Jesus and the Land

For years I have been telling my hermeneutics students that we are not OT saints; thus we must sift any OT passage through the NT to finds its application to the church. Gary Burge shows how this is done in his recent book, Jesus and the Land [Baker 2010]. The primary topic is found in the books' subtitle: The New Testament Challenge to 'Holy Land' Theology. The work is a thoughtful, responsible, and thoroughly biblical response to Christian Zionism.

Burge's divides his book into eight chapters. He begins with a brief look what the OT teaches about the land. He emphasizes several times the land is rightly called holy because it belongs to a holy God. When Israel failed to be righteous, they lost the land. Even God himself became an exile because 'the ruin of his land means that he cannot enjoy it either' [8]. After the exile, retaining the land was interpreted as embracing a strictly religious life. Between the testaments the land, as it was throughout the OT, was central to Jewish identity. Life in the land was contingent on upholding the righteousness expected by God.

Chapter 2, "Diaspora Judaism and the land," is an interesting discussion of how the land was viewed by Jews outside of Palestine. Burge shows that for Diaspora Jews, the promise of land was reinterpreted. For Philo, the land was reinterpreted as the knowledge and wisdom of God. Josephus reinterpreted the promise to Abraham as Israel's greatness rather than land. Burge insists that redefinition deeply influences Christian thinking in the NT.

In Chapter 3, Burge deals with how Jesus viewed the land. The land was a volatile topic in Jesus' world, and He would have been well aware of that. Burge notes that it is interesting that Jesus did not speak much about the land. In fact, it is instructive that Jesus' primary ministry is not in Judea but in Galilee. His primary message, the Kingdom of God, is not linked at all with territorial aspirations, and although it is first preached to the Jews, Jesus offered the Kingdom to those outside of the land as well. Jesus respects the uniqueness of Israel's location in the land, but He expresses no overt affirmation of first-century territory al theologies. Statements like, "The meek will inherit the earth (land)" shows a surprising reversal; those who fight to possess the land will in fact be trumped by the meek. Passages such as The Magnificant are important to Burge's argument.

I found Burge's discussion of "The Fourth Gospel and the Land" fascinating and persuasive. In John, it is obvious that the Jewish festivals are fulfilled in Jesus. So is the land. Jesus is the recipient of the land [John 1:51]. Divine space is no longer located in a place but in a person. Most profound is Jesus' statement, "I am the vine," in John 15. As Burge writes, "The crux for John 15 is that Jesus is changing the place of rootedness for Israel…God's vineyard, the land of Israel, now has one vine: Jesus" [54]. He summarizes: "The hand as holy territory therefore should now recede from the concerns of God's people" [56].

Burge's look at the rest of the NT results in essentially the same conclusion. Here are a few of his statements:

• Acts: "…the praxis of the Church betrays its theological commitments: Christians will find in Christ what Judaism had sought in the land" [59].
  
• Acts: "Therefore the Land of Promise was the source of Christianity's legacy but no longer its goal. The political concerns of the land were a part of Christianity's history, but no longer formed its mission. The new mission would be the restoration of the world, not the restoration of Jerusalem and the land" [61].
  
• Paul: "Jerusalem and its Temple are places that enjoy historic respect but cannot claim a universal or lasting theological significance" [74].
  
• For Paul "Christian theology had no room for 'holy places' outside of the Holy One who is Christ . . . Paul would have seen as aberrant any Christian territorialism wed to first-century politics" [94].
  
• Beyond Paul: "There is no discussion of Judea or Jerusalem as the site of ultimate commitment, affection, or veneration" [96].
  

  
   

While one can disagree with Burge's preterist approach to Revelation, I do agree that hope in the NT's final book is not found in the old Jerusalem, which is essentially evil, but in the new Jerusalem that will take up where the old city had failed. Hope is the new heaven and the new earth that 'reorders creation as it ought to be' [107].

 

In the final chapter, Burge provides an outstanding and insightful critique of modern Zionism. Primarily for Burge, Zionists do not think Christianly about the topic. I would tell my students, they fail to sift the OT concept of land through the NT. The primary point that Burge makes throughout the book and emphasizes in his conclusion is that "Ownership of the land is not a Christian question. The New Testament instead asks if we know the landowner himself, or, in a different framework, whether the land owns us" [127].

 

I would urge anyone interested in the Christian response to "Holy Land Theology" or Zionism, to read Burge's book. It is an example of proper hermeneutics done taking the One who fulfills the Law and the Prophets into full account.