithlessness and
murmuring of the people prevents a direct entry into Canaan,
however (Numbers 14; 26:63–65; 32:6–15; Deut 2:14–15), and results
in forty years of wilderness wanderings with untold hardships, until
the rebelling generation has died and a new generation stands at the
Jordan, on the brink of entering the land. Moses is merely allowed to
see it from afar (Deut 34:1–5). Yet this very time in the wilderness
becomes a time of experiencing God’s constant presence and
preservation, including the conclusion of the covenant with God at
Mt. Sinai and the receiving of the covenant laws he requires Israel to
keep. Many of the latter regulate Israel’s life in the promised land,
which is also called God’s own property (Lev 25:23). Among them are

the laws governing the sabbath year (Exod 23:10–11; Lev 25:1–7), the
jubilee year (Lev 25:8–55), and first fruits (bikkûrîm; Exod 23:16, 19;
34:22, 26; Lev 2:12; 23:20; rēʾšı ̂t, Lev 23:10; Num 18:12; Deut 18:4;
26:10).
The law codes now embedded in the covenant narrative are of
diverse historical origin but are gathered here as covenantal law of
Moses to indicate that their authority ultimately derives from the will
of God. G. von Rad (1966d, followed by W. D. Davies [1974: 15–35] and
others) has pointed out that the themes of “promised land” and
“Yahweh’s land” may be derived from originally separate traditions.
The former was introduced into the Pentateuch by the Yahwist (see
above). The latter, at home in the cult and the legal materials, may go
back to the Canaanite view that each land belongs to its own god
(thus von Waldow 1974: 494), though von Rad (1966d: 88) prefers to
think of an early, Yahwistic origin. (For the synthesis of R. C. Clements
[1967: 27–28], see above.) Whatever its origin, the concept of
Yahweh’s ownerships of the land of Canaan has been integrated fully
into the biblical faith that God rules/owns the whole world, including
Canaan (e.g., Exod 19:5). An important theological consequence of
the notion of Yahweh’s ownership of this specific land has remained
highly effective in the Old Testament’s land theology, namely, the
notion that the Israelites (and by extrapolation, all humans) are
“strangers and sojourners” (gērı ̂m wĕtôšābı ̂m), or in modern terms,
God’s long-term guests on his land/earth (Lev 25:23; Ps 39:13—Eng
39:12; 1 Chr 29:15; cf. Heb 11:13; 1 Pet 2:11).
b. Deuteronomy. In the form of three farewell speeches of Moses
(Deuteronomy 1–4; 5–28; 29–30) in the plains of Moab on the eve of
crossing the Jordan into the promised land, Deuteronomy recasts the
preceding narrative into its own distinctive theological mold, with the
land at its center (Plöger 1967: 60–100; Diepold 1972: 76–104).
According to M. Noth (NDH) and many others after him, it seems
likely that the first speech of Moses (Deuteronomy 1–4) was prefixed
to an older version of Deuteronomy by the Deuteronomistic Historian

and consequently reflects the perspectives of the Deuteronomistic
History (see below). God is about to fulfill his oath sworn to the
fathers by bringing Israel into the land to inherit it. While Israel is to
participate actively by going into it to take possession of it, the
success will depend totally on God. He will subdue the former owners
of the land and give it to Israel as a gift. It is a good land, praiseworthy
in most glowing terms (e.g., Deut 8:7–9). It is the tangible token of
God’s faithfulness, the concrete expression of the covenant
relationship, and the goal of Israel’s wanderings where the people will
find rest (12:9). But the land, like the original garden of Eden,
constitutes a task for Israel. Its careful administration according to
covenant law (rehearsed in chaps. 12–26), in single-hearted love and
devotion to God will sustain Israel’s claim to its possession and its
blessings (e.g., 6:4–15; 8:11–20; 11:26–32; 28). Any deviation from
God’s statutes, commandments, and ordinances, and in particular the
sin of idolatry that characterized the previous owners, will swiftly
bring down on Israel the covenant curses, the last and worst of which
is a return to Egypt (28:68). Thus the land becomes the touchstone
for life or death; it is given out of God’s free grace, but retained by
means of obedience.
In a few passages (e.g., Deut 6:17–18) it appears as if keeping the law
is already a precondition for receiving the land, but P. Diepold is
surely right in suggesting that Deuteronomy addresses a people
already committed voluntarily to the Sinai covenant; this people is
not called to initial commitment now, but to ethical earnestness. The
actual keeping of the laws of Deuteronomy, however, makes sense
only in the land (Diepold 1972: 90–102).
It is noteworthy that the Pentateuch/Torah ends at the Jordan,
stopping short of the actual occupation of the land, especially since
the “small historical credos” or summaries (von Rad 1966c; e.g., Deut
26:5b–9) always include the occupation. Scholars have accounted for
this in three main ways:
1. Some refuse to recognize the “Pentateuch” as the legitimate
delimitation, preferring to include the book of Joshua, featuring the

conquest, into a “Hexateuch” (von Rad 1966a).
2. Others assume, with Noth (HPT, 16), that the conquest theme was
eliminated from the older Pentateuchal sources in the Priestly
redaction. It survived, however, through the incorporation of older
conquest materials into the Deuteronomistic History.
3. Most recently, R. Rendtorff (1985: 162f.) has argued that the
Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic school prepared the (probably first)
collection of Pentateuchal materials, as well as that of the subsequent
books, initially “without any fundamental break.”
Whatever the literary prehistory may have been, the present
delimitation must surely be seen (with J. A. Sanders 1972: 25–53; cf.
also Rendtorff 1985: 162f.), as a deliberate canonical decision by a
community that had lost the land again, but was able to define its
identity as a landless people in terms of a still unfulfilled greater
promise that lay in the future. Thus the actual occupation of the land
from the time of Joshua to the loss of the land in 722 and 587 s.t., was
relegated to the status of “foretaste,” with the ultimate fulfillment
still ahead, in the (eschatological) future.
c. The Deuteronomistic History. The Deuteronomistic History
(Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) in its final overall redactional unity,
constitutes an assessment of Israel’s performance in the land and of
God’s inevitable response to it (Noth NDH, 89–99). The book of
Joshua presents the occupation of the land as a swift and total
subjection of the Canaanites in a holy war waged by Yahweh, who
gives the land to Israel (chaps. 1–12). At his command, Joshua
distributes the land to each tribe, clan, and family (chaps. 13–22).
According to the historical reconstruction of A. Alt (1966a) and M.
Noth (NHI, 68–84), no such massive conquest took place. Instead,
various seminomadic elements of the later “Israel” infiltrated the
settled agricultural areas, acquiring peacefully (therefore the
technical term Landnahme) the more sparsely populated areas in the
course of their search for pasture.
This reconstruction has, in turn, been challenged by the
“revolutionary” theory proposed, in different forms, by G. Mendenhall

(1962: 66–87) and N. Gottwald (1979: 210–220). Both assume that the
eventual control of the land by the “tribes of Yahweh” (Gottwald’s
term) was achieved through some form of takeover of the socially
stratified Canaanite city states by the combined onslaught of
disadvantaged elements in the population seeking the establishment
of an egalitarian society, joining forces “with a nuclear group of
invaders and/or infiltrators from the desert” (Gottwald 1979: 210). As
no consensus in this matter has emerged, all discussion must
necessarily proceed again and again from the canonical data.
In the book of Judges, allowance is made for unconquered Canaanite
enclaves (1:19–35; 3:1–6). Israel’s hold on the land is repeatedly
threatened by enemies, as a direct result of the people’s disloyalty to
Yahweh. Repentance prompts Yahweh to raise a deliverer (“judge”)
who leads Israel in defeating the enemy in holy war and continues to
“judge” Israel until the cycle repeats itself (e.g., Judg 3:7–11). In the
Samson stories (chaps. 13–16), increasing pressure from the
Philistines is felt, while Israel is in a state of lawlessness and decay
(chaps. 17–21).
This sets the stage for the introduction of kingship, leading to the
extensive empire of David and Solomon (2 Samuel 2–1 Kings 11), the
division of that empire into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (1 Kings
12), the eventual defeat of these, and the exiling of their populations
by the Assyrians and Babylonians in 722 and 587 s.t., respectively. In
his long and nuanced account, the final author of the
Deuteronomistic History assesses Israel’s faithfulness or
unfaithfulness to Yahweh, applying especially the yardstick of David’s
loyalty to Yahweh to all subsequent kings. This results in the
demonstration of the inevitability of the loss of the land. Israel, led by
all its kings from Jeroboam I on, had embarked on a course of
apostasy (summarized in 2 Kings 17). While the indictment of Israel is
generally for idolatry, the story of Ahab’s criminal acquisition of
Naboth’s “inheritance” (naḥălâ; 1 Kings 21) makes clear that
Canaanite perspectives constituted a significant threat to Yahwistic

land laws and land theology. For Judah, periods of relative
faithfulness, especially under Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1–8) and Josiah (2
Kgs 22:1–23:28), were outweighed by persistent unfaithfulness,
peaking in the era of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:1–18; 23:26–27). Yahweh
could not but revoke the gift of the land and cast his people into exile
and captivity, as formerly in Egypt. Some scholars find in the
Deuteronomistic History intimations of hope for a future restoration
(Brueggemann 1968; von Rad ROTT: 1.343, 346; Wolff 1966: 131–58),
while others see in it a theodicy of Yahweh’s final judgment (Noth
NDH, 97–99).
d. Chronicles. Based largely on the Deuteronomistic History,
Chronicles nevertheless yields a considerably different, much less
central view of the land. The era of Joshua and the Judges is reflected
only in certain genealogical references to names. There is no
conquest; Joshua is mentioned briefly as living in the land (1 Chr 7:27).
While the kings after David and Solomon are scrupulously assessed as
to their faithfulness, the Chronicler does not survey by this means the
vast panorama of Israel’s covenant faithfulness in the land, as the
Deuteronomic Historian does, but depicts instead the meticulous
justice of God in the life of each king (ROTT: 1.348–50). That the
Chronicler does not deny the cumulative impetus of a history of sin
towards the loss of the land, and that he sees the restoration under
Cyrus as the effect of God’s grace to an Israel that had served its time
in exile “until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths,” is evidenced in his
concluding words (2 Chr 36:15–23). Nevertheless, these themes seem
marginal rather than central.
S. Japhet (1979: 205–218) has argued that the Chronicler intentionally
presents a history of Israel which, in contrast to most OT sources,
pictures a “people of Israel in the land of Israel, as a continuous and
uninterrupted reality from Jacob/Israel on” (218). Japhet may be right
respecting the Chronicler’s assumptions, but considering the
relatively few and obscure clues on which she builds her case, it is
hard to accept the deliberate intentionality she attributes to the
Chronicler in this respect.

e. The Literary Prophets to the End of the Exile. Although the
literary prophets stand outside the flow of the large narrative
complexes (Pentateuch, Deuteronomistic History, Chronicler’s
History), they provide distinctive supplementary perspectives. Land is
of central theological importance to all of them. Furthermore, they
are historically correlated with that narrative by their (editorially
supplied) headings. The emergence of a powerful class of landowners
oppressing and/or displacing the small peasant from his inherited
portion (naḥălâ) is the common indictment by Amos (3:9–10; 5:11;
6:4–7; 8:4, 6), Isaiah (3:13–15; 5:9–10; 10:1–2) and Micah (2:1–4; 3:1–3;
7:2–3), following Elijah’s condemnation of Ahab’s violence against
Naboth (see above). All presuppose an obligation to administer in
God’s land a justice that involves equitable distribution of the land
and its fruits. For Amos and Micah, this responsibility is rooted in
God’s expulsion of the previous inhabitants and his gift of the land to
Israel coming out of Egypt (Amos 2:9; 9:7; Mic 6:4–5). For Isaiah,
Israel’s responsibility emerges from a pristine state of righteousness
of Jerusalem/Zion. Amos and Micah announce God’s judgment in the
form of land loss and exile (Amos 4:1–3; 5:27; 6:7; 7:11; 9:4, 9, 15; Mic
1:16; 2:4; 4:10; 5:2—Eng 5:3), while Isaiah emphasizes the humiliation
of Jerusalem (and Judah) through Assyrian military onslaught (1:7–9,
24–25; 3:18–26; 5:26–30; 7:20; 10:5–6; etc.).
Hosea and Jeremiah, steeped in the exodus tradition (Hos 2:17—Eng
2:15; 11:1; 12:14—Eng 12:14; 13:4; Jer 2:6; 7:22, 25; 31:32), extol an
ideal time in the wilderness (Hos 2:16–17—Eng 2:14–15; 9:10; 13:5; Jer
2:2, 6; cf. 31:2–3), and indict the people for unfaithfulness in the land
(Hos 2:3–17—Eng 2:1–15; 4:1–3, etc.). For Hosea, and for Jeremiah in
his wake, this unfaithfulness takes the form of Canaanite or
syncretistic fertility worship (Baalism) that seeks to ensure the
fertility of the land through magical, often sexual, rites (Hos 2:7–15—
Eng 2:5–13; 4:14–15; 7:16; 9:10; 11:2; 13:1–2; Jer 2:4–8, 20–25; 3:1–5,
6–10; 5:7–8; 13:20–27). The theme of social justice plays a lesser role
in Hosea (4:1–3; 10:12–13; 12:7–9—Eng 12:6–8), but reemerges

prominently in Jeremiah (2:34–35; 5:28; 6:13; 7:9; 21:12; 22:3, 13–17).
Like Amos and Micah, both prophets announce God’s judgment in the
form of land devastation, loss, and exile (Hos 8:13; 9:3, 6, 17; 10:6;
11:5; Jer 4:23–28; 5:14–17; 8:10; 9:10, 11–15—Eng 9:11, 12–16; 10:18–
22; 12:7–13; 13:24; 15:2, 14; 38:2; etc.).
The books of Amos, Micah, Hosea, and Jeremiah visualize a return of
the people to the land (Amos 9:9–15; Hos 3:5; 11:11; Mic 4:6–7; 5:2–3
—Eng 5:3–4; 7:11, 14, 15–20; Jer 12:15; 16:14–15; 23:7–8; 29:10–14;
30:1–3, 10–11; 31; 32:15 [for a full listing and discussion, see Martens
1972]), while Isaiah mainly projects the purification and exaltation of
Jerusalem/Zion as the center of God’s rule over the whole earth (2:2–
4 = Mic 4:1–3; 4:2–6; 8:23–9:6—Eng 9:1–7; 10:20–27; 11:6–9; 12; 16:4–
5; 17:12–14; 19:16–25; etc.).
A reminder is in order that we are sketching the picture offered by the
canonical texts. The statement in the previous paragraph particularly
takes into account many passages judged by various scholars to be
secondary: the conclusion of Amos (9:11–15); Hos 2:18–25—Eng 2:16–
23; Isa 2:2–4; Micah 4–5; Jeremiah 30–33; and others. In the case of
Isaiah, the canonical combination of the words of the Jerusalem
prophet with later prophecies, primarily in chaps. 40–66, not only
strengthens the emphasis on restoration, but fuses the theme of
purification and exaltation of Jerusalem with that of return from exile
by way of a new exodus (see below).
The whole range of prophetic motifs discussed so far is appropriated,
shaped, and expanded in the book of Ezekiel. Taking up the
Abrahamic promise (33:24; cf. 20:42), Israel’s origins in foreign lands
(16:3, 45), and her stay in Egypt (20; 23:3), while scarcely mentioning
a conquest (cf. 20:28), the book highlights Israel’s unfaithfulness
through idolatry (6:1–7, 13; 8; 14:1–11; 16:15–22) as the basis for land
loss and exile. It gives less attention to social injustice (but cf. 22:6–
12). Characteristically for Ezekiel the land is “Israel’s land”; both ʾereṣ
and ʾădāmâ are used (with the same meaning, according to Zimmerli
1985: 255). It is described lovingly as “the most glorious of all

lands” (20:6; cf. Jer 3:19; Dan 8:9; 11:16, 41, 45; Zimmerli 1985: 253).
Yahweh’s future, however, according to Ezekiel (and Jeremiah before
him, cf. Jeremiah 29) lies with those who have taken up exile (11:15–
16). They will be “revived” by Yahweh (37:1–14) and will return to the
land (11:17–21; 20:40–44; 34:11–16; 37:15–28 [for a full listing and
discussion, cf. Martens 1972]). In fact, Yahweh himself has taken leave
of his house and his city to “emigrate” with the exiles (chaps. 8–11)
and will return with them eventually to the temple (43:1–5) in a land
restored according to the elaborate blueprint laid out in chaps. 47–48.
The latter is a combination of a realistically reconstituted Israel with
images of supramundane symbolism. Central to it is the equitable
distribution of the land to all Israel, including the sojourners (47:13–
23), according to a tribal pattern grouped around the sanctuary (48:1–
29).
Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40–55) also announces to the exiles in Babylon
the dawning of a new age, patterned typologically on Israel’s
salvation history, from creation to the occupation of the land
(Anderson 1962: 177–95). While the accent falls on the new exodus,
the salient land motifs of the Pentateuch and Joshua, combined with
the significance of Zion in Jerusalemite theology (cf. Isa 2:2–4), play
an important role. A new Israel redeemed from Babylon (48:20–21)
will be led by God through a wilderness, turned into a Garden of Eden
(40:3–5; 41:17–20; 42:14–16; 43:14–21; 48:21; 51:3) into her own land
(49:8–12). There Jerusalem/Zion will become the exalted center for
the whole earth (49:14–18; 52:1–10), when the Lord takes up
residence in it (52:8; cf. Ezek 43:1–5).
f. The Postexilic Era. With its translation into an eschatological
future, as seen in Ezekiel and Deutero–Isaiah and adumbrated in
earlier prophets (cf. Hos 2:18–25—Eng 2:16–23; Isa 11:6–9), the OT’s
land theme has reached its ultimate narrative limit. There can be no
expectation of its further extension once a redeemed people finds
eschatological rest in the presence of God. This, together with the
loss of sovereign control of the land by the Jews, accounts for the fact
that “in the literature of the postexilic period there is an undeniable

relocation of interest away from the land to the broadly
human” (Davies 1974: 115; see pp. 110–15, he refers specifically to the
books of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther, Jonah,
and parts of Daniel).
This is only a partial picture, however. Their eschatological horizons
did not preclude Ezekiel and Deutero–Isaiah from linking their
prophecies to a concrete return to Palestine. Jeremiah had stated in
totally non-eschatological terms that “houses and fields and
vineyards shall again be bought in this land” (32:15) after an exile of
70 years (25:11–12; 29:10). Consequently, the Edict of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2–
4; 6:1–5) and the subsequent return and rebuilding of a Jewish
presence around Jerusalem and the temple (Ezra, Nehemiah) could at
least in part be considered as fulfilment of prophecy and as a sign of
God’s impending universal rule.
Hanson (1979: 209–211, and throughout) has made it plausible that
sociological tensions between a dominant priestly party and a
suppressed visionary party in postexilic Jerusalem increasingly drove
the latter from a “realized eschatology” to apocalyptic, eschatological
expectations.
Hanhart (1983: 128–30) distinguishes between an early and a late
postexilic phase. The former (basically the Persian period) is marked
by the joy over the newly received land after a penance of 70 years
that had restored to the land the sabbath years withheld earlier (2 Chr
36:21–23). The latter (basically the Greek period) is marked by a
renewed lament over the impending punishment of Jerusalem for her
guilt newly incurred after the exile (Isa 27:9–11).
However one thinks of these analyses, they support the observation
that the land-motif remained of highest importance in the postexilic
era. This is further supported if we remember that the Priestly source
of the Tetrateuch was completed in the postexilic era (as Davies also
notes, 1974: 115), and that the canonization process that gave
preeminence to the land-dominated Pentateuch/Torah also falls into
this era.
One must ask, further, whether the postexilic shift of emphasis “from

the land to the broadly human” (Davies, see above), to the extent
that it is valid, really represents a shift away from the land. Where
Israel’s relationship to the nations (Jonah, if it is postexilic) is treated,
or where existence in the diaspora is shown to be possible and even
positive, as in Esther and Daniel, the land is still the reference point
for Israel’s identity. For late postexilic prophecy (Deutero-Zechariah;
Isaiah 24–27), Hanhart (1983: 131–33) has pointed out the significance
of a new fluidity between the meaning of ʾereṣ as “land” and “earth.”
God’s judgment and salvation of the ʾereṣ (of Israel, in the remnant
form of Judah/Jerusalem) becomes increasingly a sign of God’s acts
with ʾereṣ (the whole earth). As Hanhart (1983: 128) remarks, “Die
geschichtliche Erfahrung der nach-exilischen Prophetie ist das
leidende Land als Symbol der leidenden Erde, ihre eschatologische
Schau ist das erlöste Land als Symbol der erlösten Erde.”
This is further illustrated in Joel (assuming a postexilic date), where
the locust plague befalls the land (of Israel), but extends (from 2:1 on)
to the whole earth (Hanhart 1983: 137, n. 3).
B. New Testament
1. Terminology. In most instances (RSV 43 times), “land” renders
Greek gē, the standard LXX equivalent of both ʾereṣ and ʾădāmâ. Gk
gē can also mean “earth” (see EARTH), “country, region” and “soil,
ground.” As translations of gē, “land” occurs in the following usages:
(a) “Land of Israel” (Matt 2:20f.); (b) “land + name” (Sodom and
Gomorrah, Matt 10:15; 11:24; Judea, John 3:22; Chaldeans, Acts 7:4;
Canaan, Acts 13:19; Egypt, Acts 13:17; Jude 5); (c) “land” in contrast to
water/sea (Matt 14:24, 34; Mark 4:1; 6:47, 53; Luke 5:3, 11; 8:27; John
6:21; 21:8, 9; Acts 27:43f.; Heb 11:29; Rev 10:2, 5, 8); (d) “land” as
territory, area (Matt 27:45 = Mark 15:33 = Luke 23:44 [possibly
“earth”]; Luke 4:25; Acts 27:39); (e) “land” as “ground, soil” (Luke
14:35; Heb 6:7); and (f) “this land” (Acts 7:4); and (g) “land of
promise” (Heb 11:9).

In seven further instances, “land” occurs in a quotation or paraphrase
from the OT: Matt 2:6 (“land of Judah,” Mic 5:1—Eng 5:2); 4:15 (“land
of Zebulun, land of Naphtali,” Isa 8:23—Eng 9:1); Acts 7:3 (“the land
which I will show you,” Gen 12:1); Acts 7:6 (“aliens in a land belonging
to others,” Gen 15:13), Acts 7:29 (“land of Midian,” Exod 2:15), Acts
7:40 (“land of Egypt,” Exod 32:1); and Heb 8:9 (“land of Egypt,” Jer
31:32).
As translation of ʾagros, “land” occurs three times in the combination
“house(s) or/and … lands” (Matt 19:29; Mark 10:29f.). “Land” renders
chōra in the phrases “the land of a rich man” (Luke 12:16) and “they
were nearing land” (Acts 27:27), and chōrion in four instances treats
land as an economic commodity (Acts 4:34; 5:3, 8; 28:7). Further,
three occurrences of land in the RSV are supplied by the translators
on the basis of the context (Luke 4:26; Acts 27:14; 2 Cor 10:16). In
addition, tēn gēn in Matt 5:5, usually translated “earth,” could
possibly be rendered “land.”
2. Theology. Apart from the introduction of OT land perspectives
carried forward in quotations or allusions from the OT introduced for
reasons other than their land theology, only four texts warrant any
scrutiny for possible theological implications:
a. In Matt 2:20f. the angel of the Lord tells Joseph, “Take the child and
his mother with you and go back to the land of Israel” (eis gēn ʾIsraēl;
v 20), and Joseph complies immediately (v 21). Here we encounter
twice the expression “land of Israel” (equivalent to Heb ʾereṣ yiśrāʾēl)
so conspicuously avoided in the OT (see above). While no overt
theological interpretation is offered, it seems certain that a
parallelism between the journey of Israel’s messiah and the earlier
journey of Israel from Egypt to the promised land, now “Israel’s land,”
is intended (cf. 2:15 and Hos 11:1). In that case, this naming of the
land would appear to suggest a certain continuing validity of the OT’s
theological meaning of that land.

b. The third beatitude calls the meek happy, “for they shall inherit the
earth/land” (tēn gēn, Matt 5:5). As all the beatitudes characterize
citizenship in the kingdom of God, G. Strecker (1983: 193) may be
right in considering the land to be spiritualized here (cf. Mark 10:14;
Luke 22:28–30). On the other hand, a certain realism of land
ownership could also be in view, although the extent of such
kingdom-land (Israel? the earth?) remains undefined.
c. “Land” occurs six times in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 (vv 3, 4, 4, 6,
29, 40), where Stephen’s Jewish hearers are reminded of their history
of wandering between Mesopotamia and Egypt. While Stephen
affirms the promise of the land to Abraham (vv 3, 17) and its divinely
empowered conquest by Joshua (v 45), it is possible to see in his
speech a certain negative slant against Judaism’s claim to the land.
Abraham did not experience the fulfillment of the land promise (v 5).
Israel’s time of closeness to God was the wilderness period (vv 44–45).
Their stay in the land was marked by idolatry leading to exile, and the
building of the Temple by Solomon seems an ill-considered, if not
rebellious, act of confining the Lord of the universe (vv 47–51;
Townsend 1972: 12).
d. Finally, the “land of promise” to Abraham is mentioned in Heb 11:9
(his “inheritance,” v 8), but only for the purpose of reinterpretation. In
keeping with the theology of Hebrews (see below), the writer
emphasizes that Abraham and the other patriarchs were “strangers
and exiles on the earth” (ʾepi tēs gēs; also “upon the land”), “seeking a
homeland” (patrida, v 14), and “a better country, that is, a heavenly
one” (v 16). Here the land realism of the OT is totally dissolved, not
only for the NT era, but even retrospectively for Abraham.
These four texts, then, suggest both continuity and transformation in
the NT’s response to the OT’s land theology. This observation will be
confirmed by our study of certain less direct evidence (below). The
paucity of theological material identifiable by the key word “land”
raises the question whether that theme, so ubiquitous in the OT, has
lost its significance in the NT, or whether it comes to expression in

different ways. W. D. Davies, having pointed out the meager
occurrence of specific references to the land in the Apocrypha, the
Pseudepigrapha, and the Qumran scrolls (1974: 49), finds in an
extensive investigation (1974: 49–158) that a “certainty of the
ultimately indissoluble connection between Israel and the land was
living and widespread in the world within which Christianity
emerged” (1974: 157). Might the same not be true of emerging
Christianity and its Scriptures? A full investigation would transcend
the scope of this article; only a few directions can be indicated here in
a sampling way. In doing so, we will focus on the canonical sources,
rejecting (with Davies 1974: 336–44, Hengel 1971, Klassen 1984: 72–
109, and others) the notion that the “historical” Jesus had zealotlike,
violent insurrectionist (Brandon 1967) or less violent but nevertheless
also revolutionary (Townsend 1972) aspirations to liberate the land
from Roman rule.
On the side of the NT’s continuity with the OT’s land motifs, the
following observations are pertinent:
a. The Gospels portray Jesus as a Jew linked genealogically (Matt 1:1–
17, 20; Luke 3:23–37), but also geographically (Matt 2:1–6; Luke 2:4) to
Israel generally and to the lineage and kingship of David in particular
(e.g., Matt 9:27; cf. Rom 1:3). Despite the significance of other places
(and Galilee as a whole; see below), Jerusalem retained a central
importance in his ministry. He carried out his ministry within the
approximate boundaries of OT “Israel,” including Judah (Alt 1961),
limiting his mission to the “house of Israel” (Matt 10:5–6; 15:24;
Manson 1964), highlighting this limitation by occasional and
conscious extensions of it to gentiles and/or gentile territory (e.g.,
Matt 8:5–13 = Luke 7:1–10; Mark 7:24–30 = Matt 15:21–28). The fact
that the extension of his mission to the gentiles by the early Church
seemed radical and tension-filled (Acts 10; 15) confirms the above
characterization of the ministry of Jesus.
b. The Jesus of the Gospels also lived as a Jew with respect to the law,
the synagogue and the Temple (e.g., Matt 5:17–18; Luke 2:49; 4:16;
6:6–7; 22:8). Again, his departures from Pharisaic-Rabbinic

perspectives at some points, mainly (though not only) relating to the
Sabbath (e.g., Mark 3:1–6 and parallels), merely highlights his
extensive acceptance of the law with its close links to land and
Temple. These departures are part of the tradition of reinterpretation
in light of either their earlier and original, or their final, eschatological
significance. In this faithfulness to the law, he was again followed by
the early Church (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42; 21:20; Gal 2:7–9), and by Jewish
(Ebionite) Christians for a long time (Strecker 1983: 196–99). The
reduction of legal obligations for gentiles took the form of a spirit-
guided innovation (Acts 10; 15) which resulted in a theologico-
geographical parallel existence of Jewish and gentile Christianity,
rather than the abrogation of the OT and Jewish geographical-legal
realia (Davies’ term).
c. The extension of the gospel to the gentiles is in itself not a
contravention of OT land theology, but can be seen as the
development or fulfillment, even in geographical terms, of a variety
of OT motifs, such as the Abrahamic blessing for the nations (Gen
12:3). God’s concern for the nations as expressed in the prophetic
“foreign nations oracles” (e.g., Amos 1:3–2:3), in the book of Jonah,
and especially in the theme of the eschatological significance of God’s
work in and with Israel for all nations (e.g., Isa 2:2–4 = Mic 4:1–3; Isa
19:23–25; 49:6; 56:7).
d. Even the conscious and innovative extension, most evident in the
missionary activity of Paul, retains Jerusalem as its starting point
(Acts 1:8; 2; 8:1; 11:27) and, in a certain sense, its center (Acts 8:14;
9:26–30, cf. Gal 1:18–19; 15:1–35; 16:4). For himself, as a Jew, Paul
retains the validity of the law and the Temple (Acts 21:17–26), albeit
with some modifications, such as table-fellowship with the gentiles
(Gal 2:11–14). Most significant is his apparent validation of the
eschatological significance of the Jerusalem Temple in 2 Thess 2:4
(Davies 1974: 193f.).
On the other hand, new approaches to land and land-related motifs
in the NT are patently clear. Three types of evidence can be
distinguished: abrogation, symbolization, and transformation and

extension. It goes without saying that the boundaries between these
usages are often fluid.
a. Abrogation of the OT’s land theology or aspects thereof, in explicit
terms, is not frequent in the NT. It finds its clearest expression in
Hebrews. Here, even the historical promise of land to Abraham,
though acknowledged (11:8–16), is retroactively redirected to “a
better country, that is, a heavenly one” (11:16, see above). Elsewhere,
the land is excluded from the Abrahamic promise (6:13). While the fall
of Jericho is mentioned (11:30), the occupation of the land is omitted.
The saints are described as “strangers and exiles” (11:13), “wandering
over deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth (or
land?)” (11:38). Strangers and exiles does not mean here long-term
guests in God’s land (cf. Lev 25:23, see above), but geographically
footloose wanderers toward eternity. Israel’s covenant, law, cultus,
and priesthood are shadows of their higher, heavenly parallels and
must pass away (8:13). Christ is the heavenly high priest after the
order of Melchizedek, who is “without father or mother or
genealogy,” being “king of Salem, that is king of peace,” i.e., no
longer the earthly city of Gen 14:18 (7:2–3). Christ the high priest, who
died “outside the gate” (13:12) as a one-time sacrifice, officiates in a
“heavenly sanctuary” (8:5), also called “Mt. Zion … the heavenly
Jerusalem” (12:22), where he will give rest [the OT equivalent of the
promised land, see above] to the saved (chaps. 2–3). In everything,
the realia of the OT are bracketed out as ephemeral shadows of
nongeographical, nonphysical eternal realities.
Possibly the rejection of the Temple in the speech of Stephen (Acts 7;
see above) expresses a similar perspective.
We must also list here, however, the fact that the references to land
promises and land theology, so ubiquitous in the OT, are mentioned
sparingly, as already discussed.
There are aspects of the theology of Paul that may belong here, too.
Davies (1974: 164–220) notes that Paul, as a Jew, must have been
keenly aware of the realia of Judaism, and that it is therefore the
more remarkable that he hardly refers to the land or to any

theological significance of geography. Abraham is, for him, the model
of faith leading to righteousness. “Paul ignores completely the
territorial aspect of the promise” (Davies 1974: 178). Davies sees this
not only as absence of concern for the land, but as deliberate
rejection. The land-related law, for Paul, is an interlude, now
completed, between the universal promise to Abraham and its
fulfillment in Jesus Christ (p. 179). Davies can speak of the
“deterritorializing of the promise,” which is now “located,” not in a
place but in the person of Jesus Christ (p. 179). While all this is
undoubtedly true, we will need to return to Paul in our next two
sections.
b. Symbolization. We are concerned here with NT uses of the OT’s
land motifs in such a way as to carry forward their meanings without
their geographical realism. For the most part, the new meanings are
anchored either in Jesus and his church, or in an eschatological,
transcendent future. The common denominator for both is the
(present and/or future) kingdom of God. In the context of Hebrews,
we already noted the transformation of “land,” “Mt. Zion,”
“inheritance,” and “rest” into images of heavenly salvation.
“Wilderness” (some translations: “lonely place”) becomes the context
of temptation (e.g., Matt 4:1–11 = Luke 4:1–13), but also of encounter
with God (e.g., Luke 5:16). “Mountain” signifies manifestation of God
(e.g., Mark 9:2–8 = Matt 17:1–8 = Luke 9:28–36), while “sea”
symbolizes the unruly powers to be subjected to God’s rule (e.g.,
Mark 4:35–41 = Matt 8:23–27 = Luke 8:22–25). “Temple” is, especially
for Paul, the presence of God in the believer and the church (e.g., 1
Cor 3:16f.; but cf. our discussion of 2 Thess 2:4, above). “Jerusalem/
Zion” comes to mean the eternal goal of the Christian’s pilgrimage,
the ultimate presence of God (Heb 11:10; 12:22; Rev 21:1–4).
In the gospel of John, the meaning of land motifs is repeatedly
projected onto the person of Jesus. He, not Jacob’s well, is the source
of life-giving water (4:7–15). He, not the Pool of Bethesda, offers
healing (5:2–9). He is the bread of life, the manna in the wilderness
(6:31–35). His body is the Temple that will be destroyed and

resurrected (2:18–21).
With less recourse to geographical terminology, Paul also focuses the
land promises of the OT on Jesus, who is the entrance to the
believers’ inheritance (Gal 3:29–4:7), and in whom the promise to
Abraham is fulfilled (Gal 3:15–18; Rom 4:16). While his “localization”
of many of the OT’s land-related realia (goal of promise, inheritance)
“in Christ” can be seen as a rejection of the theological relevance of
place, it is also true that the incarnate Christ himself represents a
certain realism of geographical presence associated with the places
of his ministry and the memories that attach to them. This realism of
the incarnation then continues in the presence of the resurrected
Christ in his body, the church, and its members, repeatedly referred
to as “temple” by Paul (1 Cor 3:16–17; Davies 1974: 187).
Davies also recognizes this new realism in Christ, both geographical
and transcendent, and finds in it the common denominator for the
twofold emphasis to which his extensive investigation of land
theology in the Pauline, Synoptic, Johannine (gospel) materials and
of Jesus himself leads him: (1) “It is justifiable to speak of the realia
[land, Jerusalem, Temple] of Judaism as being ‘spiritualized’ in the
Christian dispensation” (Davies 1974: 366). (2) As Jesus had lived in a
particular land, “the space and spaces which he occupied took on
significance, so that the realia of Judaism continued as realia in
Christianity” (366). The “reconciling principle,” for Davies (367), is the
person of Jesus Christ: “The New Testament finds holy space
wherever Christ is or has been; it personalizes ‘holy space’ in Christ.”
c. Transformation and Extension. In his conclusions just presented,
and throughout his investigation, Davies partly acknowledges but
largely deemphasizes or rejects a new theologico-geographical
realism in the NT. This new “geography of faith” appears to the
present writer to be the theologically most significant legacy of the
OT’s land themes in the NT (Janzen 1973). We noted above that Jesus’
limitation of his mission to “Israel” suggests a certain intentionality in
the geographical pattern of his ministry. There is a wealth of evidence
in the gospels, in Acts, and in the Pauline writings that such an

intentionality far exceeded the mere limitation of Jesus’ own mission,
and later expansion of it, into the gentile world. It appears that Jesus
and the early Church, far from being aterritorial in theology, believed
and lived out a new theologico-geographical realism. This consisted,
in part, of the acceptance of earlier Israelite-Jewish realia (see above);
in part, of the transformation of these, not only into symbolic
meanings (see above), but into new geographical patterns and
perspectives; and in part, of the creation of new geographical realia
for faith.
The most prominent proposal in this direction is the so-called
Lohmeyer-Lightfoot Theory (Lohmeyer 1936; Lightfoot 1937), which
finds in Mark, and less prominently in Matthew, a geographical
theology centering in Galilee as the new “holy land.” There Jesus
began his ministry, called his disciples, experienced the
transfiguration. Galileans were his first followers, and became almost
synonymous with “Christians.” Jerusalem was the place of opposition
and rejection. While the resurrection took place in Jerusalem, the
parousia would come in Galilee (Mark 14:28; 16:7). There the church
was founded. It was the land that dwelt in darkness, but saw a great
light (Matt 4:15–16, cf. Isa 8:23–9:1—Eng 9:1–2).
Davies (1974: 221–43) and G. Stemberger (1974: 409–38) reject this
thesis as a “uniform pattern” (Stemberger 1974: 435), but
Stemberger, has to admit “a certain emphasis on Galilee in the
gospels” (435). “That Christ had chosen to exercise his ministry in
Galilee, this fact underlined the paradox of the incarnation … It is
precisely to the despised and lowly people that Christ comes” (436),
Galilee being of low regard in that time. Whether or not the many
ramifications of the Lohmeyer-Lightfoot theory can be substantiated
or not, is less important than the now widely recognized fact that a
new, Christian geographical realism is at work here, taking up the OT
notion of the election of a geographical area, but no longer attaching
such election to the land as understood in the OT.
For the gospel of Luke, H. Conzelmann (1961: 18–94) has
demonstrated a remarkably rich and nuanced geographical

symbolism as the carrier of that gospel’s theological message. In
contrast to Mark and Matthew, Jerusalem, rather than Galilee, is the
goal and focus of Jesus’ mission. His Galilean ministry serves the
purpose of gathering witnesses (almost synonymous with
“Galileans”) who will travel with him to Jerusalem. They become
witnesses by way of election. Jesus’ natural relatives do not qualify as
such. Rejected in his home town, Nazareth, Jesus chooses
Capernaum, a town without sacred history, as the center of his
activity, foreshadowing the movement of the gospel from Jews to
Gentiles, presented later in the book of Acts.
In a long journey symbolizing his acceptance of his passion, Jesus
reaches Jerusalem, where all prophets must die. He enters the city in
a non-eschatological, nonpolitical act and cleanses the Temple,
signifying the Church’s claim to be the true Israel (Conzelmann 1961:
75). Contrary to the disciples’ mistaken notion, however, Jerusalem is
not the place of the parousia; the latter is still in the distant future.
Instead, it is the place of the birth of the Church, from which
witnesses will be led by the Spirit into all the world, a story told in
Acts.
For the gospel of John, Nazareth, and in a sense, all Galilee, is the
carrier of the scandalon of the incarnation. Over against Jesus’ origin
in Nazareth and Galilee, from where nothing good (1:46), and
certainly no eschatological figure (7:41, 52), is expected, stands the
evidence that he is from above (8:23). This is recognized by the
Galileans, who receive him (1:43–51; 2:11; 4:45, 53–54), and to a lesser
degree by the Samaritans (4:39–42). Meeks (1966: 165) points out
that, on the other hand, “the journeys to Jerusalem in John,
symbolize the coming of the redeemer to ‘his own’ and his rejection
by them, while the emphasized movement from Judea to Galilee
(especially 4:43–54) symbolizes the redeemer’s acceptance by others,
who thereby become truly ‘children of God,’ the real Israel.” Once
again, a new “sacred geography” has become the carrier of
Christology.

It is less important whether the analyses of the theologico-
geographical patterning of the gospels, sketched here in barest
outline, can be substantiated in the forms presented. Nor are we
concerned here with the precise relationship of the geographical data
of the life of the “historical” Jesus to their theological interpretations
in the different gospels. The important observation in our
investigation of the NT’s response to the OT’s land theology consists
of seeing considerable evidence for the significance of geography in
the NT’s theology. Regions, places, and journeys remain means
capable of being drawn into God’s service, i.e., of becoming “holy.”
Instead of a static acceptance of the “holy land” and the “holy places”
of the OT, the NT sees God as drawing geographical realia, old and
new, into his service in connection with his new self-revelation in
Jesus Christ. This divine employment of geography continues in the
early Church, as presented in Acts. There it is the Spirit that effects
the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem (in keeping with Lukan
geographical theology) to “all Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the
earth” (Acts 1:8), in a divinely led and empowered geographical
strategy (see also Acts 13:1–4; 16:6–10; 19:21; Gal 2:1–2; Matt 20:18).
New lands and places are chosen, thereby becoming “holy.” A certain
static land theology has been broken open in such a way as to
designate all places on the map as potentially holy, contingent on
God’s election through the Spirit (cf. Exod 20:24).
It is in this sense also that John 4:23 must be understood. To worship
God “in spirit and in truth” is not to negate the ongoing significance
of place in favor of an interiorized or otherworldly faith. It means to
recognize the potential of all lands and places—of the whole
ecosystem—to be chosen by the transcendent God of the Bible to
work signs of his election and presence.
Bibliography
Alt, A. 1961. Where Jesus Worked: Towns and Villages of Galilee. Trans. K.
Grayston. London.
———. 1966a. The Settlement of the Israelites in Palestine. Pp. 133–69 in
Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Trans. R. A. Wilson. Oxford.

———. 1966b. The God of the Fathers. Pp. 1–77 in Essays on Old Testament
History and Religion. Trans. R. A. Wilson. Oxford.
Anderson, B. W. 1962. Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah. Pp. 177–95 in
Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. Garden
City, NY.
Betz, O. 1970. Israel bei Jesus und im Neuen Testament. Pp. 275–89 in
Eckert, Levinson, and Stöhr, eds. 1970.
Brandon, S. G. F. 1967. Jesus and the Zealots. Manchester.
Brueggemann, W. 1968. The Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historian. Int
22: 387–402.
———. 1972. Weariness, Exile and Chaos. CBQ 34: 19–31.
———. 1974. Israel’s Sense of Place in Jeremiah. Pp. 149–65 in Rhetorical
Criticism, ed. J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler. PTMS 1. Pittsburgh.
———. 1977. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise and Challenge in Biblical Faith.
OBT 1. Philadelphia.
———. 1980. On Land-losing and Land-receiving. Crux 19: 166–73.
Clements, R. 1967. Abraham and David: Genesis 15 and its Meaning for
Israelite Tradition. SBT 2/5. London.
Conzelmann, H. 1961. The Theology of St. Luke. Trans. G. Buswell. New York.
Cross, F. M. 1962. Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs. HTR 55: 225–59.
Davies, W. D. 1974. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish
Territorial Doctrine. Berkeley.
Diepold, P. 1972. Israel’s Land. BWANT 5th ser. 15. Stuttgart.
Eckert, W. P.; Levinson, N. P.; and Stöhr, M., eds. 1970. Jüdisches Volk-
gelobtes Land. Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog 3. Munich.
Epp-Tiessen, D. J. 1981. Jeremiah’s Theology of Land. M.A. thesis University
of Manitoba.
Forshey, H. O. 1973. The Hebrew Root NHL and Its Semitic Cognates. Ph.D.
diss. Harvard.
Gerlemann, G. 1977. Nutzrecht und Wohnrecht. Zur Bedeutung von ʾăḥuzzâ
und naḥălâ. ZAW 89: 313–25.
Gottwald, N. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, NY.
Hanhart, R. 1983. Das Land in der spätnachexilischen Prophetie. Pp. 126–40
in Strecker, ed. 1983.
Hanson, P. D. 1979. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Rev. ed. Philadelphia.

Hengel, W. 1971. Was Jesus a Revolutionist? FBBS 28. Trans. W. Klassen.
Philadelphia.
Horst, F. 1961. Zwei Begriffe für Eigentum (Besitz): naḥălâ und ʾăḥuzzâ. Pp.
135–56 in Verbannung und Heimkehr, ed. A. Kuschke. Tübingen.
Janzen, W. 1973. Geography of Faith: A Christian Perspective on the
Meaning of Places. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 3: 166–82. Repr.
137–57 in Still in the Image. Institute of Mennonite Studies Series 6. Newton,
KS, 1982.
Japhet, S. 1979. Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles. JBL 98: 205–18.
———. 1983. People and Land in the Restoration Period. Pp. 103–25 in
Strecker, ed. 1983.
Kaiser, W. C., Jr. 1973. The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest. BSac
130: 135–50.
Kartveit, M. 1989. Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9.
Stockholm.
Klassen, W. 1984. Love of Enemies. OBT 15. Philadelphia.
Lightfoot, R. H. 1937. Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels. New York.
Lohfink, W. 1967. Die Landverheissung als Eid: Eine Studie zu Genesis 15. SBS
28. Stuttgart.
Lohmeyer, E. 1936. Galiläa und Jerusalem. Göttingen.
Manson, T. W. 1964. Only to the House of Israel? Jews and Non-Jews. FBBS 9.
Philadelphia.
Marguardt, F.-W. 1975. Die Juden und ihr Land. Hamburg.
Martens, E. 1972. Motivations for the Promise of Israel’s Restoration to the
Land in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Ph.D. diss. Claremont.
Meeks, W. A. 1966. Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel. JBL 85: 159–69.
Mendels, D. 1987. The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean
Literature. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 15. Tübingen.
Mendenhall, G. E. 1962. The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BA 25: 66–87.
Repr. BAR 3: 100–20.
Minear, P. S. 1983. Holy People, Holy Land, Holy City: The Genesis and
Genius of Christian Attitudes. Int 37: 18–31.
Ohler, A. 1979. Israel, Volk und Land. Stuttgart.
———. 1981. Landbesitz-Teilhabe am Gotteserbe. BK 36: 201–6.
Perlitt, J. 1983. Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie im

Deuteronomium. Pp. 46–58 in Strecker, ed. 1983.
Plöger, J. G. 1967. Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische
Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium. Bonn.
Rad, G. von. 1966a. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Trans.
E. W. T. Dicken. Edinburgh.
———. 1966b. There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An
Investigation of a Biblical Conception. Pp. 94–102 in von Rad 1966a.
———. 1966c. The Form-Critical Problem of the Pentateuch. Pp. 1–78 in von
Rad 1966a.
———. 1966d. The Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land in the Hexateuch. Pp.
79–93 in von Rad 1966a.
Rendtorff, R. 1970. Das Land Israel im Wandel der Alttestamentlichen
Geschichte. Pp. 153–68 in Eckert, Levinson, and Stöhr, eds. 1970.
———. 1975. Israel und sein Land. ThEH 188. Munich.
———. 1985. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Trans. J. Bowden.
Philadelphia.
Robinson, W. C., Jr. 1960. The Theological Context for Interpreting Luke’s
Travel Narrative (9:51ff.). JBL 79: 20–31.
———. 1964. Der Weg des Herrn. Studien zur Geschichte und Eschatologie im
Lukas-Evangelium. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur kirchlich-evangelischen
Lehre 36. Hamburg-Bergstedt.
Rost, L. 1965. Die Bezeichnungen für Land und Volk im Alten Testament. Pp.
76–101 in Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament.
Heidelberg.
Sanders, J. A. 1972. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia.
Schmid, H. H. 1970. Messiaserwartung und Rückkehr in das Land Israel nach
dem Alten Testament. Pp. 188–96 in Eckert, Levinson, and Stöhr, eds. 1970.
Seebas, H. 1977. Landverheissungen an die Väter. EvT 37: 210–29.
Stegemann, H. 1983. “Das Land” in der Tempelrolle und in anderen Texten
aus den Qumranfunden. Pp. 154–71 in Strecker, ed. 1983.
Stemberger, G. 1974. Galilee—Land of Salvation? Appendix IV, pp. 409–38 in
Davies 1974.
Strecker, G. 1983. Das Land in frühchristlicher Zeit. Pp. 188–200 in Strecker,
ed. 1983.
Strecker, G., ed. 1983. Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. GTA 25. Göttingen.
Townsend, T. J. 1972. Israel’s Land Promises under the New Covenant. Paper

prepared for the Commission on Faith and Order of the National Council of
Churches of Christ.
Waldow, H. E. von. 1974. Israel and Her Land: Some Theological
Considerations. Pp. 493–508 in A Light to My Path, ed. N. Bream, R. D.
Heim, and C. A. Moore. Philadelphia.
Weinfeld, M. 1983. The Extent of the Promised Land—the Status of
Transjordan. Pp. 59–75 in Strecker, ed. 1983.
Wildberger, H. 1956. Israel und sein Land. EvT 16: 404–22.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1977. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge.
Wirth, W. 1970. Die Bedeutung der biblischen Landverheissung für die
Christen. Pp. 312–21 in Eckert, Levinson, and Stöhr, eds. 1970.
Wolff, H. W. 1966. The Kerygma of the Yahwist. Int 20: 131–58.
Zimmerli, W. 1985. The “Land” in the Pre-Exilic and Early Post-Exilic
Prophets. Pp. 247–62 in Understanding the Word, ed. T. Butler, E. W. Conrad,
and B. C. Ollenburger. JSOTSup 37. Sheffield.
W. JÄÅÇÉÅ
Janzen, W. “Land.” Edited by David Noel Freedman. The Anchor Yale Bible
Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Tags: Land
Clipped: June 26, 2019
BEB: Land > Ll

Land. The relationship of man to the land is a prominent theme in the
OT. In Genesis the earth with its dry land was created as a place for
man to dwell in fellowship with God. Man was given the task of
subduing the earth and ruling over the animal creation to satisfy his
own needs and to bring glory to his Creator. Subsequent to man’s fall
into sin he suffered alienation not only from God and his fellows, but
also from the land on which he lived. He was driven from the garden
of Eden, and the earth became cursed. He was now forced to toil and
sweat in order to subdue the earth and provide for his own
subsistence because the harvest was choked by thorns and thistles.
After murdering his brother, Cain receives an individual intensification
of the land curse as punishment. He is told that the earth will not

yield its produce for him even with hard labor, forcing him to wander
from one place to another. With no permanent homeland Cain is
denied the enjoyment of rest and prosperity. Because of sin the
important human aspiration for a sense of place is refused to Cain.
After the flood, which was God’s judgment on an exceedingly wicked
human race, man again provokes God’s wrath; the construction of the
tower of Babel exalts human might apart from God. God intervenes
to confuse the people’s language and “scatter them abroad upon the
face of the earth.” Genesis 1–11 is thus characterized by a sequence of
narratives describing land loss with its attendant deprivations as a
consequence of sin and rebellion against God.
Land and the Abrahamic Covenant. In the time of Abraham God
intervened in human affairs to provide a special homeland for a select
group of people who are set apart unto himself. It is here that the
Promised Land theme is introduced in Scripture. God said to
Abraham, “Go from your country … to the land that I will show you;
and I will make of you a great nation” (Gn 12:1, 2). This promise to
Abraham is enlarged upon in Genesis 12:7; 13:14–18; 15:7–21; 17:7, 8.
Abraham is told that the land of Canaan is to be the “everlasting
possession” of his descendants (Gn 17:8).
The OT narrative then traces Abraham’s line of descent through Isaac
and Jacob, and tells of the migration of Jacob’s family to Egypt,
where during approximately four centuries they became a great and
numerous people. During this period the promise of possession of the
land of Canaan is reiterated (Gn 28:15; 35:11, 12; 46:3, 4; 50:24) and
held before Abraham’s descendants as an integral feature of God’s
covenantal promises.
Land and the Mosaic Covenant. When God called Moses to lead the
Israelites out of Egypt, he associated Moses’ task with the fulfillment
of the promises to the patriarchs: “I have remembered my covenant.
… I will take you for my people … and I will bring you into the land
which I swore to give to Abraham” (Ex 6:5–8). Israel is to be delivered
from Egypt for two reasons: first, in order to be established as God’s
covenant people at Mt Sinai, and second, in order to possess the land

promised to their fathers. It is of utmost significance, however, that
with the establishment of the Mosaic covenant the continued
possession of the land is made dependent on obedience. Should
Israel violate the covenantal obligations, it will bring upon itself the
covenant curses, the most severe of which is banishment from the
Promised Land. God said, “If you walk contrary to me, and will not
hearken to me …, I will devastate the land … and I will scatter you
among the nations” (Lv 26:21, 32, 33). This does not mean that God
will abandon his people and the land totally or forever, because God
also promises that when the people repent, “then will I remember my
covenant with Jacob … and I will remember the land” (Lv 26:42).
The Book of Deuteronomy, which records the renewal of the Sinai
covenant in the plains of Moab, reminds the people of Israel that the
land is a gift from the Lord (Dt 6:10, 11). The land is described as
fruitful (Dt 8:7–10; 11:10–12), a place in which Israel will find
satisfaction and prosperity. At the same time it is presented as a place
in which Israel will be tempted to forget that it has been received as a
gift of God’s grace (Dt 8:11–17). The land belonged to God, hence his
people were only tenants. The kind of ownership that they exercised
was inalienable, and every jubilee year all property reverted to the
original owners. In the land there is the danger of enticement to turn
away from the Lord to other gods (Dt 6:14; 8:19; 11:16). In the land
there will be the subtle temptation for the Israelites to shift their
sense of security from dependence on the Lord to reliance on the
material benefits of landed status. When and if this happens, the
Israelites are warned, the result will be expulsion from the land (Dt
28:63, 64; 29:25–29) until at some future date repentance would
bring restoration (Dt 30:1–16).
This connection between covenantal obedience and continued
possession of the land is reemphasized by Joshua subsequent to the
conquest and apportionment of the land to the various tribes (Jos
23:14–16). Later, when Israel’s security became threatened by the
Philistines in the west and the Ammonites in the east, the elders
request Samuel to give them a king “like the nations” round about to

lead them in battle against their enemies (1 Sm 8:5, 20). Here the idea
arises that successful land management and defense require a king.
Even though this request constituted a rejection of the kingship of
Yahweh and a serious breach of covenant (1 Sm 8:6, 7), the Lord tells
Samuel to give the people a king (1 Sm 8:7–9, 22; 12:13). When Saul is
inaugurated as king, his role is carefully defined (1 Sm 10:25) so that
the exercise of his kingship would in no way detract from or conflict
with the continued suzerainty of Yahweh over the nation. Saul and
the kings after him are to act as vice-regents for the divine suzerain in
their rule of the land and people. The human king is just as much
subject to the law of the divine suzerain as any other Israelite (Dt
17:14–20; 1 Sm 12:12–25).
During the reign of King David the promise of land received at least a
provisional fulfillment. Although it is true that initial fulfillment
occurred when Joshua entered the land, at that time the territory did
not extend to the borders promised Abraham (Gn 15:18) and much of
the land that was occupied still contained pockets of resistance by the
former inhabitants (Jos 13:1–6; Jgs 1). It was not until the time of
David that the land was fully possessed as originally promised (2 Sm
8; 1 Kgs 4:21, 24).
The responsibility of the king to observe the Law and the connection
between covenantal obedience and possession of the land is again
made clear when Solomon dedicates the temple (1 Kgs 9:4–9).
Disobedience will bring not only expulsion from the land but also the
destruction of the temple.
The subsequent history of the divided kingdom era is for the most
part a history of covenant abrogation, by the people as well as the
kings. The Lord sent repeated warnings through the prophets that
such disobedience could only lead to expulsion from the land, but
their message fell on deaf ears (Is 6:11, 12; Am 5:27; 7:17; Hos 9:17).
The occupants of the throne of David repeatedly proved themselves
to be unworthy of the office.
As Israel persisted in its evil way Jeremiah announced that
Nebuchadnezzar was to be the Lord’s agent to drive Israel from the

land (Jer 21:2; 22:25; 25:8, 9; 27:6; 28:14; 29:21). However, Jeremiah
and other prophets also looked beyond the exile to a future
restoration and return to the land (Jer 32:6–25). Historically this was
accomplished under the rule of Cyrus the Great of Persia (538 st) and
is described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
A difficulty of interpretation arises in finding an adequate fulfillment
of certain prophecies of the return (cf. Ez 37:1–28; Am 9:14, 15), which
envision great prosperity and permanent possession of the land
under the rule of a Davidic king. The intertestamental period does not
seem to be a suitable fulfillment for these predictions.
Land and the New Covenant. In the NT the land theme is much less
prominent, and seems mostly to be given a spiritual symbolism. The
writer of Hebrews suggests that Abraham understood the land
promise as something that pointed beyond a merely geographical
fulfillment to a higher and far more satisfying heavenly home.
Realizing the imperfection and transitory nature of all that this world
offers, Abraham looked beyond the temporal fulfillment of the land
promise “for a city … whose builder and maker is God” (Heb 11:10),
and he sought a “better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Heb 11:16).
In the NT it appears that Israel’s land promise and entrance into
Canaan is to be understood as typifying something of the future
heavenly rest awaiting God’s people (Heb 3; 4). Perhaps this explains
the OT stress on the connection between Israel’s living in obedience
to God’s Law and their possession of the land. When the Israelites do
not typify a condition of holiness, they disqualify themselves from
typifying a condition of blessedness, and thus are either denied
access to or driven from the land. The NT indicates that it is God’s
purpose to prepare an eternal homeland for his people where the rule
of the divine King is direct and just, and where all things are subject to
his will; where death and sin are abolished, and where the needs of
his people are completely satisfied (Heb 11:13–16; Rv 21).
The OT land promises have been viewed by some as having only
typical significance. In the light of Christ’s incarnation any statement
of Scripture concerning a future for the land is to be interpreted as

fulfilled in a spiritual sense in the church. The church is now the New
Israel and heir of the OT promises. Because God’s kingdom is now a
spiritual reality, it is considered a misunderstanding of the OT to
expect yet future fulfillments of the OT prophecies of Israel’s return to
the land and an establishment of a period of peace and prosperity
under the rule of Christ the Son of David (cf. Is 2:1–5; 11:6–11; Ez 37:1–
28; Am 9:14, 15). To abide in Christ is considered an adequate
fulfillment of the physical and geographical promises of the OT
economy.
Others, while not denying typical significance for these OT realities,
would suggest that the land promises are still operative in the
physical and geographical categories in which they were given. It is
pointed out that Paul argues in Romans 9–11 that there is yet a future
for national Israel. In spite of Israel’s history of disobedience,
climaxing in the rejection of the Messiah, the election and calling of
God is irrevocable, and Israel is yet to be reingrafted in the olive tree
from which it had previously been cut off. Luke says that Jerusalem
will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles
are fulfilled (Lk 21:24), indicating that there is to be a future time
when Jerusalem will again be possessed by the Jewish nation. This
does not necessarily mean that one must view the present State of
Israel as the direct fulfillment of the OT promises of return to the
land. The OT indicates that the return will be occasioned by belief (Dt
30:1–16). The present return is in unbelief. At the same time, the
remarkable preservation of the Jewish people over the centuries and
the recent reestablishment of the nation are perhaps to be
understood as anticipations or signs of a future and more complete
realization of the OT land promises.
See JÖsÜáÉÉ YÉÄà.
Bibliography. Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible; W.D. Davies, The Gospel and
the Land and The Territorial Dimension of Judaism; G.A. Smith, A Historical
Geography of the Holy Land
Elwell, Walter A., and Barry J. Beitzel. “Land.” Baker Encyclopedia of the

Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.
Tags: Land
ZEB H–L: Land, Theology Of

land, theology of. The pervasive biblical concept of land is rooted
in both tàÉÄâÜäÅ and àÉãÉåçâÜäÅ. Because God is the creator of the
world the whole belongs to him (Gen 14:24; Ps. 24:1; 89:11; et al.).
The word land and related terms refer not only to the world, to
countries, to regions, and to “turf,” but in many instances to much
more than the physical world.
Of primary concern is the fact that land is where God placed his
creatures to live. “The Läàã God took the man and put him in the
Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” (Gen. 2:15). See EãÉÅ,
GÄàãÉÅ äé. This passage is generally interpreted to mean that “work”
was part of the intended creative order of God, and that humans are
to be good—ecologically aware—stewards of God’s creation. While
these ideas may be true, some have argued persuasively that a
correct reading of this verse should be, “the Läàã God took man and
put him in the Garden of Eden to worship and obey” (J. Sailhamer in
EBC, 1:44–48, following U. Cassuto). Humans were “placed” in the
place that he had prepared for them, namely “Eden,” for rest and
safety, and as a sacrifice is placed by God’s altar, to live their lives in
God’s presence. This verse also answers the question as to why
humans were created: to live their lives in the presence of their
Creator “worshiping and obeying” him.
When AãÄå and EèÉ sinned, they were removed from the presence
of the Holy Creator, from the idyllic “restful” environment of Eden.
Genesis 3–11 describes in vivid detail the results of the éÄáá and life
outside of “the land of Eden” (Cain and Abel, Lamech, the sons of God
and the daughters of men, the flood, and the Tower of Babel
incident). The words spoken to AsàÄêÄå, IëÄÄt, and JÄtäs form the
foundational promise of God to humanity as to how Edenic
conditions will be restored (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old

Testament Theology [1978], 88). The new people of God will descend
from Abraham, and they will be empowered (= “blessed”) to live their
lives in God’s presence in the land (Canaan; Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:7–
8; 17:8; et al.) that God will give them. This restored community will
be administered by God’s regent (king; 17:6, 16; 35:11), and
ultimately, selected people from all nations will join this community
(12:3; 18:18; 22:17–18; et al).
After living in Egypt for over 400 years, God delivered the
descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from bondage in
fulfillment of his promises. The goal of this deliverance was to
establish them as a worshiping obedient community in the Land of
Canaan (Exod. 6:1–9). Note especially that God was leading them to
his holy habitation, to plant them in the mountain of his inheritance,
the place of his dwelling, his sanctuary (15:13, 17). In other words,
they were being led back to “Eden” where they could live their lives in
worshipful obedience to God (Gen. 2:15). Thus life in the Land of
Canaan is much more than mere human socioeconomic relationships
—it has to do with God’s intended destiny for his people.
As the exodus progresses, God’s presence fills the âÄsÉàÅÄtáÉ (Exod.
40) in fulfillment of his promise to dwell in the tents of SêÉå (Gen.
9:27), and then he leads his people in procession to the place where
he will “put” them (i.e., cause them to “rest,” a possible rendering of
the hiphil of nûaḥ H5663 Gen. 2:15) and where he will dwell in their
midst (Deut. 12). Viewed in this light, the legislation given at Mount
SÜÅÄÜ provided the framework as to how God’s people are to live
obedient worshipful lives in his presence (in fulfillment of the true
destiny of humanity). The biblical writers call this intended idyllic
state “rest,” and this was the goal of the conquest and settlement of
Canaan as described in the books of Joshua and Judges (e.g., Josh.
1:13, 15; 22:4; 23:1; et al.).
Throughout the history of God’s people, the foundational intention
(Gen. 2:15) and the redemptive promise were always available for
fulfillment as they lived in the land. Notice one of the progressive

climaxes as God comes to “dwell” in the âÉåçáÉ the SäáäåäÅ had
built (1 Ki. 8). However, God’s people failed to live their lives in
grateful obedience, and the prophets were continually calling the
people back to avoid punishment (Deut. 28) and to fulfill their destiny
by truly obeying and worshiping God (see for example Isa. 1 and Jer.
7). Because of continuing disobedience, God removed himself from
their presence (Ezek. 9–11), and then the covenant curses fell as the
Babylonians devastated the land, destroyed Jerusalem, and carried
many of the people into exile.
Prophets before, during, and after the physical exile wrote about a
glorious day ahead when God and his people would return to the land
to live in the idyllic conditions that would be established at that time
(Ezek. 43; Isa. 40). They even prophesied that the Gentiles would
experience blessing (empowerment) to worship and obey the true
and living God (e.g., Isa. 2:1–5; 56). N. T. Wright has shown that during
the time between the Testaments many Jews, even though physically
living in the land, still thought of themselves as being in exile—for the
glorious future described by the prophets had not developed
(Christian Origins
and the Question of God. Vol. 1: The New Testament and the People
of God [1992], 268–69). Indeed, even though they were living in “the
land,” they were under foreign domination.
With the coming of Jesus as God incarnate, and thus the inauguration
of the new age, it is evident that the promises with regard to the land,
Jerusalem, the temple, and Israel find their fulfillment in him. Jesus is
the “seed” that had been promised to the patriarchs and to David
(Rom. 4; Gal. 3:16). In addition, those called by him and living in
covenantal faithfulness are in another sense the “numerous
seed” (descendants) promised to Abraham and are the true people of
God who are called to bring blessings to the Gentiles (Rom. 4; Gal 3:7–
9, 14, 29).
Not only was Jesus “God in the flesh,” but his church (1 Cor. 3:16) and
his followers (6:19) now exhibit his presence here on earth. Thus living
“in Christ” now replaces the idea of living “in the land.” This is no

“mere” spiritualization of any of the promises, but is in fact a
heightened fulfillment of them. For God’s people, the call is the same
as that to Adam and Eve in the garden (Gen. 2:15), and to Israel in
Canaan—that is, to fulfill their God-appointed destiny by living their
lives in his presence with true heartfelt worship and obedience.
Thus, just as the “seed” and “blessing” have been universalized, so
too has “life in the land” been transposed to a higher and more
intensive level. The believer’s calling is thus to enjoy “life in the land,”
the “rest,” and the city (“Jerusalem”) that our spiritual ancestors were
seeking on their earthly pilgrimage (Heb. 11:8–16; 12:22). The climax
to the biblical idea of land is for God’s people to ultimately return to
“Edenic land conditions,” but in a city—the new Jerusalem where
God’s people will dwell with him in blissful worship and obedience
(Rev. 21–22).
(See further N. C. Habel, The Land is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies
[1995]; P. S. Johnston and P. W. L. Walker, eds., The Land of Promise:
Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives [2000]; W.
Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in
Biblical Faith [2002].)
C. G. RÄëåÖëëÉÅ
Silva, Moisés, and Merrill Chapin Tenney. The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the
Bible, H-L. Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation, 2009.
ISBE: Land
Land[Heb ʾereṣ, also ʾaḏāmâ, śāḏeh—‘(open) field,’ geḇûl
—‘boundary,’ ‘territory’ (1 S. 6:9; Ps. 78:54; Isa. 15:8; Ezk. 45:7), ḥēleq
—‘share of property’ (2 K. 3:19, 25; Am. 7:4), karmel
—‘orchard’ (“fruitful land,” Isa. 10:18; Jer. 4:26; “fertile land,” 2 Ch.
26:10), mig̱raš (“pasture land,” Nu. 35; Josh. 21; 1 Ch. 6; etc.), nāweh
(“grazing land,” Ezk. 34:14), ṣeḇî—‘glory’ (“glorious land,” Dnl. 8:9;

11:16, 41; etc.), yabbāšâ (“dry land,” Gen. 1:9f.; Neh. 9:11; Ps. 66:6;
95:5; Jonah 1:9, 13; 2:10 [MT 11]), ḥārāḇâ (“dry land,” Gen. 7:22; Hag.
2:6), ṣîyâ (“dry land,” Isa. 35:1), ṣāmēʾ (“thirsty land,” Isa. 44:3), ṣeḥîḥâ
(“parched land,” Ps. 68:6 [MT 7]), dûmâ (“land of silence,” Ps. 94:17);
Gk. gḗ, agrós, chṓra (Lk. 12:16; Acts 27:27), chōríon (Acts 4:34; 5:3, 8;
28:7).]; AV, NEB, also EARTH, COUNTRY, FIELD, DRY LAND, etc.
I. Various Meanings
The primary Hebrew term for “land” is ʾereṣ, which is the fourth most
frequent noun in the OT (see also EÄàâê; CäÖÅâàí). Though
generalization is difficult, a distinction can be drawn between ʾereṣ,
which denotes a geographical or political territory, and ʾaḏāmâ,
which refers to arable, productive earth. The LXX translates both
terms by Gk. gḗ.
“Land” can represent the earth as the place where living things can
prosper. On the third day of creation the waters are collected to one
place and “dry land” (yabbāšâ)—called “earth” (ʾereṣ—appears (Gen.
1:9f). The dry land stands in antithesis to the sea, which represents
the forces of chaos (cf. Job 38:8–11; Ps. 104:5–9; Rev. 10:2, 5, 8). Thus
“land” is the place of safety and security (Jonah 1:9, 13; 2:10 [MT 11];
Acts 27:43f.; He. 11:29).
“Land” occasionally signifies ground or soil (ʾaḏāmâ, Gen. 47:23; Dt.
11:17; Neh. 9:25; Prov. 12:11). Human life comes from the land and is
inextricably tied to it (cf. Gen. 2:7; 3:19; Eccl. 12:7). “Land” sometimes
designates an individual’s tillable field (Heb. śāḏeh, Gen. 33:19; Lev.
27:16; Ruth 4:3; 1 S. 14:14; Gk. agrós, Mt. 19:29; Mk. 10:29f.).
“Land” (ʾereṣ) can refer to a generalized region or political territory, as
in “the land of his birth” (e.g., Gen. 11:28), “native land” (e.g., Jer.
22:10), “land of your fathers” (e.g., Gen. 31:3), “land of one’s

possession” (e.g., Gen. 36:43). A portion of Canaan allotted to an
Israelite tribe is referred to as that tribe’s land (e.g., “land of
Ephraim,” Dt. 34:2). The term can designate a nationstate in its socio-
political as well as geographical dimensions (1 S. 13:19; 2 K. 5:2, 4;
6:23; cf. Gk. gḗ, Mt. 2:6, 20f; 10:15; He. 8:9).
“Land” (ʾereṣ) can also denote the realm of the dead, as in Jonah 2:6
(cf. “earth,” Ex. 15:12; Eccl. 3:21). The place where the dead dwell can
be called the “land of the shades” (Isa. 26:19) or the “land of
forgetfulness” (Ps. 88:12 [MT 13]). The sense “underworld” is well
attested for Akk. erṣetu and Ugar. ʾrṣ as well (cf. UT, 51:vii:7–9: “And
go down into the infirmary of the underworld; you will be counted
among those who go down into the land”). See also DÉÄâê III.B.
II. Land of Promise
In the theology of the OT the concepts of land and covenant are
closely intertwined. The land is God’s gift, which He guarantees by
formal covenant, and it is the place where He dispenses covenant
blessing. Living in the land of promise is equated with receiving God’s
blessings and experiencing His presence in the “land of the
living” (Isa. 38:11; 53:8; Ezk. 32:23–27, 32). To belong to the Lord is to
have a “portion” in His land (cf. Josh. 22:25, 27). Those who trust the
Lord will live long in the land (Ps. 37:3, 9, 11, etc.). The Promised Land
thus symbolizes the Lord’s presence and blessing. Israel’s relationship
to the land is an indication of its relationship to God. Faith is required
for possession of the land; unbelief results in expulsion from the land.
A. Promise of the Land Land is the central feature of the Abrahamic
covenant: “The Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country [ʾereṣ] …
to the land that I will show you … to your descendants I will give this
land’ ” (Gen. 12:1, 7; cf. 13:15; 24:7). Associated with the land promise
are the covenant promises of nationhood and blessing (12:2f.). The
promise is repeated to Isaac (26:3), Jacob (28:4, 13; 35:12), Joseph
(48:4), and the other sons of Jacob (50:24). The patriarchs live in the
land as sojourners (cf. “land of sojournings,” Gen. 17:8; 28:4; 36:7;

37:1; Ex. 6:4); only in token fashion do they achieve ownership (cf.
Gen. 23:1–20).
The land promise is of central importance in the Mosaic discourses of
Deuteronomy—a book that forms the historical and theological
bridge between the patriarchal land promise and the actual
possession of the land. Deuteronomy brings together the land
promise of the Abrahamic covenant and the stipulations of the
Mosaic law covenant. The relationship between land and law is
twofold. First, only if the statutes and ordinances are observed will
the land be possessed (e.g., Dt. 6:17–19) and retained (e.g., 4:25f, 40).
Second, the covenant as explicated and ratified in Deuteronomy is
intended to regulate life in the promised land (e.g., 4:5, 14; 5:31);
obedience to the covenant will result in prosperity in the land (28:9–
11).
The land of promise is a “good land” (e.g., Dt. 1:25, 35). It is so rich,
abundant and productive that it is said to “flow with milk and
honey” (e.g., Ex. 3:8; Nu. 13:27; Dt. 6:3).
B. Possession of the Land The so-called Deuteronomistic historical
work (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) recounts Israel’s history from
the theological perspective of land promise, covenant breaking, and
land loss. The justification for Israel’s expulsion of the indigenous
population is the wickedness of the Canaanites (cf. Gen. 15:16; Dt.
9:4f.). Israel’s provisional possession of the land under Joshua’s
leadership is seen as fulfillment of the promise to the patriarchs (Josh.
21:43–45). Possession of the land brings “rest” (Dt. 12:9; 25:19; Josh.
1:13; 21:44), i.e., both freedom from foreign domination and the end
of wandering.
The Lord gives the land as a gift (Dt. 5:31; 9:6; 11:17). Strictly
speaking, the land never belongs absolutely to Israel but always
remains the property of the Lord (Lev. 25:23). Divine ownership of the
land is institutionalized in the SÄssÄâÜtÄá YÉÄà, in the Year of Jubilee
(see JÖsÜáÉÉ, YÉÄà äé II), and in the practice of offering the FÜàëâ
FàÖÜâë of the land to the Lord (Dt. 26:9–15; cf. also 14:22–29). The
distribution of the land by lot (Nu. 26:55; Josh. 14:2; 18:1–10) is

further indication that it is at the Lord’s disposal (see also PäàâÜäÅ).
The boundaries of the Promised Land are variously delineated (cf.
Gen. 15:18; Ex. 23:31; Nu. 34:1–10; Dt. 11:24; Josh. 1:4). While the
book of Joshua suggests that full possession was achieved during
Joshua’s lifetime (Josh. 21:43–45), Judges indicates that the conquest
was incomplete (Jgs. 1:1–2:5). Complete possession according to the
larger boundaries of Ex. 23:31 takes place only in the reigns of David
and Solomon (cf. 1 K. 4:25; 5:4).
C. Exile from the Land Covenant breaking results in Israel’s expulsion
from the land (cf. Dt. 4:25f.; 28:63f.; Josh. 23:13, 15; 1 K. 9:6f.; 2 K.
17:22f.; etc.). For the Lord to dwell among His people the land must
be clean, but immoral conduct (e.g., idolatry [1 K. 14:15], shedding of
blood [Nu. 35:33f], improper divorce [Dt. 24:1–4]) defiles the land and
makes it unclean (see CáÉÄÅ ÄÅã UÅtáÉÄÅ II.E). It was because the
Canaanites had defiled the land through their wickedness that the
land “vomited them out” (Lev. 18:24–30; 20:22–26). Likewise, the
prophets specify pollution of the land as one reason for Israel’s exile
(cf. Jer. 12:10–12).
But Israel is not alienated from the land forever. Prophetic preaching
sees beyond exile to a return to the land (e.g., Isa. 14:1f.; Jer. 16:15;
23:8; Ezk. 28:25; 36:8–15). In the age of salvation land retains an
important place (Jer. 32:15; Ezk. 36:28–32; 37:25). The Lord Himself
will redistribute the land in the new age (Ezk. 47:13–48:29). Prophecy
is fulfilled when Cyrus issues a decree permitting a return to the land
(Ezr. 1:1–4). After his return to Jerusalem, Ezra leads the people in a
confession of their guilt in polluting the land, and he implores the
people to cleanse the land by renouncing intermarriage (Ezr. 9:10–
15).
III. Land Promise Redefined
References to the promised land are sparse in the NT (He. 11:9; Acts
7:3 quotes Gen. 12:1). The central image of NT proclamation is not
land but the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ as its embodiment.
According to W. D. Davies (Gospel and the Land), the theme of land is
displaced in Christianity by the person of Jesus Christ. The NT

“personalizes ‘holy space’ in Christ, who, as a figure of History, is
rooted in the land … but as Living Lord … is also free to move
wherever he wills” (p. 367).
The promise of land continues to play a role in NT thought, but it
takes on an eschatological dimension. It becomes a symbol of the
eschatological society in time and eternity. Possession of the land is
promised to the meek (Mt. 5:5; cf. Ps. 37:11). The faithful are
promised rest (He. 3–4; cf. Dt. 12:9; 25:19). And the pilgrimage of faith
is described in terms of land promise and fulfillment (He. 11:13–16),
with the difference that the “better country” is a “heavenly one” (v
16). See also EëtêÄâäáäìí IX.
Bibliography.—W. Brueggemann, The Land (1977); W. D. Davies,
Gospel and the Land (1974); Territorial Dimension of Judaism (1982); F.
W. Marquardt, Juden und ihr Land (1975); E. Martens, God’s Design
(1981); G. von Rad, “Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land in the
Hexateuch,” in Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Eng. tr.
1966), pp. 79–93; R. Rendtorff, Israel und sein Land (1975); L. Rost,
“Bezeichnungen für Land und Volk im AT,” in Kleine Credo und andere
Studien zum AT (1965), pp. 76–101; L. I. J. Stadelmann, Hebrew
Conception of the World (1970); TDNT, I, s.v. γη̆ (H. Sasse); TDOT, I, s.v.
“ʾadhāmāh” (J. G. Plöger), “ʾerets” (J. Bergman, M. Ottosson); N. J.
Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld in the OT
(1969).
B. L. BÄÅãëâàÄ
Bandstra, B. L. “Land.” Edited by Geoffrey W Bromiley. The International

Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–1988.
Tags: Land
DLNTD: Land in Early Christianity

LLMN OM ELPQR CSPOTUOLMOUR
The land of Israel belonged to Judaism’s understanding of itself. Early
Christianity’s identity, however, was not closely tied to the land, and

the NT focuses not on the holiness of a place but the holiness of a
person, Jesus Christ; in Christian literature christology displaces
territorial theology. The land, nonetheless, retained significance (if
sometimes perhaps only symbolic) for Christian eschatology.
1. Jewish Background
2. Earliest Christianity
3. Acts of the Apostles
4. Revelation
5. Conclusion
1. Jewish Background
The importance of and veneration for the land appear from a number
of legends about Palestine: it was protected during Noah’s flood and
remained dry (Pseudo-Philo Bib. Ant. 7.4; b. Zebah. 113a); it lies at the
center of the earth (Jub. 8:19; Sib. Or. 5:250); it is holier than any other
land (m. Kelim 1:6–9); to leave it for a foreign country is to lose the
merits of the fathers (b. B. Bat. 91a); in the great tribulation at the
end of time those within its borders will be spared affliction (2 Apoc.
Bar. 29:2; 40:2; 71:1; cf. Joel 2:32); at the resurrection of the dead the
just outside the land will roll through underground tunnels until they
emerge from a cleft Mount of Olives, in the middle of—to use a term
found already in Zechariah 2:12—“the holy land” (b. Ketub. 111a
[which also records the opinion that those who die outside the land
will not rise from the dead]; Tg. Cant 8:5; Gen. Rab. 96:5). This
glorification of the land is especially strong in the rabbinic sources. b.
Berakot. 15a asserts that God gave Israel three precious gifts: “the
Torah, the land of Israel, the world to come.”
1.1. The Old Testament. In Genesis 15:18–21 God promises the land of
Israel to Abraham’s descendants (cf. Gen 17:8). This promise is central
to the Hexateuch, whose major events revolve around the land: the
Hebrew ancestors enter the land; famine later moves them to leave
the land and enter Egypt, where their descendants become enslaved
—until Moses intervenes to free them and lead them back to the
promised land; when Moses dies without having achieved his goal,

Joshua becomes his successor and leads the conquest of Canaan.
Israel’s foundational narrative then is largely about the land, which is
given to Abraham’s offspring by divine authority—it belongs to God
(Lev 25:23; Josh 22:19)—and for the obtaining of which God works
many miracles.
1.2. The Land in Eschatology. In the OT prophets there are not only
predictions of doom against the land (as in Jer 6:8; 25:38; Joel 2:3) but
also many prophecies of its restoration (Is 2:2–4; Amos 9:11–15; etc.).
In later times such prophecies were read as properly eschatological: a
regathered Israel will forever live in a renewed land. As Psalms of
Solomon 17:28 puts it, in the latter days God will distribute the tribes
of Israel “upon the land according to their tribes.” This belief was
widespread.
2. Earliest Christianity
2.1. The Jesus Tradition. There is surprisingly little about the land in
the sayings attributed to Jesus. Matthew 5:5 does refer to inheriting
the land (gēn; cf. Ps 36:11 LXX), and Matthew 8:11 par. Luke 13:29 may
presuppose that Jerusalem or Palestine is the goal of the
eschatological pilgrimage of either Gentiles (so most interpreters) or
(more likely) diaspora Jews. But Matthew 19:28 speaks of a “new
world” (palingenesia) in which the Twelve will rule over the twelve
tribes; and while this could refer to a literal messianic kingdom
centered in Israel, it more probably refers to a new or renewed earth.
This raises the possibility that for Jesus, as already for some Jews,
restoration to the land had become a symbol of some transhistorical
reality (cf. m. Sanh. 10:1 and b. Sanh. 110b, where inheriting the land
is equated with life in the world to come). In any case the paucity of
material shows that Jesus neither offered details on future
cosmological states nor spoke much about the land.
2.2. The Primitive Community It is plausible that some of Jesus’
Galilean followers remained in Jerusalem—the quintessence of the
land—in part because they thought it would be the center of
eschatological events; that is, they hoped that the Messiah would

return to the Mount of Olives and establish in the capital an earthly
kingdom. According to Acts 1:6, some wondered whether Jesus might
not “restore the kingdom to Israel” in the near future; and Acts 1:11
has been taken to mean that when Jesus returns from heaven for his
Second Coming he will descend to the Mount of Olives.
3. Acts of the Apostles
In Luke-Acts, which retells the story of God’s promise of the land to
Abraham (Acts 7:2–8), a mystique surrounds the land and its capital.
Jesus’ story begins and ends in the holy city (Lk 1–2; 24); the church
has its birth there (Acts 1–9); and even the apostle to the Gentiles
feels bound to return to Israel (Acts 20–23). There is also, however,
simultaneously a demoting of Jerusalem (and so necessarily the
land): the capital rejects Jesus and the prophets (Acts 7:52). Especially
noteworthy is Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. It implicitly rejects the sort
of territorial theology later found in rabbinic sources such as Mekilta
on Exodus 12:1, where divine revelation given outside Israel is a
stumbling block. According to Stephen, God revealed himself to
Abraham not in Israel but in Mesopotamia (Acts 7:2); Joseph received
divine assistance when he was outside the land (Acts 7:9–10); Israel’s
deliverer, Moses, was raised in a foreign court, spent years in Midian,
and stood on “holy ground” outside Israel (Acts 7:20–43); the exile to
Babylon was God’s will (Acts 7:43); and the Jerusalem temple does
not contain God, whose throne is heaven, whose footstool is earth
(Acts 7:44–50). There appears to be in all this an emphasis upon God’s
extra-territorial activity—an emphasis consistent with a book which
tells of God’s Spirit falling upon people regardless of their location or
ethnic identity. Still, Acts contains very little explicit teaching,
positive or negative, on the land of Israel. As in the Gospels, the land
is a vital presence whose significance is assumed rather than
discussed; and it is overshadowed by other things.
4. Revelation
The Apocalypse not only seems to assume that certain eschatological
events will take place in the land of Israel (Rev 11:1–13; 14:1), it also

may teach a millennial kingdom (see Millennium): Jesus will return
and reign for a thousand years (Rev 20:1–10). But if so, nothing is said
about the territorial aspects of that kingdom. (Contrast Justin Martyr
Dial. Tryph. 80: the saints will live a thousand years in Jerusalem.) We
do not, for instance, read that it is to be centered in Jerusalem or
located in Palestine (cf. Papias in Irenaeus Adv. haer. 5.33.3; there too
the dramatic fertility of the earth during the messianic kingdom is not
localized). Perhaps the location of events in Palestine is assumed by
the text, but there is certainly no plain statement to that effect. Once
more, then, we see that despite the influence of Jewish
eschatological expectation there is no focus upon the land as such.
This is characteristic of early Christianity in general.
5. Conclusion
There is a dearth of explicit reflection upon the Jewish doctrine of the
land in Acts and other early Christian writings. The silence is surprising
given the large amount of reflection on the other central symbols of
Jewish theology—the one God who acts in history, the Torah, the
people of God. Whatever be the explanation for this—lack of interest
on the part of the Jesus tradition, a similar lack of concern among
Gentiles, religious experience outside the land, the spiritualization of
territory (already attested in Jewish sources: Philo and T. Job 33:5–7)—
the theological point is clear: holy space is where Jesus Christ is (Ign.
Smyrn. 8.2); and because as risen Lord he is free to move where he
wills, there can be no sacred as opposed to profane territory, no
genuine “holy land.” Christ’s ubiquity as a spiritual presence
universalizes the notion of holy space and so inescapably relativizes
the sanctity and significance of the land promised to Abraham’s
descendants.
See also AsàÄêÄå; CêàÜëâÜÄÅÜâí ÄÅã JÖãÄÜëå; CàÉÄâÜäÅ,
Cäëåäáäìí; EëtêÄâäáäìí; MÜááÉÅÅÜÖå.
BÜsáÜäìàÄçêí. W. Brueggemann, The Land (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977); W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and
Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California, 1974);
idem, The Territorial Dimension of Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress,

1991).
D. C. Allison Jr.
Allison, Dale C., Jr. “Land in Early Christianity.” Edited by Ralph P. Martin
and Peter H. Davids. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its
Developments. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
Tags: Land in Early Christianity
DBI: Land
Land
The image of land in the Bible involves several words such as the
Hebrew ’eres̱ (usually “land” but frequently “earth”) or ’adāmâ
(usually “ground” or “land”) in the OT and gē in the NT. References
generally fall into two categories. One is references to a specific
geographical area. This is most commonly associated with certain
groups of people or nation-states (e.g., Mt 4:15), although the
Promised Land is conceived as such because of God’s promise to
Abraham. The second category is references to the earth itself, either
as a global entity (Gen 1:1) or as the soil or ground (Gen 1:10). In both
instances one cannot exaggerate how important the image of land
was to the OT mind and heart, not only in reference to the Promised
Land that was eventually attained but also in the apocalyptic visions
of the coming age. Next to God himself, the longing for land seems to
dominate all others.
What does land mean in the Bible? First of all, it is part of creation. As
such, it is one of the arenas within which people’s relationship to God
is lived out. In fact, man is called ’ādām because he was formed out of
’adāmâ (Gen 2:7). The land was where humankind’s obedience to God
was to be measured, both in Adam’s broader mandate to fill the earth
and subdue it (Gen 1:26, 28) and in his narrower responsibility to tend
the Edenic paradise where God had placed him (Gen 2:15). This latter
responsibility was not limited to cultivation of the land but also

included protection of it. Adam failed in this regard, allowing the
serpent access to this holy ground. The result of Adam’s
representative act was a cosmic fall, symptomized by the infestation
of the ground with thorns and thistles (Gen 3:17–19). The ground’s
accursedness reflects the general alienation of people from the world
due to sin. One image of land in the Bible, then, is the physical place
in which humanity lives, to which it has a bodily link. Good in
principle, land is cursed as a result of humanity’s sin, and people are
alienated from it as well as being joined to it.
A second motif is land as the object of covenant promise-one of the
preeminent images of longing in the Bible. This motif begins already
with the story of Abraham, with whom God’s covenant, including the
promise of land (Gen 12:1), was made. Thereafter the promise of land
is a virtual obsession with the patriarchs, whose status as sojourners
always presupposes an eventual land as the place where they can
finally settle. The same can be said of the story of the exodus, with
approximately four hundred references to land in the final four books
of the Pentateuch. The land of anticipation becomes an image of
abundance (see LÄÅã FáäîÜÅì îÜâê MÜáï ÄÅã HäÅÉí) and also
represents a hoped-for rest from wandering. The elaborate laws
governing the use of the land after the Israelites have possessed it
also show land to be an important arena of spiritual of testing to see
whether the Israelites will live up to their covenant obligations.
Once the Israelites conquer the land of Canaan and settle in it, other
meanings accrue to the image. One is fulfillment: what was long
promised and anticipated is now a reality. A second meaning is that of
possession, with God giving the nation “this good land to
possess” (Deut 9:6 RSV). After all the wandering, moreover, land
becomes an image of settledness and rest: “The Läàã your God is
providing you a place of rest, and will give you this land” (Josh 1:13
RSV). This land, in other words, is a homeland. Another motif is
stewardship: God is the one who gives the land (Deut 5:31 speaks of
“the land which I give them to possess”), and in dividing the land
among the tribes and families, the nation is simply assigning it to

people who will manage it as stewards.
The dominant image of land during the next phase of OT history, the
exile and events leading up to it, is judgment. Not only is the nation
physically separated from its land when it is carried into exile, but in
the prophetic denunciations of current ills and predictions of coming
judgment as well, the land figures prominently as the sphere of God’s
punishment on a wayward people. Image clusters include pollution,
blighting and drought, and we can detect an analogy in this fall from
grace to the original expulsion from the Garden of Eden. In Israelite
history the land acts as a barometer of the nation’s relationship with
God, bearing blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience.
Finally, the “golden age” prophecies of a coming restoration never
lose sight of the sway that land held over the Hebrew imagination. In
the restoration God “will set them in their own land” (Is 14:1 RSV),
“will bring them back to their own land” (Jer 16:15 RSV), will cause
Israel to “dwell in their own land” (Ezek 28:25 RSV), “will plant them
upon their land” (Amos 9:15 RSV) and so forth.
To a large extent the OT preoccupation with land as the locus of
longing and covenant blessing is replaced in the NT by Christ and his
the kingdom of God. The symbol of land is universalized when Paul
speaks of the promise to Abraham and his descendants that they
would “inherit the world” (Rom 4:13). And the pattern of exodus
followed by possession of the land is echoed in Christ having
“delivered us from the dominion of darkness” and “qualified us to
share in the inheritance of the saints of the light” (Col 1:12–13). Not
that the image of land entirely loses its appeal: the promise to the
meek is still that “they shall inherit the earth” (Mt 5:5), and pilgrims
still seek a “homeland” (Heb 11:14). Yet as a biblical image, land
remains largely an OT image which is in the NT is invested with new
meanings and points forward to the eschatological renewal of the
heaven and earth.
See also EÄàâê; GÄàãÉÅ; LÄÅã FáäîÜÅì îÜâê MÜáï ÄÅã HäÅÉí;
PàäåÜëÉã LÄÅã.
BÜsáÜäìàÄçêí. W. Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise and

Challenge in Biblical Faith (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977); W. D.
Davies, Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1974); C. J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and
Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).
Ryken, Leland, Jim Wilhoit, Tremper Longman, Colin Duriez, Douglas

Penney, and Daniel G. Reid. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
NDBT: Land
Land
Introduction
The major problem facing any biblical-theological discussion of ‘land’
is that the theme seems, at first glance, to be limited almost entirely
to the OT. A cursory glance at a concordance reveals that the NT
writers have little interest in ‘land’ as a theological category. Just as
surprising is the fact that at no point do Jesus or any of the NT writers
explain why this is so. (In marked contrast, there is a lengthy NT
discussion of how Jesus has removed the need for sacrifice.)
Chris Wright has suggested that this basic discontinuity is actually
anticipated within the OT (*e.g. Is. 56:3–7; Ezek. 47:22), where it is
envisaged that outsiders (viz. Gentiles) will share in the inheritance of
Israel by right (*God’s People in God’s Land, pp. 110–111). This way of
thinking clearly demands the replacement of the ‘land of promise’ by
another covenant blessing. Paul, in Ephesians 2:11–3:6, argues that
occupation of a particular piece of real estate has been superseded by
membership of God’s new community. In God’s new covenantal
economy loving fellowship (koinōnia) has replaced land tenure. Israel
was to stand out in a hostile world through covenant faithfulness in
the land of promise (Deut. 4:5–8). Now God’s people are to stand out
in a hostile world through loving one another in the church (John
13:34–35). The context for obedience is no longer limited to one

ethnic group in one place; it is now the new covenant community
scattered throughout the earth. Having noted this basic discontinuity,
this article will discuss the theology of land in the OT, and then
attempt to show how this theology, though often only implicit in the
text, forms an important part of the theological framework of the NT.
Land in the OT: land and promise
Land is an important theological category in the Bible. From Genesis
12, Yahweh’s commitment to give land to Abraham and his
descendants is often expressed (see e.g. 12:1–3; 13:14–16; 15:18–21;
17:8; 26:3, 4, 24; 28:3–4, 13–15; 35:9–12). Genesis focuses on the
promise of ‘seed’ (descendants), but as the Pentateuch unfolds, its
focus shifts increasingly to the land which Yahweh has sworn to give
to Abraham and his progeny.
God’s right to give the land to his people derives from his ownership
of the whole earth (*e.g. Exod. 19:5; Ps. 24:1). In fact, in Hebrew the
same word denotes both ‘land’ and ‘the world’ (’ereṣ). It is not
surprising, then, that the Bible insists that the land ultimately belongs
to God (see Lev. 25:23; Deut. 32:43; Josh. 22:19; Is. 14:2, 25; Jer. 2:7;
Ezek. 36:5; 38:16; Joel 1:6; 3:2). The gift of land to Yahweh’s people is
an expression of his covenantal commitment to them.
This commitment is the dominant feature of land theology in the OT.
Israel is repeatedly told that they have been given the land because
God in his grace is committed to their good. Nowhere is this claim
made more clearly than in Deuteronomy (see e.g. 1:20–21, 25, 35;
3:18, 20; 4:1, 40; 6:1, 10, 18; 7:1, 8, 12; 8:1, 18; 9:5; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 12:1;
19:8; 26:3, 15; 27:3; 30:20; 31:7, 21, 23; 34:4). It is important to
understand, however, the nature of the good to which the land
points. The often repeated description of the land as ‘flowing with
milk and honey’ reveals that the land which the Israelites are about to
enter is a new paradise (see 6:3; 11:9–12; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20; cf.
Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; 14:8; 16:13–14; for
parallels in Ugaritic, see ANET, p. 140; P. D. Miller, Int 23, p. 457). This
is a theological rather than an agricultural point; Israel’s land is so

good because it is the long-awaited gift of God in fulfilment of his
promise. The promise of land guarantees the restoration of intimacy
with God in terms which recall the description of Eden. The theology
of land in the early part of the OT anticipates the final chapters of the
Bible, where the apostle John describes the new heaven and earth in
language taken from Genesis 1–3.
The fact that the land belongs to God, and is given to Israel in trust,
obviously entails ethical obligations. This is made very clear by the
ritual described at the conclusion of the laws regulating life in the
land in Deuteronomy 12–25. In 26:1–11, the divine ownership of the
land and the response demanded of Israel (*i.e. to live in the land as
faithful stewards) are explicitly connected.
Land in the OT: land and obedience
The land, then, is the good gift of God, given as an inheritance to
Israel as an expression of their filial relationship to Yahweh. It is pre-
eminently a locus for relationship with God. However, the land can be
forfeited. Although it is a gift of God’s grace, given unconditionally to
his people as part of the fulfilment of the patriarchal promises, the
fulfilment of those promises demands a response from Israel.
Enjoyment of life with Yahweh in the land requires obedience. This is
the conditional element in what God says about the land.
Some have tried to drive a wedge between the conditional and
unconditional elements in the land/promise tradition (most famously
Gerhard von Rad in The Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays).
Any such attempt, however, rests on two arbitrary and extremely
questionable assumptions: 1. that an emphasis on promise and gift
necessarily excludes the idea that the land ultimately belongs to
Yahweh, who demands obedience; 2. that the presence of
unconditionality necessarily excludes all conditionality. It is far better,
with Wright, to say that conditionality and unconditionality co-exist
in any relationship, particularly that of sonship: ‘What kind of
relationship can it have been to produce this duality in which the
indicative of God’s grace is explicitly unconditioned yet requires
Israel’s obedience and response? The answer, it seems, is to be found

in the relationship of Israel’s “sonship of Yahweh” which is expressed
in many parts of the Old Testament. As a living, personal relationship,
Israel’s “sonship of Yahweh” involved this organic tension or duality
by its inherent nature’ (*God’s People, p. 15, also D. J. McCarthy, CBQ
27, pp. 145–146). The ‘indicatives’ and ‘imperatives’ concerning the
land dovetail in a graphic exposition of the covenantal decision which
Israel faces at all times.
P. Diepold (*Israel’s Land, p. 91) lists several distinct ways in which the
land is related to the ethical injunctions laid upon Israel. The land is
the context of Israel’s obedience, and obedience is the condition both
of entering the land and of continued occupation of it. These points
can easily be illustrated from the book of Deuteronomy, which is the
fullest exposition of the theology of the land.
The land as the context for obedience
The land is the place where Israel has the opportunity to obey God’s
commands. This is made abundantly clear at almost every significant
point in Deuteronomy: e.g ‘These are the decrees and laws you must
be careful to follow in the land that the Läàã, the God of your fathers,
has given you to possess—as long as you live in the land’ (12:1 ÅÜè, see
also 6:1; 26:1; 27:1–3). The land, given by God, is the place in which
Israel must make their ethical choices and live in obedience. This is in
keeping with the role of the land in the covenantal relationship
between God and Israel (see above).
Obedience as the condition for entry into and occupation of the land
From Genesis 12 it is perfectly clear that Israel can enter the land
promised to them only if they take Yahweh at his word. The chaos
ensuing from the bad decisions taken at Kadesh Barnea (Numbers 13
and 14) is evidence of that fact. This same perspective is carried
through into Deuteronomy. From the outset, it is clear that only if
Israel obeys will they be able to enjoy the fulfilment of the promise to
the patriarchs. Only by reversing the failures of the past and faithfully
negotiating the challenges of the future will the infant nation enjoy
this divine reward (*e.g. ‘Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I
am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go

in and take possession of the land that the Läàã, the God of your
fathers, is giving you’ [4:1], also 8:1; 11:8, etc.). But the relationship
between the fulfilment of promise and obedience extends beyond
the successful subjugation of Canaan; this is only a first step towards
fulfilment of the promise. Entry into the land and long-term
successful occupation are repeatedly linked (see e.g. 6:1–3; 8:1–3;
11:8–9; 12:1); obedience is the condition of both. Enjoyment of life
with Yahweh in the land (in fulfilment of the covenant promise) is
open-ended and dynamic. To realize it, Israel must continue to obey.
This idea of a promised land, which is first to be occupied and then
enjoyed by an obedient people, is a powerful incentive to make the
right decisions. Deuteronomy treats the concept of the land as a
powerful rhetorical device to press home the urgency and importance
of the decision facing the nation on the plains of Moab. The land is
not simply the reward for obedience; it is part of the motivation to
obey.
God has given Israel a land; now Israel must give God their
wholehearted obedience. It is not easy to see how the ‘givenness’ of
the land and the necessity of Israel ‘taking’ it fit together. However,
the challenge of holding divine grace and human response in tension
is at the heart of all biblical theology. Miller articulates the link
between God’s action and Israel’s in a helpful way, highlighting
Israel’s responsibilities in occupying the land: ‘The two notions of
Yahweh’s giving and Israel’s taking are brought together in the
expression “the land which Yahweh gives you to possess” (Deut. 3:18;
5:31; 12:1; 15:4; 19:2, 14; 25:19; cf. 1:39; 4:1; 17:14; 26:1). In a similar
way 7:1f. juxtaposes Yahweh’s bringing Israel into the land and Israel’s
coming into the land, Yahweh’s giving over of the enemy of Israel and
Israel’s smiting of the enemy. The ideas of divine gift and human
participation are not incompatible but rather a part of the
whole’ (Miller, Int 23, pp. 455–456).
There are strong parallels with NT soteriology here. God has done all
the work. He has assured Israel that the land is theirs. He will fight for
them. Yet they must obey. They must take possession of what has

been given to them, remembering always that their doing so is
entirely the work of God on their behalf.
Occupation of the land as measure of obedience
Deuteronomy also lays down a principle which dominates discussion
of the land throughout the rest of the OT. The one reliable way of
gauging Israel’s faithfulness and obedience in future will be their
continuing occupation of the land; the primary consequence of
faithlessness and disobedience will be loss of land. This is made clear
in Deuteronomy 4 and 30, where the exile is predicted, and in
chapters 27–28, where it is made clear that disobedience will
actualize the curses of the covenant, which involve expulsion from
the land and much else besides (see also Lev. 26:32–39). Moses puts
the issue of land at the forefront of national consciousness; land
represents, in many ways, the spiritual state of the nation.
This point is confirmed in Joshua, which is concerned with the
‘success’ of the conquest. The dubious infiltration of Jericho (ch. 2), is
followed by the setback at Ai. The nation is then deceived by the
Gibeonites (ch. 9), and despite the assertion in 11:23 that the entire
land had been taken and ‘the land had rest from war’, it transpires
that this is not the whole story (see 13:1). In fact, no tribe has taken its
complete ‘inheritance’; the implication is that no tribe has been
entirely obedient. This does not bode well for the future of Israel.
It took many generations for this incipient disobedience to reach its
fullness. Yahweh was very patient with his people, but eventually the
inevitable came to pass (see e.g. Jer. 25:1–11); the land was lost. The
initial shock at the fracture of the Israel–land–Yahweh
‘triangle’ (Wright) gave way to a realization that it was the
unavoidable consequence of centuries of disobedience. It was only
when the land was lost that the idea of a new covenant, transcending
geographical boundaries, was developed in detail (see e.g. Jer. 30–31;
32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37), though there are earlier hints of it in Leviticus
26:40–45 and Deuteronomy 30:1–10.
Land in the OT: land and relationship
Throughout the history of Israel, it is clear that the relationship

between God and his people is intricately linked to the land which he
has given to them. ‘Israel’s involvement is always with the land and
with Yahweh, never only with Yahweh as though to live only in intense
obedience, never only with land as though simply to possess and
manage’ (W. Brueggemann, The Land, p. 52). This intimate link is
most obvious in the deliberate use of the language of ‘inheritance’ in
connection with Yahweh’s gift of the land to Israel.
Land was not, strictly speaking, ‘owned’ in Israel. The family
patrimony was not to be transferred at will, but was to be passed on
to succeeding generations (see e.g. the story of Naboth’s vineyard in 1
Kgs. 21). Each family’s inheritance (naḥalâ) had been entrusted to
them by God and was to be guarded at all costs (see e.g. Lev. 25:23–
28; Num. 36:6–8; Josh. 19:51; 2 Sam. 14:4–16; Mic. 2:1–2). However,
the word naḥalâ is not used to refer only to one family’s inheritance;
the whole land is often described as the ‘inheritance’ of the entire
people of God (as in Deut. 26:1 above). In giving his people his land as
naḥalâ, God reveals that he considers Israel to be his ‘son’.
This language of inheritance is pervasive in the OT (see e.g. Num.
26:53; 36:2; Deut. 4:21, 38; 15:4; 19:10; 24:4; 25:19; 26:1; Josh. 11:23; 1
Kgs. 8:36; 1 Chr. 16:18; 2 Chr. 6:27; Pss. 105:11; 135:12; 136:21; Is.
58:14; Jer. 3:19; Ezek. 45:1; 47:14; 48:29). It invests the occupation of
the land with greater significance: occupation involves the enjoyment
of a filial relationship with God; it is not merely the possession of a
piece of real estate.
This claim is supported by the OT’s complementary insistence that
the land is also Yahweh’s inheritance, which makes sense only if the
language of inheritance connotes the idea of Israel’s ‘sonship’. In
Exodus 15:15–17 (see also 1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 20:19; Jer. 2:7; 50:11;
Pss. 68:9; 79:1), Moses explains that Yahweh can give the land of
Canaan to the people of Israel because it ultimately belongs not to
the current inhabitants, but to him. The land, then, represents
Yahweh’s solidarity with the nation to which he has bound himself in
covenant.

This intimacy is mirrored in the assertion elsewhere that it is not only
the land which is Yahweh’s inheritance, but the nation of Israel itself
(*e.g. Deut. 4:20; 32:8–9; 1 Sam. 10:1; 2 Sam. 20:19; 1 Kgs. 8:51; Pss.
28:9; 33:12; 78:71; Jer. 10:16; 51:19). The gift of the land was never
intended to be an end in itself, but a means of developing the
relationship between God and his people.
In Deuteronomy the primacy of the relationship between God and
Israel over any place is exhibited in Moses’ teaching on the way in
which Israel should worship (see esp. ch. 12). This legislation (often
referred to as the ‘altar law’) has often been misread as an attempt to
promote the claims of one sanctuary (whether Jerusalem, Gilgal,
Bethel or Shiloh) over against all others. However, when the chapter
is read in the wider theological context of Deuteronomy (and that of
the biblical theology of land), it becomes clear that the law is given to
dissuade Israel from becoming too attached to any place (like the
Canaanites did). God’s people are not to become preoccupied with
places, but with Yahweh, the one to whom all places belong.
When the people come to the ‘place which Yahweh shall choose’, the
characteristic of their gatherings is to be shared joy in the presence of
God (12:7, 12, 18, also 16:11, 14; see J. G. Millar, Now Choose Life, p.
153) which is a feature of all genuine theism. According to
Deuteronomy, although God is transcendent and sovereign, he is also
immanent and personal. As Moses declares in 4:39: ‘Acknowledge
and take to heart this day that the Läàã is God in heaven above and
on the earth below. There is no other.’ This sovereign God gives his
land to his people, and comes to meet with his people in that land.
Once the OT theology of God’s land is understood, the enormous
sense of national dislocation produced by the loss of the land at the
time of the exile becomes comprehensible. The exile for Israel
involved much more than their being reduced to the status of
refugees; it undermined their entire theological tradition. The
possibility that they might be ‘disinherited’ had played no part in their
national consciousness. Therefore, when Judah was overrun by the
Babylonians, it sparked an urgent reconsideration of the nature of

God’s relationship with his people.
Israel had always been convinced that the Father–Son relationship
established by God with his people was inviolable (see e.g. Deut. 9:26,
29; 1 Kgs. 8:52–53). Until now, the land was seen as an essential part
of this arrangement, and so it too was thought to be inviolable. Then
came the exile, and the consequent questioning (see e.g. Jer. 12:7–9
with its threefold use of naḥalâ, and the use of the divorce metaphor
in Jer. 3:6–25). Israel seems to have concluded that their sonship
remained intact, even though the outward sign of their familial
relationship with God had been taken away. Israel had lost the land,
but they still believed that they were the people of Yahweh, who
would find blessing through obedience. However, the removal of the
land from the heart of their relationship with God was a preparation
for the broadening of his purposes in the world to embrace the
Gentiles in a way that Israel had never envisaged. Ezekiel 47:22–23
predicts that the nations will share in the inheritance from God that
was previously reserved for Israel (see also Zech. 2:11). This is
anticipated also by Isaiah in 60:3ff., and Paul develops the idea at
some length in Galatians 3 and 4. He discusses the new Gentile
mission in terms of inheritance and sonship. It was possible only
because possession of the land had previously been removed from
the heart of Israel’s relationship with God.
Conclusion: The NT and the land
The theology of land in the Old Testament enshrines relationship with
Yahweh at the very heart of the national experience. Israel yielded to
the temptation to become preoccupied with the gift (the land) rather
than the giver (Yahweh), but the dislocation that followed led to
God’s initiation of the new covenant in Christ.
It is true that the NT devotes little space to the theology of land, but
the formative influence in biblical theology of the relational ideas
associated with land must not be underestimated. For example, in
expounding the nature of the kingdom in the beatitudes, Jesus draws
explicitly on a promise of land from Psalm 37 (Matt. 5:5). A similar

idea, this time couched in terms of inheritance, appears in Matthew
25:34. Gary Burge has argued that the imagery in John 15, and Jesus’
injunctions to ‘abide in me’, point to the fulfilment of the land motif in
the OT in the person of Jesus himself (G. M. Burge, ‘Territorial
Religion, Johannine Christology, and the Vineyard in John 15’, in J. B.
Green and M. Turner (eds.), Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ [Carlisle
and Grand Rapids, 1994], pp. 384–396).
It is not only Jesus who uses such ideas. Paul’s understanding of the
church as a community of both Jews and Gentiles is based on his
reading of the OT teaching on land (see above). He too draws on the
inheritance theme, in Colossians 1:13–14, in explaining the nature of
salvation in Christ, as does Peter in 1 Peter 1:3–5. The theology of
land, then, provides a basis for the NT doctrine of adoption; it was as
God’s sons that the people of Israel received their inheritance. The
link is most explicit in Romans 8:14–25, which also links the theology
of land with the theology of creation. Both the creation mandate to
‘fill the earth and subdue it’ (Gen. 1:28), and the theology of land in
the OT find their ultimate fulfilment in the new creation brought
together under Christ.
The writer to the Hebrews takes a slightly different approach,
comparing the Christian life to the experience of Israel during their
initial occupation of the land, when the experience of ‘rest’ depended
on an obedient response to the grace of God (Heb. 4:1–11). In the
closing chapters of the Bible this ‘rest’ is portrayed in terms which
recall the description of the Garden of Eden; the people of God again
take up residence in God’s presence, a residence described in terms of
both a new city and a new heaven and earth. At the centre of this new
cosmic order is the Lord Jesus Christ. The theology of land provides
the conceptual background for the description of life with Christ in
this new environment, in which all restrictions on believers’ intimacy
with him are taken away and they see him face to face. This
inheritance is anticipated by the theology of land. The inheritance in
Christ is no doubt different from the land received and lost by Israel,
but it is greater, not less, than that land.

See also: EóÜáÉ; IëàÄÉá.
Bibliography
W. Brueggemann, The Land (Philadelphia, 1978); W. D. Davies, The
Gospel and the Land (Berkeley, 1974); P. Diepold, Israel’s Land
(Stuttgart, 1972); N. C. Habel, The Land Is Mine (Minneapolis, 1995); E.
A. Martens, Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament (Leicester, 1981); D.
J. McCarthy, ‘Notes on the love of God in Deuteronomy and the
father–son relationship between Yahweh and Israel’, CBQ 27, 1965,
pp. 145–146; J. G. McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy
(Sheffield, 1984); J. G. Millar, Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in
Deuteronomy (Leicester, 1998); P. D. Miller Jr., ‘The gift of God: The
Deuteronomic theology of the land’, Int 23, 1969, pp. 454–465; G. von
Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (ET, London,
1966), pp. 79–93; H. E. von Waldow, ‘Israel and her land: some
theological considerations’, in H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim and C. A.
Moore (eds.), A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honour
of J. M. Myers (Philadelphia, 1974); C. J. H. Wright, Living as the People
of God (Leicester, 1983); idem, God’s People In God’s Land (Exeter,
1990); idem, ‘erets’, in NIDOTTE 1, pp. 518–524; idem, ‘naḥalâ’, in
NIDOTTE 3, pp. 77–81.
J. G. MÜááÄà
Millar, J. G. “Land.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by T.

Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, 623–627. Electronic ed. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Tags: Land
NIB: Land
LAND [‫ ֲא ָדָמה‬ʾadhamah, ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬ʾerets; ἀγρός agros, γῆ gē, χώρα
chōra]. The land is one of the central themes of the OT. In the OT and
Judaism, the concept of the “promised land” and descendants to
populate it is unparalleled in its importance for any understanding of

the covenant. In the early Jewish and NT era, discussion about the
land and its centrality to Jewish life was vigorous. Can religious life be
lived outside the land of promise? Can the law be obeyed without
reference to it? The NT does not ignore these debates, but rather
presents an alternate solution for the theological geography of God’s
people.
A. The Old Testament
1. Overview
2. The promise and its description
3. The covenant and the land
4. God and the land
5. The prophets and the land
B. Early Judaism
C. The New Testament
1. Overview
2. Synoptic Gospels
3. Gospel of John
4. The church
5. A New Testament theology of land
Bibliography
A. The Old Testament
1. Overview
In Genesis, land is a gift from God from the beginning of CREATION.
The appearance of “dry land” (Gen 1:9) is set in contrast to the chaotic
sea (Ps 104:5–9). In creation, land can welcome life and provide safety
and refuge (Jonah 1:9); it represents a place where all people can
anchor their culture and nation.
A variety of Hebrew terms represent the ideas of land in its more
nuanced uses: there are open fields, orchards, pasture, desert, and
dry land. One frequently used noun is ʾadhamah, which refers to the
agricultural qualities of land, as soil or fields (Gen 2:7; 3:19; Prov
12:11). The most common term is ʾerets, and while a precise
distinction may be uncertain, ʾerets often represents land as
geographical or political territory. This term is used for one’s land of

birth or native land (Gen 11:28; Jer 22:10). It is used for tribal
territories as well as the nations who live there (e.g., “the land of
Canaan”).
2. The promise and its description
The original call of Abraham in Gen 12:1–3 promises that he will be
the father of a great nation, but no promise of land is heard until Gen
13:14–17, when Abraham scans the country he enters for the first
time. The formal promise is given full shape in Gen 15:18–21. It is
repeated in Gen 17:7–9 and then repeated again for his descendants
Isaac (Gen 26:2–4) and Jacob (Gen 28:13–15). In all four passages two
themes are clear: Abraham will receive land as an everlasting
possession; and this promise is directly tied to the covenant. In the
repetitions for Isaac and Jacob, two additional elements are
incorporated from Gen 12:1–3: Abraham’s posterity will become a
great nation in this place; and all of the people of the earth will be
blessed through Abraham’s descendants. This PROMISE of land and
progeny is held up in the OT as a remarkable gift of grace to Abraham
and his descendants.
The land of promise is always portrayed as a good land. God, Moses,
and others refer to it as a land “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod
3:8, 17; 13:5; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27). When Moses tries to describe it to
the Israelite tribes, he contrasts it with the land of Egypt, where
irrigation was necessary. This land will be a “land of hills and valleys
which drinks water by the rain from heaven,” a land under the direct
care of God (Deut 11:11–12).
While it will be a good land, it will not be an easy land, but one that
requires faith. Agriculture must rely on God, who supplies the land
with water. Culturally, the land will be filled with Canaanites (and
others) who will tempt Israel to compromise its unique commitment
to Yahweh. Politically, armies moving from Egypt to Mesopotamia
will run through this land as if it were a highway, and Israel will be
forced to decide if its security will be found in local treaties and
alliances or in God who promises to sustain its welfare.
The OT presents two “maps” of where this land is located. Numbers

34:1–12 defines this land as “the land of Canaan” extending from the
JORDAN RIVER to the Mediterranean Sea (east/west) and from the
“Wadi of Egypt” to Hamath. This view is confirmed when Josh 3:10–17
describes Israel’s crossing of the Jordan. Lands east of the Jordan are
excluded.
Deuteronomy 11:24 extends these boundaries and includes both
sides of the Jordan (excluding Moab and Ammon) as well as northern
reaches all the way to the EUPHRATES RIVER (compare Gen 15:18–
21). Hence by this account, when Israel crosses the Arnon River (in
TRANSJORDAN), its struggle for “the land” begins. This second map
is viewed by many scholars as a later vision for political geography
that may have come from the politically expansive era of the united
monarchy. The center of this promise is certainly the region west of
the Jordan, focusing on the regions near Jerusalem and when
extended north and south, this area makes a claim on land “from Dan
to Beersheba” (Judg 20:1).
3. The covenant and the land
In each reiteration of the promise, the land is linked to the covenant.
For example, in Gen 17:8–9, the land promise is followed with a
reminder about covenant fidelity: “God said to Abraham, ‘As for you,
you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you
throughout their generations.’ ” In other words, the land is not a
possession that may be enjoyed without reference to God. Possessing
this land is contingent on Israel’s ongoing faithfulness to God and
obedience to God’s law.
Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy warn Israel in stark terms about the
conditional nature of this promise. Leviticus 18:24–30 warns about
defilement with the culture of the Canaanites (see CANAAN,
CANAANITES). If Israel embraces such unrighteousness, “the land
will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was
before you” (v. 28). Leviticus 20:22–26 connects this theme to ritual
holiness in the same way. The impression is that the land itself can
suffer abuse and be defiled. As sinners were ejected from the camp of
Israel, so too, Israel can be ejected from the land of God.

Before Israel enters the land under Joshua’s leadership, Deuteronomy
records Moses’ final words of encouragement and warning to the
people “When you have had children and children’s children, and
become complacent in the land, if you act corruptly by making an idol
in the form of anything, thus doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord
your God, and provoking him to anger, I call heaven and earth to
witness against you today that you will soon utterly perish from the
land that you are crossing the Jordan to occupy; you will not live long
on it, but will be utterly destroyed. The Lord will scatter you among
the peoples; only a few of you will be left among the nations where
the Lord will lead you” (Deut 4:25–27). The severity of these words is
stunning. This land is a gift that comes with expectations for covenant
holiness and justice.
The seriousness of living in the land of promise can be seen following
Joshua’s campaigns. He immediately takes the Israelite tribes north
to the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim and requires that they
recommit themselves to the covenant (Josh 8:30–35). Following their
breathtaking successes at Jericho and Ai, Israel’s first duty is to renew
loyalty to the covenant in which their privileges of using the land are
anchored. Joshua’s rededication reinforces the idea that covenant
and land are inseparable (see JOSHUA, BOOK OF).
The contingency of life in the land can be seen clearly in Judges,
where each generation must work out the depth of their
commitment to the covenant. When their commitment fails, they
experience the near loss of tribal territory through war. At the end of
the book, two troubling stories bring stark case studies of this loss.
The tribe of Dan indulges in religious corruption (Judg 17–18) by
instituting their own priesthood. Benjamin indulges in a horrifying
moral corruption (19–21) when a Levite’s concubine is sexually
abused and killed. In both cases, Dan and Benjamin jeopardize their
privileges of living in the land. In each case, the theological message
is the same: land and righteousness are inextricably linked.
The OT contains an array of stories showing how land use and
covenant righteousness cannot be separated. When David wishes to

acquire land for God’s temple in Jerusalem, he treats with
righteousness Ornan the Jebusite (who owns the threshing floor
David wants). This promised land, this land in Jerusalem, was owned
by an “alien” and yet “belonged” to Israel through promise. David
does not take this land by force but purchases it at a steep price (600
shekels of gold, 1 Chr 21:25). Ahab represents the opposite position.
He covets land in Jezreel owned by a vineyard owner named
NABOTH. Ahab and Jezebel conspire to kill Naboth in order to steal
land, but their unrighteousness is uncovered and condemned by
Elijah (1 Kgs 21:19). Covenant land cannot be taken by royal strategies
of consumption.
4. God and the land
God’s remarkable interest in this land is explained by one
undergirding theme. In a profound sense, Israel never “owns” the
promised land. God owns this land. Leviticus uses this idea to explain
why the land cannot be sold permanently to others (Lev 25:23). Israel
here is viewed as a tenant in this land, an alien, a renter. Israel must
hold this land loosely, because God will determine the tenure of its
occupants.
The OT reinforces this notion of God’s ownership of the land in a
variety of ways. The land was not to be considered “private property”
but was distributed by God by casting lots (Num 26:55). The trustees
of this use were the tribes, never individuals (Num 36:3; Josh 17:5).
This “loose ownership” can be seen in the provisions for the Jubilee
Year in Lev 25. No land could be bought or sold permanently, because
every fiftieth year the land had to return to the users God had
declared in the beginning (see JUBILEE, YEAR OF). God continues to
exercise divine oversight of how this land is used.
Moreover, the harvests of Israel were understood in light of God’s
ownership. First crops and first animals belonged to God and so were
offered in sacrifice (Lev 27:30–33; Deut 14:22; 26:9–15). The command
to “keep the Sabbath” was observed not only by Israel, but by the
land itself (Lev 25:2). Here the land is almost personified, as if it were
living in a relationship with God, also under covenant obligations.

Deuteronomy 12:9 refers to the land as a place of rest for Israel, but it
is also a place of rest for God, the place where God’s presence dwells
(Pss 95:11; 132:8).
Each of these themes underscores the same idea. This land is rightly
called “holy land” because it belongs to a holy God (Num 35:34). This
land is set apart. Other land is “unclean land” (Amos 7:17; see HOLY,
HOLINESS, OT).
5. The prophets and the land
Deuteronomy 18:9–15 strongly links the appearance of prophets in
Israel with Israel’s possession of the land. This is because in the land
where kings will rule, land will be seen as an object of conquest, even
a commodity; therefore, royalty must be reminded that they stand in
relation to the land not as property/heir, but as gift/recipient. For the
prophets, land is a gift, a place where covenant-righteousness must
be on display. Israel and its king needed to hold onto this perspective
or risk loss of the land.
Isaiah sounds these warnings sharply: “Ah, you who join house to
house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you,
and you are left to live alone in the midst of the land!” (Isa 5:8;
compare Mic 2:1–2). Virtually each one of the prophets repeats the
warning given by Elijah to Ahab: Murder and the misuse of land will
be severely punished. This is true of Amos (4:1–2; 7:17), Hosea (9:2–3),
and esp. Jeremiah (3:19–20; 7:5–7). For Jeremiah, the future of the
nation’s history is inevitable: It will lead to loss and exile. God will stir
the king of Babylon to come against the land and devour it (25:8–9;
27:6).
Isaiah’s famous “Song of the Vineyard” (Isa 5:1–7) outlines God’s
vision for the people in the land. They would be like vines planted in a
carefully tended vineyard, and all that the owner asks is that the
vineyard yield good grapes. But alas, Isaiah announces, the owner is
filled with despair when the vineyard (that is, Israel and Judah)
produces wild grapes (Isa 5:2b–4). The ultimate consequence for this
unrighteousness, this covenant betrayal, was ultimate land loss: “I
will remove its hedge and it will be devoured” (Isa 5:5).

This terror of land loss came to Judah in 586 stÉ in the form of
Babylonian armies. Psalm 48 recorded the pride and confidence of
Israel’s view of Jerusalem as a city established forever by God. Psalm
137 describes the shock and grief that swamped the nation when
Babylonian infantry demolished Jerusalem’s walls. The book of
Lamentations wrestles with the confusion of the loss of promise, a
loss that Israel had never imagined-that a life with Yahweh and a life
in the land can come to an end (Hos 9:17).
But for the prophets, land loss became an avenue to renewal. Land
loss is the necessary experience so that true obedience within the
covenant can be reclaimed. In a word, those exiled from the land will
become the new heirs; therefore, the prophets also point to a
RESTORATION of land (Isa 11:10–16; Jer 16:15; Hos 2:23 [Heb. 2:25];
11:8–11; Amos 9:14–15). Following the EXILE, a second entry to the
land, almost a second exodus, brings Israel back to the land promise
to reforge covenant faithfulness a second time (Isa 43:1–7; 49:8–21;
51:9–11). Once again, for prophets such as Ezekiel and Malachi, land
inheritance, covenant, and faithfulness must run together.
B. Early Judaism
The theme of the land does not decline in importance in the cents.
following the exile. Particularly with the dispersion of Jews
throughout the Mediterranean seaboard in the Hellenistic era,
Judaism wrestled with the centrality of “the land” for faith and
practice.
During this period, the land continued to enjoy generous praise as a
land more precious than any other, extensive and beautiful, pleasant
and glorious, promised to those who are faithful. The Psalms of
Solomon summarize the work of the coming messiah thus: “He shall
gather together a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness;
and he shall distribute them according to their tribes upon the land.
And the alien and the foreigner will no longer live with them” (17:26–
28). The rabbis simply cannot separate fidelity to the law and life in
the land, as may be attested richly from the Mishnah: “There are ten
degrees of holiness. The land of Israel is holier than any other land.

Wherein lies its holiness? In that from it they may bring [offerings of]
the sheaf, the first fuits, and the two loaves, which they may not bring
from any other land” (m. Kelim 1:6). In the 1st cent. tÉ “Eighteen
Benedictions,” numbers 14, 16, and 18 emphasize that devotion to
the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem is necessary for faith. In a
commentary on Num 34:2, we learn about correct blessings during
meals: “Of all the blessings there is none more precious than the one,
‘For the land and for the food …’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said,
‘The land of Israel is more precious to me than everything’ ” (Num.
Rab. 23:7).
Of course, DIASPORA Judaism that had put down roots in faraway
places like Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome might have sorely
disagreed with this exclusive claim on the “promised land.” This
culturally liberal approach to Jewish life is directly connected to the
anxiety felt about the effects of Hellenization on Judaism.
Nevertheless, despite the freedom desired by those living away from
the land, the liturgies of Judaism and the history of its faith pulled
Jews back to Jerusalem and the land of promise. Burial sites of
Hellenistic Jews in Israel bear eloquent testimony to Jews who,
despite living across the Mediterranean, desired to be buried in the
land (see JERUSALEM; TEMPLE, JERUSALEM).
C. The New Testament
1. Overview
The LXX translated both Hebrew terms ʾerets and ʾadhamah with the
Greek word gē. This is also the most common word for land in the NT
(250x). Two other terms, agros and chōra, also may refer to the land.
Agros refers to land with reference to its agricultural or topographical
features (e.g., a field, Matt 6:28; 13:31) and the second to a political
region (e.g., Matt 2:12).
Discussion about the land was prominent in the 1st cent. tÉ. Because
matters of widespread public debate require merely the barest
allusion to make themselves understood, the NT includes more
references to the land than are obvious at first reading. In addition,
the subject of land was a volatile topic because it was closely tied to

Jewish desires for emancipation from Roman rule. What we today
might term “religious nationalism” turned on the question of Israel’s
belief that Israel had a rightful and exclusive claim on promised land
that ought to exclude Gentiles (particularly Romans). Veiled tests
came to Jesus, no doubt with some frequency. The question, e.g.,
about tax payments to Caesar likely masked a deeper question about
his willingness to resist Roman authority, which could lead next to
affirmations about Jewish national aspiration based on land (Mark
12:14–17).
The NT touches on the subject deftly but moves its interests
elsewhere. For NT theology, land as place, as geographical space, is
no longer an interest of the kingdom of God. The covenant promise
that Israel associated with the land becomes, in the NT, something
that can be found in Christ.
2. Synoptic Gospels
Jewish interest in the land was only exceeded by Jewish interest in
Jerusalem and the Temple, yet throughout Jesus’ ministry, he
discovers faith and reveals his glory consistently in “Galilee of the
Gentiles” (Matt 4:15). The Synoptic Gospels have a “geographical
theology” that portrays Galilee as a new “holy land.” Even though
Jesus, a faithful Jew, was presented at the Temple as an infant (Luke
2:22–24), journeyed there as a youth (Luke 2:41–49), and taught
there as an adult (Luke 19:47–48), he stated that the Temple required
cleansing, not celebration (Mark 11:15–19; Luke 19:45–46). He
proclaims that Jerusalem is a city that kills the prophets (Matt 23:37;
see 21:33–41). In all the Gospels, Jesus’ approach to the city is tied to
his ultimate doom at the hands of the Temple authorities and Roman
government. This general attitude that the Gospels take toward the
place so central to Jewish consciousness provides a hint of something
different about Jesus’ ministry. Rather than affirm the national
dreams to reclaim the land and cleanse it, he instead announces that
armies would come and destroy it (Matt 24:1–2; Luke 21:20).
Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom certainly provided every
opportunity for him to refer to the land of promise. Was this not an

eschatological kingdom? Did it not include the promises of Israel’s
ancestry? Even following his death, his followers seemed to despair
that he did not “redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21), and, after the
resurrection, they wondered if in his glory he would not begin the
task (Acts 1:6). They were thinking about political restoration, but
Jesus’ kingdom was making a claim not on land per se, but on the lives
of men and women in every land. Jesus certainly knows the prophetic
critique of Israel’s territorial theology. His parable of the vineyard
(Mark 12:1–11) closely echoes Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard (Isa 5:1–7;
compare Ps 80:8, 14). In Jesus’ version, the residents of the vineyard
meet the owner’s son and remark, “This is the heir; come, let us kill
him, and the inheritance will be ours” (Mark 12:7). “Inheritance” was a
code for the land of promise. But rather than gaining land, the story
ends with the loss of land. Just as Isaiah proclaimed the destruction of
the vineyard, Jesus proclaimed the return of the vineyard owner who
would destroy it and “give it to others” (Mark 12:9). Jesus has gone
one step beyond Isaiah. Not only will the land be lost, but it will gain
new occupants. This shocking idea parallels Jesus’ typical “reversal”
tactics in his teaching. The first will be last, the last first; the rich
become poor; and those who grasp after land will lose it.
Jesus himself illustrated this theme in his own life. He himself
apparently had no land: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have
nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Luke 9:58).
His kingdom had no territorial dimension. In the Sermon on the
Mount, Jesus makes an explicit reference to the land when he says,
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the land (gē).” (Matt 5:5,
author’s translation). Here he is likely referring to Ps 37:11, where the
reference is clearly to land. In other words, neither ethnicity nor
struggle nor ancestral right will gain the land, but it will be received
by those who are humble. When a man comes to Jesus with a legal
dispute about “dividing the inheritance” (Luke 12:13–15), we can
imagine that this has to do with land. But Jesus points away from
such arguments, suggesting that his kingdom has little to do with
territorial squabbles.

3. Gospel of John
If the Synoptic Gospels show Jesus challenging the popular
understanding of land, inheritance, and nation, John probes yet
another dimension of the NT answer. In this Gospel, Jesus
spiritualizes the promise of the land. Rather than pointing to the
sanctity of the Temple, Jesus himself becomes the locus of holy
space. In the OT, one aim of the covenant was the land of promise; in
the Fourth Gospel, the aim is Jesus Christ, who walked in the land.
In a number of texts, Jesus is compared with the religious benefits of
the land. He visits the Temple, and we learn that his body is a new
Temple (2:21–22). Holy places like Bethel or Jacob’s well now find that
Christ duplicates and overwhelms what they offer (1:51; 4:10). Sacred
healing pools like Bethzatha can offer little by comparison (5:1–9). In
Jesus’ conversation with the woman in Samaria, he makes a startling
claim: Neither Mount Gerizim nor Mount Zion will be the places of
true worship. Such worship can only happen in “spirit and in
truth” (4:24). He negates Jerusalem as easily as he negates Samaria.
Jesus is working with an entirely different concept of what it means to
be located with God. For him, ancestral boundary markers, land as
place, are gone.
During his final Passover meal, Jesus gives a telling indirect remark
about land and place. The disciples worry about his departure and he
reassures them that he is going ahead of them in order to prepare a
place for them: “In my father’s house are many dwelling
places” (monē μονή; John 14:2). This term was used in Judaism to
refer to the place of promise, namely the land of Israel. Later in the
same chapter, Jesus assures them again. Place is redefined not as a
dwelling in land, but as an indwelling of the Father and the Son within
the believer: “We will come to them and make our home (monē) with
them” (14:23). Spiritual identity is no longer fixed to location; identity
has shifted from land as geography to interior space with Christ.
In chap. 15, Jesus employs the famed vineyard metaphor, but, unlike
its synoptic use, here Jesus turns the metaphor into something
completely new. The people of God cannot claim to be vines planted

in the land and struggle to anchor their identity there. The vineyard
now has one vine-Jesus Christ-and the question is no longer about
being planted in the soil of the land, but being grafted into Jesus.
Jesus is the source, the locale where divine life may be appropriated.
John shows Jesus displacing holy space: “My kingdom is not of this
world” (John 18:36). We might say that John “christifies” holy space. It
is only in Christ where the glory of God may be found-not the Temple
nor the land. The promised land here is rejected as the aim of faith,
land is spiritualized to mean something else, and the promises of
land, Temple, and festival are all refocused in Jesus.
4. The church
In the theology of the early church, two seminal ideas are at work.
First, spiritual attachment to Jerusalem and the land of Israel is
eroding. The domain of God’s activity is no longer fixed on the
territorial dimensions of Jewish life, but instead is focused on Christ in
whom the covenant promises are fulfilled. Stephen’s lengthy speech
in Acts 7, shaped no doubt by Diaspora Jewish thinking, questions the
exclusivity of Judaism’s territorial claims for the Temple and the land,
themes to which Stephen refers six times. The implications of this are
so unsettling to his audience that Stephen is immediately killed (Acts
7:54–60). Some scholars suggest that the book of Acts may have even
been modeled on the book of Joshua (e.g., Achan’s fate parallels that
of Ananias and Sapphira; compare Josh 7; Acts 5:1–11). The story of
the Israelites taking over Canaan then pars. the church bringing the
gospel to the nations. If this is the case, then “the land” parallels “the
world” for Christian thought.
Second, the spiritual identity of God’s people and their location is
being redefined. Children of Abraham are those who exhibit faith in
Christ, not those who possess an ethnic identity or a national
attachment. This means that the territorial aspirations of ethnic Israel
no longer resonate with the church. The church must move to new
lands, extending its ministry across the Mediterranean, indeed as far
as Rome. For Paul, the promise to Abraham is no longer simply
referring to Canaan, that is, geography defended in the ancestral

traditions, but it now refers to the faithful descendants of Abraham
who may use Abraham’s promise to make claims on the entire world
(kosmos [κόσμος]; Rom 4:13). The same note is sounded in Hebrews:
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived as foreigners in the land (11:8); they
and other OT models of faith “desire[d] a better country, that is, a
heavenly one” (Heb 11:16). They no longer seek “holy land,” as their
territorial commitments have now entirely evaporated.
New Testament thinking is not constrained by the territorial
geography of the OT framework. It did not look for the national
restoration of Israel. In Rom 9:4, e.g., when Paul lists Israel’s
privileges, it is striking that he fails to mention the “promise of land.”
In Rom 15:8–9, he refers to the promises to the ancestors but again
fails to exploit themes about the land. Rather, the church sought the
growth of Christ’s kingdom, which, in this framework, includes every
land and people.
5. A New Testament theology of land
What is striking about the NT is its discontinuity with the OT. In its
theology of land, the NT reinterprets or perhaps reverses a central
tenet of the OT. It offers a new theological reality in place of
traditional land; it redefines holy space as being in Christ.
Moreover, land loss is suddenly a way to understand the work of God
in a way not seen before. In this, we may hear an echo of the OT
prophets. What appears to be failure and loss-exile-is now realized as
a gift. This loss is ultimately the cross. Theologians have seen in the
cross the ultimate paradigm of loss, and in the resurrection the
ultimate paradigm of gift. The struggle to retain, control, and
consume land and to find a divine justification in religious nationalism
are replaced in the NT by a kingdom that, while intrinsically landless,
claims to offer more than promised land ever could and can make a
claim on every land as belonging to God.
Nevertheless, Christians continue to live in land and to recognize the
importance of place for ongoing life-even though this land is given
redefinition. Here is where the voice of the OT continues to influence
Christian belief: The moral objections and instructions of the

prophets now may speak to every land because in NT thought, every
land is land claimed by God. See COVENANT, OT AND NT; ISRAEL,
GEOGRAPHY OF; ISRAEL, HISTORY OF; KINGDOM OF GOD,
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
Bibliography: Y. Aharoni. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography
(1979); W. Brueggemann. “On Land-Losing and Land-Receiving.”
Crux 19 (1980) 166–73; W. Brueggemann. The Land: Place as Gift,
Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith. 2nd ed. (2002); G. M. Burge.
Whose Land? Whose Promise? (2003); W. D. Davies. The Gospel and the
Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (1974); W. D.
Davies. The Territorial Dimension of Judaism (1982); P. Diepold. Israel’s
Land (1972); I. M. Gafni. Land, Center and Diaspora (1997); W. Janzen.
Still in the Image: Essays in Biblical Theology and Anthropology (1982);
P. Johnston and P. Walker. The Land of Promise: Biblical, Theological
and Contemporary Perspectives (2000); L. Loden, P. Walker, and M.
Wood, eds. The Bible and the Land: An Encounter (2000); P. Minear.
“Holy People, Holy Land, Holy City: The Genesis and Genius of
Christian Attitudes.” Int 37 (1983) 18–31; G. von Rad. “Promised Land
and Yahweh’s Land in the Hexateuch.” Problem of the Hexateuch and
Other Essays (1966) 79–93; L. H. Schiffman. “Sacred Space: The Land
of Israel in the Temple Scroll.” Biblical Archaeology Today 1990:
Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical
Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990 (1993) 398–410; M. Weinfeld.
The Promise of Land (1993); C. J. H. Wright. God’s People in God’s
Land: Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament (1990).
GARY M. BURGE
Burge, Gary M. “Land.” Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. The New

Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006–
2009.
Tags: Land
DBPET: Land

Land
In Genesis 2–3 God creates Adam and Eve and places them in the
garden. There they are blessed with close fellowship with the
presence of God and access to the tree of life (see çàÉëÉÅtÉ äé ìäã;
âàÉÉ äé áÜéÉ). Thus, at the beginning of the biblical story humanity is
in a place where God himself dwells. This “place” is special and is
tightly interconnected to the multitude of blessings that Adam and
Eve enjoy.
However, by the end of Genesis 3, Adam and Eve have sinned and
been banished from the garden, from the tree of life, and perhaps
from even the presence of God. From Genesis 4 to 11 people continue
to disobey God and to be scattered across the face of the earth. As a
response to the terrible sin of people in the early chapters of Genesis,
God appears to Abraham in Genesis 12 and establishes a promise and
a covenant with him. Through this promise and covenant, God will
bring salvation to people on earth. Through Abraham, God promises
that all nations on earth will be blessed. This promise drives the story
throughout the rest of the Bible.
Yet God also promises Abraham that he will be the father of a great
nation and that millions of descendants will come from him (as
numerous as the stars, Gen. 15:5, or the sand on the beach, 22:17).
The other central promise that God makes to Abraham is a Promised
Land. In fact, throughout the rest of the Pentateuch and into the
book of Joshua, the promise of a land for Abraham’s descendants is a
central theme that drives the story.
In Exodus 1–14 God delivers Israel from Egypt in order to take them to
the Promised Land. Throughout Deuteronomy God repeatedly states
that he is giving Israel the land, a good land filled with blessing (the
word for land occurs in Deuteronomy over 125 times). Central to the
blessings associated with this Promised Land is the renewed
presence of God. God will dwell in their midst in the Promised Land.
Thus, much of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus-Deuteronomy) dealt
with how Israel should live in the Promised Land with God in their

midst (see åäëÄÜt täèÉÅÄÅâ). This covenant describes how Israel can
receive the many blessings associated with God’s presence among
them in the land. Furthermore, the land is presented to Israel as their
inheritance from God, since they are his people and his children.
Indeed, their occupation of the land plays an important role in
defining their relationship to God, since he gave it to them as an
inheritance.
In Deuteronomy 28 God summarizes the terms of the Mosaic
Covenant. If the Israelites obey God’s law and stay faithful to God,
they will be blessed abundantly in the land. If, however, they turn
away from the true God and worship other deities, they will
experience judgment and curses. Ultimately, God warns, such
disobedience may result in the loss of the land (and the relationship
based on God’s presence in the land). Unfortunately, as 1–2 Kings and
the prophetic books record, Israel and Judah do turn their backs on
God and worship other gods. Thus, as the prophets warn, the
Israelites lose the land and are exiled.
However, the prophets also prophesy about a time after both
judgment and exile when there will be a glorious time of blessing and
restoration. Many of their prophecies include descriptions of Israel
being back in the land and in Jerusalem. Closely intertwined into the
Old Testament prophecies of the messianic age are allusions to life in
the Promised Land, under blessing once again. Although some of the
Jews returned to Israel after the exile under Ezra and Nehemiah, the
Bible makes it clear that this small and cautious return and rebuilding
was not the glorious return and restoration to the land that the
prophets proclaimed. The postexilic returnees remain under foreign
domination and without a Davidic king, struggling both economically
and politically, a far cry from the glorious kingdom in the land that
the prophets describe.
Scholars today differ on how to interpret the Old Testament
prophecies regarding the future restoration of Israel back in the land
(see àÉëâäàÄâÜäÅ äé ÜëàÄÉá). Those who have a dispensational
premillennial perspective maintain that the prophecies should be

viewed as literal as possible. Thus they believe that during the
thousand-year millennial reign of Christ on earth, Israel will once
again be established and be blessed in the land (Palestine). The Old
Testament prophecies about Israel in the land and in Jerusalem will
also be literally fulfilled at that time.
Amillennial scholars, however, disagree. They maintain that the
church has replaced Israel as God’s people and thus the promises
made to Israel, including promises about the land, are to be
transferred to the church, the new people of God. Many of the land
promises, they argue, should be understood in a spiritual or symbolic
sense, not a literal sense. Also they point out that Jesus himself, as
the reality to which much typology points, fulfilled at his first coming
many Old Testament prophecies regarding Israel and the land (see
âíçäáäìí).
Both views have strengths and weaknesses. However, note that
although the theme of land is one of the most central themes in the
Old Testament, the New Testament drops it as a central theme,
without explanation. In contrast, compare the theme of sacrifice in
the Old Testament. The New Testament explains clearly how Jesus
connects to this Old Testament theme and how the sacrifice of Jesus
abrogates the need to continue the sacrifices of the Old Testament.
But in regard to land the New Testament almost completely drops the
subject, without explaining why.⁶⁴ This leaves interpreters today with
differing opinions and viewpoints, but with little concrete evidence
and without any semblance of a consensus view.
The New Testament is not completely devoid of themes that relate to
land. Note that the theme of “the kingdom of God” plays a central
role in the New Testament, especially in the Gospels. Some have
pointed out that the idea of kingdom implies land, especially with the
Old Testament as a background. Likewise, some point to Paul’s
frequent theme of inheritance, noting that for most people in the
biblical world, inheritance was integrally connected to the concept of
land. Likewise, some scholars note that any reference to the promise
to Abraham cannot be separated from the strong Old Testament land

associations. Thus, Paul’s discussions of Abraham in Romans 4 and
Galatians 3 cannot be totally separated from the land promise.⁶⁵
However, if the land theme is implicit in the promise to Abraham, it is
rather strange that Paul omits any mention of it. Rather, Paul sees
fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant through Christ in regard to the
salvation for the Gentiles (“all the nations will be blessed”). Also note
that in Galatians 3:14, Paul connects the blessings promised to
Abraham with the gift of the Spirit to the Gentiles. Notice that as the
land in the Old Testament was connected to the theme of presence
and relationship with God, here in Galatians Paul appears to be
connecting the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promise/Covenant with
the indwelling of the Spirit, a major New Testament development
regarding relationship with God and experiencing his presence.
An interesting, but inconclusive event in the New Testament that
relates to the promise of land occurs in Acts 4:36–5:11. Here in the
early Jerusalem church, some Jewish Christians are selling their land
and contributing the proceeds to the church (or as in Ananias and
Sapphira’s case, holding back some of the proceeds). Throughout the
Old Testament it was never allowable to sell one’s land inheritance
outside of the family. The land was a gift from God and an essential
part of the means by which God would bless his people. It is unusual
that the early Jewish church in Israel approved selling of land.
Apparently for them it had lost some of its Old Testament
significance as their inheritance from God and as the source of
continued blessing.
Ultimately, of course, God promises to create a new heaven and a
new earth (Rev. 21–22). A new Jerusalem will come down out of
heaven, and God’s people will be blessed to dwell with him in peace.
Although it may not be clear what will happen regarding the land
during the millennial period (however it is defined), the land theme
and land promises find their final fulfillment in the climax of prophetic
prediction described in Revelation 21–22.
Hays, J. Daniel, J. Scott Duvall, and C. Marvin Pate. Dictionary of Biblical

Prophecy and End Times. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
2007.
DOT:P: Land
LAND
The theological importance of land in the Prophets, as in the rest of
the OT, cannot be overemphasized. However, it is difficult to
generalize across the prophetic tradition because variations of
emphasis can be detected, reflecting different authorial and editorial
perspectives and changing historical contexts. The preexilic and exilic
prophets are most clearly concerned with the land of Israel and the
events leading up to the *exile and hoped-for restoration. The
postexilic prophets, although writing from a perspective after the
exiles’ return to their land, have different concerns and
preoccupations. Of all the prophets, Jeremiah is most vocal on the
subject of land, whether physical, political or theological, for which
reason he is described as “the poet of the land par
excellence” (Brueggemann, 101).
1. Words and Meanings
2. Politics, Geography, Economics and Ecology
3. Theological Themes
1. Words and Meanings
Two Hebrew words are used to denote “land” in the biblical prophets,
ʾereṣ and ʾădāmâ. Of these, by far the most frequent is ʾereṣ, which is
found over nine hundred times compared with only seventy-five uses
of ʾădāmâ. The range of meanings for both ʾereṣ and ʾădāmâ, though
very wide, falls broadly into three overlapping categories: (1)
denoting the whole earth or world (in the case of ʾereṣ sometimes
paired with “the heavens” [e.g., Is 1:2]); (2) describing a land mass,
whether territory in general or a particular land or country, in the
latter case often with its name (e.g., “land of Egypt” [Jer 44:12]) or a
possessive pronoun (e.g., “your land” [Is 2:7]); (3) referring to the soil

or to land as a portion of ground (e.g., Amos 2:7). The meaning (and
thus translation) of the Hebrew usually can be determined by the
characteristics noted above and by the context, but there are
numerous instances of ambiguity. The fluidity in the terms and their
referents undoubtedly reflects the narrower geographical horizons of
the ancient world and the much closer overlap in biblical thought
between ideas of cosmic space and territory. This article focuses on
the range of meanings in the second and third categories listed
above. Across the Prophetic Books both ʾereṣ and ʾădāmâ are most
often used within the second category—that is, to denote land or
territory, whether general or specific. More than six hundred
occurrences of ʾereṣ and fifty of ʾădāmâ fall into this category.
2. Politics, Geography, Economics and Ecology
Land in any time period or place has enormous importance for a
range of complex and often interlinked reasons. Both local and
national landscapes have economic, political, environmental and
cultural significance, as well as physical characteristics. All these
issues feature in the writings of the biblical prophets, who are aware
of the social, environmental and military importance of land as well
as its theological potential.
2.1. Politics. Political negotiation and military struggles over land
form an important part of the history of Israel and Judah, and many
of the prophets deal directly or indirectly with matters of diplomacy
and *warfare. The three main clusters of prophetic activity
represented by the Prophetic Books center on key political events
concerning the overpowering, loss and restoration of the promised
land (see 3 below): (1) the eighth-century st threat from Assyria and
last stages of the northern kingdom, Israel, culminating in its
destruction in 722 st (Hosea, Amos, First Isaiah, Micah); (2) the
Babylonian invasion and conquest of the southern kingdom, Judah, in
587 st and the exile in Babylon (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Obadiah,
Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Second Isaiah); (3) the return from exile and
rebuilding of Judah and Jerusalem from the late sixth century st

onwards (Third Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) (see Israelite
History). Three books fall outside this categorization: Joel lacks any
historical markers that locate it in a particular time frame, although it
graphically depicts the turmoil of warfare and an invading army;
Nahum comprises a judgment oracle against the Babylonian city
Nineveh; Jonah is a story about the *repentance of that same city.
The preexilic and exilic prophets highlight the inextricable link
between Israel’s and Judah’s faithful obedience to God and the
political security of their land, and this theme is explored by N. Habel
in his analysis of land ideology in the book of Jeremiah (Habel).
Military defeat and exile are held up as the consequence of rebellion
against the Lord (Is 1:19–20; Jer 25:7–9; Ezek 12:2–3), and conquering
armies and rulers are regarded as acting at the behest of the Lord (Is
5:26–30; Jer 5:15–17; 25:8–9; Amos 6:14; Hab 1:6). Conversely, the
conquest of Babylon by the Persian emperor Cyrus, which paves the
way for the return of the exiles to Judah, is also seen as God’s action
(Is 45:1–3). Attempts by individual prophets to shape political and
military policy take the form of direct confrontations with the king (Is
7:1–17; 37:5–13; Jer 37:17–21) and of oracles warning against forming
alliances with the surrounding *nations instead of trusting in the
Lord’s power and care (Is 30:1–3; Jer 2:17–18; Ezek 17:15–21; Hos 7:11–
12; 12:1).
2.2. Geography. The prophets demonstrate considerable awareness
of geographical and topographical features of the land, both of Israel
itself and of its neighbors. The location of surrounding nations is
identified (sometimes inaccurately) according to points of the
compass (Is 9:11–12; Mic 7:12). Knowledge of particular geophysical
events, such as the annual inundation of the Nile floodplains upon
which Egyptian agriculture depended, is used to graphic effect (Is
19:5–10; Amos 8:8; 9:5). *Mountains and valleys, rivers and deserts
(see Wilderness, Desert) form part of the prophetic vocabulary, and
the prophets clearly are keen observers of their surroundings. Many
references to such features, although undoubtedly informed by their
geophysical characteristics, take the form of stylized and/or

metaphorical descriptions—for example, the mountain of the Lord (Is
2:2–4; Mic 4:1–3; Zech 8:3), natural elements accompanying divine
theophany (Hab 3:8–10), and disaster coming “from the north” in
Jeremiah (Jer 1:14–15, and a further sixteen times; see also Ezek
23:24).
2.3. Economics. The political significance of land is matched by its
importance as a natural resource, with key crops such as grapes and
olives being valuable export commodities in ancient Israel. The
importance of vines and viticulture in prophetic material, especially
Isaiah (e.g., Is 5:1–7; 27:2–5), can be accounted for by the ease of
cultivating vineyards in the soil conditions and topography of the hill
slopes of Israel, in contrast to the salinated floodplains of the
Mesopotamian and Nile Deltas. This makes the production of grapes
and wine in the land of Israel a potentially lucrative source of income
and may account for the Babylonians permitting the resumption of
agriculture in Judah under Gedaliah the governor (Jer 40:9–12). The
prophets demonstrate knowledge of agricultural practice in their
oracles (Is 17:6; 24:13; Ezek 17:5–8) and awareness of the need for
wisdom in farming methods (Is 28:23–29). The distinction, and
sometimes conflict, between agricultural and pastoral concerns is
well represented, with the outcome of political defeat being depicted
as the incursion of cattle and sheep into cities and their agricultural
hinterlands (Is 7:23–25; 32:14).
2.4. Ecology. The prophets show great awareness of, and concern for,
the interconnection between human populations and their
environments (Marlow 2009). This connection is part of a three-way
relationship, between God, the people and the land. When God is
honored and obeyed, the land flourishes, as do its inhabitants. When
God is put to one side, the land is desolate and unfruitful. The close
interdependence between people and environment that informs
prophetic oracles is partly a result of the economic and practical
factors mentioned above; the prophets themselves, as much as their
audiences, depend on the land for survival. The climatic conditions of
ancient Israel, whereby short wet winters are followed by

exceptionally hot and dry summers, make for a precarious existence
for human beings and livestock, and drought is an ever-present fear
(Jer 14:1–6). Conversely, a raging torrent over hard, sun-baked soil
results in flash flooding that can destroy crops and livestock in a
moment (Is 28:2; Jer 47:2).
Prophetic concern with the relationship between people and
landscape also reflects the prophets’ keen observation of their
surroundings as they draw on the natural world for a rich range of
metaphors and similes. This is particularly true of Hosea, who
“clothes the thoughts of each succeeding sentence in new
imagery” (Wolff 1974, xxiv) (see, e.g., Hos 11:10–11). Wild *animals
such as the lions and bears that roamed the ancient Near East
represent both a literal threat to human beings (Jer 5:6; Amos 3:4, 8)
and a graphic metaphorical picture of judgment (Jer 49:19; Amos
5:18–19). Warfare and enemy invasion have an immediate and
catastrophic effect on the land. The destruction of habitation and the
depopulation of human settlements are followed, as one might
expect, by the colonization of ruined buildings by a variety of wild
animals (Is 13:20–22; 34:13–15). Although undoubtedly devastating
for the human populations concerned, it is part of the creatures’ God-
given right of possession and happens at his volition (Is 34:16–17). The
natural scavenging instinct of creatures such as vultures and jackals,
with which the prophets were familiar, undoubtedly informs oracles
that describe the destruction of a nation by means of “the birds of the
air and the wild animals of the land” (Jer 15:3 [cf. Ezek 39:4]). The
destroying power of a plague of locusts paints a graphic picture of a
forthcoming, yet unspecified, enemy invasion (Joel 1:4–7; 2:2–5).
The political, economic and ecological importance of land is explored
by E. Davis in her agrarian reading of the OT in dialogue with
contemporary agrarian authors such as W. Berry. She discusses the
warnings of preexilic prophets such as Amos against the aggressive
and acquisitive centralized agrarian policies of his day and draws
comparison with today’s tendency to value economic growth at the
expense of land care that she sees demonstrated in much

contemporary large-scale agribusiness.
3. Theological Themes
W. Brueggemann’s description of the ancient Israelite story as land
gift, land possession and land loss provides a helpful framework for
exploring land theology in the prophets (Brueggemann, xvii). To this
may be added land restoration as a key concern, even if one that is
rather ambiguous and elusive, and the notion of the land mourning
and rejoicing as a powerful and significant theological theme.
3.1. Land Gift. The notion of land as a gift from God is expressed in a
variety of forms. The prophets frequently refer back to Israel’s
historical traditions to remind the people of God’s gracious dealings
with them in the past, to call them to account for their current
behavior, and to offer hope based on collective memories. Although
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob rarely are mentioned by name in
connection with land in the prophets, the prose sections of Jeremiah
record over fifteen times that the land was given by God to the
ancestors (e.g., Jer 7:7; 11:4; 24:10), as does Ezekiel (20:42, and a
further three times). Closely associated with this is the concept of the
land as the Lord’s most beautiful inheritance or heritage (naḥălâ) (Jer
3:18–19), which the children of Israel have defiled (Jer 2:7; 16:18), and
which they will forfeit on account of their actions (Jer 17:4). Ezekiel’s
*temple vision speaks of the restoration of that inheritance (Ezek
47:13–14; 48:29; see also Zech 2:12). A separate strand in the
prophets emphasizes the Lord’s deliverance of Israel from the land of
Egypt, the land of their captivity. This historical recollection forms
part of the prophetic repertoire when passing judgment (Amos 3:1–2)
or calling for repentance (Hos 13:4; Mic 6:4), in laments over the
present wickedness of the exiles (Ezek 20:5–10) and in confessions of
sin (Dan 9:15).
3.2. Land Possession. In general terms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel
use the expression “the land of the living” to denote being alive, in
contrast to being consigned to the underworld, or Sheol (Is 38:11; Jer
11:19; Ezek 26:20). More specifically, Israel’s dwelling in the land is

depicted metaphorically by the prophets as being planted by the Lord
as a choice vine (Is 5:1–7; Jer 2:21; Ezek 17; see also Hos 9:13), but
which has incurred his wrath (Jer 11:16–17) and will be uprooted from
the land in which it were planted (Jer 12:14–17; 45:4; see also Jer 1:10).
The return from exile is depicted in similar vein as a replanting of
Israel by the Lord (Is 60:21; Jer 24:6; Amos 9:15).
The land itself is described as beautiful (ṣĕbî [Jer 3:19; Ezek 20:6, 15;
Dan 11:16]), pleasant, (ḥemed [Jer 3:19; see also Is 27:2]) and glorious
(kābôd [Is 10:18; Ezek 20:6, 15]). It is a land flowing with milk and
honey (Jer 11:5; 32:22), likened to the garden of Eden (Joel 2:3), and
one in which a variety of plants and animals abound (see 4 below).
The land is implicitly viewed as holy, by association with the holiness
of Mount Zion (Is 57:13; Jer 31:23; Ezek 20:40). The presence of the
glory of the Lord that Isaiah encounters in his temple vision fills the
whole land (Is 6:1–3), and its human inhabitants unsuccessfully look
to the land to conceal them from his presence (Is 2:10–21; cf. Amos
9:3).
3.3. Land Loss. The preexilic and exilic prophets are clear that Israel’s
right to remain in the land is dependent upon their faithfulness to the
Lord (Is 1:19), and the impending military defeat and exile are
attributed to a number of specific factors, including unfaithfulness to
God, neglect of *Social Justice, and hypocrisy. Hosea uses a carefully
constructed metaphor in which marital fidelity and the welfare of the
land are combined to condemn the northern kingdom, Israel, for
worshiping Canaanite gods (Hos 2:1–13) (see Marlow 2009, 166–72), a
theme picked up by Jeremiah some 150 years later (Jer 2:2–3; 3:1–5).
The outcome will be a return to the instability and precarious
existence of their previous lives before settlement in the promised
land (Hos 12:12) or being scattered among the nations as God turns
his back on them (Jer 18:15–17). The land is described as polluted or
defiled by the sins of its inhabitants, who have ignored God’s *laws
and statutes (Is 24:5), pursued other gods (Jer 2:23–24; 3:2, 9) and set
up idols (Jer 16:18; Ezek 36:18).

Amos, First Isaiah and Micah speak out against the hypocrisy of
devout religious observance while the basic, God-given principles of
*justice and righteousness are being ignored (Is 1:12–17; Amos 5:21–
24; 8:4–7; Mic 6:6–12). Such exploitation of the poor by the
complacent and decadent elite in society provokes the prophets’
condemnation (Is 3:13–15) and results in God’s judgment on the
people and their exile from the land (Is 5:11–14; Amos 6:4–7). This
judgment on the sin of the inhabitants has physical consequences for
the land itself, including the loss of fertility (Is 5:7–10; Mic 6:13–15),
*destruction by flood and earthquake (Amos 5:6–9; 8:7–10) and
desertification and drought (Jer 9:10–12) (see Marlow 2010, 106–13).
It is a misconception that following the exile to Babylon the land of
Judah was completely destroyed and depopulated. Despite prophetic
hyperbole such as Jeremiah 13:19 and descriptions of the exile that
suggest that only some of the poorest were left behind (2 Kings 25:8–
12), both biblical (Jer 40:9–12) and extrabiblical (see Middlemas)
evidence supports the view that the land continued to be inhabited
and farmed. Significant theological themes in Second Isaiah such as
Zion-Jerusalem (Is 52:1–3, 7–10) may refer to the inhabitants of
“templeless” Judah rather than the Babylonian exilic community as
commonly assumed (Tiemeyer). The presence of a continuing
population in Judah also accounts for some of the hostility
experienced by those returning from exile (Ezra 4:1–6).
3.4. Land Restoration. The return from exile and restoration of the
land are hinted at by some of the prophets and are the focus of
extensive visionary descriptions in others. Although the oracles of
salvation in preexilic prophets such as Amos (Amos 9:11–15) and
Hosea (Hos 2:18–23) may reflect a later editor’s desire to moderate
the harsh and unequivocal judgement oracles of earlier prophets, the
view of source critics that these must necessarily be postexilic
additions is unsatisfactory and takes no account of the allusive and
unspecific content of these texts. The hope and optimism that
characterize these exilic messages of deliverance and restoration
often are without specific historical marker, a notable exception being

Second Isaiah’s description of the Persian king Cyrus as the one
anointed by the Lord to deliver Israel (Is 45:1–4).
A number of powerful images and ideas are evoked as the prophets
announce *salvation and the end of exile. It is couched as the renewal
of Israel’s *marriage to the Lord (Is 54:5; Hos 2:16–17), a new
*covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 34:25–31; 37:26; Hos 2:18) and
restoration of the Davidic throne (Jer 33:14–22; Ezek 34:23–24; Amos
9:11–12). The three-way interconnection noted above (see 2.4) can be
seen in the fact that, for the prophets, renewal of the relationship
between God and his people also involves the well-being of the land,
not just its political significance. As well as the Lord comforting his
people (Is 40:1–2; 49:13) and forgiving them (Is 4:4; Jer 33:8; Ezek
36:23–28), the land itself will be restored to its former fertility (Ezek
36:29–30; Hos 2:21–22). Renewal of the land is couched in
exaggerated language as “dripping with sweet wine” (Joel 3:18; Amos
9:13) and a return to its Eden-like state (Ezek 36:34–36). In the
prophet Isaiah’s vision of a future idyllic existence the relationships
between human beings and wild animals will be harmonious instead
of hostile (Is 11:6–9; 65:25). By far the most extensive picture of
restoration from exile is Ezekiel’s vision of the restored temple (Ezek
40–44), which encompasses not only the temple itself and its ritual
practices but also an idyllic picture of the flourishing and healing of
the land (Ezek 47:7–12).
3.5. Land Mourning and Rejoicing. The land fails or flourishes
according to the sins of the people that live in it. This is depicted in
graphic terms as the sorrow and delight of the natural world at the
breaking and re-forming of the relationship between God and his
people (see Lament, Mourning). The prophets make good use of the
ambiguous meaning of the Hebrew root ʾābal (“to mourn, dry up”)
(see Hayes) to depict the land in personal terms, mourning and
desolate as a result of Israel’s sinfulness (Jer 12:4, 11; 23:10; Joel 1:10).
The sequence of cause and effect is particularly clear in Hosea 4, in
which the inhabitants of the land (i.e., Israel) have neglected God’s

laws (Hos 4:1). This results not only in the breakdown of human
society, in which stealing, adultery and murder become rife (Hos 4:2),
but also in the mourning and desolation of the physical land and its
inhabitants, both human and animal (Hos 4:3). This prophetic
insistence that human sinfulness has consequences for the natural
world is particularly pertinent in the light of the serious
environmental issues facing the world today (Marlow 2008).
The land is also able to praise God alongside its human inhabitants.
Isaiah’s depiction of restoration of the land includes the rejoicing and
blossoming of the desert alongside the salvation and healing of Israel
(Is 35:1–2; see also Joel 2:21). The impending return from exile is a
reason for all to sing a “new song” of praise to the Lord—land and
sea, mountains and forests, town and desert (Is 42:10–11; 44:23; see
also Is 51:3). The message of hope that the prophets present is
grounded in their view of the land as a good gift from the Lord that
has been destroyed because of human disobedience to God but that
will be walked upon again with joy.
See also AÅÜåÄá IåÄìÉàí; Cäëåäáäìí; CàÉÄâÜäÅ TêÉäáäìí; EóÜáÉ;
EóäãÖë IåÄìÉàí; FáäàÄá IåÄìÉàí; MäÖÅâÄÜÅ IåÄìÉàí; WÜáãÉàÅÉëë,
DÉëÉàâ.
BÜsáÜäìàÄçêí. W. Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise,
and Challenge in Biblical Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002); E. Davis,
Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); N. Habel, The Land
Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995);
K. M. Hayes, The Earth Mourns: Prophetic Metaphor and Oral
Aesthetic (SBLAB 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002); H.
Marlow, The Earth Is the Lord’s: A Biblical Response to Environmental
Issues (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2008); idem, Biblical Prophets and
Contemporary Environmental Ethics: Re-reading Amos, Hosea and First
Isaiah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); idem, “Justice for
Whom? Social and Environmental Ethics and the Hebrew Prophets,”
in Ethical and Unethical in the Old Testament: God and Humans in
Dialogue, ed. K. J. Dell (LHBOTS 528; London: T & T Clark, 2010) 103–

21; J. Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah (OTM; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2005); L.-S. Tiemeyer, For the Comfort of
Zion: The Geographical and Theological Location of Isaiah 40–55
(VTSup 139; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2011); H. W. Wolff, Hosea: A
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea, trans. G. Stansell, ed.
P. D. Hanson (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).
H. F. Marlow
Marlow, H. F. “Land.” Edited by Mark J. Boda and Gordon J. McConville.

Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets. Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham,
England: IVP Academic; Inter-Varsity Press, 2012.
Tags: Land

Concepto Tierra - Land PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Concepto Tierra - Land PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Concepto

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 1

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 2

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 3

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 4

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 5

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 6

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 7

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 8

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 9

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 10

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 11

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 12

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 13

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 14

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 15

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 16

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 17

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 18

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 19

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 20

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 21

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 22

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 23

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 24

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 25

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 26

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 27

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 28

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 29

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 30

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 31

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 32

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 33

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 34

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 35

BEB: Land > Ll

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 36

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 37

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 38

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 39

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 40

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 41

ZEB H–L: Land, Theology Of

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 42

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 43

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 44

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 45

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 46

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 47

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 48

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 49

Bandstra, B. L. “Land.” Edited by Geoﬀrey W Bromiley. The International

DLNTD: Land in Early Christianity

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 50

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 51

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 52

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 53

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 54

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 55

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 56

Exported from Logos Bible Software, 12:06 PM June 26, 2019. 57

Ryken, Leland, Jim Wilhoit, Tremper Longman, Colin Duriez, Douglas