In 2008, the World Council of Churches convened a group of Protestant and Catholic theologians to review the underpinnings of Christian attitudes toward Israel. (No Jews were invited.) The group published the so-called Bern Perspective, which, among other things, instructed Christians to understand all biblical references to Israel only metaphorically.
This understanding denies the connection between today’s Jews and Moses, Jeremiah and Isaiah. It marks a return to “replacement theology,” the medieval view that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan and that all biblical references to Israel refer to the “new Israel”””that is, to Christians. For centuries, that view was the theological basis for denying rights to Jews in Church-dominated Europe.
In 2009, on the first day of Chanukah (which Jews again celebrate this week), a group of Christian Palestinians issued the Kairos Palestine Document, which was immediately published on the World Council of Churches website. The document calls for a general boycott of Israel and argues that Christians’ faith requires them to side with the “oppressed,” meaning the Palestinians. It speaks of the evils of the Israeli “occupation,” yet is silent on any evils committed by Palestinians, including the Hamas terrorists who now govern the Gaza Strip.
Well then, what about conceding the USA’s right to exist with apologies to the Native Peoples? Oh, and lets concede the right of HM the Queen to the Throne, while apologizing to the Anglo-Saxons, and further apologizing to the Romano-British in that their country was conquered by the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons. AND what about the native people of Palestine whose ancestors were conquered by the early Muslims? Don’t they have a right to throw out the Muslim conquerors of Palestine?
Well folks, what do we know about the World Council of Churches and the positions that it has taken?
#1–I think Italy, France and Norway should pay reparations to all people of English decsent.
As it happens, many orthodox Jews “deny” the relationship between the biblical Israel and the modern political state. That’s why most of them actually opposed it in the first place, although many “modern orthodox” now accept it. Among the non “modern” orthodox (that is, the traditional orthodox who wear beards, observe all the commandments, etc.) you will never see a Israeli flag in the sanctuary or hear a sermon equating Judaism with zionism.
I don’t know who Rabbi Cooper is, but Rabbi Hier is a passionate celebrity supporter of zionism (made the cover the Newsweek, appears in photo ops with presidents). By the fact that his pictures show him with no beard or other markings of orthodoxy, I think we can assume he is at best “modern” orthodox in the same sense that Joe Lieberman is.
As far as “replacement theology” (his pejorative term — along with “medieval” which we all know is bad), while the Church teaches that the Jews have a unique ongoing relationship with God, yet it also teaches, in the words of Pope Benedict ““God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.†And this “new” “replacement” covenant is the covenant of Jesus Christ. Thus, according to the Catholic Church, what God wills for the Jews is not that they establish “a Jewish state” but that they enter into the grace and salvation afforded by Jesus Christ.
I am sure the rabbi does not like this teaching and would like to characterize it as medieval and anti-semitic. He would especially like to encourage people who wish to show that they are not medieval and anti-semitic to support the political state of Israel although that is a non sequitor even/especially for religious Jews themselves.
One may or may not suppport the political state of Israel in a political fashion just as one may have opinions about Norther Ireland, etc. But support for the political state of Israel is no where to be found in the teachings of the Catholic Church — nor in most of Orthodox Judaism.
Years ago, I read “The Haj” and gained an insight into the “Middle East Conflict” that I had not previously considered. Truth to tell, I should probably reread it to be sure my recollection is correct. That said, one of the characters, a young Palestinian who is dismayed by the madness that followed the founding of the State of Israel, most particularly madness coming from his fellow Palestinians, observed that the root of the problem lay in the hands of Christians. It was centuries of anti-Semitism in Chrisitan nations from the Urals to the Atlantic that fostered the concept of Zionism. It was the holocaust, the murder of Jews in Germany and Poland primarily, but murder either supported or ignored by many if not most of the countries of the Christian West, that resulted in the division of Palestine, the wars that followed and the exit of Palestinians. We Christians first cursed the Jews and then cursed the Palestinians.
Years later, before responding with a letter to the editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on the then latest example of hyprocrisy coming from the Presbyterian Church on this issue, I went out on Google and researched the number of Jews in Palestinian in 1900. The best figure I came up was approximately 10,000. Query: would the millions that immigrated to Israel, a land largely desert until the arrival of the Jews, in the succeeding years have done so had they been treated with one-tenth of the Christian spirit that the Good Book admonishes us to show to everyone?
I refuse to listen to any Christian, most especially Christian “leaders”, spout off on the Middle East without first acknowledging that our hyporcrisy is at the root of the problem.
Catholic Mom (#4.) said, among other things,
“…the Church teaches that the Jews have a unique ongoing relationship with God…”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And this is just one of the things that Scripture says about the return of the Jews to Israel. There are more.
“Ezekial 34: 11-15
For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As a shepard looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. I will bring them out from the mountains and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountains of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord.”
And what does the passage from Ezekiel tell us about our Mideast policy?
Reply to NOVA Scout (#7.),
Scripture tells those who ignore it, nothing.
AnglicanFirst, I, too, am interested in the hermeneutical approach you would use to exegete the passage you quoted and apply it to mideast policy in the 2010.
RE: “It was centuries of anti-Semitism in Chrisitan nations from the Urals to the Atlantic that fostered the concept of Zionism.”
No — I think it was the natural desire of a people for a country of their own.
RE: “It was the holocaust, the murder of Jews in Germany and Poland primarily, but murder either supported or ignored by many if not most of the countries of the Christian West. . . ”
Huh? Americans ignorend the holocaust? Or supported it? Do tell. I thought it was *one* country that “supported” the murder of Jews in Germany — Germany.
What a bunch of balderdash.
RE: “Query: would the millions that immigrated to Israel, a land largely desert until the arrival of the Jews, in the succeeding years have done so had they been treated with one-tenth of the Christian spirit that the Good Book admonishes us to show to everyone?”
Setting aside the begging the question of the latter half of this sentence, and responding to the first part — I should hope so. Again, it’s perfectly reasonable for a people to want their own land and country.
RE: “I refuse to listen to any Christian, most especially Christian “leadersâ€, spout off on the Middle East without first acknowledging that our hyporcrisy is at the root of the problem.”
Heh — I’m not to worried about that.
Sarah – so sorry you disagree with me, but you really do come off looking much better if you do so respectfully. But then, I guess that is not a concern of yours.
Fastlosinghope (#11), that’s just Sarah’s way – don’t sweat it. You make some valid points and I know of at least one Israeli historian who would tend to agree with you.
By hermeneutics, I assume, using good old everyday American English, you mean ‘interpretation’ of the written Word of Scripture. I am a physicist by education. But I attempt, in general discussion, to not use ‘physics’ technical terms when explaining concepts of physics to non-physicists.
Here’s a very brief skeletal recap of some of what is said in Scripture.
God chose Abraham and told him
“I will make you a great nation and I will bless you;….”
and
“I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land and take possession of it.”
Once in possession of the Promised Land, the Jews did displease God and after many many years of prophetic warning were conquered and many were exiled.
But they were also returned and reclaimed Jerusalem and its surrounding area. And, those who had been God’s instruments of punishment of the Jews were punished for their acts against the Jews.
And they were exiled again, this time by the Romans. As a matter of fact, since then, they have been persecuted and driven from their ‘homes away from home’ for almost two thousand years.
The passage that I cited from Ezekiel is one of many prophetic passages regarding the return of the Jews to the land given to them by God.
And, there is a timelessness to these prophesies about the Jews return to their Promised Land. They are not necessarily about their first exile. There is a centrality to God’s focus on Zion and Jerusalem.
The very fact that the Jews have maintained themselves as a distinct religious group and ethnicity for thousands of years is in and of itself a witness to their special place in the world that speaks of God’s continuing blessing of them regardless of his anger, at times, regarding their waywardness. Their continuing existence itself begs one to very seriously consider that they still exist because of Divine Intervention. And none of us will ever be qualified to even guess at the intimate workings of the mind of God.
Yes, we Christians do follow and believe in the Gospel of the Jewish Messiah, and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, who by God’s intent has also become the Messiah of the Gentiles.
And yes, some Jews accepted their Messiah and some didn’t and those who didn’t are today are still called Jews.
But the fact that these Jews have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah, does not necessarily mean that God’s promise to return those Jews to their Promised Land, their homeland, has been nullified by their nonacceptance.
And as Catholic Mom (#4.) Said
“…the Church teaches that the Jews have a unique ongoing relationship with God….”
AnglicanFirst (13), I didn’t mean to use “hard” words. Hermeneutics and exigesis are normally covered in a theology 101 course and, given your implied admonishment to pay attention to Scripture, I assumed that you were familiar with them.
The meaning of “true Israel” (as addressed by Paul in Romans) is important when discussing promises – especially those of an eschatalogical nature. How would you define “true Israel”?
There you go again using them there big words.
How would you define “true Israel?”
AnglicanFirst (#15), I’m not sure. I grew up in a denomination that was utterly convinced that the people who migrated to what is now the modern state of Israel starting in 1948 were synonomous with the Israel to whom God made many promises. Out of this grew certain beliefs and a fascination with the unfolding of “end times” (eschatology). Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth was just one of many such books that were around the house as I was growing up. When certain predictions failed to come true, and those making the predictions simply adjusted and adapted rather than ever admitting that they may not have interpreted Scripture consistently and correctly (hermeneutics and exegesis), I became somewhat sceptical of their views.
I now lean towards the view – commonly held in reformed circles – that “true Israel” is synonomous with the church universal and made up of all true believers – regardless of their ethnicity (Romans, and especially Romans 9 provides support for this understanding). But, as I said at the start, I’m not dogmatic in this view and freely admit that I have far to go in my personal study and understanding of God’s Word.
If you believe “true Israel” to be synonomous with all true believers, I would suggest that your view of the modern nation state of Israel will be considerably different than those who believe that many passages in the Bible pertain directly to people who have certain genes and who are currently citizens of the state of Israel
Reply to Warrens (#16.).
First, as for “the end times.” I do my best to be a Follower of Christ in the ‘here and now,’ and when the end times come they will come.
To put it mildly, I have heard way too much simplistic talk regarding the end times and far too little talk about trying day-by-day to
live out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.
As for the Jews and Israel.
I understand and accept that Christians who accept Christ as their Savior become part of a ‘greater Israel.’ Likewise, Jews who accept Christ as their Savior also become part of that ‘greater Israel.’ The Body of Christ.
But, the original Israel, the nuclear Israel, still exists among Abraham’s Jewish descendants in so far as mortal existance within God’s Creation is concerned. These Jews still live with their original covenant and with the original promises given to them by God.
Covenants and promises to no longer be in effect, require nullification. Only God can nullify His Covenant and His promises.
Salvation is another matter. Jesus Christ made the path to Salvation and Eternal Life quite clear. But did Jesus nullify God’s original covenant and His promises? Because if Jesus didn’t, then God’s Word through the prophets regarding the Jew’s return to Jeruslaem and Zion still stands.
I know that Paul railed against some Jews who wanted Gentiles to become Jews before they could become followers of The Way, of Jesus Christ. But Paul also, when it was expedient to his ministry, accomodated Jewish Law and practices. And when Jesus gave the Great Commandment, he essentially capsulaized the key and ever lasting elements of Jewish Law.
Many Jews before WWII came to Israel as zionists — that is, they came to Israel with a dream to build a “Jewish state.” Many of the pre WWII zionists were left-wing and anti-religious. Many were mensheviks who, having lost their bid for power in revolutionary Russia, left or were driven out of the soviet union to build “the new Jew” (free of “shtetl” mentality) in Israel. Certainly many of the original kibbutzim were founded on a communist model.
Most of the *post* WWII immigrants were refugess from Europe who almost undoubtedly would not have left their homes had they not been driven out. My husband (an Israeli) has a good friend whose father (now deceased) was a concentration camp survivor. He and his wife came from a small town in Poland. One time he told me with obvious great pleasure about what a wonderful childhood he had there and how much he loved it. Naively I said “why didn’t you go back there after the war?” [after he was liberated from a concentration camp]. He became very sad and said “I could never go back there after the way the people I thought were my friends treated the Jews” [that is, in collaborating with the Nazis to help find and exterminate Jews]. He subsequently immigrated to Israel but he never integrated into the Israeli way of life. He was always a man who had lost his homeland.
The million plus Russians who recently immigrated are made up of many people who are only 1/2 or 1/4 Jewish or not Jewish at all. The vast majority of these do not practice Judaism, or are actual Christians, and are not considered Jewish by Jewish law. This is huge social issue in Israel since these non-Jews cannot marry Jews in Israel, which means effectively that they can only marry each other. These people came purely and solely for economic reasons. There is now a big political issue in Israel over whether or not these people should allowed to convert to Judaism so as to be able to fully integrate into the society.
Thus, while zionism was certainly predicated on the concept of a “Jewish homeland” the actual people who immmigrated to this homeland were motivated by many other factors. In some cases they had no interest in a “Jewish homeland” at all — they merely wanted to find any place that would give them a better life, just as was true of the people who immigrated to America. And certainly a large part of their numbers were driven out of Europe.
RE: ” you really do come off looking much better if you do so respectfully.”
Better to people who make irrational and bizarre assertions perhaps. And you’re right — looking “better” to someone like that would not at all be a concern of mine.
RE: “so sorry you disagree with me”
Nah — remember — you don’t “listen” to any Christian who isn’t “first acknowledging that our hyporcrisy is at the root of the problem.”
; > )
Sarah – you really do come off sounding far more snarkey than Father Jake ever did. That said, I shan’t waste anymore time on you. But I will pray for you.
Reply to Catholic Mom (#19.).
The myth of all Jews being pure descendants of Abraham and Sarah is just that, a myth. The Old Testament is full of stories of Jews marrying non-Jews. But the descendants of these marriages were still considered Jews in their time. Some of them became famous or leadership Jews.
Also, not all Old Testament Jews were what could be considered strict observers of The Law, that is, seriously religious Jews.
So, to say that modern Israel is not a fulfillment of prophecy just because of heavy inter marriage with non-Jews occuring in the geneaologies of some of the returnees or that some of the returnees were anti-religious radical leftists is not an adequate argument.
Many people who claim to be Christian prove, in the reality of the daily lives that they lead, that they are not practicing Christians or that they are not even Christians at all. This seems to include a large part of the membership of the primary Churches of the Church Catholic; Roman, Anglican and Orthodox and also of the mainline Protestant churches. So placing a standard upon Jews that is not met by Christians is an example of the application of a double standard.
So, I don’t accept your analysis that modern Israel is somehow not a fulfillment of prophecy.
I wasn’t even addressing the question of “prophecy.” I was simply discussing the diversity of the people there and the various motives they had in coming. There are close to half a million people who immigrated to Israel under the “law of return” whom the Jewish authorities do not consider Jews. These people cannot marry anyone the authorities DO consider Jews nor can they be buried in Jewish cemetaries. They do not practice Judaism and some are actually Russian Orthodox. Clearly they did not come to Israel to establish a “Jewish homeland.” They came for economic opportunities.
“They came for economic opportunities.”
And, what does the Old Testament say about “aliens” in The Promised Land. I am not talking about aliens who are terrorists or support terrorists in an active or passive manner.
I don’t know. You have to tell me. You know Catholics don’t read the Bible. 🙂
However, my own kids are 1/2 ethnically “Jewish.” They could become Israeli citizens literally tomorrow under the “Law of Return.” They are also baptized, practicing Roman Catholics. In Israel they would not be allowed to marry anyone but other Catholics– a group which is rapidly dwindling to nothing — because they are not considered by the rabbis to be Jews. They would, of course, be considered Jews if *I* were Jewish and my husband Irish. They would not have to convert, they would just have to stop practicing “idolotry.” Of course, there are a lot of Protestants who feel this way about them too. 🙂
Catholic Mom,
I must respectfully disagree with one of your statements (I think Sarah has successfully countered your other points).
Judaism is passed through the maternal line (the ancient thought being, of course, that while fatherhood could not be proven, maternity certainly could). Therefore, unless you converted to Judaism through a process sanctioned by the orthodox rabbis in Israel (assuming you live in Israel) before your children were born, your children are not “Jewish.”
Furthermore, Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. There are people of Polish/Romanian/Russian/German etc extraction who are Jews, instead of being Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Moslem, but please don’t fall into the old Hitlerian canard of labelling people of this religious group as anything but people who believe in this religion.
Frankly, I think the anti-Israel attitude of the WCC smells of anti-Jewish sentiment. And this hostile attitude, dear folks, is, I think, one of the greatest barriers to successful prosetylization of Jews. Why do I think this? Because I grew up in a conservative Jewish household and the attitude of many Jews is that many non-Jews still despise them for being Jewish.
Have I entered an alternate universe?
RE: “(I think Sarah has successfully countered your other points).”
While I am always pleased and surprised when people agree with me . . . or praise my successful counterpoints . . . I must protest and defend Catholic Mom’s honor.
Catholic Mom did not say anything so silly as “It was the holocaust, the murder of Jews in Germany and Poland primarily, but murder either supported or ignored by many if not most of the countries of the Christian West. . . .”
Nor did she wonder breathlessly if “the millions that immigrated to Israel” did so because they had not been treated well by the Christians.
Nor did she then sweepingly declaim that she refuses “to listen to any Christian” unless they first agree with her that it is the Christians’ fault that Jews were so brazen and foolish as to want a country of their own.
And [i]then[/i] she did not opine, either, that if I wanted to look “much better” to the likes of people who opine such things in public forums, I would not point out the ludricousness of the above statements.
I think reasonable Christians can disagree on the nature of the modern-day Israel. I have often debated these matters with Truly Reformed PCA Christians — and so it is a bit ironic that several here take their same view regarding God’s promises to Israel.
Non-reasonable Christians say *other* things [see above] and then announce that they will pray for those who are so pernicious as to point out the unreasonableness of their assertions. However, I’ll take anyone’s prayers and be glad for them.
Nobody has said the word, but I can’t help wondering if we have a few closet dispensationalists in the crowd?
Sarah – Having to ALWAYS have the last word is truly a sign of hubris.
#29 Nay – ’tis the privilege of a lady.
#30 – “lady”?
#29 – fastlosinghope,
I hear that the first step to a successful recovery is admitting the problem. Glad to see you taking that first step. Congrats!