Dear Gman,
I sympathize with your words
"There should be no two state solution...", but don't completely agree.
My model would be countries with more than one ethnicity, like America, Canada, Switzerland, or Russia which are dedicated to all the ethnicities and religions whose homes they are.
So I believe the ideal situation would be if both the Israelis and Palestinians lived in one state, since they share the same homeland. It should be for all the native ethnicities and religions in it, with equal rights for everyone.
However, it is hard to make this into an absolute. Since there has been so much fighting, perhaps it would be easier if they had two separate states for some time before they could reunite. Plus, the creation of two states was the original decision of the International Tribunal, the United Nations, so I think we should give a certain measure of acceptance to this concept, even if we would advocate for a better (one state) result.
I am confused by your words:Gman wrote:
Either you are with Israel or you are not. There are no negotiations...
Choose your side or be left out in the dark.
Naturally, as Christians, we must love everyone, including Israelis and Palestinians, and even our enemies. This love is not supposed to be negotiable. I wish the Israeli State and Palestinians well, and hope for their peace, safety, and well-being. My government has allied with them, but I am not an Israeli citizen.
Your words remind me of Jesus' words that you must either be for Him or against Him, and he rued that some were "lukewarm". Here Jesus was talking in a spiritual sense about us as a religious community. And if we define Israel as a national community, I am not sure we can use this phrase ("with them or against them") in the same way, since a good portion of the nation isn't with Jesus.
For St Paul, this was a cause of sorrow, as he said "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh". (Romans 9:3).
St Paul believed that those separated from Jesus weren't together, like branches separated from a common tree. However, at the same time he warned us against looking down on them, since we ourselves could lose faith and be cut off. Plus, Paul gave his hope that all of them would come to the true faith.
So we can't talk about the dilemma of being "with" the State of Israel or "against" it in the same way the phrase is used in the New Testament.
That is why I cannot agree with your statement "We Christians must submit to Jewish Zionism."
If Zionism is simply the return of the people to their homeland, there is nothing really to "submit" to. It is just a pleasant migration of people, a "coming-home."
If Zionism is defined as a national political movement, then Christianity isn't subordinate to it. For example, I have some sympathy for the Zealots' nationalist movement for independence from the Romans. If separated from the issue of the Palestinians, the Zealots were in many ways the predecessors of the modern Zionist movement. Yet Jesus' followers did not submit themselves to the Zealots or the military revolts. Instead, their way was to seek peace with the Romans. And while the Romans expected him to be a Messianic rebel leader, Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world.
Now you could point out that Christians "submitted" to the Roman Empire in the sense of accepting it as their political authority. But that does not mean they supported or favored the Roman political or religious system. Likewise, we may "submit" to the US government in the sense of accepting its authority, but I don't think we should submit our faith to our own secular government.
So just as Christianity did not submit itself to the nationalist movement of the Zealots, I don't think Christians should subordinate their religious or poltiical beliefs to the earthly Israeli political system.
Your words here are basically in agreement with St Paul:Ok... In a nutshell, the Jews are not saved.. They have been blinded. However, God is in the process of setting them up for conversion..
Except that I don't want to be judgmental and say for sure Christian Jews are "not saved" and going to hell. I don't want to imagine that I know for sure how God will judge each person, especially because He is all forgiving.
Christ has died to save the whole world, so it seems perhaps everyone has been saved, but not everyone has taken this gift.
Similarly, I am not sure that "God is gathering them specifically to Israel for this reason (ie. setting them up for conversion)"
First, the rule from the Torah seemed to be that if the people rejected God, He would gove them a hard time until they accepted Him, and then God would protect and bless them. Returning to the land would naturally be a blessing.
Second, the traditional concept in Rabbinical Judaism was that it would be the Messiah who would gather up the people. This is like a shepherd gathering sheep.
And this Rabbinical view at least
sounds right to me, based on passages like Isaiah 11:12
- "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
You noted: "The Jews are God's first love under the patriarchs..."
But don't you think God's human creation, Adam, would be God's "first love"? Or what about Noah and Abraham? The Jewish people I don't think were separate until Judah was born. It just seems like there were persons or groups who God loved prior in time to their being a separate group.
I find the following confusing:The OT land covenants are all still in play today which is why we must honor that system... God has locked a covenant with them that he will NOT break and is still married to them. God cannot go back on His word... He never will.
If the land covenant between the people and the physical land is still in force, this must mean that the Old Testament is still in force.
If so, what about Jews who become Christian? Must they still follow the Old Testament commandments, like the strict things in Leviticus?
And what about St Paul's idea about the whole Church being Israel?
If the whole Church, including uncircumcized persons, is Israel, wouldn't the promises to Israel about its land open up to all the Christians?
And as far as the covenant being locked, what about Zechariah 11, where it says the Shepherd broke the staff called Covenant? I am not saying you are wrong this though, because St Paul himself said that the promises remain despite the people's rejection.
Why would a promise about the people simply returning to their land require a partly-religious nonChristian government?
And finally, would the promises be for everyone descended from the ancient Israelites, or only those who belong to the religious community?
The idea the Old Testament Land Covenants are still in force and concern limited physical land for a limited nationality seems to raise alot of issues from a Christian point of view.