Release From The Wilderness Of Exile
Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5)
The final issue that I would like to say something about with regard to this Beatitude is the inheritance. We have, I believe, already established who it is that would receive the blessing, and why it was that they would receive it; but what exactly is the promise that Jesus was holding out to the gentle who would refuse to use force as a means to overthrow the oppressive yoke of the Romans? The text declares that they shall inherit the gē. Our english versions of the bible have tended to translate this word as “earth”, though arguably, it would be more accurate to translate it as “land”. The word is translated both ways within the Gospel of Matthew on numerous occasions, and so ultimately, the context of the passage must determine the way in which the word should be understood. For a number of reasons, I believe that at this particular point in the Gospel, the word should be rendered as “land”, since both Jesus sermon, and Matthew’s Gospel, were intended for primarily Jewish audiences, who were interested in understanding the way in which the Jesus story served as a continuation of their own story, in which the Israelites were waiting for God to deliver them from exile, and to restore to them the land of their promised inheritance.
As will become clear, even throughout the remainder of the Sermon on the Mount, the Israelites were chosen by YHWH for a purpose which was to ultimately have an impact over the entire earth, and I in no way intend to deny this fact by calling for a revised translation of this word at this time. The reason why this is so important is not because Israel does not play an important role in God’s redemptive and re-creational purpose for the world, but rather because it most assuredly does, and we desire to see Israel in its proper context, in order that we might understand the way in which God was intending to utilize them within His plan for a worldwide restoration. YHWH had called Abraham and his descendants to be, for the world, what Adam had failed to be originally in the garden, but they to had fallen short, and been cast out of the land, just as Adam had been cast out of the garden. The story of Matthew’s Gospel is that Jesus of Nazareth had been faithful where Adam and Israel had not, and through Him, God’s project for world dominion had been put back on track. As Adam hoped for restoration to the garden, so also, Israel hoped for restoration to the land of promise, even though from there, they were to go forth with the intention of bringing the entire earth under the subjection of YHWH.
Again, this was not to be accomplished by means of brute strength or armed force; for it would be the gentle, or the meek, those who live like Jesus, those who manifest the character of YHWH, whom God would restore and preserve. In fact, as I argued last week, it is impossible to restore righteousness and justice through the exertion of military might. True power comes from the God who overcomes the strength of men by weakness. Eventually, those that chose to ignore the warnings and promises of Jesus brought down the wrath of God against Jerusalem, when in 70 ad, the city and the Temple were destroyed by the Roman armies of Titus. But then, one might ask, “How then can it be said that Jesus promise had been fulfilled, seeing that the Jesus followers never actually inherited the literal land?” This is probably because what is more important for both Matthew and Jesus is not so much the literal land itself, but the symbolic significance that is attached to it. Those who will receive the “land” are those who trust in YHWH; those who follow the new Moses by living lives characterized by meekness and gentleness; these will be those whom God will utilize to accomplish His world regenerating mission, while those who ignore the warnings of Jesus are, in essence, choosing to remain in the wilderness, where they will inevitably perish.
Brian MacArevey
I think it is important and correct to draw out the OT background of the promise as you have done, because if it is lost we don’t really have the basis for the NT expansion. Paul clearly bases the expansion of the OT land promise from ‘land’ to ‘earth’ in Romans 4:13 with his use of ‘kosmos’ (although there may be a nuance of ‘nations’ in the use of ‘kosmos’ there that if present seems to blend the promise of being the ‘father of many nations’ with ‘inheriting the land’ – I think?). I suppose that the promises in their fulfillment all make up an all-encompasing fulfillment. It’s funny since I didn’t mean to get into this ‘nuance’ but merely to point out Paul’s ‘expansive’ language in Romans 4:13 but a short statement in the “Little Kittel” and the comments by Douglas Moo on Romans 4:13 got me into it so I’m more-so thinking out loud that writing about something I’ve really thought through. My point originally was just to affirm the importance of realizing where much of the ‘expansive’ language of the NT came from and to agree with you’re doing so in your meditation. Thanks
Thanks Bryan,
This is an interesting topic to think through. I haven’t really done much of it until the past month or so, but hopefully my thinking is becoming more clear as I go
If I understand you correctly, I think that you are on to something. It’s almost like by jumping from land to earth, without understanding the narrative process by which this transformation occurs, we miss out on a great deal. The idea of land and earth seem to come together in the promise to Abraham, with the promise working outward from the land to the other nations.
Land becomes earth by a process similar to the dominion mandate; it starts in the garden, and spreads out over the face of the entire earth. In the same way , what is begun in Israel, in the land, is meant to spread over the entire earth. This seems (as far as I can see) to fit best within the biblical narrative…but my thoughts on this subject are really in the beginning stages.
Thanks again for your comments. Great work in the bible study today…by the way. Roxane and I enjoy it immensly…even the really difficult topics
We applaud your courage and gracious spirit.
Brian
Brian, something you wrote in your original post is as follows:
“YHWH had called Abraham and his descendants to be, for the world, what Adam had failed to be originally in the garden, but they to had fallen short, and been cast out of the land, just as Adam had been cast out of the garden. The story of Matthew’s Gospel is that Jesus of Nazareth had been faithful where Adam and Israel had not, and through Him, God’s project for world dominion had been put back on track. As Adam hoped for restoration to the garden, so also, Israel hoped for restoration to the land of promise, even though from there, they were to go forth with the intention of bringing the entire earth under the subjection of YHWH.”
I agree with this but I was wondering if you knew that there is a strong theological connection between the garden as Adam’s hope of restoration and the land as Israel’s hope of restoration. In other words, a connection between eden and the promised land. John Sailhamer in his book “Genesis Unbound” presents the view that Eden and the promised land are implied to be one and the same and therefore Israel’s hope was a paradigm for mankind’s hope. G. K. Beale in his book “The Temple and the Church’s Mission” presents the view that the eden was essentially the temple of the world which was meant to ‘expand’ through Adam’s priestly role/dominion. In Israel the tabernacle’s structure and furnishings, and later the temple’s structure and its furnishings both exhibited and modeled the original edenic temple and were meant to accomplish the same purpose of an expanding cosmic temple. So it is not really just the garden or the land that are the hope, but what was in them , namely the cosmic temple that was meant to expand to fill the cosmos which by the way is what happens in Revelation 21-22.
Another interesting thing is to consider these things in light of Jesus statement ‘destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up’ along with something else I never really knew but stumbled on it today and need to study it more: the idea that Jesus is the embodiment of the land. I found this idea in Walter Brueggemann’s “The Land”. Here is a short quote that is really interesting in light of your statements concerning the meek inheriting the land: “”Thus crucifixion/resurrection echoes the dialectic of possessed land lost/exiles en route to the land of promise. Jesus embodies precisely what Israel has learned about land: being without land makes it possible to trust the promise of it, while grasping land is the sure way to lose it. The powerful are called to dispossession. The powerless are called to power. The landed are called to homelessness. The landless are given a new home . Both are called to discipleship, to be ‘in Christ,’ to submit to the one who has become the embodiment of the new land.” Of course this quote is not in context but I think you can see that he is stating how “the meek shall inherit the land.”
I guess I could summarize that these scholars seem to be showing the truth of Paul’s statement that “all the promises of God find their yes in Him.”
Bryan
Bryan,
I actually have heard of this relationship between the garden and the land, and also the temple and the garden (though my first encounter with it was in Bruce Waltke’s commentary on Genesis). I would also agree with you that as far as the larger meta-narrative of scripture goes, the true hope is not limited to the land or the garden, but the expansion of God’s temple and worldwide dominion. In this particular post, I was trying to focus on the immediate mindset of Israel, though what you are saying is important and true.
The relationship between Jesus and the temple is also something that I am familiar with. In fact, Nicholas Perrin is coming out with a book that I am very interested reading, “Jesus the Temple”, which will be available at the end of the month. I have never heard the connection between Jesus and the land…though it sounds interesting, and seems to make sense at first glance. I hope you’ll follow up on it and let me know how that goes.
Brian