Luter, A. Boyd

English

Liberty University Digital Commons

Liberty UniversityDigitalCommons@LibertyUniversityFaculty Publications and Presentations Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and GraduateSchool2012Book Review: Jesus and the Land: The NewTestament Challenge to "Holy Land" TheologyA. Boyd LuterLiberty University, abluter@liberty.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubsPart of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Systematic/DoctrinalTheology CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School at DigitalCommons@LibertyUniversity. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@LibertyUniversity. For more information, please contact scholarlycommunication@liberty.edu.Recommended CitationLuter, A. Boyd, "Book Review: Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to "Holy Land" Theology" (2012). FacultyPublications and Presentations. Paper 386.http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/386book reviewsmarch 2011 217treatment of  Matt 25:14–30 and Luke 12:13–21). Burge’s work would also be helped by giving a summary of  and/or interacting with various hermeneutical approaches and theological systems (e.g. various forms of  dispensationalism and covenant theology; the NT use of  the OT), because they play a signi.cant role in developing a theology of  land. The brevity of  this work, therefore, leaves something to be desired.Second, some will discard his NT conclusions because they lack su/cient OT warrant. Conversely, those who agree with his conclusions will likely wish he had spent more time examining how the OT develops the theme of  land within itself  before jumping to intertestamental literature and the NT. Many will not likely agree with his treatment of  the OT (less than eleven pages!), because this is where the OT promises to Israel are given and developed. This lack of  exegetical support can be seen in his treat-ment of  Rom 4:13. The promise to Abraham and his o0spring that he would be heir of  the world .nds more support than in Gen 12:3. For example, Gen 26:3–4 has the unique plural “lands” and, when read in conjunction with Gen 22:17–18, makes the connection to Abraham’s seed who will possess/inherit the gate of  his enemies. Thus, Paul is not spiritualizing texts when he claims that Abraham and his o0spring would be heir of  the world. In other words, Paul is putting together the parts of  the covenant and, as a result, sees Abraham inheriting the world as people, both Jew and Gentile, come to faith in Jesus Christ. This idea is further developed across the OT with the formation of  Israel, possession of  the land under Joshua, and highlight of  Israel’s life under David and Solomon (not to mention the theme of  rest). Therefore, while the Promised Land was a speci.c, regional territory, there are su/cient reasons from the OT to conclude that it anticipated something more, which is described with Edenic terms and imagery.Finally, Burge does not give su/cient attention to eschatology and the biblical motif  of  the new creation. When popular eschatology is often speculative, sensational, and divorced from good biblical theology, there is a need to discuss the eschatological hope that will come at the end of  the age, when the present creation will give way to a (re)new(ed) creation. The theme of  land, then, .ts nicely into the wider scope of  bibli-cal theology and eschatology. More speci.cally, the land promised to Abraham, which was inhabited and lost throughout Israel’s history, is important because it picks up the place of  God’s people that was lost in Eden, thus serving as a subsequent place in God’s unfolding plan. Furthermore, this place anticipates and prepares the way for the coming of  Jesus Christ, in whom all of  the blessings of  the land are found as a result of  inaugurating a new era of  salvation history. And .nally, those united to Christ by faith in this era of  salvation history await their .nal place with God, the new creation, to which the land of  promise pointed.With these weaknesses aside, Burge has provides a helpful resource in understand-ing how the NT challenges “Holy Land” theology. No one, of  course, will agree with all of  Burge’s conclusions. Still, we can be grateful for a work that takes Scripture on its own terms, puts forth a cohesive message, and applies it to today’s world.Oren R. Martin  The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KYJesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology. By Gary M. Burge. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010, xiv + 153 pp., $21.99 paper.Gary Burge is professor of  New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. He has been best known for his work on the Fourth Gospel (most notably, Interpreting journal of the evangelical theological society 54/1218the Gospel of John [Guides to New Testament Exegesis; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992]; John [NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000]; and John: The Gospel of Life [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008]). For some, though, what is not as well known is that, going all the way back to undergraduate study at the American University in Beirut in the early 1970s, Burge has had a deep passion for the Middle East and the people there, especially those in the Palestinian churches. The present volume plows similar ground to his earlier books on this subject: Who Are God’s People in the Middle East? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); and Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 2003). More on this later in the review.Several things attracted me to writing this review. First, my own background in relation to the Middle East goes back almost as far as Burge’s. My 2rst trip there was during seminary, in 1974. In the process, I was shaken by shelling nearby while in the airport in Beirut. Second, parallel to Burge’s experience (see p. 112), I too have eaten lunch at Jerusalem University College, talking with pastors and teachers from across the United States. Third, in our earlier publishing careers, Burge and I often contributed to the same projects (e.g. Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, and Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues). Fourth, a book to which I contributed a chapter (entitled “Israel and the Nations in God’s Redemptive Plan” in Israel, the Land and the People: An Evangelical A!rmation of God’s Promises [ed. H. Wayne House; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998] 283–97) is included in Burge’s an-notated “Further reading” section (pp. 141–43). More about this also later in the review.Jesus and the Land contains an introduction and eight concise chapters, followed by endnotes (pp. 132–40), two listings for “Further reading” (pp. 141–45), the latter of  which is focused on “The Israel-Palestine Con4ict” (pp. 143–45). The last feature of the book is an “Index of  biblical and ancient sources” used in the book (pp. 147–53).In his introduction (pp. ix–xiv), Burge helpfully illustrates how widespread is the emotional tie among humanity to land, setting up the fact that both Jews and those of Arab extraction live in the land that is known geographically as Palestine. He closes by stating that he prefers “the inclusive term, Israel-Palestine” to “Promised Land” or “Holy Land.” The rest of  the book explains that choice.Chapter 1, “The Biblical Heritage” (pp. 1–14), is a sketchy overview of  the OT view of  land, the promise to Abraham, and what happened to the Jews long-term, due to their disobedience to the Lord. From the section “After the Exile” to the end of  the chap-ter (pp. 9–14), Burge primarily discusses the Jewish rabbinical writings rather than Scripture, but it is not clear at this juncture where he is going with that methodology.In chapter 2, “Diaspora Judaism and the Land” (pp. 15–24), Burge cites nothing but extrabiblical Jewish writings, notably Philo and Josephus, who muted or spiritualized the land promises to Israel. Where Burge is moving in his argument becomes clearer with this statement: “Here we see that Judaism’s ‘Land Theology’ has been entirely rede2ned” (p. 24).Since it is also the title of  the whole book, I was initially confused that chapter 3 is titled “Jesus and the Land” (pp. 25–42). Yet, as I read on in the book, I began to “get it.” In chapter 3, Burge concludes that Jesus “expresses no overt a5rmation of  2rst-century territorial theologies. He does not repeat Judaism’s call to land ownership” (p. 40; italics his).Burge clari2es the title to chapter 3 in chapter 4, “The Fourth Gospel and the Land” (pp. 43–57). Here, Burge’s long familiarity with the Johannine Literature is on display. The overall point of  his discussion here is: “In the Fourth Gospel, the land is subsumed within John’s theology of  Christological replacement/ful2llment” (p. 57). In other words, book reviewsmarch 2011 219in Burge’s view, the Gospel of  John teaches that Jesus replaces the Temple, the feasts, and any perceived claim the Jews had to the land of  Israel.Frankly, chapter 5, “The Book of  Acts and the Land” (pp. 58–72), chapter 6, “Paul and the promises to Abraham” (pp. 73–94), and chapter 7, “Developments beyond Paul” (pp. 95–109) do little to add to Burge’s earlier argument—they just “Amen!” it. Simply put, Burge asserts that, since these books, making up the majority of  the NT, do not lay out an obvious spotlighted “territorial theology,” they must not have one.Chapter 8, “Land, Theology, and the Church” (pp. 110–31), is hardly a typical con-cluding chapter. It is as long as any chapter in the book. Undoubtedly, the reason for that is, besides brie.y summarizing his conclusions in “Thinking Christianly about the land” (pp. 125–31), Burge invests considerable space in describing and critiquing “Christian Zionism,” especially its distinctive “territorial theology” and other troubling features (pp. 112–25).The perceived strengths of  Jesus and the Land are several. First, it is well written and highly readable. Second, it makes a powerful cumulative case. Third, it does so in brief  compass, which means that the reader is unlikely to “not see the forest for the trees.” Fourth, Burge’s expertise in both the relevant ancient Jewish sources and the Fourth Gospel are impressive. Fifth, the annotated bibliography is quite helpful, even if  not balanced. Sixth, to a signi/cant degree, Burge’s description and assessment of “Christian Zionism” is largely on target, even if  not speci/c enough at certain points. Seventh, Burge’s view that Jesus replaces the land promise, though the Jews still have a salvi/c future in God’s plan (see his discussion of  Romans 9–11 on pp. 87–91), o0ers a creative via media between classic covenantal “replacement theology” (i.e. the church replaces Israel in all aspects) and classic dispensationalism’s insistence on the ongoing unconditional land aspect of  the Abrahamic Covenant.Yet, Jesus and the Land is not without serious weaknesses. First—and possibly in an attempt to keep the book shorter—Burge employs a frustrating tendency to engage in “front-end-load” exegesis. What I mean by that is he spends more time, and gives more biblical examples, in his discussion of  passages in the Gospels, only to repeatedly read earlier conclusions onto his later passages in a “we’ve seen this before” wave of  the hand. Second—and parallel to the /rst concern—is what amounts to the widespread use of  argument from silence. Burge e0ectively alleges that, because there is not a ringing obvious re-statement of  the OT land promises in the NT, they must have been “replaced.” However, he o0ers no satisfying answer to the “forever” wording of  the Abrahamic promises, as what Walter Kaiser championed as “antecedent (i.e. existing, and assumed by later writers, biblical) theology.” Third, Burge ignores (i.e. absent from his index of  scriptural usage), or inadequately treats, numerous relevant biblical pas-sages, the most glaring of  which are: (1) Genesis 17, 25 (dealing with the Arab peoples descended from Abraham); (2) Deuteronomy 28–30; (3) Ezekiel 36–37; (4) several pas-sages in Daniel, particularly the phrase “abomination of  desolation” said to be “standing in the holy place” (i.e. most naturally understood as “in the Temple”) in (5) Matt 24:15, just before the wording (6) “those in Judea” (Matt 24:16) and “at that time there will be great tribulation, the kind that hasn’t taken place from the beginning of  the world” (Matt 24:21), plus (7) the references to “the beautiful land” (Dan 11:41) and (8) “the beautiful holy mountain” just prior to the “great tribulation” (Dan 12:1) and resurrec-tion at the end of  the age (Dan 12:2; see 11:40); (9) Rev 11:8 (“where also their Lord was cruci/ed” [i.e. Jerusalem]); and (10) “the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon” (Rev 16:16; italics mine). Fourth, at several points, Burge’s citation of  Jewish writers, like Philo or Josephus, or rabbinical sources, leaves the impression that they not only re.ect the thought of  some prominent Jews of  the day about “the land,” especially in regard to accommodating the Diaspora and the destruction of  Jerusalem in AD 70, but journal of the evangelical theological society 54/1220that they were correct. However, why does that make any more sense than to conclude that Catholic theologians of  the medieval era, who developed the Catholic sacramental and scholastic theological systems, were right because they went almost unchallenged until Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, or that postmillennialism is correct because it was the prevailing eschatological view of  earlier great periods of  revival? Fifth, Burge—pur-posely or not—implies that any who defend the “forever” land promises to Israel are at least borderline “Christian Zionists.”Relatedly, Burge’s annotation in regard to Israel: The Land and the People, men-tioned above, surprised me. While Burge is correct that “the land promises for modern Israel [are] often used by Christian Zionists to buttress modern political theologies” (p. 142), that wording leaves open highly misleading implications. Using myself  as an example, though I do see biblical signi3cance in the modern state of  Israel, I am far from a Christian Zionist. Like Burge, I believe Israel should be held responsible for the wrongness and brutality of  some of  their actions (though the Palestinians, particularly the terrorists among them, should also). Also, because of  the secondary conditional-ity (i.e. the aspect of  obedience) seen in the development of  the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 22:16–18; 26:4–5), as well as several other relevant OT passages, I conclude that Israel could easily be removed from the land again by God (then later restored and kicked out again), as they have been twice before in history, because of  their ongoing disobedience and unbelief.Before closing, though neither a strength nor weakness, it is worth asking, “Why would someone write three books on a topic as specialized as this?” After all, it is not like Burge is writing contribution after contribution on John for di4erent series. My sense is that, as noted at the beginning of  this review, this issue truly is a passion for Gary Burge, even much more than an academic subject. If  that is correct, Jesus and the Land should perhaps be read more as an impassioned plea by a scholar than as scholarly argumentation.In conclusion, despite the problems discussed above, this is a signi3cant volume, the best I have seen of  the general anti-Christian Zionist perspective currently avail-able. I would recommend it, but with a caveat: Expect a compact, attractively-packaged, impassioned presentation of Burge’s “Jesus replaces the land promises to Israel” theol-ogy, but not a measured objective treatment. In saying that, however, I am concerned as to whether many students or laypersons who have not carefully studied the biblical covenants and had an extensive exegetical exposure to broader biblical prophecy will have the discernment to track Burge’s hermeneutical/expositional sleight-of-hand (“now you see it, now you do not”) and selectivity in regard to what scriptural passages he chose to treat (or omit).A. Boyd Luter Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg, VA Comal Country Church, Canyon Lake, TXReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Book Review: Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to  Holy Land  Theology

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&amp;context=lts_fac_pubs

Book Review: Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to Holy Land Theology

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Liberty University Digital Commons