Blaising and Bock write,
For [Bruce] Waltke, the issue centers on the land. But is his criterion for “proof” too narrow, demanding as he does an explicit New Testament affirmation of Israel’s inheritance in the land in order for Old Testament promises to be taken in their historical sense? Is land the central issue Waltke makes it? If Christ reigns from Israel and has authority over the whole earth, does this not solve the question about the land promises to Israel? [It is odd to claim that Jesus will rule from Israel, while negating a national Israel!]. What does Jesus mean when he promises the disciples will rule over the twelve tribes of Israel in the regeneration (Matt. 19:28)? If Israel as a nation were not a significant part of the issue, it would have been much easier to speak simply of reigning over humanity or over the earth. It is not Israel by itself, but the universal and eternal kingdom of God that is the goal of history. But to say that Israel is not the goal does not exclude its national role in that history. Waltke criticizes Burns for not producing a New Testament text that speaks of promising the land to Israel. But why should one expect such a promise when at the time Romans was written Israel was still in the land? In addition, Zechariah, as he articulates messianic hope through the Spirit, names the removal of all enemies in his praise of John’s birth (Luke 1:69–74). He is in the Land of Promise as he utters this hope.
(Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, 390. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.)