Tag: religion

Bible, Christian living, current-events

Whose Land Is It, Anyway?

Posted on by Jay Givens

I recently saw a meme floating around social media: “Israel doesn’t occupy the land.  They OWN it. Gen 15:18-21.” There were multiple amens attached.  Certainly, the intent was to show support for Israel in response to the horrific attack on civilians by Hamas last October.  While there is a promise made in Genesis 15, it is curious that a verse referencing “everlasting” was not used, such as Genesis 13:15.  “All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever.”  This promise to Abraham was restated to him (Gen 17:8), then confirmed to Isaac (Gen 26:3) and Jacob (Gen 35:12). 

The main problem with the meme, however, is that it assumes God’s promise was without condition.  That’s certainly the response of many to the meme: “God does not break his covenants;” “Truth!” “Of course!” “I stand with Israel.”  Yet the Bible itself does not support the idea that God gifted the land to Abraham’s descendants in perpetuity without condition.

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

Before we consider these conditions, however, we must first address the wording of the meme.  God’s promises to the Patriarchs does not mean Israel “owns” the land.  God explicitly rejects such a concept in Leviticus 25:23.  “The land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.”  God is the only owner of the land.

God set conditions that the people must not sin but obey his commands in order to remain in the land (Deut 4:1; 5:33; 11:8-9; Josh 23:16; 2Chr 7:19-22; 33:7-9; Jer 11:5; 32:21-23).  Abraham, though a foreigner at the time, was told by God that the land was an everlasting possession for him and his descendants, and they must keep God’s covenant (Gen 17:8-9).  As Abraham was a foreigner in the land he possessed, so his later descendants were also foreigners.  Before entering the land, God warned Israel that if they did not keep his commands, the land would vomit them out as it did the Canaanites (Lev 18:25-28; 20:22).  By the monarchy’s end, God tells them, “You came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable” (Jer 2:7).  These detestable acts included idolatry (Deut 4:25-27; 11:16-17; 30:17-18, Josh 23:16; 1Ki 14:15-16; Jer 16:13-15) and unethical treatment of their fellow human beings.

If Israel wanted to remain in the land, they were to follow the way of justice, treating people fairly and without partiality (Deut 16:18-20).  They were not to mistreat the foreigner living among them, but were to treat them as native-born.  “Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt,” God commands (Lev 19:33-34).  Israel was driven from the land because of violence and bloodshed (Ezek 7:23-25), because they did not care for the orphan and the poor (Jer 5:28). 

Many American Christians think they are called to unwavering support of Israel, regardless of the civilian casualty count.  Some even believe Israel is entitled to the whole land, to expel the Palestinians.  This, however, contradicts the statements above (love the foreigner, care for the orphan and poor).  I believe it also misreads the biblical story, as the New Testament authors continuously spiritualized the return to the land and the restoration of Israel, reading these as the gathering of Jews and Gentiles in Christ.  For instance, the writer to the Hebrews says we don’t look toward the earthly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22; 13:11-14), but join with the Hebrew faithful, who lived as foreigners and strangers on the earth . . . longing for a better country to come (Heb 11:13-16).  Remember, he’s writing to Hebraic Jews, saying the land and temple are no longer important.

Now God can give the land to whomever he wants, whether Israeli or Palestinian.  That is up to God.  But as Christians, we should not turn a blind eye to the suffering of Palestinians—both Christian and Muslim—who did not take part in nor condone October 7.  We should not encourage Israel to violate the command of God, to limit retribution to no more than an eye for an eye (Exod 21:23-25).  1,200 died in Israel that day; why is it okay for 35,000 civilians to die in Gaza? (Even if these deaths have been overreported by 90%, that is still 3 “eyes” to 1!)

Even if the restoration texts apply to the modern state of Israel, they are not living by these texts.  The return described by the prophets were of a people with the law written on their hearts (Jer 31:31-34) of flesh, filled with God’s Spirit to obey the commands (Ezek 11:14-21; 36:22-32), and wholeheartedly fearing the Lord (Jer 32:36-41).  Isaiah says, strangers would be united to those returning (Isa 14:1-2).  Ezekiel adds that they would treat the foreigner residing in the land as a native-born and give them an inheritance in the land in whatever tribe they resided (Ezek 47:21-23).  God the shepherd would gathers his lost sheep, caring for the weak and injured but destroying the sleek and strong (Ezek 34:15-16).  It would seem Israel should strive to find a way to leave in peace with their Palestinian neighbors, not take their land nor prosper at their expense, lest they themselves be destroyed. 

The modern secular state of Israel does not live the righteous life described within the Hebrew Bible.  In many ways, their response is far more like the people of Ezekiel’s own day than his vision of the future people of God.  Just after Jerusalem’s fall to Babylon, the attacked people say to themselves: “Abraham was only one man, yet he possessed the land.  But we are many; surely the land has been given to us as our possession” (Ezek 33:24).  Yet God tells them they violated his commands, worshiped idols, shed the blood of the innocent, defiled their neighbor’s wives, and relied on their own sword rather than on him.  “Should you then possess the land?” (Ezek 33:25-26) asks the God who was, and is, and is to come (Rev 1:8).

Subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

0
religion

Revising the World Religions Course

Posted on by Jay Givens

flowers in forestThomas Guthrie described the difference between the Bible and theology using floral imagery.  He compared the formal organization of catechisms and confessions to the organized rows of flowers you would find in a botanical garden and the Bible to a walk through the woods where one can spot the various plants here or there in a haphazard fashion.[1]  (Linked full on bottom of page.)  Alister McGrath elaborated on the comparison, arguing the arrangement of flowers by species in the botanical garden helps one study each species more easily.  The garden (theology) is not an end in itself, however, but a tool to help one better clarify similarities and differences between species and more easily recognize and enjoy flowers encountered in the wild (the Bible).[2]

botanical gardenAfter two weeks of readings. lectures, and discussions in the World Religions and World Religions Discourse summer institute funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, I would propose a new way forward in the study of world religions using a modified application of Guthrie’s analogy.  A problem with most textbooks is that they present the religious traditions primarily in a botanical garden format.  This helps the student study “the Hindu” or “the Buddhist,” but it creates the impression that the rows of separated, differentiated species (“Hinduism” or “Buddhism”) are the “real world” (Hindus or Buddhists) and not simply a tool for better encountering the real world.  In the real world, life is messy and disjointed.  It isn’t a garden but a forest, sometimes overgrown and wild.  Often the chapters attempt to show the “wild side” of the religions, but students get lost in the weeds of too many historical facts or confused how a described but detached practice or movement actually connects to the lived tradition.

But what if we gathered up these lost students out of the forest, took them to a botanical garden for a fairly quick tour to gain some working reference points, then took them back to the forest for a guided tour of the same flowers in their natural habitat?  Would that give them a better understanding of the forest (the actual lived religions)?  What if, after the forest exploration we then introduced the students to a second type of artificial encounter with the flora, not the striated rows of different species in the botanical garden but variegated groupings carefully selected and arranged?  bouquetWould these bouquets (topical discussions) give the students yet a greater appreciation of the beauty and diversity of the flora encountered in the forest when left on their own?

A course following this threefold concept (with intro and conclusion) would do the following:

  • Lost in the Woods: Introduction to the study of religions.
  • Touring the Garden: The first part of the study would introduce students to some basic worldview concepts and practices of each religion, so that they have a basic concept of what a Hindu “is” in relation to a Buddhist.
  • Exploring the Forest: The middle part of the study would provide a historical discussion from the ancient past to the present, giving students a taste of how religions develop and change over time. What is the impact of cultural changes, historical events, political policies, or interaction with other religious traditions?
  • Picking Bouquets: The final section of the study would then help students consider some similarities and differences among the religions by talking about selected topics, such as missionary encounters, government responses, violence, or mysticism. The method would delve into selected events, writings, or lives across traditions.
  • At Home in the Wild: Closing reflections from a Christian perspective.

I would love to hear feedback on such a rearrangement of the subject.  While no format is perfect, I think such an arrangement would help students gain a greater appreciation for the variety of faiths and practices.  Is there something I am missing, need to remove, or rearrange?  Or am I missing the forest for all of the trees?

[1]Thomas Guthrie, Gems of Illustration from the Sermons and Other Writings of Thomas Guthrie (New York: Funk & Wagnall, 1882), 42, accessed July 25, 2017, https://books.google.com/books?id=EYxBAQAAMAAJ.

[2]McGrath, Studies in Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 249.

Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

2
Christian living

Reflections on courage: Observations from Benedict’s resignation

Posted on by Jay Givens

Courageous.  I have read and heard this term numerous times on television and in print during the past week to describe the decision of Benedict XVI to resign as pope of the Roman Catholic Church at the end of February.  Perhaps they are viewing the decision from the perspective of the world’s definition of power.  If you think power is something to be grasped rather than to become the servant of all, then perhaps the term “courageous” is justified.  The Bishop of Rome is one of the most influential people in the world and some cannot comprehend how Benedict could give up that kind of power.

Benedict said in the past that he would abdicate the See of Peter if his physical and/or mental capabilities no longer enabled him to perform the duties of that position.  Faithful to his word, he has elected to step down as his health appears to be waning.  “Courageous” to relinquish such power and responsibility?  Benedict is said to be the “Vicar of Christ.”  So if Jesus defined messiahship (i.e., Christhood) in terms of a suffering servant when the world around him insisted it should be a conquering king, then courageous is the wrong adjective.  Faithful, honorable . . . certainly.  Even visionary, as Benedict actions set a precedent (or renews one?) to place the good of the Church above personal gain.

But courageous?  John Paul II, Benedict’s immediate predecessor, comes immediately to mind as more deserving of such a moniker.  Many who use the term “courage” of Benedict clearly have John Paul in mind.  They think John Paul was selfish or lacked vision when he continued in his papal duties even as his health declined in his final years.  But John Paul emphasized the sanctity and dignity of human life throughout his reign.  All human life, he emphasized, is created in the image of God and has equal worth to God as well as to those who bear the name of Jesus.  This worth extends to the unborn babe within the womb, to the mentally ill or disabled, and even to the physically disabled and the dying.  John Paul rejected abortion and euthanasia.  More importantly, he lived what he preached, demonstrating to the end the dignity of life.  Breaking with tradition, he lived out his final days in public so that we all might hear his message.  That is courageous!  Living what you preach.  Allowing us to see the frailty of life and the dignity by which he lived his final days, rather than receding into the shadows of private life as if the elderly have no worth.  I have noted this previously: http://www.baptiststandard.com/resources/archives/45-2005-archives/3563-2nd-opinion-by-jm-givens-jr-lessons-from-the-dying.

Many have observed the last pope to resign was Gregory XII, who stepped down in 1415, almost six hundred years ago.  The prior century had been a turbulent time for the church.  Most of the fourteenth century found the Bishops of Rome residing in the south of France, until an angry mob surrounded a cardinal conclave and insisted an Italian pope be elected who would reside in Rome.  The cardinals complied, but almost immediately afterward declared a second man pope, claiming the first was illegitimately selected under duress.  For the next forty years, two men claimed the title pope.  A council in 1409, intending to resolve the issue, declared the two men deposed and elected yet a third man pope.  As neither “deposed” man recognized the council or its actions, this only exacerbated the issue.  Finally, a second council declared the popes who had reigned from Rome to be the legitimate popes.  All others were “anti-popes,” so Gregory XII was the legitimate leader of the Church.  At this recognition, Gregory chose to step down in order to put the entire embarrassing period to rest by allowing the cardinals to select a new pope, one unstained by the struggles of prior decades.

A church leader putting the unity of the Church–his denomination–ahead of his own vision for its future.  A man willing to give up personal power in order to empower others.  Here is an act of courage!  After decades of schism and political maneuvering, would that Baptists had ears to hear and eyes to see.

0