Will people who do not help the State of Israel be cursed?

[patrick457]

Very true.

We must not be deceived into supporting the zionist state of Israel. Judaism is not what gave Israel its inception, it is the ideology of zionism that brought Israel into existence.

As Zulfiqar said, real jews are anti-Israel, meaning jews who actually follow the torah to the best of their ability, the orthodox jews namely. These Jews are Israel’s most vehement opponents, because they realize the Jewish people forcibly taking back the land is not a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy but a crime against God, a sin to do so. Orthodox Jews believe that only God Himself will bring the true Israel back into existence with the coming of the Messiah. These zionists in Israel are the modern day equivalents of the zealots in the time of Jesus, Jews who used force and violence as way to restore Israel by fighting against the Romans. And it should be noted that Jesus refused to join them at every turn, because Jesus knew and said that His kingdom is not of this world.

What Jesus said is that His kingdom is “not from this world.” Ouk estin ek tou kosmou tovtou. In other words, not the sort of kingdom as earthly kingdoms are, which establish their authority by violence, injustice and fabricating facts out of the ground. That doesn’t mean that His kingdom is something totally nebulous and otherworldly with no connection whatsoever to this world, as the traditional rendering - ‘of’ in this case being just the archaic synonym for ‘from’ - can be and are misread today: the kingdom is God’s gift to the world with Jesus as its courier, but the world was not ready for it yet.

 

[MarMax]

What Jesus said is that His kingdom is “not from this world.” Ouk estin ek tou kosmou tovtou. In other words, not the sort of kingdom as earthly kingdoms are, which establish their authority by violence, injustice and fabricating facts out of the ground. That doesn’t mean that His kingdom is something totally nebulous and otherworldly with no connection whatsoever to this world, as the traditional rendering - ‘of’ in this case being just the archaic synonym for ‘from’ - can be and are misread today: the kingdom is God’s gift to the world with Jesus as its courier, but the world was not ready for it yet.

So you don’t submit to the idea that God grants authority to earthly rulers?

Have you read Diuturnum (On the origins of civil power) by Pope Leo XIII?

 

[patrick457]

So you don’t submit to the idea that God grants authority to earthly rulers?

Have you read Diuturnum (On the origins of civil power) by Pope Leo XIII?

No, on the contrary I do. I side with Tom Wright’s interpretation here that the history of Israel is centered on the idea that God is king over the nations, not just in some nebulous, ‘spiritual’ way, but in a real way. Even though many Jews longed for God to become king in the full, complete way He had promised, they also acknowledged that He was already, in a sense, sovereign over the nations. He did allow pagan kings to rule, since He did not want His creation to collapse into anarchy. But He did judge rulers severely (cf. Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar). The Jews assumed that God had made the world in such a way as to be properly ordered and run by human beings. So for the Jews, ‘theocracy’ meant God being in charge mediated through His image-bearers. In the ideal scenario, the world works best when ruled by wise stewards who are humble before God and hence effective in bringing fruitful order in the world. Problem only arises when earthly rulers aggressively assert their lordship through inequality and violence and pridefully present themselves as gods and saviors of the world. (cf. the Roman Empire)

 

[patrick457]

To add to what I wrote earlier, something from the horse’s mouth:
Which brings us back neatly, in the second half of this lecture, to John chapter 18 and 19. What might John have to say, through this astonishing conversation of Jesus and Pilate, to the confused and confusing world of our own day?

Out of the many things that could be said I want to explore the three themes of my title: Kingdom, power and truth. The opening exchange between Pilate and the Judaean leaders (18.28-32) looks like a kind of shadow-boxing: Pilate, with his own intelligence networks, surely knew what charge they were proposing to bring, but wanted to force them into a concession of their own judicial impotence to deal with what they regarded as a capital charge. Pilate then (18.33-38) asks Jesus directly whether he is ‘the King of the Jews’: this was the substance of the charge, as we see later in 19.12, where the Judaean leaders declare that ‘everyone who makes himself a king is setting himself up against Caesar’, which leads directly to their own counter-victory over Pilate. After a preliminary verbal skirmish, Jesus launches in to a description of his ‘kingdom’, the substance of which is, Yes, I am a king and have a kingdom, but No, it isn’t the sort of kingdom you might imagine (18.36).

This is the point at which semi- or crypto-gnostic readings of the text have held sway for a long time, partly due to the King James Version translation: ‘My kingdom is not of this world’, which has then been read in the straightforward, but deeply mistaken, sense of ‘My kingdom consists of a place called “heaven” which has nothing much to do with this world.’ But the Greek speaks of the kingdom being not ek tou kosmou toutou, not from this world. It comes from somewhere else – as, indeed, Jesus had earlier strikingly claimed about himself (8.23), and then, even more strikingly, about his followers (17.14). Granted all that we know about Jesus on the one hand and about first-century Jewish kingdom-of-God language on the other (begging, of course, several major questions at this point), we must say that the ‘kingdom’ of which Jesus was speaking was not from this world, but was emphatically for this world: a kingdom from the creator, the one Jesus called ‘Father’, and intended as the sovereignty which would replace the usurped sovereignty of ‘the ruler of this world’ and the human agents which that dark power had employed. This is, I think, the first and greatest point to be got across in relation not only to contemporary muddles and misunderstandings but to many generations of misreadings of all four canonical gospels: that, over against all Gnostic attempts, ancient and modern, to make ‘kingdom’-language denote an otherworldly bliss, it stubbornly retains its full Jewish sense, world-affirming and indeed world-reclaiming. God’s kingdom must come ‘on earth as in heaven’, and precisely for that reason it is not ‘from’ this world. That which is only from this world can only imitate the way things are done from within the world; and the key example given by Jesus, presupposing that he is a king but demonstrating the difference between his sort of kingdom and all others, is that if his kingdom were from this world his followers would fight to prevent him being handed over. This marks almost as radical a departure from normal kingdom-ideas as the gnostic one does, but in a very different direction. In the present world, violence is what kingdoms do: however much they dress it up, sovereignty is enforced, and sooner or later that means restraint, and sooner or later restraint means violence. But, as Jesus said to James and John in Mark 10, ‘It shall not be so among you.’

This point is rammed home with massive though characteristic Johannine irony in the next chapter when Jesus is mocked by the soldiers, crowned with thorns, dressed in purple and hailed as king. The resonances of the next charge – that Jesus made himself to be the Son of God (19.7) – are wider, but in the Roman world amount to the same thing: the phrase ‘son of God’ was of course in regular use as a key epithet for Caesar, Tiberius being the adopted son of the deified Augustus as he had been of Julius Caesar. But Caesar’s divine rule was implemented by threatening and inflicting violence, not by suffering it. Pilate then emphasizes Jesus’ kingship, both in his ironic statement and question to the crowd (19.14-15), and then at last, paying them back, in the inscription on the cross. Earlier, when Caiaphas had predicted that one man would die for the people, John had commented that this was an unwitting prophecy of Jesus’ upcoming redeeming death (11.49-52). John seldom repeats such a hint, and we should be in no doubt what he intends here. When Pilate has the words ‘King of the Jews’ written out and stuck on Jesus’ cross, and when he refuses to alter it, John is emphasizing that Jesus is indeed ‘the king of the Jews’, the only one in fact who had understood, let alone been obedient to, the strange servant-vocation of the ancient people of God, to whom he had come as his own and not been received. And the point about being ‘the king of the Jews’ is that, in ancient messianic expectation reflecting beliefs and poems about David and Solomon, the ultimate king of the Jews will be the ultimate king of the world. His dominion will be from the one sea to the other, and from the River to the ends of the earth. Early Christianity did not have to shed its Jewish Messianism in order to be relevant to the wider world, as so many scholars used to think. It is precisely because they believed Jesus to be the King of the Jews that the early Christians proclaimed him as the true Lord of the world. Pilate, in refusing to change the inscription, has done in his own way, to his own status, what the chief priests had done a few verses earlier to theirs. They had said ‘we have no king but Caesar’, thus stepping down drastically from everything that made Israel Israel (and anticipating the move made by Flavius Josephus a generation later). Now Pilate declares, however unwittingly, that Jesus is in fact ‘the king of the Jews’, and is thereby hailing him as the true king, the reality of which Caesar was just a dull and dangerous parody. (Perhaps this is the moment to acknowledge the ancient legend that Pilate was British, in fact Scottish, in fact from St Andrews itself.)

 

[Abba]

You know, it kind of seems to me that many of the Christians who ‘support’ the state of Israel do so only because of their ideas about eschatology rather than what we could say is genuine concern for the country. In other words, they have their own agenda for supporting Israel the modern state.

Yes, I have noticed this too.

 

[Abba]

Very true.

We must not be deceived into supporting the zionist state of Israel. Judaism is not what gave Israel its inception, it is the ideology of zionism that brought Israel into existence.

As Zulfiqar said, real jews are anti-Israel, meaning jews who actually follow the torah to the best of their ability, the orthodox jews namely. These Jews are Israel’s most vehement opponents, because they realize the Jewish people forcibly taking back the land is not a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy but a crime against God, a sin to do so. Orthodox Jews believe that only God Himself will bring the true Israel back into existence with the coming of the Messiah. These zionists in Israel are the modern day equivalents of the zealots in the time of Jesus, Jews who used force and violence as way to restore Israel by fighting against the Romans. And it should be noted that Jesus refused to join them at every turn, because Jesus knew and said that His kingdom is not of this world.

The vast majority of zionist Jews are what we Catholics would see as “cafeteria catholics” or “cultural catholics” people who don’t follow all the teachings, may not even believe in the faith, but only refer to themselves as Catholics… in this case refer to themselves as Jews because of a cultural connection or ethnic connection, and so solidarity in support of Israel is based along these lines rather than true religious belief.

But this is one of the core aspects of zionism, it is an ethnic and political ideology, but only mascarades under the cover of Jewish roots to make it appear religious and thereby dispel any criticism from outsiders who can then be labeled antisemitic for their opposition to zionism. When in truth, the greatest critics of zionism and Israel are the most faithful orthodox Jews. The orthodox Jews who are opposed to Israel rightly call this Israel a fraud and counterfeit of the true Israel, and sadly many Christians have been duped into believing they are bound to support Israel no matter what under pain of being in rebellion to God.

I see zionist Christians turning a blind eye for the suffering of innocent people at the hands of the IDF, clamoring for war every time a country incurs the ire of Israel, and I can tell you one thing, this is not of God, and Jesus would by no means stand allied with Israel the way zionist Christians have. But in the mind of the zionist Christian, the Christian values of non-violence, fighting injustice for all people necessarily need to go out the window and be temporarily forgotten simply because the one making war and the one committing injustice is the state of Israel.

I encourage you all to investigate the history of the zionist movement, and the state of Israel. It is a proven falsehood to say that Israel was created as a result of the holocaust. The zionist movement had acquired a guarantee from the British government (who controlled Palestine after WW1) in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to create a state for the Jewish people while Hitler was still a no name corporal in the German army. The holocaust merely provided the collective backing of the zionists by the major world powers in providing the heavy handed force that was able to establish the zionist state of Israel in Palestine.

We Christians are not bound to support the state of Israel, rather we should be critics of Israel just as we should be critics of every nation (including our own) that permits injustice to occur.

Thank L for you great posts and thanks to everyone else who contributed to this thread. There are some nice and clear responses here and I am glad I asked the question. Thank you all.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The best way to support Israel is to go door to door all over Israel preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ even if you are arrested for it–I guess nothing has changed in that regard since the times of the apostles!

 

[patrick457]

The best way to support Israel is to go door to door all over Israel preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ even if you are arrested for it–I guess nothing has changed in that regard since the times of the apostles!

Let’s start now, shall we?

 

[teeboy]

I think Christianity is about receiving God in the temple of our being. This is the Kingdom referred to by Jesus.

If you are caught up in excitement over zionism, you don’t yet understand Catholicism as the love of God.

The Evangelicals on TV are broadcasting misleading information; their beliefs are Bible based and not sacramental. Their interpretations are incorrect. They have been deceived.

 

[DonMack]

Now I’m totally confused…In past posts, Patrick457 has given us some truely clear and insightful responses on a variety of spiritual questions. Please, Patrick457, help me out here…
“Will people who do not help the State of Israel be cursed?”

 

[patrick457]

Now I’m totally confused…In past posts, Patrick457 has given us some truely clear and insightful responses on a variety of spiritual questions. Please, Patrick457, help me out here…
“Will people who do not help the State of Israel be cursed?”

Are you asking for me? If you want my personal opinion here, I’d say “no.”

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

The best way to support Israel is to go door to door all over Israel preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ even if you are arrested for it–I guess nothing has changed in that regard since the times of the apostles!

well said

 

[DonMack]

Thanks,Patrick… I wasn’t aware that the question was even a contested issue. After I find out what the RC bishops have to say on this, maybe I’ll be able to understand the problem a little better.
Thanks again for sharing your theological knowledge with us.
Don

 

[Frankenfurter]

Seems to me the an answer lies in the words of the OP post. The quote says ‘I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’

So if you do not actively curse these people, then, no problem.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I don’t blindly support Israel (I think the antichrist will be a Jew who rules from Jerusalem) but I am not an apologist for jihad either (I also think that one day the Islamic nations will try to form a caliphate and Iran is a financer of evil and threat).

 

[Robbinson]

I’ll share a slightly different perspective. Like a number of doctrines/beliefs within the Catholic Faith - I believe the question about Israel is not “either/or” both “both”. I’ll explain. (e.g., just as its not faith or works, but faith and works).

It is true (as an earlier post noted) that in some sense, the Catholic Church (the fuller body of Christ in fact) is the “new” Israel - but only in the spiritual sense of having been grafted into the “promises” to Israel (Romans 11). It is therefore also true that in terms of the body of Christ and in salvation, there is no distrinction within the body of Christ between Jewish and Gentile believers - we are “one new man” and thus, the “Israel of God” (all believers - Jew and Gentile).

However, it is also true, I believe, that God still has a special role for “ethnic Israel” (unbelieving ethnic Israel - descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) in this eschatological plan. Romans 11 talks of this too - how God caused Israel to be blind (in large part) but not “forever” - rather, until the full allotment of Gentiles comes in - and then Israel will “see” and mourn for the one whom they have pierced (Zechariah 10) - and be grafted back into to the rootstock with believing Gentiles (and existing beleiving Jews (believing in Jesus/Yeshua). I think this is what Jesus meant when he said “the last will be first and the first will be last” (Israel the first to get the law, but the last to recognize the Messiah - but “last” , not “never”).

The Hebrew scriptures foretold of Isarel’s dispersion and rejection of the Messiah - but don’t forget, it also foretold of its regathering in the book of Ezekiel (first physically only (not spiritually) and only later spiritually). To me, the rebirth of the State of Israel after 2000 years is likely prophetic and the beginning of this “spiritual rebirth” that will be to God’s glory (which is currently only a physical regathering in the secular state of Israel - but per scripture a necessary precurser to their ultimate spiritual reibirth). The Church has no official teaching on this - but I think a great failing of many within the Church body has been the adoption of “full replacement theology” thinking that God is finished with Israel.

The Catechism tells us replacement theology is not true - pointing to God’s calling to Israel being irrevocable and actually pointing to these verses in Romans 11 which fortell of Israel (ethnic Israel’s) return to the sheep fold.

So - should be support Israel? I think so - absolutely so (not unconditionally in all they do or fail to do) but on a macro level - it is marvelous in God’s eyes (I think).

In any event - lets pray for unbelieving Israel (Jews) (as well as all unbelievers)- as the gospel is to be preached to all nations (in fact per scripture -“to the Jew first, and then the Greek”).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[YKohen]

Just a few points. I just found this thread, but it’s already getting late here in Israel:

The modern state of Israel poses a real theological challenge to the Church. Of course there’s no historical, theological teaching about the state of Israel- because it was inconceivable that the nation of Israel would actually return to the land of Israel. That would be in line with the Jewish interpretation of the Bible; not the traditional Christian teaching.

So now what do you do with the hundreds of verses describing the physical return of the nation of Israel to the land of Israel? Truth is that we’re the elephant in the room.

Theologically, the Church has yet to come to terms with the state of Israel.

Yes- we Jews today are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob- on every level.

And the promise made to Abraham is not to all of Abraham’s descendants. G-d made the promise again to Isaac and Jacob, and again and again.

Besides: "And Abraham gave ALL that he had to Isaac. But to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, he gave gifts and sent them away from his son while he yet lived, eastward, to the east country." (Genesis 25:5-6)

“Real Jews”? Real Jews include anyone born of a Jewish mother or anyone who joins the nation of Israel as did Ruth the Moabite (Ruth 1:16). An atheist Jew is no less a Jew than I, an Orthodox Jew, am.

As to the ultra-Orthodox, today, an overwhelming majority are Zionists; even call themselves Zionists. In fact, 12 years ago, a leader of the very anti-Zionist Neturei Karta group conceded to me that their major battle today is within the ultra-Orthodox world- and that they are losing.

They have been completely marginalized- and even excommunicated, by many ultra-Orthodox groups including Anshei Sfard, Satmar, Bobov, Emunas Yisroel, Ger, Belz, Bnei Yehuda, Nitra, Viznitz, Munkacz, Vien, Klausenburg, Viznitz, Torah Vodaas, Novominsk, Torah Temimah, Chasan Sofer, Kiryas Joel - Monroe, Pupa, Young Israel of Brooklyn, Cong. Shomrei Shabbos, United Lubavitch Organizations of Crown Heights, Kamenitz, Agudath Israel 14th Avenue, United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, Boro Park Jewish Council, Debrecin, US Friends of the Eida Charedis, Lakewood Yeshiva, and others.

In fact, the largest and fastest-growing “settlements” in Judea and Samaria (what some call the “West Bank”) are ultra-Orthodox; Beitar Ilit and Kiryat Sefer (Modi’in Ilit).

In fact, the fastest-growing battalion in the IDF has been the Nachal Hareidi, an ultra-Orthodox battalion that could triple tomorrow if the IDF knew what to do with them.

I can give you a lot more about this if you want.

As to the relationship between the state of Israel and the Jews, just know that now, a plurality of world Jewry lives in Israel. Given present demographic trends, it will be an outright majority within 1 generation. That issue is almost finished as well.

Good night from Israel.

 

[Robbinson]

Great post YKohen - thanks! See a few thoughts below.

Just a few points. I just found this thread, but it’s already getting late here in Israel:

The modern state of Israel poses a real theological challenge to the Chu

rch. Of course there’s no historical, theological teaching about the state of Israel- because it was inconceivable that the nation of Israel would actually return to the land of Israel. That would be in line with the Jewish interpretation of the Bible; not the traditional Christian teaching.

This is true only in the sense that there is no official Church teaching/position on this - but many Christians do in fact believe that there will be a physical return of ethnic “Israelites” to the holy land and that the state of Israel may in fact be that initial “physical return”. Admittedly this view is more prevalent among evangelical Christians and messianic Jews than Catholics, but there are some writings of early Church fathers that also allude to this possibility.

So now what do you do with the hundreds of verses describing the physical return of the nation of Israel to the land of Israel? Truth is that we’re the elephant in the room.

Theologically, the Church has yet to come to terms with the state of Israel.

Agreed - it certainly is at least worth of pause and reflection.

Yes- we Jews today are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob- on every level.

And the promise made to Abraham is not to all of Abraham’s descendants. G-d made the promise again to Isaac and Jacob, and again and again.

Besides: "And Abraham gave ALL that he had to Isaac. But to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, he gave gifts and sent them away from his son while he yet lived, eastward, to the east country." (Genesis 25:5-6)

“Real Jews”? Real Jews include anyone born of a Jewish mother or anyone who joins the nation of Israel as did Ruth the Moabite (Ruth 1:16). An atheist Jew is no less a Jew than I, an Orthodox Jew, am.

Interestingly, according to scripture, an Israelite or Jew would have been defined through paternal lines - it was much later in jewish history that Talmudic and Rabbinic teachings embraced descent through the mother (likely for historic reasons relating to exile from Israel, difficulty in identifying fathers, in the aweful case of rape by occupiers, etc. Note, Joseph’s descendents come from his egyptian wife (but are jews) (and she clearly was not jewish when they wed or when his children were born as he was Egyptian at the time and no one new he was a Jew).

In any event - I agree with you that Ruth, for example, while not born a jew became a jew through “conversion” and became part of the Jewish people. The Christian concept of gentile believers becoming part of spiritual Israel is excatly based on this concept - that through faith they are grafted into Israel and form a part of her. Similarly, a non-believing Jew remains part of ethnic Israel (part of the tribe) but is spiritually broken off through unbelief (not permanently, praised by G_d).

Its an interesting and big topic which we admittedly can’t properly tackle in a thread -

Blessings,

Brian

 

[YKohen]

This is true only in the sense that there is no official Church teaching/position on this - but many Christians do in fact believe that there will be a physical return of ethnic “Israelites” to the holy land and that the state of Israel may in fact be that initial “physical return”. Admittedly this view is more prevalent among evangelical Christians and messianic Jews than Catholics, but there are some writings of early Church fathers that also allude to this possibility.

So I heard from another poster in a different thread- which I think is why Abba started this thread.

I am curious/interested as to how the Church will ultimately deal with the whole issue. Until now, the Vatican has dealt with the state of Israel on every level except on a theological level. It seems to me that it isn’t something that can be ignored indefinitely.

Interestingly, according to scripture, an Israelite or Jew would have been defined through paternal lines - it was much later in jewish history that Talmudic and Rabbinic teachings embraced descent through the mother (likely for historic reasons relating to exile from Israel, difficulty in identifying fathers, in the aweful case of rape by occupiers, etc. Note, Joseph’s descendents come from his egyptian wife (but are jews) (and she clearly was not jewish when they wed or when his children were born as he was Egyptian at the time and no one new he was a Jew).

The traditional (Orthodox) Jewish position is that the change happened when we became a nation- which was at Mt. Sinai (“And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” [Exodus 19:6]). This is why Ruth converted later on. This is also why it is already found in the Mishnah.

The Christian concept of gentile believers becoming part of spiritual Israel is excatly based on this concept - that through faith they are grafted into Israel and form a part of her.

The traditional Jewish concept isn’t one of grafting, per-se. We don’t believe that one must be Jewish in order to be a good, holy, saintly person- with a share in the world-to-come. Conversely, we believe that one can be Jewish and be evil.

Our concept is that like an orchestra, not everyone is a violinist, a trumpet player, etc. Were that the case, then the music would sound flat. Each has his or her role to play, and if each plays it properly; separately but in tune with his/her neighbor, then the result is beautiful music; for G-d’s glory.

Its an interesting and big topic which we admittedly can’t properly tackle in a thread -

Blessings,

Brian

Agreed. Blessings to you from the Holy land.

 

[mercytruth]

Regarding the theological issue of recognizing Israel as a nation from the perspective of the Catholic church. it is my perception as an outsider that there are two issues involved.

First, how does the Church maintain its credibility as ‘infallible’ in its doctrine, if it changes its teaching on eschatology, and on interpretation of scripture with regard to the prophecies regarding ‘Israel’? From my understanding of Catholic teaching, there will not be a literal restoration of ethnic Israel with a literal restoration of Jerusalem and its temple. In addition, post diaspora ‘Israel’, and its future restoration as spoken of in the prophetic writings is often interpreted to represent spiritual Israel.

Secondly, there is an underlying theme within the early church fathers who did believe in the restoration of ethnic Israel, Jerusalem and of the temple which can be very controversial with the Church’s desire to maintain dialogue with the Jewish people.

The theme which is found in the NT, and in such fathers as Bishop Hippolytus, Bishop Ireneaus and others is that the anti-christ will be of Jewish descent and most likely from the tribe of Dan. The theme is that this anti-christ will proclaim himself to be god in the restored temple of Jerusalem. Even more controversial is the fact that this anti-christ will persecute the church. He will be known as the abomination of desolation as spoken of by the prophet Daniel. This person is mentioned by Jesus as the one who will appear in the last days. (Antiochus Epiphanes was the first representation of such).

Bar Kochba who was anointed by Rabbi Akiba (one of the four who entered PARDES).
Bar Kochba as a false maschiach persecuted Christian Jews who did not join his army in resisting the Roman occupation. This last days anti-christ will persecute all peoples who do not worship him.

Secular Zionism is therefore looked upon by some as a reason and a fount from which this anti-christ will emerge.

Those of us who know how much G-d loves his people Israel, have difficulty in expressing these underlying themes without seeming to be hateful and suspicious of the Jewish people, which hatred and suspicion we ought not to encourage.

shalom

micah