Jesus and the Land
Scot Mcknight says some interesting stuff for the new book Jesus and the Land by Gary Burge:
Most evangelical Christians, because they’ve been taught to think this way, simply believe that Israel’s presence in the Land today is not only a God-given promise, but there is a future eschatology tied to that presence in the Land. In fact, many today think the Temple will be rebuilt and Israel will rule in the Land. In other words, many think Israel’s recognition as a nation and having their “location” in the Land of Israel today is by divine-appointment in such a way that it both fulfills promise and portends a fuller possession of the land someday.
But not all are so sure, and very few Christians today have given a serious look at what the NT says about Land — and how little is actually said about the Land. And those who have studied it have written technical books very few read. Until Gary Burge: Jesus and the Land.
And here is the book blurb:
In Jesus and the Land, respected New Testament scholar Gary Burge describes first-century Jewish and Christian beliefs about the land of Israel in order to help contemporary readers develop a Christian theology of the land and assess Bible-based claims in discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Burge provides a full survey of New Testament passages that directly address the question of land and faith and offers an honest and compelling presentation of present-day tensions surrounding “territorial religion” in the modern Middle East. This accessibly written volume will appeal to undergraduate and seminary students, pastors, teachers, and anyone interested in the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
And now read the endorsements from some biblical scholars heavyweight!
“Gary Burge has made a valuable contribution to the ongoing matter of the ‘Holy Land’ so contested by Israelis and Palestinians. He recognizes the powerful impulse to a territorial dimension in much of Judaism. But then he reflects on New Testament texts–notably those by Luke, John, and Paul–to see that Jesus and the early church distanced themselves from any territorial dimension of faith. This leads Burge to offer a powerful, compelling critique of ‘Christian Zionism,’ to which ‘the NT says: No.’ Clearly a faith that intends to reach Gentiles must, perforce, refuse any closed tribalism that makes exclusive territorial claims. Burge’s reading of Scripture is persuasive and provides a fresh way to think about ‘faith and land.'”–Walter Brueggemann, Columbia Theological Seminary
“Burge writes out of a deep knowledge of Scripture and personal acquaintance with the Middle East to demonstrate how the concern for the geographical land in the Old Testament is transmuted into concern for a spiritual inheritance for God’s believing people, both Jewish and Gentile, in the New Testament. His exposition of the biblical material offers a gracious corrective to some inadequate and misinformed ideas about the role of Israel in the plan of God and about the Palestinian-Jewish situation and has important consequences for Christian belief and behavior. I warmly commend this thorough and scholarly but nevertheless clearly and simply written presentation.”–I. Howard Marshall, University of Aberdeen
“Burge may be American evangelicalism’s foremost expert on a biblical theology of the land of Israel. This book reintroduces sanity, common sense, and exegetical acumen into a discussion that often sadly lacks these traits. Absolutely essential reading for any Christian who wants to hold a biblically defensible position on the topic.”–Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary
“Burge’s accessible consideration of ‘holy land theology’ in relation to New Testament texts cannot be overlooked. From now on, Christians who wish to engage responsibly with this highly charged and controversial issue will need to interact fully with Burge’s careful, constructive, and challenging presentation.”–Bruce W. Longenecker, Baylor University
Interested?
[link: Baker Academic | HT: Jesus Creed]
Filed by edmund at 11.18 am under Culture,Faith |
7 Comments
Anson
Yeah, I remember when I took biblical theology from Waltke and Fee, I was taught that Jesus already fulfilled the imagery and the promises of the land in him (along with other imageries like the temple, the law….etc)
Here is one of the answers I wrote for my mid term exam:
Q: Discuss God’s gift of land to Israel and its relationship to the Christian church. Your answer should include a discussion of the “Acts” of the book of Joshua, the typological significance of the land, and the concept of Christian fellowship.
A: God’s gift of land to the Israelites symbolizes security, protection, provision, and God’s presence. In the book of Joshua, God has given the Canaanite land to the Israelites, but it is up to them to conquer it, allot it, and retain it. They are to first of all dispossess the original inhabitants of the land, the ungodly people that God has already judged. Then when they have obtained the land, they are to allot it fairly among the twelve tribes. Then if they are to stay in the land, it is crucial that they keep the covenant they have with God. The land is an usufruct. If they become apostates, the land will be taken from them.
The land is also a type of life in Christ. For the church in the New Testament, the economic benefits of the land have been replaced by fellowship in the body of Christ. Here fellowship does not mean sitting down with a friend sipping coffee. Fellowship in the Bible means
suffering for one another. It is a communion that provides the people of God the experience of security, protection, provision, and God’s presence. The three acts in the book of Joshua also typifies the life of a Christian. When a person comes to Christ, through grace salvation and eternal life is given. However, one receives this gift by: 1) With the help of God, dispossess the original inhabitants of our hearts (namely our sinfulness, ego, and assertion of autonomy,) and make room for God’s Spirit. 2) When we become saved, we are no longer individuals, but we live in a Christian community. We are to share (or allot) our resources with those in need. We must treat one another fairly with love, so that everyone experiences the security, protection, and provision of God. 3) We are to remain faithful to God to retain this gift. We cannot retain this salvation if we become apostates.
Remember I also wrote a blog post on land earlier?
http://blog.theoryspace.com/2009/12/09/possession/
Apr 28th, 2010
edmund
@Anson, of course I remember, and I also remember you wrote another post re: the certain Christian ideology that the Temple to be rebuilt and Israel take control of the Land again are treated with eschatological significance! That’s why I think this book will be of interest to many of us!
Apr 29th, 2010
Agent001
Interesting… I was just reading “Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians” by Gary M. Burge (2003). Was drawn to his writings because of his works on Johannine literature (“The Anointed Community”, “John” [NIVAC], etc.).
May 26th, 2010
edmund
hey seed press agent001, is “whose land? whose promise?” any good?
May 26th, 2010
Agent001
“Whose Land?” focuses more on the grim realities of modern Israel (i.e. injustice against aliens) than the interpretive, although the contours have emerged quite clearly.
My own issue is: I am not ready to supplant Israel completely by the New Testament people of God , an issue of continuity and discontinuity. Dealing with Romans 9-11 in a satisfactory manner would be a crucial exercise.
Jun 2nd, 2010
edmund
@Agent001: Yes, Israel and her r/s with the church is a thorny issue.
As I told you, I am preaching on Acts. And there is an interesting verse found on 3:23
凡不聽從那先知的，必要從民中全然滅絕。
Peter was definitely preaching to Jews near the Temple. And he was definitely referring to Jesus as the prophet. If Luke was close to Paul as we so assumed traditionally, it might shed some light on the issue as well.
Jun 3rd, 2010
Agent001
In any case, even if we grant some eschatological significance to modern nation of Israel, I agree that it would only be a partial fulfillment since justice and compassion are integral to the promise of land.
On the other hand, the typological fulfillment cited above is appealing but lack actual reference within the New Testament. Besides the Book of Hebrews, the NT is interestly rather silent on how fulfillment works out in this aspect.
Jun 11th, 2010
Reply to “Jesus and the Land”