The Promise of the Land of Israel to the Patriarchs (original) (raw)
Related papers
Goyim IN GENESIS 35:11 AND THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISE OF BLESSINGS FOR THE NATIONS
2010
When Jacob left Paddan-Aram to return to the land of Canaan, God appeared to him at Bethel and blessed him, saying, “Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name. . . . I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body. The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you” (Gen 35:10–12; esv, emphasis added). God’s promise to Jacob in Gen 35:11 is puzzling. Surely, the nation of Israel shall come from Jacob, but who is this “company of nations” (μywg lhq) that shall come from Jacob? Despite this enigmatic statement in Gen 35:11, few interpreters have addressed the issue.1 Those who comment on the phrase, μywg lhq, may be categorized in two ways. First, some interpret μywg lhq as referring to the tribes of Israel.2 Second, others point out that it alludes to Gen 17:4–5, where God promise...
Starting out from the observation that, in the conquest account of the book of Joshua, Joshua is said to have given the land to Israel for an inheritance while no such action is reported in any detail, the present paper first highlights the specific profile of the Deuteronomistic Joshua story. Building on the picture that emerges as well as on the well-founded position that the land distribution account did not originally belong to this story, it then focuses on the way the account was incorporated. To this end, it scrutinizes the first introduction found in Josh 13:1–7, arguing that vv. 1, 7 originally meant to present the following chapters as an explication concordant with the thrust and implications of the earlier conquest account and the Deuteronomistic Joshua story as a whole. To illustrate this case, the conclusion of that story, Judg 2:6–10, is brought to bear on the interpretation of the incorporated section’s introduction, Josh 13:1, 7.
The extent of the Promised Land in the patriarchal stories developed and gradually expanded along the axis of time. Initially, the Promised Land’s boundaries were defined only in a general manner by the territories of Israel’s neighbours. This vague set of borders was replaced by the outlines of the Priestly Land of Canaan, although no details regarding the borders exist in the narratives. The author of Genesis 14 extended the borders of the Land that Abraham conquered up to the area north of Damascus. Finally, the author of Genesis 15 further extended the Promised Land’s borders up to the Euphrates in the north and the Nile in the south.
An Old Testament Theology of the Land of Promise
This paper explores a biblical theology of “land” in the Old Testament, specifically as it relates to Israel. By examining how Land is used in the Hebrew Bible, I conclude that modern day Israel is not entitled to the land of contemporary Israel. A brief look at the New Testament theology of the land is also incorporated at the conclusion of the essay.
Tyndale Bulletin, 2011
There are three specific instances in which a royal promise is made to an individual in the book of Genesis. Scholarship has largely viewed these as incidental within the larger framework of the major themes found in the book of Genesis. This short note seeks to correct this misunderstanding by demonstrating that the promise that kings will come from Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob is integrally linked with the themes of fruitfulness, seed (offspring), and land. Thus, the theme of kingship is a much more important theme than is often held.
"The Promise of the Land and the Extent of P," ZAW 130 (2018): 513-528
While Pentateuchal scholars increasingly support the ending of P in the Sinai narrative, there are still attempts to defend the classical Nothian model of P that ends in the plain of Moab. The major argument of the latter is that the land-promise motif persists through the end of the P material. A close observation of the alleged »Priestly« text reveals the otherwise. The most innovative aspect of the pivotal P text in Exodus 6 is to combine the land-promises to the Patriarchs and to the exodus generation, providing a continuity from Genesis to Exodus. In the alleged P text in Numbers, however, the land-promise is always for the exodus generation; the Patriarchal promise is never mentioned. This phenomenon is not coincidental, considering that those texts directly deal with the occupation and distribution of the promised land (Num 13–14; 20; 27; 34; 36). Such a literary difference between P and the alleged P in Numbers reflects different socio-religious agenda of the different generations of priestly scribal circle.
Abraham as "Heir of the World": Does Romans 4:13 Expand the Old Testament Abrahamic Land Promises?
Master's Seminary Journal, 2015
The future of Israel continues to be an area of intense debate, but recent non-dispensationalists have moved away from the language of “replacement” to the language of “expansion,” viz., the church does not replace Israel; rather the church is an expansion of Israel. Or put another way, the promises originally made to Israel in the OT are not nullified, but “expanded” to include the church. Recent scholars insist that this expansion applies to the OT land promises and that several NT texts explicitly teach this expansion, e.g. Matt 5:5, Rom 4:13, Eph 6:3, Heb 4:1–11; 11:8–16. This article will critically examine Rom 4:13 and argue that this text does not expand the OT land promises but rather describes Abraham’s faith in God’s promise of a multitude of descendants from all nations.
Matthew 5:5 and the Old Testament Land Promises: An Inheritance of the Earth, or the Land of Israel?
Master's Seminary Journal, 2017
While many biblical-theological scholars claim that Matthew 5:5 is a straightforward expansion of the OT land promises to now encompass the whole earth, the original text of Matthew 5:5 (κληρονομήσουσιν τὴν γῆν) makes no clear indication that it is referring to the "earth" rather than to the "land" of Israel. It is possible to interpret Matthew 5:5 as referring to an inheritance of the land of Israel, but unfortunately , such an interpretive possibility has been obscured by English translations and ruled out by supersessionist theological assumptions regarding Israel's future. Based on careful word study and sensitivity to the Jewish-focused literary-historical context of Matthew's Gospel, this article will argue that Matthew 5:5 reaffirms a future Jewish inheritance of the land of Israel, an inheritance that does not exclude Gentiles but complements and fits within the worldwide inheritance for all of God's people.