A Paralleling of Germany's Nazification of Christianity?

Did you know that in Nazi Germany, from 1939 to 1945, a special academy existed, the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life? It resulted from an effort, begun in the 1920s, to Nazify Christianity. It was established with the backing of eleven regional Protestant churches.

According to Prof. Susannah Heschel's research article, among other activities, a committee of the Institute produced a de-Judaized version of the New Testament, which was published by the Institute in 1940 with the title, Die Botschaft Gottes - God's Message. 

As Heschel notes:

"In it, all references to Jesus' Jewishness were eradicated, including his descent from Old Testament figures, mention of Jerusalem and the Temple, and any positive references to  Jews. For example, John 4:22, "Salvation comes from the Jews," was changed to the famous antisemitic slogan, "The Jews are our misfortune." Bethlehem was shifted to Galilee, reflecting Grundmann's claim, discussed below, that Jesus could not have been a racial Jew because the Galilee was populated by non-Jews."

There's an online exhibit informing about the Institute.

It was not a minor episode. Bishop Weidemann of Bremen issued a de-Judaized New Testament. and Reich Bishop Ludwig Miiller issued a "germanized" version of the Sermon on the Mount in 1936 to eliminate what he considered inappropriate Jewish moral teachings. The Die Botschaft Gottes was printed, in its first edition, in 100,000 copies as the demands of pre-publication from parish churches throughout the Reich was significant.

Richard Steigmann-Gall, reviewing the book, "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945", realizes

"Christianity was part of the cultural framework of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, the interesting point is that some people saw it as grounds to support participation in Nazism, whereas others saw it as grounds to resist. Conformity or resistance; intolerance or tolerance; Inquisition or charity? The religious texts stay the same, but what people have done with them always has varied greatly."

Listening to Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes and others and especially their attacks on Israel, on Christian Zionists and, in cases, on Jews and Judaism, should alert us to previous irregularities of Christians using their form of Christiantiy as a banner to wield politically. 

^

Restoring the Jews

The Christian theological conceptualization of the Jewish people's restoration to their national home dovetailed with the Biblical and Talmudic idea of the return to Zion. There is another meaning to "restoration" which is interpreted as the "restoration of the Israelites, who were formerly rejected, and the bringing them back to the communion of God in Christ". As is recorded: "In July of 1696, the New England Puritan Cotton Mather wrote in his diary: “This day, from the dust, where I lay prostrate, before the Lord, I lifted up my cries […] For the conversion of the Jewish Nation, and for my own having the happiness, at some time or other, to baptize a Jew, that should by my ministry, be brought home to the Lord.”"

This concept of Jewish restoration to Palestine as was argued by some of its proponents "for Jewish supremacy over Gentiles in the millennial period." For those who promoted the idea, there was an element of "Judeo-centrism".

I have extracted a considerable amount of quotations from this source to show that the idea of Jews going home ot the Land of Israel was a constant throughout the centuries, from the 13th on. (The footnotes can be found at the source)

one who held to a Jewish restoration is Gerard of Borgo San Donnino (around 1255). He taught that some Jews would be blessed as Jews in the end time and would return to their ancient homeland.18  John of Rupescissa (ca. 1310–1366) could most likely be viewed as a Christian Zionist. “For him the converted Jews would become God’s new imperial nation and Jerusalem would be completely rebuilt to become the center of the purified faith. For proof he drew on a literal exposition of the Old Testament prophecies which until then had been read by Christian exegetes to apply either to the time of the incarnation or to the heavenly Jerusalem in the beyond.”19

it was out of the English Puritan movement that this belief sprung. “Starting with the Puritan ascendancy,” notes Tuchman, “the movement among the English for the return of the Jews to Palestine began.”32 Why the Puritan? Puritans were not just dissenters, they were a Protestant sect that valued the Old Testament to an unprecedented degree in their day.

One of the first Englishman to put forth the view that the Jews should be restored to the land of Israel was a scholar who had taken two degrees from Cambridge named Francis Kett. In 1585 he had published a book entitled The Glorious and Beautiful Garland of Mans Glorification Containing the Godly Misterie of Heavenly Jerusalem (one of the shorter titles of the day). While his book primarily dealt with other matters, Kett did have a section in which he mentioned “the notion of Jewish national return to Palestine.”

As the 1600s arrived, a flurry of books advocating Jewish restoration to their land began to appear. Thomas Draxe released in 1608 The Worldes Resurrection: On the general calling of the Jews, A familiar Commentary upon the eleventh Chapter of Saint Paul to the Romaines, according to the sense of Scripture. Draxe argued for Israel’s restoration based upon his Calvinism and Covenant Theology.38

Two great giants of their era were Thomas Brightman (1552–1607), (likely a Postmillennialist) and Premillennialist Joseph Mede (1586–1638) who both wrote boldly of a future restoration of Israel. Brightman’s work, Revelation of the Revelation appeared in 1609 and told “how the Jews will return from the areas North and East of Palestine to Jerusalem and how the Holy Land and the Jewish Christian church will become the centre of a Christian world.”39  Brightman wrote: “What, shall they return to Jerusalem again? There is nothing more certain; the prophets do everywhere confirm it.”40

Joseph Mede’s contribution was released in 1627 in Latin42 and in 1642 in English as The Key of the Revelation. 43 The father of English premillennialism was also an ardent advocate of Jewish restoration to their homeland. Following Mede in many ways, Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680) also saw the Jews one day returning to Israel. In An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (1639), he taught that the Jews would be converted to Christ by 1656.44 Momentum was certainly building toward widespread acceptance of English belief in Jewish restoration, but a few bumps in the road still lay ahead. Giles Fletcher (1549–1611), a fellow at King’s College, Cambridge and Queen Elizabeth’s ambassador to Russia wrote a work advocating Restorationism. Fletcher’s book, Israel Redux: or the Restauration of Israel; or the Restauration of Israel exhibited in two short treatises (shortened title) was published posthumously by the Puritan divine Samuel Lee in 1677.45 Fletcher cites a letter in his book from 1606 as he argues for the return of the Jews to their land.46 Fletcher repeatedly taught the “certainty of their return in God’s due time.”47 A key proponent for Israel’s future restoration was Henry Finch (1558-1625) who wrote a seminal work on the subject in 1621, called The World’s Resurrection or The Calling of the Jewes. A Present to Judah and the Children of Israel that Ioyned with Him, and to Ioseph (that valiant tribe of Ephraim) and all the House of Israel that Ioyned with Him. 48 Finch, at the time of the publication of his book was a member of Parliament and the most highly respected legal scholars in England at the time…Finch taught that the biblical “passages which speak of a return of these people to their own land, their conquest of enemies and their rule of the nations are to be taken literally, not allegorically as of the Church.”51 King James of England was offended by Finch’s statement that all nations would become subservient to national Israel at the time of her restoration.52 Finch and his publisher were quickly arrested when his book was released by the High Commissioner (a creation of King James), and examined.53 Finch was striped of his status and possessions and then died a few years latter. “The doctrine of the restoration of the Jews continued to be expounded in England, evolving according to the insight of each exponent, and finally playing a role in Christian Zionistic activities in the latter part of the nineteenth and in the first of the twentieth centuries.”54 Many Puritans of the seventeenth century taught the restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land.55 One of the greatest Puritan theologians in England was John Owen (1616–1683) who wrote, “The Jews shall be gathered from all parts of the earth where they are scattered, and brought home into their homeland.”56

There were a number of Restorationists in Holland during the time of the Puritan movement. Isaac de la Peyrere (1594–1676), who served as the French Ambassador to Denmark, “wrote a book wherein he argued for a restoration of the Jews to Israel without conversion to Christianity.”59 In 1655, Paul Felgenhauever, wrote Good News for Israel in which he taught that there would be the “permanent return of the Jews to their own country eternally bestowed upon them by God through the unqualified promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”60 The Dane, Holger Paulli (1644–1714) “believed wholeheartedly in the Jewish Return to the Holy Land, as a condition for the Second Coming.”61 He even “lobbied the kings of Denmark, England, and France to go and conquer Palestine from the Ottomans in order that the Jews could regain their nation.”62 Frenchman, Marquis de Langallerie (1656–1717), schemed with the Turkish Ambassador in the Hague on a plan defeat the Pope and trade the papal empire for a return of the Jews to the Holy Land. Langallerie was arrested in Hamburg, tried and convicted of high treason and died in prison a year later.63 Other European Restorationists of the era include: Isaac Vossius, Hugo Grotius, Gerhard John Vossius, David Blondel, Vasover Powel, Joseph Eyre, Edward Whitaker, and Charles Jerran.64 The mid-1600s witnessed “the sudden explosion of millenarian publications,”65 which predisposed the British to also consider the future fate of the Jews in the holy land. James Saddington lists the following seventeenth century English individuals as holding to Restorationist views: John Milton, John Bunyan, Roger Williams, John Sadler and Oliver Cromwell.66 “The doctrine of the restoration of the Jews continued to be expounded in England, evolving according to the insight of each exponent,” concludes Ehle, “and finally playing a role in Christian Zionistic activities in the latter part of the nineteenth and in the first of the twentieth centuries.”67

Perhaps the most influential of the early Puritan ministers in New England was John Cotton, who, following the postmillennialism of Brightman held to the restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land.68 According to Ehle, in addition to John Cotton (1584–1652), early Restorationists included: John Davenport (1597–1670), William Hooke (1601–1678), John Eliot (1604–1690), Samuel Willard (1640–1707), and Samuel Sewall (1652–1730).69 Ephraim Huit, a Cambridge trained early minister in Windsor, Connecticut believed that the Jews would be regathered to their homeland in 1650.70 One of the standout advocates of the restoration doctrine was Increase Mather (1639–1723), the son of Richard and father of Cotton. Increase Mather wrote over 100 books in his life and was a president of Harvard. His first work was The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation, which went through about a half dozen revisions during his life.71 His support of the national restoration of Israel to her land in the future was typical of American Colonial Puritans and was generally widespread.

President John Quincy Adams expressed his desire that “the Jews again [were] in Judea, an independent Nation, . . . once restored to an independent government and no longer persecuted.”74 President Abraham Lincoln in a meeting with Canadian Christian Zionist, Henry W. Monk, in 1863 said, “Restoring the Jews to their homeland is a noble dream shared by many Americans. He (the Jewish chiropodist of the President) has so many times ‘put me on my feet’ that I would have no objection to giving his countrymen a ‘leg up’.”75

The wave of premillennialism is what produced in Britain a crop of Christian Zionists that led to political activism which culminated in the Balfour Declaration. Anthony Ashley Cooper (1801–1885), later Lord Shaftesbury…“Oh, pray for the peace of Jerusalem” were the words engraved on a ring that he always wore on his right hand.84 Since Lord Shaftesbury believed that the Jews would return to their homeland in conjunction with the second advent, he “never had a shadow of a doubt that the Jews were to return to their own land. . . . It was his daily prayer, his daily hope.”85 In 1840, Shaftsbury was known for coining a slogan that he would often repeat throughout his life, that the Jews were “a country without nation for a nation without a country.”86 Shaftesbury greatest contribution to the Restoration movement was his attempt to accomplish something in the political realm in order to provoke England to develop a policy in favor of returning the Jews to their homeland. He succeeded in influencing England to adopt that policy, but England failed, at that time to influence the Turks. In 1838, in an article in the Quarterly Review, Shaftsbury put forth the view that Palestine could become a British colony of Jews that “could provide Britain with cotton, silk, herbs, and olive oil.”87 Next, Shaftsbury “lobbied Lord Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary, using political, financial and economic arguments to convince him to help the Jews return to Palestine. And Palmerston did so. What was originally the religious beliefs of Christian Zionists became official British policy (for political interests) in Palestine and the Middle East by the 1840s.”

While British foreign secretary in 1840, Henry John Temple Palmerston (1784–1865) wrote the following letter to his ambassador at Constantinople in his attempt to advocate on behalf of the Jews: There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe, a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine. . . . It would be of manifest importance to the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return and to settle in Palestine because the wealth which they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan’s dominions; and the Jewish people, if returning under the sanction and protection and at the invitation of the Sultan, would be a check upon any future evil designs of Mehemet Ali or his successor. . . . I have to instruct Your Excellency strongly to recommend [the Turkish government] to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine.

One time governor of Australia, Colonel George Gawler (1796–1869) was one of the most zealous and influential Restorationist, next to Shaftsbury, in the 1840s.93 “Colonel Gawler was a senior commander at the Battle of Waterloo.”94 When he returned to England in 1841 he became a strong advocate of Jewish settlements in the land of Palestine. Gawler’s Restorationism, like most of his day, was sparked by his religious convictions, but he argued for Jewish return to their land upon geopolitical grounds. Gawler stated the following: [England] urgently needs the shortest and safest lines of communication. . . . Egypt and Syria stand in intimate connection. A foreign hostile power mighty in either would soon endanger British trade . . . and it is now for England to set her hand to the renovation of Syria through the only people whose energies will be extensively and permanently in the work—the real children of the soil, the sons of Israel.95 Working with Sir Moses Montefiore (a British Jew) Gawler provided an agricultural strategy for Jewish resettlement of the Holy Land. One of these Montefiore-Gawler projects resulted in “the planting of an orange grove near Jaffa, still existent today and known as Tel Aviv’s ‘Montefiore Quarter.’”96 Charles Henry Churchill (1814–1877), an ancestor of Winston Churchill, was a British military officer stationed in Damascus in 1840. “He was a Christian Zionist and he supported the Jews against the non-Zionist Christians of Damascus.”97 It was through his efforts that he helped acquit the Jews accused of the infamous charge of blood libel. Col. Churchill was honored a banquet hosted by a grateful Jewish community where he spoke of the “hour of liberation of Israel . . . that was approaching, when the Jewish Nation would once again take its place among the powers of the world.”98 In a letter to Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore (1784–1885), dated June 14, 1841, Churchill said, I cannot conceal from you my most anxious desire to see your countrymen endeavor once more to resume their existence as a people. I consider the object to be perfectly obtainable. But two things are indispensably necessary: Firstly that the Jews themselves will take up the matter, universally and unanimously. Secondly that the European powers will aid them in their views.99

Laurence Oliphant (1829–1888) was an evangelical “British Protestant, an officer in the British Foreign Service, a writer, world-traveler and an unofficial diplomat.”103 Oliphant was passionate about the Jewish Restoration to their land that came from his intense religious convictions, which “he tried to conceal them behind arguments based on strategy and politics.”104 In 1880 he published a book, The Land of Gilead, “proposing Jewish resettlement, under Turkish sovereignty and British protection, of Palestine east of the Jordan.”105 Even then, he foresaw the agricultural potential and the possibilities of developing the resources of the Dead Sea.

A German Lutheran, C. F. Zimpel, who “described himself as Doctor et Philosopiae, member of the Grand Ducal Saxon Society for Mineralogy and Geognosy at Jena,” published pamphlets in the mid-1800s entitled “Israelites in Jerusalem” and “Appeal to all Christendom, as well as to the Jews, for the Liberation of Jerusalem.”123

Frenchman, Charles-Joseph Prince de Ligne (1735–1814) advocated Jewish Restorationism. He called upon the Christians of Europe to lobby the Turkish Sultan so that the Jews could return to their homeland. De Ligne’s appeal was used by Napoleon in his efforts to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. “Among those French Restorationists were theologians and authors, but also, increasingly, politicians.”125 Some of them included Ernest Laharanne, Alexandre Dumas, and Jean-Henri Dunant (1828–1910), who was also the rounder of the International Red Cross.126 Restoration proposals were put forth by a number of Europeans in the nineteenth century. A Swiss theologian named Samuel Louis Gaussen who wrote a book advocating a Jewish return to their land in 1844.127 Italian, Benedetto Musolino (1809–1885) wrote a book, after a visit to the Holy Land, in which he argued “that the restoration of the Jews would allow European culture into the Middle East.”

^

Who Assisted in the Release of Rabbi M.M. Shklov from Arrest?

Back in 2009, in a comment, I wrote:

If Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Shklov, disciple of the Vilna Gaon and leader of the perushim in Jerusalem in the 1830s, could invite a missionary into his home to discuss religion but use him to advance the redemption process of Jews (see here)...

This was responding to those who then, and still do, hold to a belief that Christians volunteering in Judea and Samaria, as well as others who are advancing the cause of Zionism and Israel throughout the Land of Israel, are sinister missionaries.

I was using the example of Menachem Mendel of Shklov as an observant Jew who saw the usefulness of Jews and non-Jews working politically, diplmatically and practically for a common goal: the restoring of Jews to Eretz-Yisrael, the flowering of the Land and the furthering of the redemptive process.

Despite these Christians who he worked with, some Jews who had converted, that is, apostates, he had them in his house, discussed theology and Bible with them and sought them out. He had, as far as we know, no compunctions.

As is my wont, searching for material on another topic, connected to Yemin Moshe, I came across an article* that also included a short chapter on Menachem Mendel's life in Jerusalem.

He is considered as the renewer of the Ashkenazi Jewish community in Jerusalem after a century's hiatus.

As part of his activity to reverse the existing non-legal status of the residence of the Ashkenazim in the city, he, together with his son, were detained by the Pasha.

To whom did he turn?

Menachem Mendel, writing to Amsterdam, considered it a miracle that he was released, the day being the Seventh Day of Passover 1825. And his freedom was the result of two Christian missionaries, W.B. Lewis and a Dr. Dalton of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews (and see here; their headquarters were at "Palestine Place", Bethnal Green). That organization was qute assertive and determined by the Rabbi from Shklov was undetered and not frightened. He may have even thought that God was providing his divine assistance in the form of...Christian missionaries. He certainly did so in seeking to assure that Britain would establish a consulate presence in Jerusalem that would make it easier for the Jews to increase the likelihood of a future Jewish state and an ingathering of the Jews.

Think about that.

And think about today's reality.

Of course there is a threat. No one denies or belittles that. But, obviously, it is possible for one to be discerning, selective and, depending on the circumstances, cooperative with such Christians.

* I found this material in an article in Cathedra of the Yad Ben-Zvi. 

^

I Got Intrigued (and did I!)

Getting intrigued, I think, is a special form of curiosity.

What happens when you read about three graves? To where is one led?

I read the following on page 179 of Volume 3 of Edward Robinsons (with Eli Smith) Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Regions: A Journal of Travels in the Years 1838 and 1852 regarding their visit to a section of the Mt. Zion cemetery:

We now rode to the American cemetery...There are here but three graves of American; those of Dr Dodge and Mrs Thomson, missionaries ; and that of Prof. Fiske of Amherst College, who died here in May, 1847.

Who were they? What did they accomplish? 

And to where and who would this lead me?

I checked this 1872 book. According to this book, the Thomsons and Dodges arrived as missionaries in Beirut in 1833 and spent over a decade in Lebanon.

The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume 7, p. 583, Dodge and Thomson had proceeded to Jerusalem from the Lebanon in 1834 and Mrs. Thomson died of brain fever on July 22, 1834 following a siege of their residence. Dodge, who arrived in Jerusalem in early 1835, and founded the Jewish Mission in the city. He died there on June 28, 1835.

William McClure Thomson spent 25 years in Syria and Lebanon as a Protestant missionary, only the eighth American Protestant missionary to arrive in the area. We read that

At a Beirut Mission Meeting on 23 January 1862 he proposed the establishment of a college with Daniel Bliss as its President. The Syrian Protestant College was established in 1866 with 16 students. This college was to evolve into the American University of Beirut

He was one of the first outsiders to arrive at Tzfat after the terrible 1837 earthquake and extended assistance to the Jews there. His book, The Land and the Book, almost 800 pages in length, became quite popular, a bestseller, and over the next forty years it was only outsold by Uncle Tom's Cabin in America.

Being on the subject of missionaries and death, let us recall the events of 1859-1860 in Lebanon:

The events began in the Beit Miri section of Lebanon when a minor quarrel developed in the summer of 1859 between two boys, a Maronite and a Druse, over the ownership of a chicken...Feelings smoldered until the following April when there was another outbreak.Some contend that the Maronite clergy, who were mostly of peasant origin, were the instigators of the uprising. "Verbalmissiles" and rumor put the situation out of hand, with the Druse calling on their coreligionists in Hauran for help. The violence escalated and there was a tremendous loss of lives'? At Deir el Kamr, near the scene of the original quarrel, some 2,600 Maronite men were slaughtered within the church walls. Fighting swept from one mountain village to another. The fighting spread and now included attacks on and by all Christians. Indiscriminate killing and pillaging followed. Hardly a house in Zahleh remained standing.outrages were beyond even his expectations. International jealousies were partially to blame for the riot. The French wished to establish a beachhead in Lebanon by supporting Catholics in general and the Maronites in particular. The British viewed with disfavor France's moves and favored the Druse and Protestants. Russia, protector of the Roum (Orthodox), could still hope to take back Constantinople and maybe Turkey which was determined to crush the might of local chieftians in Lebanon. Muslims perceived of themselves in decline and under Christian European pressure...In Damascus...a city of about 110,000,Christians numbered about 25,000,15,000Jews..On Sunday, July 8, a series of insults were heard; on Monday the attacks began; and on Tuesday the terror mounted. By the time the news reached Beirut three days later the worst had happened. The estimated loss of lives in Damascus vary from 5,000 to 8,000 killed. The Ottoman soldiers stood by idly; the mobs ruled in anarchy.

And we meet Thomson again:

Events of the war were copiously detailed by eyewitnesses. American proteges trekked over rocks and hills to the safety of Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Bliss at Suk el-Gharb. Others were sheltered in school buildings. Abeih received its share of refugees. Looking over their shoulders, they saw columns of smoke envelop what once had been homes in their villages.  There is Mr. Bird's account of 30 Syrian Protestants rescued from Ain Zehalteh, neighboring Deir el Kamr and the saving of a "terrified Syrian pastor" just before Hauran Druse broke in on him. A thousand women and children had fled Merj Aiyun to Sidon where the Reverends Eddy and Ford, well-known workers in that community, took the refugees aboard English ships to Beirut. Dr. Thomson later remarked with dismay: "Brethren, the work of forty years is destroyed, and if we are spared, we must begin again."

Missionaries sometimes have amazing experiences:

Bliss (the above-mentioned Daniel)...(d)uring relief disbursements of money and clothing, the timely "whispered" plea of a woman who knew that in a nearby house was a mother and her two daughters without any clothing at all, led Bliss to take three dresses to the house. A bare arm "to the shoulder" reached out to grasp the needed garments. Later, as he rode away, he saw three women standing with uplifted hands. He heard them exclaim: "God bless the English and the Americans. God bless the missionaries."

Incidentally, Bliss’ granddaughter married a Cleveland Dodge who provided financial support for Woodrow Wilson. His one favor that he asked was in 1917, when war with Germany seemed inevitable. He requested of Wilson to keep the United States from declaring war on Turkey and Bulgaria. Later, the missionaries in Syria and Lebanon heavily influenced the King-Crane Commission against Zionism. But William Blackstone, acting at the 1916 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church at the behest of Louis Brandeis, proved an offset to that (p. 92 here) reissuing his 1891 Memorial.

The 1891 Blackstone Memorial read, in part:

Why shall not the powers which under the treaty of Berlin, in 1878, gave Bulgaria to the Bulgarians and Servia to the Servians now give Palestine back to the Jews?…These provinces, as well as Romania, Montenegro, and Greece, were wrested from the Turks and given to their natural owners. Does not Israel as rightfully belong to the Jews?

Later, in October that year, Blackstone stated that the general "law of dereliction" did not apply to the Jews in regard to Palestine:

for they never abandoned the land. They made no treaty; they did not even surrender. They simply succumbed, after the most desperate conflict, to the overwhelming power of the Romans

Once again, I express thanks to Christian Zionism.

^

The Hypocrisy of Jeremy Ben-Ami

In a CBS report on this week's Christian Media Summit in Jerusalem, I found this quote:

"We really truly stand with Israel, and we really truly want to be dear friends," he [Gordon Robertson, chief executive of the Christian Broadcasting Network] said.

Not everyone agrees. Jeremy Ben Ami, president of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group in Washington that is often critical of the Israeli government, said the evangelicals do not necessarily have Israel's best interests in mind. "Israel should be wary of embracing extreme Christian Zionist groups that may be more concerned with their own theological agendas than with Israel's long-term survival as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people," he said.

I'm still laughing.

If anyone is concerned over his own agenda and does not have Israel's vital interests in mind or heart, if there is anyone who is more committed to a foreign ideology rather than Jewish nationalism, if there is anyone that is serving a tenet (progressivism) and a person (Barack Obama) more than Israel and Zionism, it is Jeremy Ben-Ami.

J Street has taken many wrong turns.  Most of them not pro-Israel.

His observation in this matter is purely hypocritical and in error.

^

Helping Jewish Souls or Harming Jewish Bodies

JewishIsrael is upset with Laurie Cardoza-Moore.

LC-M has made an amazing pro-Yesha film (the trailer) and I was present at its screening which does not use any missionary or proselytizing themes.  She's making another, an anti-BDS documentary (and I was interviewed for it).  She has initiated successful moves in state legislatures to fight BDS.  But she is Christian and that really upsets the JI people.

So, why is JI now upset about these pro-Israel, pro-Zionist, pro-Yesha activities of hers even if she is Christian?

Laurie heads this group, PJTN, which seeks to

educates media professionals, Christian leaders and Christians around the world about the biblical responsibilities to act against the “new anti-Semitism.”

Some very good Jews have lent their support to it.  Isn't it good that Christians are being asked to join a pro-Israel group that campaigns against the new anti-Semitism?

Laurie is also UN Special Envoy for the World Council of Independent Christian Churches (WCICC) and she addressed special forum at the UN Headquarters in New York last month.

And what really bothers JI is that

The approach being taken by Cardoza-Moore is decidedly theological and biblical in nature, with the Nostra Aetate document of 1965 taking center stage. For the past several months Cardoza-Moore has been urging the Vatican to resurrect Nostra Aetate as a tool to influence world churches and to fight anti-Semitism.

I know, you are scratching your heads, asking yourselves, so what is really really upsetting JI.

Let's see how JI employs 'guilt-by-association':

It's important that Jewish leadership take note of the messianic Christian angle, too. The WCICC, a main sponsor of the UN forum, has the International Alliance of Independent Messianic Congregations and S... listed as their top "direct" ministry". An article on the PJTN site affirms that:

"The WCICC exists to unite independent Christian & Messianic Churches regarding their Biblical Inheritance and Responsibility, including a stand with our Jewish brethren and the State of Israel."

But that isn't enough.  Here is JI's main charge:

While every committed Jew can fully appreciate gentiles who take a moral stand with the State of Israel, Cardoza-Moore's own stand comes with some extra heavy "biblical" baggage:

"The Bible is clear from Genesis to Revelation that God will keep His Covenant with His people, all Israel. The Apostle Paul confirms that truth in the book of Romans, Chapters 9 -11. Christians are grafted into that Covenant through Jesus. The Apostle Paul said in Galatians 3:29, “If you are in Christ, you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise." The promise Paul was referring to is the same promise God made to Abraham in Genesis, and then repeated it to Isaac and Jacob. Paul further stated in Ephesians 2:11-13, that we, Gentiles in the flesh, were once outside of the commonwealth of Israel, but because of Jesus’ shed blood, we have been brought into the commonwealth of Israel."

It would appear that by laying joint claim to our covenant, Christians like Cardoza-Moore are indeed replacing the Jewish Covenant with their own Christian interpretation of it, thereby denying the Jewish people the uniqueness of Hashem’s eternal promise to them.

Are they, though, replacing ?  

JI assumes that this is replacement theology.  Even if it is, if, that is, what we have here is the recognition that Jesus was ... Jewish.  What has all this to do with support for Israel --- unless JI, besides its suspicions, has actual proof of Laurie engaged in, pardon my language, snatching Jewish souls?  How far a net can JI toss (and no, I am not referring to John 21 or Luke 5) to denigrate proffered assistance?  Is this truly a denial of God's unique covenantal promise to the Jews or a recognition of the same?

I do know that Laurie and friends have not tried to convert me to Christiamity and would ask that if anyone does know of a case or cases to inform me of same.  Until, then, I extend support and appreciation to Laurie for defending in an activist fashion the state of Israel and its Biblical inheritance - religious, spiritual, cultural, legal and geographical.

I would suggest to all of us to review the material, the 'proofs' and the perhaps untruths and weigh whether JI is helping Jewish souls - or not even that - or maybe harming Jewish bodies.

^

Yisrael, What Do You Respond to Incriminations?

Dear Yisrael,

JewishIsrael doesn't like you.  One of their staff suggests you "worship Christians".  Others believe you are facilitating Christian missionary work to convert Jews.  They even intimated you "found Jesus".

What do you respond?

-     -     -

Let me be brief, in fact, concise:

a) Christian missionary activity must be actively opposed.

b) Christian Zionism must be encouraged.

c) Christian Zionists must be informed: 

 

work for and with me if you wish because of who we are and for the fact that Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled by us - but not because of who you might wish us to become.

d) linking Christians through 'guilt-by-association' cannot be accepted unless a direct connection is proven.


^

Responding to JewishIsrael's Ellen Horowitz

Ellen Horowitz, a good friend, in a personal sense, who heads JewishIsrael, a group that has erred in the matter of the HaYovel group, left a comment on a post here and I think I should upgrade the discussion.

She wrote:

JewishIsrael is taking a very painstaking and careful approach to this problem. People in Yehuda and Shomron were up in arms about the Wallers and their missionary affiliations long before JewishIsrael started investigating or issuing reports.

We don't know what kind of hot heads are dwelling among you who see fit to issue provocative poster campaigns and threaten rabbis. That is not JewishIsrael’s style. However, we don't need people like you and David Rubin leveling false accusations at us over an issue that requires serious debate and consideration by the Jewish community.

The rabbis who have thus far viewed the same material we presented at Har Bracha are very soft spoken, mild-mannered and thoughtful in their approach. And yet they concur that the material presented is "of great concern, very serious in nature, and requires follow-up" and "they can't understand how Rav Melamed could possibly ignore such vital information."

I'm reminding you that it was you who originally suggested to me that there be a serious site set-up to inform the Jewish community of the various problematic evangelical groups and personalities active in Israel.

At the very least these leaders in Yehuda and Shomron should have the integrity to admit to their own communities that, "Yes, for what we consider to be the good of the yishuv, we made a decision to partner with hundreds of Christian missionaries. But they have assured us that they will not proselytize or share their faith with you - at least not here in this community. But we don't have control over their larger agenda and what they do and what their plans are for the rest of Am Yisrael"

Perhaps it is the lack of honesty that is the real "Chilul Hashem".

Let's go over that and concisely respond.

"People in Yehuda and Shomron were up in arms about the Wallers"

People?  And there are people who aren't, who don't care or who are actually excited about their volunteering.  And maybe those "people" are wrong"?  And who cares if JI was late?  You're in at present and leading the charge.

"You"?

Why not "you"?  How do you know they are amongst "us" but not "you"?  I don't.  But I can guess they are much more motivated by what "you" put out then anyone else on this planet.  They didn't get that link from out of thin air?  Or maybe it was Mina Fenton who was the source and she is much more connected to JI than HaYovel is to me. Or maybe they just fed off your misinformation?

False accusations?

No more than yours, and much less.

"The Rabbis".

Maybe the word threat should be clarified, soft-spoken or otherwise.  If a meeting is called by you, and you inform the person, a Rabbi, that if certain demands are not met, then verbal or published injury against the Rabbi will be taken, most people would think that a threat.

 

"The material".

Of course, the question is: is your "material" relevant, true, exact or supposed?  Does it actually indicate your main charge - that HaYovel is a danger in that its participants engage in missionary activity?  Does it?  How 'vital' is it?  Or is the innuendo?  Guilt-by-association?  Implied?

More important, is it not true that some of your rabbinical support not even care about the details?  For them, the issue is not missionary activity but something termed "achiza ba'aretz" and "ma'amd"?  For them, it is not an issue of halacha but theology and therefore, they prefer not to deal with the particulars and that, perhaps, even if I proved that I am correct as to what is actually happening, or more importantly, what is not happening, it wouldn't make a difference with them?  And so, all this discussion is useless.  They are interest in facts.

it was you who originally suggested

Well, if I was so smart then, why don't you trust me now?

I never said there wasn't a problem.  What I am saying is that in this specific instance, you're wrong.  And I will add that given the situation Israel is in, and given the guidelines I think exist in the Tanakh, and given halachic possibilities, we should not reject outright rapprochement but rather seek new frameworks.

"to partner with hundreds of Christian missionaries".

They aren't though.  Can't you get that?  Have you proof that they do missionize in Yesha?  Has anyone been snared?  I fully accept that a Christian, especially an evangelical, sees his purpose in life to convince others to believe in Jesus.  I trust our Rabbis and educators are doing their job to offset that threat.  The situation here is different.  You refuse do admit that and  prefer to smudge the reality to fit your agenda.

"Lack of honesty"?

What lack of honesty?  You haven't proven, in a solid, indisputable fashion, any of your specific claims.  Doesn't that count as a moral failing on your part?

^

JewishIsrael's Waller War

JewishIsrael is going to war against Tommy Waller and his HaYovel volunteer effort.

In a blog post, depending on a secondary source - and in the past, this has proven a major weakness of JewishIsrael in that other Christian groups purposefully misinterpret what others do - it is claimed that

In a demonstration of continued collaboration with grape harvesting volunteers Tommy and Sherri Waller and their Hayovel Ministries, "Rabbi Eliezer Melamed has taken an initiative to establish a Christian Zionist Visitor Center on the Mount of Blessing in Samaria". Rabbi Melamed is actively trying to gather rabbinic backing for the initiative and has reportedly declared “If we say no to these people, we will say no to the Messiah!”

I checked that claim by the secondary source - something JI obviously did not do (are they afraid of even communicating with non-Jews?) and, as I guessed, it was in error.

There simply is no such initiative.  There is no active attempt to establish that Center.  And certainly not they way it is portrayed.

By the way, a center for Jewish-Christian understanding is not a bad idea.

In addition, quoting Rabbi Melamed as saying "we will say no to the Messiah", as if implicating him to be expressing the belief that Jesus is the Messiah, is a horrendous sin against the Rabbi.

The same sloppiness, perhaps purposefully so, is evident here:

They continue and assert that "Hayovel’s volunteers are diligently working in Samaria in order to lay the groundwork for a Christian "Restoration" in the land of Israel."

Theology is difficult to discuss but it goes without saying that we Jews who cooperate with the volunteer effort make it quite clear that such "restorative" thinking and purpose is firmly rejected.  "Building bridges" will not lead to conversions of soul-snatching.

Further, they note that "Certain rabbis, community leaders and entrepreneurs in Yehuda and Shomron readily disregard recent rabbinic guidelines and advice on how to avoid potential pitfalls when dealing with the spiritual mission and faith-based agenda of Christian groups."  Of course, they do not inform their readers that there are many "Rabbis, Community Leaders and entrepeneurs" who disagree with the outlook of those JI supports.

I disagree that "continued evangelical political, humanitarian and financial support for the state of Israel dwarfs or erases the theological, spiritual or physical costs..." for Jews.  We are in our Land and we are strong in our beliefs and Judaism is being proven more correct than ever.  It is our prophetic word that is being justified.  The "coming" of non-Jews to assist us in our labors is the proof that the Bible is true, as in I Kings 8 -

41 Moreover concerning the stranger that is not of Thy people Israel, when he shall come out of a far country for Thy name's sake-- 42 for they shall hear of Thy great name, and of Thy mighty hand, and of Thine outstretched arm--when he shall come and pray toward this house; 43 hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling-place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to Thee for; that all the peoples of the earth may know Thy name, to fear Thee, as doth Thy people Israel, and that they may know that Thy name is called upon this house which I have built.

That is the vision we should be striving to achieve.  We should make it clear that there is no need for a belief in Jesus for Biblical prophecy to be realized.  This cooperation with Christians is a two-way street.  We need not be suffering an inferiority complex as if we cannot make demands or such.

The "fervor" of Christian volunteers does not always translate into concrete support of missionary activity which pose a direct challenge to Israel's Jewish character.    In fact, there are examples of the other direction occuring.

I do not at all wish to minimize any threats from Christain "aliyah" or messianic Jewish groups or missionary attempts.  But those have always been present, in the Diaspora as well as in the Land of Israel.  That should not be confused with the quite necessary need to deal with "the coming of the non-Jew" phenomenon that we, as Jews, must come to terms with, define and establish guidelines.  That is our challenge.

I and friends duly consider the content of JI but, as for myself, there is no need to preach to me to suggest I

may want to sober up and use a little wisdom..... lest [I] pour [my] heritage down the drain.

Moreover, I suggest it is time that JI and supporters review their approach and consider the potential consequences of their actions.

And here is an example:

This poster appeared at several traffic junctions out here in Yesha.

The language is unrestrained and bordering on the criminal in that anyone who understands the subtext of the Hebrew terminology knows that the message is threatening.  If there are Rabbis behind this, they should be careful.  A charge of incitement could be made.

"Christians laying in ambush to murder souls in the vineyards".

"Hundreds of missionaries, organized and dangerous, have infiltrated already".

"May they be obliterated".

"You shall burn the evil from amidst you".

"Blessed by he who distances the danger from us."

"Impure hands".

Signed: "The Committee to Save the Children for Missionary Work".

This is dangerous and those who are directly - and indirectly - responsible need be called to order.

^

Christians for Yesha As Viewed by the Christian Science Monitor

On the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC), on whose executive board I sit, or:

Why some Christians back Israeli settlers in the West Bank - US Evangelicals' support for Jewish settlement of the West Bank has grown in the last decade or so, giving Israel greater traction in Washington.
 
...Kim Troup, director of the North American office for Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) Heartland, argues that God keeps his promises: both that Jesus is the Messiah and that Abraham's descendents – the Jews – would inherit this land forever.  "Either God is true, and His word is true, or it's not," she says.

CFOIC Heartland was founded in the wake of the 1993 Oslo Accords...With so many biblical sites located in the West Bank, many Christians and Jews see it as a biblical heartland that is irrevocably tied to the Jewish people. Some Jews say as many as 80 percent of the events recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures took place there ['say'? can't the reporter check facts?].

Ms. Troup says her group's efforts, which include bringing Christians to meet settlers in the West Bank, are to show gratitude for all the Jewish nation has done for the world and also are a way to make up for centuries of anti-Semitism. Her group also says that God is working through the Jewish people to fulfill a promise that they will be a "light unto the nations."

"God is doing something in Israel today, and God's not done," she says...

Related material here and a picture collection including this taken at Shiloh junction:-

^

Christians Beware - Pal. Pilgrim Propaganda

A pro-Pal. site is claiming -

Leaving Christianity worldwide in total ignorance about all crimes committed against Christians* suffering occupation as well, the impunity of Israel ascends itself now it is even declaring itself the Holy Capitol of Christian Jerusalem, as is stated on the pilgrimage certificate which the Israeli bureau of Tourism hands out.

But, as usual, one needs to read carefully.  Do the words "Holy Capitol of Christian Jerusalem" appear?

No, they do not.

___-

*

which includes, supposedly: "In 1948, the Zionists expelled from Palestine 100,000 Christians.  During the 1948 war, Zionists destroyed desecrated and profaned Christian churches, convents and institutions throughout the Occupied area of Palestine.  During the June the June war of 1967 Israeli forces shelled and damaged many churches in the old city of Jerusalem and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem."

Littlewood's Little Knowledge

Sometimes, an opportunity presents itself to show how stupid and ignorant some people are.

Take Stuart Littlewood who has been engaged in campaigning against Christian Zionism.  And thinks Hamas is a resistance "demonised".  More here.

In this article, he writes:

My reading of history is that the Jews were expelled from Palestine by the Roman occupation in 70 AD, when the second temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. They were expelled again in 135 AD.

Nowadays return is regarded as an inalienable right. But it must be exercised as soon as the reason for expulsion (e.g. foreign occupation) ceases. In the Jews’ case an opportunity would have occurred in the 4th century AD as the Roman Empire collapsed. But they didn’t take it. They can hardly expect to change their mind 16 centuries later. Their right expired a very long time ago.

So, "soon" is a condition?  And an opportunity would have been the 4th century, he asserts.  "But they didn't take it", he claims.

Feeble-minded knowledge of history.

First of all, the Jews didn't need to exercise the right because they were there, living on their land, their homeland.

There are academic books but let's quote from the Wikipedia entry just to show that the information which contradicts Littlewood is readily available and he not only ignores it but also doesn't even try to devalue it:

Early in the 4th century, Roman Empire split and Constantinople became the capital of the East Roman Empire known as the Byzantine Empire...Jerusalem became a Christian city and Jews were still banned from living there. In 351–2, there was another Jewish revolt against a corrupt Roman governor.^[42] The Jewish population in Sepphoris rebelled under the leadership of Patricius against the rule of Constantius Gallus. The revolt was eventually subdued by Ursicinus. According to tradition, in 359 CE Hillel II created the Hebrew calendar based on the lunar year...The ancient synagogue at Nabratein was destroyed in the Galilee earthquake of 363.

During his short reign, Emperor Julian (361-363) abolished the special taxes paid by the Jews to the Roman government and also sought to ease the burden of mandatory Jewish financial support of the Jewish patriarchate.^[43] He also gave permission for the Jews to rebuild and populate Jerusalem.^[44] In one of his most remarkable endeavours, he initiated the restoration of the Jewish Temple which had been demolished in 70 CE. A contingent of thousands of Jews from Persian districts hoping to assist in the construction effort were killed en-route by Persian soldiers.^[45] The great earthquake together with Julian's death put an end to Jewish hopes of rebuilding the Third Temple.^[46] Had the attempt been successful, it is likely that the re-establishment of the Jewish state with its sacrifices, priests and Sanhedrin or Senate would have occurred.^[43]
Jews probably constituted the majority of the population of Palestine until the 4th-century, when Constantine converted to Christianity.^[47]
Jews lived in at least forty-three Jewish communities in Palestine: twelve towns on the coast, in the Negev, and east of the Jordan, and thirty-one villages in Galilee and in the Jordan valley. The persecuted Jews of Palestine revolted twice against their Christian rulers. In the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire collapsed leading to Christian migration into Palestine and development of a Christian majority. Jews numbered 10–15% of the population. Judaism was the only non-Christian religion tolerated, but there were bans on Jews building new places of worship, holding public office or owning slaves. There were also two Samaritan revolts in this period.^[48]

1. 42. ^ Anti-Semitism: Its History and Causes‏ by Bernard Lazare 1894 see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/lazare-anti.html accessed January 2009
2. 43^ ^{a b} "Julian and the Jews 361–363 CE" (Fordham Universitiy, The Jesuit University of New York).
3. 44^ Andrew Cain; Noel Emmanuel Lenski (2009). The power of religion in late antiquity. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. pp. 245–246. ISBN 978-0-7546-6725-4. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
4. 45^ Abraham Malamat; Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson (1976). A History of the Jewish people. Harvard University Press. p. 353. ISBN 978-0-674-39731-6. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
5. 46^ Günter Stemberger (2000). Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the fourth century. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 215. ISBN 978-0-567-08699-0. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
6. 47^ Edward Kessler (31 March 2010). An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations. Cambridge University Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-521-70562-2. Retrieved 19 December 2011.
7. 48^ M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule, Jerusalem 1984 chapters XI–XII

Secondly, we can't we change our minds (we didn;t, but still)?

If you read that, paying attention to the highlighted sections, you must come to the conclusion that Littlewood has little grasp of his subject.

He also wrote there this:

Zionists claim Jerusalem is theirs by heavenly decree. But this holiest of cities was already 2,000 years old when King David captured it. Historians say that Jerusalem, in its “City of David” form, lasted only 73 years. In 928 BC the kingdom divided into Israel and Judah, and in 597 BC the Babylonians conquered the city and destroyed Solomon’s temple. The Jews recaptured it in 164 BC but finally lost it to the Roman Empire in 63 BC. Before the present-day illegal occupation the Jews controlled Jerusalem for some 500 years, whereas it was subsequently ruled by Muslims for 1,277 years.

a) which "historians"?
b) how did the Muslims come to rule it if not by an illegal occupation?

His whole theory is punctured by such inanities.

Does he get paid for this propaganda effort?

^