Land
2. THEOLOGICALLY: LAND AS SYMBOL
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.
Land God’s design reaffirmed: the post-monarchy era
it was a land which God had given to the fathers ‘to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts’ (Ne. 9:36). As God had once intended for Israel to enjoy the blessing of abundance, so he still intendedit for Israel, as Jeremiah reported:
‘I would . . . give you a pleasant land, a heritage most beauteous of all nations’ (Je. 3: 19). The land was a choice land, God’s inheritance with which he had now endowed Israel (Je. 12: 14).
Returning people could anticipate fruitfulness and abundance. Yahweh as shepherd would feed his people in good grazing ground. ‘On fat pastures they shall feed on the mountains of Israel’ (Ezk. 34: 14). Moreover he would make the places around his hill a blessing and send showers of blessing, and the ‘trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase’ (Ezk. 34:27; cfi 36:8). Yahweh would call forth the grain. Israel would not have famine, for the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field would be multiplied (Ezk. 36:30). Prior to Ezekiel’s announcement, Jeremiah had struck the same chord. God would rejoice over his people to do them good (Je. 32:41) and Israel would be radiant over the bounty of Y a h w e h - ‘over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd’ (Je. 3 1: 12). God would fill the soul of the priests with abundance and ‘my people shall be satisfied with my goodness’ (Je. 3 1: 14).
Once back in the land, Israel could expect prosperity. Indeed the land, now as earlier, was a cipher for abundance.
The land was to be a cipher also for rest.’ Since the nations round about desired control of Palestine, there was continual unrest. The material wealth of the land could be enjoyed fully, however, only when the
‘international’ situation was stabilized. The earlier ideal had been that upon entry into the land Israel would cease from her wandering and enjoy rest (Dt. 3:20; 12:lO). Nowin theexileEzekie1 hadthemosttosayonthesubject of rest. Dangers to peaceful living, whether from beasts within the land or enemy nations without the land, would be removed (34:28), for God would make a covenant of peace (37:26). Israel will also live securely (39:36; cfi 28:6; 34:28). T h e mountains will not be relieved of their inhabitants (36:12), but God will feed the flock, and ‘lead them to rest’ (34:15). The land of Israel is synonymous with a good life, for here one may enjoy the abundance of the land without fear or worry.
The land of Israel became a symbol in still another way. A specific kind of moral and religious life was appropriate to the land. Here also one may observe something familiar and something new. The familiar note is that a certain purity is necessary for life in the land. Jeremiah in his temple sermon had pleaded with the people to amend their ways, to cease from oppressing
‘An essay by G. von Rad discusses the subject of land as rest, though with different presuppositions than those adopted in this book. ‘There Still Remains a Rest for the People of God’, The Problem ofthe Hexa- teuch and Other Essays (New York: McGraw-Hill; London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966).
the alien and orphan, to refrain from walking after other gods. It was promised that upon compliance with these moral and religious demands, Yahweh would let the people continue in the land (Je. 7:l-7). Similarly, Ezekiel in offering a rebuttal to those still back in Israel who now claimed a possession of the land, stated the moral requirements important for continuing existence in that land: if you ‘lift up your eyes to your idols, and shed blood; should you then possess the land? You resort to the sword, you commit abominations and each of you defiles his neighbour’s wife. Should you then possess the land?’ (33:25-26). The answer was ‘no,’ because certain behaviour was inappropriate to life in the land. Upon returning, Ezra recognized that the land was unclean by reason of the abominations and impurities with which the people of the land defiled it (Ezr. 9: 11). It was important therefore to stress that upon entry into the land people in Israel would ‘remove from it all its detestable things and all its abominations’
(Ezk. 11:18). Part of the hope included the prospect that, once upon the land, purification of heart would occur so that Israel would no longer defile itself with detestable things (Ezk. 37:23). That hope was echoed by Zechariah, through whom the LORD said he would save his people from the land of the East and from the land of the West, bring them back to live in Jerusalem, and ‘they shall be my people and I will be their God, in faithftllvless and righteousness’ (Zc. 8 : 7-8). Nor was it a strange word, for the association between upright living and the land was well established in the tradition.
Ezra’s reform is built specifically on his perception that life in the land is possible when premised upon genuine morality. For Ezra the land is unclean, that is, unacceptable for covenantal life (Ezr. 9:ll). The purification requires action which will define the moral boundaries.
Israelites are not to intermarry (Ezr. 9: 12). The result will be ‘. . . that you may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inherit- ance to your children for ever’ (Ezr. 9:12). The reformers regarded marriage, sabbath-keeping and land distribution as decisive, since it was because of failure in these areas that land had been lost in the first place (Ne. 5:3-5a).”
The new note sounded by Ezekiel was that God himself would spiritually qualify the people to live in the land by giving them a new heart. Having affirmed that he would give them the land of Israel (Ezk. 11: 17), Yahweh continued, ‘I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them’ (Ezk.
11:19-20; cfi 36:26-27). J eremiah also spoke about people being spiri-
*Cfi W. Brueggemann, Tile Land (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977; London: SPCK, 1978), pp. lS3ff.
Brueggemann offers a vigorous treatment on the theological dimensions of ‘land’ generally.
244 24s
,, I
God’s design reaffirmed: the post-monarchy era
tually qualified, but for the most part construed that qualification as coming about through a repentance by the people prior to coming into the land. In this respect he stood in the tradition of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah.
But Ezekiel broke with the line of prophetic tradition by promising a return of the people to the land following which God would specifically qualify them by giving to them a new heart. ‘Israel will return to its God not before the redemption but after it, after it has returned to its own land.” In either case, however-and this point is crucial-there was insistence that conduct in the land be God-approved. Land had come to signify a particular life- style appropriate to it.
There remains at least one other significant dimension in the multifaceted symbolism of land: divine revelation. The foregoing aspects of land theology are affirmations of earlier positions and tradition, though with some variations to be sure. Ezekiel, however, introduced a new note when he maintained that God’s action of returning Israel to the land would serve as a demonstration before the nations of Yahweh’s identity. The land would be a tool for Yahweh’s self-revelation. In the foregoing pages we have already had opportunity to observe how the nations belittled Yahweh’s name since his people had to go out of the land. Yahweh redresses this poor judgment by asserting that when Israel returns to her land, that event shall bring to the nations an acknowledgment of Yahweh (Ezk. 36:18ff.). The land becomes a medium whereby Yahweh can make something clear about himself in a concrete way. Land, whether in conjunction or disjunction with Israel, has a revelatory function. Of course it is not the turf which by itself bears witness to Yahweh, but land functions as a grid in reference to which Yahweh’s moves with his people become both discernible and significant.
Land is a tool, a visual aid in the educative process of the nations. It is more, however, for that which is to be known about Yahweh is to be made clear through the destiny of the people with respect to land. Remove land from the salvation message of these prophets and they are left one-armed.
In the texts that depict the life in the land Yahweh is shown as a God of nature whose blessing means fruitfulness and increase. But of the texts that tell of the reasons for return, Yahweh is shown as a God of history, who by means of something as tangible as land can be identified. The land holds both the God of history and the God of nature together as one.‘”
It was in various ways that God throughout history revealed himself.
Educative tools in this process include the holy war, the tabernacle, theophany, and the temple; but to this list must be added ‘land’ also.
“J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (New York: Macmillan, 1955; London: George Allen & Unwin, 1956), pp. 117ff.
“‘E.A. Martens, ‘Motivations’, p. 353.
246
ht1d
Land is indeed significant as living space. But as the foregoing discussion has shown, ‘land’ took on symbolic nuances such as gift, promise, blessing, and revelation.
3. THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS
Given that richness in symbolism one may ask how the theme of land functions in the New Testament. It is frequently noted that there is little mention of ‘land’ in the New Testament. Jesus does state in the beatitudes,
‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth’ (Mt. 5:5), and one might make a connection between ‘land’ and the promise of the new heavens and the new earth. In a more abstract way, as W. Brueggemann has noted, there is in the gospels a constant inversion. Those grasping land lose it and those who receive the gift have it (Lk. 9:24; 13:30; 14: 1 l).” The land of Palestine, however, is not a major theme in the gospels or in the epistles.
But may it not be on the level of its symbolism that the bridge between the Old Testament and the New Testament on this theme must be built? In the New Testament Jesus has much to say about the kingdom of God. It is not to be defined in earthly terms, and yet it, like land, has been promised; it is a gift. Like the land, it is to be characterized by a specific life-style by its citizenry.
Central to the kingdom of God is God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Is it not apparent, to take another perspective, that the theological significance of land finds its counterpart precisely in the person of Christ himself? In this chapter we have identified the theology of the land as comprising a set of symbols including gift, promise, blessing, life-style and revelation. Initially the land is turf, a physical reality. Beyond that physical entity land functions in history as promise, not once to Abraham but a second time in the exile.
Similarly Christ is the figure of promise, as repeated statements and the an- ticipating tenor of the New Testament signify. Speaking of Hebrews 11: 13- 16, W. Brueggemann said, ‘It is sobering for New Testament exegesis to recognize that the single central symbol for the promise of the gospel is land’.” Land is gift. So clearly also is the Saviour, Jesus Christ (Jn. 3:16).
Land signifies the good life with its abundance and rest. Did not our Lord declare, ‘I came that they may have life and have it abundantly’? (Jn. 10: 10).
The writer to Hebrews likens the rest made possible in the land to the rest to be enjoyed by the Christian (Heb. 3-4). Occupation of the land called for a definite life-style; so does following Jesus call for a singular life-style. Land was something of a revelational medium. Jesus was the last and greatest word in God’s revelation to man. There may even be some echo in the
“W. Brueggemann, The Land, p. 172.
Illbid., p. 179.
247
God’s design reaffirmed: the post-monarchy era
language usage between being ‘in the land’ and being ‘in Christ’. Thus in dif- ferent ways land anticipates Jesus Christ.
Since land is a place, a geographical entity, the question has sometimes been posed: will the land of Israel figure uniquely in future Jewish history as it has in the past? Evangelical scholars differ as to the answer. The possi- bility must not only be left open but perhaps underscored, and that for several reasons: if God will deal with the nation Israel in the future in a singular way, then the importance of land is at once clear (Rom. 9-11).
Moreover, there remains a surplus of promises, even granting that Jere- miah’s and Ezekiel’s announcements were fulfilled in the return from the exile under Joshua and Zerubbabel. Specific promises such as the restora- tion of Judah and Joseph/Ephraim are foretold in Zechariah 10:6-7. In context this must be a future gathering, for the return under Zerubbabel is for Zechariah an event in the past.
The subject of land is a major subject in the OldTestament, not least of all because of the themes that come to be affiliated with it. Those themes, along with the over-arching divine plan, are brought into sharpest focus in the New Testament.
248