Tuesday, May 4, 2010

The Land and Jesus

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com

The question of “the Land” is of paramount importance for the dispensationalist. Dispensationalism is a whole systematic theology — not simply an eschatology — that has as one of its chief cornerstones the predominant role of Israel in God’s plan for history. If the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, the way to a dispensationalist’s heart is through the Land of Israel. Unfortunately, the whole New Testament contradicts it.

The Land question is also of enormous significance in the current wider world of politics and international relations. Many Christians consider themselves to be “Christian Zionists,” and strongly urge Western governments to support Israel — regardless.

In this blog I will provide a brief review of an excellent new book on the subject of the Israel and the Land: Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology (Baker Academic, 2010; 153 pp; soft cover). The author is Gary M. Burge, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School

Dr. Burge is a competent New Testament scholar, holding a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen. He is a member, The Society for Biblical Literature; Institute for Biblical Understanding; and Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, Cambridge, England. He is also very knowledgeable regarding contemporary “Holy Land” issues. Besides this work he has authored Who Are God's People in the Middle East? (1993) and Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians (2003). He holds membership in Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding, as well as Holy Land Ecumenical Fellowship.

Though well qualified in the field, I confess that he does lack qualifications in three important areas: (1) He does not have a degree from Dallas Theological Seminary. (2) He is not a televangelist. (3) And as a consequence of #2 he does not appear to have bleached-white teeth. As a result of these three deficiencies he will not receive a wide reading among dispensationalists-in-the-pew.

The book is composed of eight succinct chapters and a helpful “Further reading” section. The chapters are: (1) The biblical heritage; (2) Diaspora Judaism and the land; (3) Jesus and the land; (4) The Fourth Gospel and the land; (5) The book of Acts and the land; (6) Paul and the promises to Abraham; (7) Developments beyond Paul; (8) Land, theology, and the Church.

As an insignificant aside: the book does have one layout oddity. When the Arabic numbering of pages begins (after the Roman numeral front-matter), page 1 is on the left hand page rather than the right (as are all following odd numbers). Someone in layout stumbled.

But now: why does the book have the title “Jesus and the Land” since only one chapter deals directly with Jesus’s ministry? Judging from the chapter titles you would think it might be better titled “The New Testament and the Land.” However, the title perfectly captures the point of the book. As Burge compellingly argues: Jesus is the fulfillment of the old covenant and all of its promises, including the Land. Let us see how this unfolds.

After important introductory material in chapters 1 (Abraham and the Old Testament backdrop) and 2 (non-Judean, diaspora Judaism), we come to Burge’s central chapter: “Jesus and the land” (ch. 3). Here he carefully surveys relevant highlights from Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptic Gospels. He points out that despite the longing and perspective of many (not all!) first-century Jews, Jesus downplays the Land — as well as two other “holy places” for Israel: Jerusalem and the Temple. In a later chapter Burge captures this point well: “the lens of the incarnation had now refocused things completely. Christian theology had no room for ‘holy places’ outside of the Holy One who is Christ” (p. 94).

In his preaching the Lord begins transferring Israel’s hope from a Land to a Person; that is, to himself as the Messiah who has now come in fulfillment of the old covenant types, promises, and prophecies. Burge then traces and develops this theme in John, Acts, and Paul, with a briefer analysis of Hebrews and Revelation. He argues that as Israel rejects Christ: “The city at the center of Judaism’s religious aspirations has now failed some test that will lead to its judgment” (p. 45). As a consequence of Jesus’ teaching and Israel’s failure John develops his “theological agenda” which is “his messianic replacement (or fulfillment) motif” (p. 46).

In chapter 5 (“The book of Acts and the Land”) Burge shows Luke’s intentional theological structure, which traces Christian’s message and movement. He notes that both begin gradually to discount the Land: He reminds us that Jesus himself only ministered within Israel (Matt 10:5; 15:24). And though the Church begins in Jerusalem (Acts 1-5), it quickly starts moving away from Jerusalem and out of the Land (Acts 6ff). The largest discourse is Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7 (which is the last speech given in Jerusalem): it represents diaspora Judaism outside of Israel rather than Judaism in the Land. Then Acts moves quickly to the Gentile world (Acts 9ff), ultimately focusing on and emphasizing Paul’s ministry in bringing in Gentiles.

In Acts, Luke does not appear simply to be tracing Christianity’s historical chronological growth. Rather Luke’s structure is more interested in presenting Christianity’s redemptive-historical theology. That is, Christianity is developing away from a Land-based theology to a Christ-based theology, away from a Jewish focus to a Gentile-focus.

As a result of all of this theological-structuring of Christianity’s development, Burge shows that “early Christian preaching is utterly uninterested in a Jewish eschatology devoted to the restoration of the land” (p. 59; emph. his). And this is despite the fact that Paul usually begins his ministry in diaspora synagogues before reaching out to the Gentiles. Thus, Acts shows that “the Land of Promise was the source of Christianity’s legacy but no longer its goal” (p. 61). Thus, “the striking thing is that Paul here can refer to the promise of Abraham and not refer to the Land of Promise. . . . Paul is consistent with all the speeches in the book of Acts. Paul as well as Peter can consistently ignore the central elements in Abraham’s life according to Jewish teaching: land and progeny” (p. 68).

Though I wish he had developed the issue further, I was pleased to see that Burge at least holds to a semi-preterist understanding of Revelation, a view that is generally called the “idealist-preterist” approach. He even allows that Babylon “may also refer to Jerusalem, but also alludes to Rome itself” (p. 105). What is more, he states that “it may be that the harlot refers to Jerusalem or the high priest in his final corruption before the war” (p. 106) — which happens to be the view that I am developing in my commentary on Revelation. Thus, regarding the Land and the Book of Revelation, Burge properly notes: “In Revelation it is the Holy Land that becomes a land of violence toward the people of God and in the end is subject to judgment and devastation” (p. 108). This is right on target, and well put.

I highly recommend this book as a judicious and insightful study of the question of the Land of Israel in Scripture and theology. It deserves wide reading and discussion. Order it from NiceneCouncil.com today. In fact, I recommend ordering two copies so that you can read both to make sure he is consistent.

12 comments:

e8pawn++ said...

I enjoyed the humor.

Vance said...

Recently bought Burge's book (Jesus and the Land). Excellent!

Eric said...

I am a mainline Lutheran (who doesn't support his denomination's stance on openly-gay clergy), and I have found your site most informative. I find that I agree with covenant theology much more than dispensationalism.
Our denomination, along with other mainline denominations, have released statements criticizing dispensationalism's apparent lack of sympathy for our Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters. When I told my dispensational sister (whom I love dearly) this, she hinted at my "anti-Semitism", and claimed that we (the West) need to war against the "illegitimate children of Abraham" (Arabs). This saddens me.
I was born in 1974 and have never heard anything other than dispensational thought, and I didn't even know it. However, it now appears that it is starting to buckle under the enormity of its own weight.
I believe that evangelical mainline Protestants, along with with covenant theologians, can work together to inform the public on the fallacy of dispensationalism.
I also have a question. Is there a link between the superficial polish of "prosperity gospel" and the superficial polish of dispensationalism?

Eric said...

I am a mainline Lutheran (who doesn't support his denomination's stance on openly-gay clergy), and I have found your site most informative. I find that I agree with covenant theology much more than dispensationalism.
Our denomination, along with other mainline denominations, have released statements criticizing dispensationalism's apparent lack of sympathy for our Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters. When I told my dispensational sister (whom I love dearly) this, she hinted at my "anti-Semitism", and claimed that we (the West) need to war against the "illegitimate children of Abraham" (Arabs). This saddens me.
I was born in 1974 and have never heard anything other than dispensational thought, and I didn't even know it. However, it now appears that it is starting to buckle under the enormity of its own weight.
I believe that evangelical mainline Protestants, along with with covenant theologians, can work together to inform the public on the fallacy of dispensationalism.
I also have a question. Is there a link between the superficial polish of "prosperity gospel" and the superficial polish of dispensationalism?

Doug said...

The geography of the land is a topic that concerns many of the prophets; Jerusalem to be uplifted, rivers, a valley in the Mount of Olives, mountains made low, deserts becoming fruitful, etc. So to say the land is discounted in the NT may be missing much of their message. The "land" is what the ancient Israelites fought for, but perhaps the "land" represents things promised to Christians, that are invisible.

NiceneCouncil.com said...

Yes, the land concerned the prophets to be sure, but the allusions you mention are obviously all spiritual metaphors (Jerusalem being lifted up; mountains being made low).

The land was a first stage issue in developing redemptive-history. It served as a picture of greater things and was not an everlasting promise to Israel that they would maintain one of the smallest nations on the planet.

You are correct that the land represents more spiritual thing in the NT teaching.

Len said...

Doug,
A resource you might want to consider is a work called "The Divine Covenants" by Arthur Pink. It is the best work that I've run across that explains the inter-relationship of all the covenants (Everlasting, Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Sanaitic, Davadic and Messianic).

He was a former dispensationalist himself. The section on the Messianic Covenant explains quite well the fact that most of what dispensationalists take as prophesy about literal, earthly Israel, Zion, Jerusalem, etc. is actually figurative and is fulfilled in Christ and His church - not in a physical restoration of the Jews.

All the covenants of the Old Testament are inter-related and point to the new covenant which supercedes and replaces the old as it is the final, spritual fulfillment of what the old covenants represented and foreshadowed.

Pink's work is readily available online at any number of sites.

Len

Doug said...

Thanks for your suggestion on Arthur Pink's work, Len. It is fine to say that prophecies about literal, earthly Israel, Zion, Jerusalem, etc. are figurative, and fulfilled in Christ and His church, but specifically, how is Zechariah's prophecy about the cleaving of the Mount of Olives to be understood? What mountains were made low, and what valleys were filled, that Isaiah and John the Baptist spoke of?

I agree that the land "served as a picture of greater things," but I am interested in what those things are; what the mountains, hills, valleys, deserts, seas, rivers, etc., which are discussed by the prophets, actually refer to, from the Christian viewpoint.

Pink discussed Galatians 4, but he seems to have missed the significance of the mountains that Paul mentioned in the chapter. Paul identified Mount Sinai with the Mosaic legislation, and with "Jerusalem which now is." It may be a prime example of a mountain that was "made low," partly fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy. Evidently for Paul, mountains are symbolic of God's revelations, or perhaps covenants.

Zechariah spoke of "rivers of living water" flowing from Jerusalem; Jesus explained the "living water" in John 7:38-39. The "Jerusalem" must be the heavenly one.

What valleys were filled? If the land represents God's revelations, valleys, formed by erosion and removal of the earth, could be symbolic of things unknown, that are yet to be revealed. And in that case, Paul filled many "valleys," in his epistles.

NiceneCouncil.com said...

Doug:
I hope you are kidding!
Ken Gentry

Doug said...

Zechariah's prophecy said that the Mount of Olives would be split, and half of it would be removed towards the north, and half towards the south. Curiously, Zechariah said people will flee to the valley formed by the displacement of the two halves of the Mount of Olives. If this refers to a literal earth movement, what would be the point of an earthquake prediction, that says to flee after it occurs?

The Mount of Olives is not a serious obstacle for someone wishing to go to the other side.

When John the Baptist preached his message, he went to the wilderness, the arid area east of Jerusalem, probably somewhere in the Jordan Valley. Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River. It is a great valley, called the Jordan Rift Valley, part of a larger tectonic rift system that extends via the Red Sea through much of Eastern Africa. John's message, taken from Isaiah 40:3-5, was "every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low."

What mountains were brought low? Perhaps the mountains that Isaiah meant represent the revelations of God, and the prophecies, and promises contained in scripture, many of which are reinterpreted and applied to the church in the NT. The Mount of Olives mentioned in Zechariah's prophecy may represent the Olivet Discourse of Jesus. Interpretations of the Olivet Discourse today are divided into two opposite camps, preterism and dispensationalism. One says the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century, and the other says it is yet to be fulfilled, in a seven year tribulation. The valley between those two opposing interpretations is where Zechariah says to flee! [Zech. 14:5]

The river that Ezekiel described in chapter 47:1-12 flows east from Jerusalem. It began as a trickle, and about a mile from the temple, it widened to a river he could not pass. This requires the presence of a great valley in the midst of the Mount of Olives, such as the one described in Zechariah's prophecy. Those who flee to the valley, are the ones who find Ezekiel's river. Christians from opposite camps can come together there.

Anonymous said...

I didn't see Burge's book in the NiceneCouncil store. Is it there?

Len said...

A reply to Eric:

With regard to your sisters comments that "we (the West) need to war against the "illegitimate children of Abraham," you should have her explain to you why Paul states in Galatians 4:21-31 that the Jewish nation is designated as being the illegitimate son of Hagar - not the Arabs.