"Ever since the occupation of Palestine by the Jewish settlers in the early 1900s and the establishment of the modern state of Israel after the war of 1947-48, the land and state of Israel have figured prominently in some end times scenarios. Often these views are based on interpretations of Old Testament prophecies about the land of Israel that take no account of how such texts are related to Christ in the New Testament. That is, they skip happily off the pages of Ezekiel and the land in the twentieth century, without reference to what the New Testament teaches about the fulfillment of Old Testament hopes in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
In the Old Testament, of course, the promise and gift of the land form a major part of Israel's faith. Paul reminds us that all Old Testament promises have their 'Yes and Amen' in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). Whether Gentiles or Jews, believers in Christ constitute the spiritual seed of Abraham and are heirs to the covenant and promise (Galatians 3:26-28; cf. Romans 4:11-12). But that promise made to Abraham had the land as a major constituent. If all the great themes of Old Testament faith and ritual converge typologically on Christ, where does the land fit in?
The New Testament gives no special theological place to the land of Palestine, simply as territory . The land as a holy place has ceased to have relevance for Christians.The vocabulary of blessing, holiness, promise, gift, inheritance, rest, and so on is never used of the territory inhabited by the Jewish people anywhere in the New Testament as it so frequently is in the Old. All these 'landed' realities were transferred to Christ himself (just like the sacrifices, the priesthood, the temple, and the kingship).
Paul's teaching on the new status of the Gentiles in Christ (Ephesians 2:11-3:6) is rich in Old Testament land imagery. Gentiles, before coming to Christ, were 'excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise'; that is, they had had no share in the land-kinship membership of Israel (2:12). But through the cross of Christ, Gentiles 'are no longer foreigners and strangers [landless dependants], but fellow citizens with God's people and members of his household' (2:19). This speaks of permanence, security, inclusion, and practical responsibility (cf. 3:6). This is exactly what 'being in the land' meant of Old Testament Israel. But now that same security is enjoyed by all in Christ--believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews. What Israel had through their land, all believers now have through Christ. Now Christ himself takes over the significance and the function of that old land-kinship qualification. To be 'in Christ ' carries the same status and responsibilities as to be 'in the land '.
The writer to the Hebrews wanted to reassure Jewish believers in Jesus that they had lost nothing of their great inheritance, but rather had it all the more richly and eternally in Christ. Look at what he tells them 'we have ': We have the land--described as 'the rest', which even Joshua did not finally achieve for Israel, but into which we can enter through Christ (Hebrews 3:12-4:11). We have a high priest (4:14, 8:1, 10:21). We have an altar (13:10). We have a hope through the covenant (6:19-20). We have confident access into the Holy Place, so we have the reality of tabernacle and temple (10:10). We have come to Mount Zion (12:22).
We have a kingdom (12:28). Indeed, according to Hebrews, the only thing we do not have is that here we have no earthly territorial city (13:14). In the light of all the other positive 'haves', this clear negative stands out all the more significantly. There is no 'holy land' or 'holy city' for Christians. We have no need of either. We have Christ.
We must also point out that nowhere at all does the New Testament build any of its teaching about the future of either Christians or Jews or the world around future events involving a renewed independent state of Israel in the land (in New Testament times, of course, there was no state of Israel; Judea and other parts of the land were subject parts of the Roman Empire. There had been no independent state called Israel on that soil since the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians in 721 BC). Of course, Paul does indeed talk about God's continuing love for the Jews and speaks of them being 'grafted back' into their original olive tree, through faith in Jesus. But it is a categorical mistake to simply equate what the New Testament teaches about Jewish people in general with the modern state of Israel alone.
Now, of course, it is not surprising that many Jews have a deep attachment to the land of their ancestors, or that they continue to hold to a territorial understanding of the land promise to Abraham, since they do not accept the fundamental Christian premise that, as Paul says, 'what God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus' (Acts 13:32-33). One has to say, though, that not all Jews have by any means supported the establishment of the state of Israel or approve of its continued actions over the past half century, and many sincere Jews reject Zionism politically and theologically; moreover many are dismayed by the behavior of Israel socially and militarily.
But no single land or city on earth has a special or holy significance for Christians . The centre of our faith is not a place but a person, the person of Jesus the Messiah. And he is Lord of all the earth and will return to claim the whole earth.
Some 'end times' scenarios predict a localized return of Jesus to Jerusalem, or the rebuilding of the temple there, or the last great battle of Armageddon literally fought in the land of modern Israel. These sensational predictions (some of which casually entertain scenarios involving massive loss of life) enter into popular Christian fiction and folk religion. But they also affect powerful political agendas, and that makes them more potentially insidious. They give a privileged place in God's alleged final agenda for world history to the modern state of Israel on the basis of some questionable interpretations of Scripture. This, then, leads those who endorse such views to an unbiblical suspension of any prophetic critique of the oppressive policies and practices of that state.
For some Christians, the modern Israeli state is excused from any moral or international accountability because it is 'fulfilling prophecy.' Such an attitude of blind 'support for Israel' stands in jarring contrast to the words of most of the actual biblical prophets themselves, and even of Jesus. It has always seemed strange to me that anybody who dares voice criticism of the modern Israeli state is quickly accused (by some Jews and Christians alike) of anti-Semitism. Yet, by that standard, Jesus, Paul, and the prophets would all have to be put on the same charge--which is wildly ridiculous, since all of them profoundly loved their own people, yet spoke the most trenchant words of prophetic accusation against idolatry, oppression, and racist nationalism within Israel itself. In fact, it is clear that Jesus point-blank refused to accept the agenda of Jewish territorial and political nationalism of his own day and spoke out against it. It is hard to see how he could endorse its modern equivalent." pgs 167-170
- Christopher J. H. Wright
from: http://www.amazon.com/God-Dont-Understand-Reflections-Questions/dp/0310275466/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363462038&sr=1-1&keywords=the+god+i+don%27t+understand
No comments:
Post a Comment