Jews Against Zionism

Yep, thats what I said. There are Jews that oppose the Jewish State. They claim that the Torah forbids the formation of a Jewish state, that they are to live among the nations, they are exiled by God because of disobedience. It was because of the holocaust that the European nations demanded a Jewish state be formed.

These people seem to know more than we do, sad to say.

Check out the link: scroll toward the bottom to listen.
[url=http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Conferences/2006Dec12Iran.cfm]Jews Against Zionism[/url]

Compliments, brave of you to post this.

There is a difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism.

However, these particular Jews are clearly the puppets of the Iranian propaganda machine.

Their office is in New York.

In one sense this has nothing to do with the Jewish nation, or Zionism. It has [i]everything[/i] to do with the faithfulness of God, in spite of human rebellion and unfaithfulness.

The question isn't whether Zionism is right or wrong but, [i][u][b]"Does God keep His word?"[/b][/u][/i]

He said He would punish His people by exile, and He said He would bring them back again to the land He promised to Abraham, and would there speak to their hearts.

It is true, as this group maintains, that the Jewish people were exiled for their sins, especially of rejecting their own Messiah. (Yet the Lord used even that tragic fact to cause the Gospel to spill out to the nations, as He promised Abraham, "in you shall all the nations of the earth be blessed".)

There are prophecies that Israel would return to the land. Which has happened, exactly as He said, within living memory.

I don't see how this anti-Zionist group can understand and believe the first part of this but not the latter.

Have they read in their own Scriptures? For example, in Jeremiah 30:

[color=000066] 8 “And it shall come to pass in that day, says the Lord of hosts, that I will break the yoke from off their neck, and I will burst their bonds, and strangers shall no more make servants of them. 9 But they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them. 10 “Then fear not, O Jacob my servant, says the Lord,
nor be dismayed, O Israel;
for lo, I will save you from afar,
and your offspring from the land of their captivity.
[i][u][b]Jacob shall return[/b][/u][/i] and have quiet and ease,
and none shall make him afraid. 11 For I am with you to save you, says the Lord;
[i][u][b]I will make a full end of all the nations
among whom I scattered you,
but of you I will not make a full end.[/b][/u][/i]
I will chasten you in just measure,
and I will by no means leave you unpunished...[/color]

Yes, I know there is a spiritual interpretation, that especially comes out in verses 8-9, and that "David" is the Lord Jesus, but there is ALSO a natural intepretation. There are things God has spoken about His natural people that are not yet completely fulfilled. (An obvious one is that the present State of Israel still seems to be as Godless and rebellious as any modern nation - although there is always a "faithful Remnant". Another is that the full extent of the land promised to Abraham has not been possessed)

Blessings

Jeannette

Yes, I know there is a spiritual interpretation, that especially comes out in verses 8-9, and that "David" is the Lord Jesus, but there is ALSO a natural intepretation. There are things God has spoken about His natural people that are not yet completely fulfilled. (An obvious one is that the present State of Israel still seems to be as Godless and rebellious as any modern nation - although there is always a "faithful Remnant". [b][i]Another is that the full extent of the land promised to Abraham has not been possessed[/i][/b])

Deuteronomy 11:24
[color=000099]24 Every place on which the sole of your foot treads shall be yours; your territory shall be from the wilderness and Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the western sea. [/color]

I'm not good at history or Geography but I don't think that even Solomon's empire stretched that far. His influence did, I think, but he didn't actually rule as far as the Euphrates.

Is that correct?

Jeannette

Hi Jeanette,

I noticed this reference to Euphrates not so long ago, and remembered it arises in Eden (Gen 2:14).

It is similar to the imagery in this reference to 'Adam'.

Joshua 3:16
the waters which came down from upstream stood [i]still, and[/i] rose in a heap very far away at Adam, the city that [i]is[/i] beside Zaretan. So the waters that went down into the Sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, failed, [and] were cut off; and the people crossed over opposite Jericho.

I'm sure you've seen hymns with references to 'Eden repossessed' or similar.

There is something about both cities and rivers - of spiritual significance - which cannot be ignored, I believe.

This is not to say the land is not important, but Jesus Himself said His kingdom is not of this world, and had endless difficulty in communicating the concept to those who would claim they had already understood what God had said through the prophets.

dorcas wrote:

Hi Jeanette,

I noticed this reference to Euphrates not so long ago, and remembered it arises in Eden (Gen 2:14).

It is similar to the imagery in this reference to 'Adam'.

Joshua 3:16
the waters which came down from upstream stood [i]still, and[/i] rose in a heap very far away at Adam, the city that [i]is[/i] beside Zaretan. So the waters that went down into the Sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, failed, [and] were cut off; and the people crossed over opposite Jericho.

I'm sure you've seen hymns with references to 'Eden repossessed' or similar.

There is something about both cities and rivers - of spiritual significance - which cannot be ignored, I believe.

This is not to say the land is not important, but Jesus Himself said His kingdom is not of this world, and had endless difficulty in communicating the concept to those who would claim they had already understood what God had said through the prophets.

I have avoided this subject for some time because we didn't seem to be getting anywhere with our "offline" discussion. Although I have continued to ponder and pray on the issue.

I am blessed that you do acknowledge the land may be important. I didn't think you would!

You said:

Jesus Himself said His kingdom is not of this world, and had endless difficulty in communicating the concept to those who would claim they had already understood what God had said through the prophets[/i]

Both have to be held together in balance.

Man was created to be free of both natural and spiritual worlds. - A sort of hybrid - body, soul and spirit together in one individual - unlike the animals (body and soul?) and angels (soul and spirit but no body?) That's off topic, but i find it interesting!

As I said, the main issue to me, re Israel, is that [i][b]God must keep His Word - even to a stiffnecked and rebellious people[/b][/i] - as we all are, when left to ourselves!

Interesting comment on significance of rivers. Although I don't remember any hymns that speak of "Eden repossessed". The nearest I can think of is where it says (in "Jesus shall reign..."?)

[i]"...In Him the tribes of Adam boast
More blessings than their father lost"[/i]

The city "Adam" apparently isn't the same word as the man Adam, (looked it up once, the word means meadow or field if I remember). But the river is of course significant.

Mmmm Rivers could make a good study...

Just looked up Euphrates - the word means "fruitfulness" And Jordan is "descender"

"He who humbles himself shall be exalted"? Crossing Jordan is of course symbolic of "death to self". Significant that John baptized in the Jordan...

I'm not sure if the Eden mentioned re the Euphrates is the same as where the Garden of Eden was. Depends on the changes to the geography of the earth after the Flood, I suppose. Maybe that area was more or less preserved (though there must have been huge deposits of sediment that buried the original river) in spite of the Flood.

But that is a subject for another thread maybe.

Blessings

Jeannette

Jeanette said

[i][b]God must keep His Word - even to a stiffnecked and rebellious people[/b][/i]

On the point of the city Adam, I interpret the piling up of the waters of Jordan ('descender') as something to do with a way being made [i]through[/i] all the [u]death[/u] (descent) due to the human race - right back to the man Adam.

I notice about Euphrates that it also carries the meaning of 'send her away' in Hebrew. At first sight this may not seem to be compatible with 'fruitfulness', but if it is something to do with Eve (the mother of all living), then in the same way as a tree is at its weakest when it is fruitbearing, so is a woman. All her strength is going into the body being formed in her, just as the strength of the tree is poured into the fruit. For Eve, this did not happen till she had left the garden of Eden, when all her strength was poured into the next generation.

I notice Euphrates is also mentioned here:

Revelation 16:12
And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, [u]that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared[/u].

Your comment about how its course may have changed after the flood is interesting, but its source will not have changed. This is immaterial if God is going to dry it up, to make a highway for armies to advance northwestwards.

[url=http://encarta.msn.com/map_701512367/Euphrates.html]http://encarta.msn.com/map_701512367/Euphrates.html[/url]

[url=http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/eurphrates-river-map.html]http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/eurphrates-river-map.html[/url]

EDIT:

Jeremiah 51 (NKJV)

63 "Now it shall be, when you have finished reading this book, [i]that[/i] you shall tie a stone to it and throw it out into the Euphrates.

64 "Then you shall say,
'Thus Babylon shall sink and not rise from the catastrophe that I will bring upon her. And they shall be weary.' " Thus far [i]are[/i] the words of Jeremiah.

Dorcas said:
Jeanette said

God must keep His Word - even to a stiffnecked and rebellious people

I can't ignore the 'if' with which God accompanied His word. In my understanding, the 'if' also counts as part of His intentions

You mean that some of His promises are conditional? But not all. The promise to Noah never again to bring an universal flood for example. I thought that the promise to Abraham re the land was of this kind, not conditional, no "if" Though I may be mistaken, will have to check...(it's getting a bit late to do it tonight)

Blessings

Jeannette

Jeanette said

thought that the promise to Abraham re the land was of this kind, not conditional

dorcas wrote:
Jeanette said

thought that the promise to Abraham re the land was of this kind, not conditional

I agree, but, when they returned from Egypt, wasn't that God's word fulfilled?

I've been trying to look it up, but as usual time has beaten me, so excuse the lack of accurate Bible references)!

The territory promised to Abraham was (East to West) from the Mediterranian to the Euphrates, and North to South from the Arabah to...?. I don't think Israel went as far as that under Joshua or in the time of the Judges or King Saul.

After the return form Egypt the conquest was only partial, [i]at least[/i] until the time of David, and even then I'm not sure if it was complete.

David conquered an area near the Euprates, or possibly as far as the river, when he defeated King Hadadrezar (1Chronicles 18) but it doesn't seem that this area has ever actually formed part of Israel proper - apparently this area was at most composed of vassel states. I don't know if this counts or not, as fulfillment of the original Promise. Personally I think not, but don't have enough information to be sure.

Maybe someone with a better memory for historical and geographical details can help clarify this?

Maybe it helps to notice that God said to Abraham that He had (already?)given him and his descendants this land as a [i]permanent[/i] possession. Yet Abraham himself never actualy possessed any of it, except for a [i][u]burial plot[/u][/i], which he actually bought with money!

The spiritual significance of this is [i]huge[/i], (but off topic!)

in Him

Jeannette

JaySaved wrote:
According to Wikipedia, Zionism is:
"national liberation movement, a political movement and an ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE. While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in Europe during the 19th century. After a number of advances and setbacks, and after the Holocaust had destroyed Jewish society in Europe, the Zionist movement culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948."

It wouldn't be the first time in world history (nor will it be the last) where secular or pagan political forces are used by the Lord to carry out HIS plans. Cyrus in ancient times, and Winston Churchill during WWII, are examples of leaders who probably didn’t know the Lord, yet He used them.

I have no problem with Jews wanting a homeland. In fact, I strongly support Israel's right to exist. They are a strong ally of America and we should always support them in their time of need.

But spiritually speaking, I am very cautious when Christians use the Bible to support Zionism.

So you think that the spiritual truth of the New Covenant somehow cancels out God's promises to "Israel after the flesh"?

Why should it? Surely both truths can exist together, without the slightest conflict.

The superseding of the Old Covenant by the New concerns religious ritual, and the righteousness of God, wholly fulfilled in Jesus. I don't see how it has any bearing on the land question.

Zion is mentioned in the OT many times referring to Jerusalem and specifically the area of the Temple, but in the New Testament we see that Zion is fulfilled in Jesus and the New Covenant.

The word Zionism is surely only a convenient handle for the movement? You could just as well call it Jewish nationalism.

Look at Hebrews 12:18-24 (NASB)…

Did you see how the writer of Hebrews used Zion in verse 22, he used it in a spiritual way to refer to the New Covenant. He does the same thing with 'city of the living God' in calling it the 'heavenly Jerusalem'.

This modern form of Zionism is simply Jews wanting to reclaim their former Judaism and for some they don't even want that...they just want a country to live in run by Jews.

Why would we ever encourage anyone to reclaim their false religion? Specifically, why would Christians ever encourage Jews to reclaim their former ways under Judaism with a Temple, sacrifices and feasts...all those were fulfilled in Jesus.

I honestly don’t understand why you are connecting this with support of their clam to the land the Lord promised them! :-?

Personally I'm not interested in what form modern Zionism takes, whether it is right or wrong, or whether its proponents have a political or religious agenda or both. [i][b]All I’m interested in is the fact that the Lord is going to fulfil His Word[/b][/i] concerning a stubborn and rebellious people, yet who are still – in some sense - His in a way that other peoples are not.

The New Covenant is on a different level, the spiritual. Of course, spiritual and physical interact, but emphasising this spiritual truth at the expense of Israel after the flesh, is like saying that we [i]already[/i] have our resurrection bodies, or that the Millennium is already here, or Jesus has already come. (Full Preterists apparently believe this, but no-one else as far as I know!)

[i]Spiritually[/i] the New Creation IS in the here and now, brought into being via the New Covenant, but not yet fully manifested. As Hebrews says, the Father [i]has[/i] put all things under Jesus’ feet, but we do not yet see all things under Him.

Spiritually it is only in Christ that Jews or anyone else can be part of God’s true people, but physically and nationally Israel, and the land promised to Abraham, are still very significant and special – their very existence a witness to God’s power upon earth, and His workings in the affairs of men.

Blessings

Jeannette

Jeanette said

Yet Abraham himself never actualy possessed any of it, except for a burial plot, which he actually bought with money!

I have always been under the impression that Abram literally walked into the land, and to all intents and purposes, it was his. OF COURSE he didn't have a big enough company to spread out over the whole are, but, he lived in peace there.

More, he was not interested in the possession as modern Israelis are today, according (again)to the writer of the Hebrews in 11:10 for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.

dorcas wrote:
Jeanette said

Yet Abraham himself never actualy possessed any of it, except for a burial plot, which he actually bought with money!

So, when Abram went on his initial journey, had children; eventually Jacob's sons sold Joseph into Egypt, where do you think they were living?

I have always been under the impression that Abram literally walked into the land, and to all intents and purposes, it was his. OF COURSE he didn't have a big enough company to spread out over the whole are, but, he lived in peace there.

More, he was not interested in the possession as modern Israelis are today, according (again)to the writer of the Hebrews in 11:10 for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.

Why do you have a problem with that aspect of what God said?

This fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham has both spiritual and physical aspects. Both are true, not just one. To focus on either the physical or the spiritual aspect at the expense of the other is error. Some Christians and Jews, as you have said, err in emphasising the physical aspect, as if Jesus hadn't died to set us free from the Law, and bring Jew and Gentile together into His Kingdom. Others err in denying the physical aspect, as if only the spiritual existed.

God is God of the whole [i]earth[/i], not only the spiritual realms, or spiritual truths. Physical and spiritual interact, none is complete without taking the other into account also.

If you concentrate on the spiritual aspect and ignore or deny the physical you are dangerously near the Gnostic idea that matter is of no importance at all, or even evil.

I hope this hasn't been put too harshly, it's not meant that way, but it does concern me very deeply that some Christians seem unable to appreciate that the issue of Israel and the Jews is to do primarily with GOD - His Word, His honour, His glory.

Remember how Moses pleaded His honor when God threatened to destroy the people because of their rebellion? (Exodus 32:9-13)

I think that the denial of His Word concerning His earthly people is also a form of antisemitism, if only a mild form; but the central issue is that GOD HAS SAID...

Yours in Him

Jeannette

I said:...the issue of Israel and the Jews is to do primarily with GOD - His Word, His honour, His glory.

Remember how Moses pleaded His honor when God threatened to destroy the people because of their rebellion? (Exodus 32:9-13)

[color=000099] 9 And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; 10 now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; but of you I will make a great nation.”
11 But Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, “O Lord, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people, whom thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them forth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 [i][b]Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, [u]to whom thou didst swear by thine own self[/u], and didst say to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it for ever.’”[/b][/i] And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.
(Revised Standard Version)[/color]

Blessings

Jeannette

Hi Jeanette,

and they shall inherit it for ever.

I'm going to re-open an old thread of mine on whether there is a difference between 'for ever' and 'everlasting', which philologos kindly answered.

I notice that Young chooses 'and they have inherited to the age;' This is more in keeping with my understanding; namely, that the earth will end. Now, where will 'Israel' the country be, in the new earth?

I still feel there is a great deal of scripture to be explored to account for the many times God refers to the 'whole' world.

KingJimmy's allusion to 'the nations', does not necessarily imply a lot of separate countries. That is what we are used to on the earth today, but, there is no reason to assume, during a time of world peace, that national boundaries would either be of importance, or, that people of one nation or another, would be required to live on the land associated with their nationality.

In the background of this discussion is the truth of Ruth and Rahab in the geneology of Christ, and the fact that any gentile could become a Jew by joining themselves to their religious practices.

Also, I am continually noticing how Paul, again and again, changes the terms of engagement under the New Covenant, from what they were under the Old. From 'He is a Jew who is one inwardly' to 'children of Abraham' being those who 'believe', there are many other claims he makes, which I find militating against hanging on too hard, to ANYTHING from the Old Covenant.

But I'm listening. I do know that when anyone posts something in this discussion which hits my spirit as 'the truth', I will receive it. But so far, all I hear is words that have passed their use-by date. And this is not a form of anti-semetism. Jews have only one way into the blessing of God, and that is through faith in Christ Jesus. This is the thesis in Romans 9. They can reclaim the land in hope, but they will die [u]mis[/u]believing, if without [u]Him[/u].

I have a lot more Old Testament reading to do before I can adequately expand with Bible verses to back up my reasoning.