Land
1. HISTORICALLY: LAND RECOVERED
When driven from their homeland in the early decades of the sixth century
BC, the dispersed had been counselled by Jeremiah to settle down in the foreign land (Je. 294-7). Such counsel contradicted the advice of other prophets. Hananiah, for example, prophesied that Israel would return after two years (Je. 28: l-4). J eremiah stated that seventy years would elapse for Babylon before the return would be possible (Je. 25: 12; 29: 14). Hananiah was a false prophet, and as Jeremiah predicted, died within a year. Yet whether by false prophets or by true prophets, the hope for a return had been kept alive. Exiles returned to the land of Palestine following the decree of Cyrus in 538 BC in which he permitted enslaved peoples, including, Israel to return to their homelands (Ezr. 1:2-3).
a. The announcement of return to the land
One can easily count more than a dozen announcements in Jeremiah and Ezekiel that speak of Israel’s anticipated return to the land. In Jeremiah some hope announcements are juxtaposed with earlier announcements that
236 237
God’s design reafirmed: the post-monarchy era
Israel will be hurled out of the land (Je. 16: 13,lS; cf. 12:14-15; 24:1-10).
Two representative announcements of salvation oracles follow.’
For your work shall be rewarded, says the LORD;
and they shall come back from the land of the enemy (le. 31:16).
Therefore say, Thus says the LORD: I will gather you from the peoples, and as- semble you out of the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel (Ezk. 11 :17).
In the Ezekiel passage especially, the promise of return to the land is cast, with some variation, in a three-member statement, the most usual form of which is:
(1) 1 will bring you from the people (2) I will gather you from the lands (3) I will bring you into the land of Israel
(cf. Ezk. 20:34,41-42; 34:13; 36:24; 37:21; 39:27-28).
One senses a rhythmic, somewhat stereotyped manner in the announce- ment for a return. Indeed in Jeremiah and Ezekiel the announcement for return to the land might well be examined from formulaic expressions.
One formula that recurs often in Jeremiah is, ‘I will restore the fortunes,’
which in Hebrew is a combination of cognates, s’ir_b ?&+. Of the more than twenty occurences of this phrase in the Old Testament, half are in Jeremiah.
The ‘Book of Consolation’ (Je. 30-31) opens with the phrase attached here, as in most other instances, to the promise of return to the land.
For behold, days are coming, says the LORD, when 1 will restore the fortunes (w’Sab_ti ‘et-Pbti_t) of my people, lsrael andJudah, says the LORD, and I will bring them back to the land which 1 gave to their fathers, and they shall take possession of it (30:3).
Earlier translations such as the AV rendered the expression %b ?@_t as
‘restore the captivity’. For linguistic and usage reasons such a translation is unacceptable. Judging from certain occurences of the formula in Aramaic, it is likely that the formula had not to do with captivity but with economics.’
The expression was used to indicate recovery of loss sustained through economic depression or enemy incursion and then subsequent restoration to an earlier favourable position (cfi Je. 30: 18; 33: 11). The expression is as- sociated with land, not only in Jeremiah (33: 10-l 1; 32:42ff.) but elsewhere
‘In Jeremiah and Ezekiel announcements of a return to the land are found in Je. 3: 1 l-20; 12: 14-17; 16: lO- 18; 23:1-8;24; 2X:1-4; 2Y:l-14; 30:1-3, 10-11; 31:2-14; 32:1-44; 42:1-22; 50:17-20; Ezk. 20:39- 44; 34:1-16; 3X:1-36:15; 36:16-36; 37:1-14,15-28; 39:21-29.
IA discussion of the meaning and translation of iiih @ti_t may be found in E. A. Martens, ‘Motivations for
Land (Dt. 30:3; Am. 9: 14-15). Moreover, the expression is not limited to Israel but appears also in conjunction with Egypt. ‘I will restore the fortunes (Szib
?bti,t) of Egypt, and bring them back to the land of Pathros, the land of their origin’ (Ezk. 29:14). El sewhere, while not linked to land, the phrase is applied to nations such as Elam (Je. 49:39), Moab (Je. 48:47), Sodom (Ezk.
16:53), and Ammon (Je. 49:6). ‘To bring about restoration’ (Sti_b s’_bti_) is indicative of divine favour of which return to the land is a specific illustra- tion.
A second formulaic phrase found in the prophetic literature is that of
‘planting’ Israel in the land. The root ‘plant’ (~$a’) is found twenty times in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Most of these usages have a metaphorical meaning and several have Israel/Judah and the land in view as in ‘I will plant them in this land’ (Je. 32:41; cf. 24:6; 42:lO; 45:4; Ezk. 36:36). One scholar who has studied the word pair ‘build and plant’ believes that by Jeremiah’s time the combination was firmly established in the language. The subject of these verbs in the Bible is always Yahweh, and the object, where it is given, is a people, part of a group, or even several groups. While one of the terms,
‘plant’, may have a culture setting since it is used in conjunction with Israel’s history of salvation (Ps. 80:9), originally ‘build and plant’ were used as an expression of well-wishing for success at the time of the birth of a child. The wish was for the child to marry, build a house and plant a vineyard.3
In the mouth of the prophets these words are theologically coloured, however. The terms ‘build and plant’ are an attempt to present salvation history in picturesque language and to capture the familiar tones of Yahweh’s saving acts. One should add that more specifically the expression deals with land. Jeremiah announces,
1 will set my eyes upon them for good, and 1 will bring them back to this land. 1 will build them up, and not tear them down; 1 will plant them, and not uproot them (24:6).
The word ‘plant’, in contrast to ‘uproot’, suggests firmness and establish- ment and more indirectly ‘to make secure’. The force of such an expression as ‘I will plant them in the land’ is to call attention to the initiating action by God, the solicitude for success, and the prospect of security and firmness.
The promise ‘to plant and build Israel in the land’ evoked emotional feelings of warmth, of hope, of security.
The biblical record preserves the announcements for a return; it also reports the return itself. Cyrus’ edict in 538 BC paved the way for the exiles to come back to the land of Palestine. Ezra and Nehemiah report the vissici- tudes of the group in getting established in the land. Thanks to determi-
the Promise of Israel’s Restoration to the Land in mont Graduate School, lY72), pp. 172ff.
Jeremiah and Ezekiel’ (unpublished dissertation, Clare- ‘Robert Bach, ‘Bauen and Pflanzen’, in R. Rendtorff and Klaus Koch, eds., Studren ZUT 7%eologre der Alt- testamentlichen ijberlieferungen (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961).
238 239
God’s design reaffirmed: the post-monarchy era
nation, good leadership, both by religious leaders such as Haggai and Zechariah and later by civil leaders such as Nehemiah, and the good favour of God upon the returnees, the temple was rebuilt and the walls of Jerusalem were restored. The community, though small, could live eventually in safety. Of their economic fortunes we know little, for the period following the return is without much surviving literature. Some scholars claim that the elaborate promises were never realized. The announcements suggest devel- opments on a larger scale than was represented by the diminutive colony in Jerusalem. Still, the group flourished in some measure despite initial oppo-
sition from surrounding neighbours.
b.
Motivations for the return to the landOf greater interest than the historical developments for our purpose is the question-why was it important for the remnant of the people to return to the land at all? If God’s interest is for Israel to give witness of him to the nations, then might not the dispersion be a means to that goal? Besides, there was a remainder of the population left in the land of Israel. Yet the an- nouncement by the prophets promised a return, a return not only politically but also theologically motivated.
The theological reasons for the return are complex, but two observations are of significance. It was not, as popularly supposed, that God’s promise to Abraham necessitated a return of Israel to the land. Some understood the Abrahamic covenant to mean that God was committed to return Israel to the land once he had removed her. While this interpretation of covenant may have logic on its side, it does not take into account the nature of cove- nant nor of the fact that Israel on her part broke the covenant. If one exam- ines the announcements of the return in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel and asks for the motivations of the return, one discovers that not once is the earlier covenant with Abraham cited as a reason for the announcement.
Now it is true that the land is identified as the land God gave to Abraham and his descendents. This is a theological way of speaking about the land, but one will not find an argument for the return that bases itself on the Abra- hamic covenant with its promise of land. This is not to say that covenant as such is unimportant in promises of the return (cfi Ne. 1: 8-9) but it is to deny a simplistic view of the Abrahamic covenantal stipulation about land.
One of the reasons for return is threaded back in the discussion to the nature of Yahweh. Yahweh is compassionate. His concern for his people is reason for returning them to the land. In Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles, the exiles are told that God’s thoughts towards them are thoughts of well-being (S&%r)(29:10-ll).TheBookofC onsolation (chapters 30-3 l), punctua- ted with promises of the return, is also punctuated with affirmations of God’s compassion: ‘I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I 240
Y
Land have continued my faithfulness to you’ (3 1:3). The father-son metaphor is used in discussing the return: ‘I will surely have mercy on him’ (3 1:20; cf.
31:9). Apparently Jeremiah draws on the Isaianic tradition, for the state- ment ‘I will grant you mercy, . . . and let you remain in your own land’
(42:12), strongly echoes a text from Isaiah: ‘The LORD will have com- passion on Jacob.. .and will set them in their own land. . .’ (Is. 14: 1). If it is suggested that Yahweh’s compassion is directly related to covenant, then the discovery that God promises other nations a return to their homeland (12: 15) rules out the notion that God’s compassion is to be explained only out of his covenant relationship with Israel.
In our earlier discussion, Ezekiel 36: 16-36 was noted for its relevance to the subject of experiencing God. The text is essentially an answer to the question: ‘On what basis can Yahweh act for Israel now that the judgment for the sin of that nation has taken place?’ The question has a negative answer: it is not for Israel’s sake (verses 23-32). But the question also has an immediately positive answer: I will act ‘for the sake of my holy name’ (verse 22). The focus on Yahweh’s name is also evident from the structure of the passage. The historical section (verses 16-21) terminates with a consider- ation of Yahweh’s name. The predictive section (verses 22-36) opens with the concern for Yahweh’s name as the mainspring of action, the thought with which the unit ends (verse 32).
Profaning of Yahweh’s name has occurred among the nations and has been occasioned by Israel’s removal from the land (verse 20). By concluding that Israel’s defeat in war means the inability of Yahweh to deliver a people, nations have slandered and besmirched the divine name. The concept of profaning the divine name occurs in the Holiness Code in conjunction with commands about not devoting children to Moloch (Lv. 1 S-21). There one finds the instruction: ‘You shall not profane my holy name’ (Lv. 22:32).
Similarly Ezekiel talks of cult in connection with profaning Yahweh’s name (Ezk. 20:39). H he, owever, refers, as do no other prophets, to the profaning of Yahweh’s name in the political arena. It is not through misconduct as much as it is through an adverse political condition that God’s name has been profaned.
Sanctifying the name, the opposite of profaning it, is a concern for which Yahweh himself now takes responsibility (Ezk. 20:41; 36:23). In Ezekiel, every statement about sanctifying Yahweh’s name occurs in conjunction with nations, for it is in their sight that Yahweh will be sanctified. The con- crete way in which the injury done to Yahweh’s name will be undone is through the return of Israel to her land. Not the covenant, but the reputation of Yahweh himself, is the motivation for salvation action in this instance.
Ezekiel removes the ground for hope from covenant or merit or even sym- pathy for a languishing people. ‘All human arrogance and all human secur- 241
God’s design reaffirmed: the post-monarchy era
ity are thus guarded against; no appeal to the covenant at Sinai is possible any longer.‘4 Ezekiel especially anchors Yahweh’s future action in Yahweh himself. In doing so, he reaches beyond utilitarian or covenanted reasons to that which is now foundational, to God, Yahweh.
More could be said about the way in which the theology of Yahwism functions as the reason why Israel is to return to the land. Enough has been said however to underscore the fact that the prophets were concerned not merely to make dogmatic statements about Israel returning to the land, but to offer reasons why this announcement was credible. One reason was Yahweh’s compassion. Another was his reputation among the nations.
Other reasons were linked with the land, and with what it symbolized. To this symbolism we now turn.