Words'nTone

The Land and the Earth Belong to God
The paradigmatic use of such Old Testament ethical contexts is also affirmed by that fact that the Land of Gift and the whole earth belong to God.  This is significant for the non-poor Christian, despite current American notions of private property.  First, God’s laws were intended to enlighten the nations (cf. Dt 4:5-8), so the principles, acts, symbols, and mediating structures in such Old Testament ethical contests were to find application in all cultures.  C. Wright assumes that “if God gave Israel certain specific institutions and laws, they were based on principles which have universal validity.  That does not mean that Christians should attempt to impose by law provisions lifted directly from the law of Moses.  It does, however, mean that they ought to work to bring their social-economic location nearer to conformity with the principles underlying the concrete laws of Old Testament paradigm,” because the same God who is the Redeemer and law-giver of Israel is also the Creator and Ruler of contemporary mankind.” Everything rests on the concept that the true owner of the land is Yahweh.  As Israel was to be a light to the nations, “Israel’s socio-economic life and institutions, therefore, have a paradigmatic or exemplary function in principle.”

The Old Testament affirms God’s ownership “as extending over the whole earth and including every living and inanimate thing upon it.” Even property, under Mosaic Law, was not truly individual or private as in we are conditioned to view through American mediating structures (e.g., history, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, local zoning laws, etc.) today; it was related to family and economic sustainability—a key to understanding the role of land and the proper view of ownership.  Ancient laws as those revealed through Moses in the exodus “were paradigmatic, giving models of behaviors and models of prohibitions/punishments relative to those behaviors.” We ought to keep in mind that the land was gift and thus, land holders were formed by the relationship to Yahweh to the land: Yahweh was the actual King over Israel, who owned all the land and made distinctive demands reflecting His righteousness and glory on those to whom he gave it to use.  Under Yahweh each family had their own land, not necessarily individual plots of land, but land associated with tribe, the family.  Israel’s ideal was a form of decentralized family ‘ownership’ as stewardship under Yahweh’s absolute ownership.” This is important for understanding the relationship of those in power (i.e., those at the gate could not impose decisions that centralized power and neglected the reason for the distribution of land, particularly for family economic stability) and how people’s relationship to the land was to reflect the virtues God had presented as comparable to surrounding dieties and tehir image-bearers.  There was even an apologetic nature (i.e., read evangelistic) to be demonstrated through the people’s relationshipt o the land.

Those who affirm the Bible as God’s Word hold differing views on how the Scriptures should be used to provide ethical guidance to the social arena today.  It is important therefore to be clear on the hermeneutical framework used in the paper.  God provided in the Pentateuch institutions to govern this-earthly society of early Israel and the ‘ethical emphases’ of these institutions are intended to inform all peoples and nations (Gn. 18:18, Is. 51:4). The ethical emphases of the pentateuchal provisions find affirmation throughout the Bible (e.g., Lk. 16:19-31), along with the reference to God’s covenantal love (Lev 19:18) as fulfillment of the ‘Law and Prophets’ (Mk. 12:28-31, Rms. 13:9, Gal. 5:14) makes this clear.

Fulfilling the land-management stipulations regarding the economically vulnerable and the poor is a God vs. the gods conflict, actually raising justice for the poor to the level of apologetics and evangelism.  Apologetics is embedded in how God-people, that is disciples of Jesus, treat, protect, provide, and advocate for the economically vulnerable.  As the One true God, if He does not demonstrate care, provide for, and protect the poor and economically vulnerable, then He is no God at all—at just one god among other gods.  Furthermore, when the people who are to reflect His image (collectvely and as individuals) do not provide a profile and outcomes indicating such concern and advocacy, not only does this diminish His glory, but negates the witness and proclamation of His name among outsiders.  It should be no surprise then that the Gospel, that is the present act of God in Christ, is defined by Old Testament contexts where poverty and idolatry are at issue.  As Jesus is the presence of God in the world and His Church and believers are His image-bearer, there remains the same apologetic concerning God’s righteous acts on behalf of the poor, and thus demanding relavent evangelistic outcomes related to protection, care, and advocacy for the economically vulnerable.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.