What is the official position of the various Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.) regarding the situation in Israel and Palestine and the conflict between them?

***Zionism*** (political nationalism) certainly was not begun by Dispensationalists; and the occurrence of the Halocaust did give impetus to it. But Dispensationalist have strongly embraced it. And Zionist Dispensationalists often quote the Genesis 12 verse, ***God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel*** to justify their support, spiritually, financially, and militarily, for the nation of modern Israel. >I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse, and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:3) This is even though the majority of the Jews in Israel are either ***secular, or anti-Christian***. And are seen to persecute Christians living there. (Statements by King of Jordon, and news reports on TBN network who reluctantly received his report until they saw videos themselves of Jews disrupting Christian rites). And ***Christian Palestinians*** are not even on their radar screen! So how do ***protestant orthodox Christian scholars*** deal with this seminal verse about blessing Israel in contrast to the Dispensational interpretation? Which other scriptures do non-Disp. Christians appeal to, that causes them to treat ***all nation equally***, with love and mercy, without referring to any particular nation or political entity?

One of the defining characteristics of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel, meaning the Jewish people, was given specific promises regarding the land of Israel, which are not applicable to the Church in any way but to the Jews only. As I understand it, Dispensationalists believe these will be fulfilled during the Millennium. I am still trying to wrap my head around the Dispensationalist idea of Israelology, by which they mean the study of the Biblical concept of "Israel." They would define it as an ethnic/genetic category, as the descendants of Israel, a.k.a. Jacob. In Orthodox Judaism, one is considered a Jew if your mother is Jewish or if you are a Halahically valid convert to Judaism, i.e. it is both matrilineal and by conversion. My understanding is that Dispensationalism, at least in its classical form, would exclude converts to Judaism from their definition of "Israel" (see for instance this article ). **What is unclear to me is whether physical descent is defined (by Dispensationalists) matrilineally or patrilineally or some mixture. For instance, if my maternal grandfather and/or paternal grandmother are part of Israel, am I?** I have not been able to find a source that gives a well-defined answer to this question. ChatGPT told me that the Dispensationalist theologian Arnold Fruchtenbaum, head of Ariel Ministries argued in his book *Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology* for a patrilineal-only definition of Israel, but without having a copy of that book, I haven't been able to track down any explicit statement to that effect. The quote from Jon Mark Ruthven cited in this article suggests that Ruthven might include either matrilineal or patrilineal descent: > The tradition of identifying a Jew as one whose mother was Jew may represent an attempt to preserve the genetic identity of Jews in the Diaspora. Before that, Jews were those whose fathers were Jews. During the dispersion, oppression of the Jews made it difficult to know who someone’s father was, due to the frequent rape of Jewish women by their oppressors, in times of war and peace. Conversions to Judaism, of course, complicate this purely genetic model somewhat. But the children of these concerts will marry Jews and raise their children to do the same. So Jewish genes soon predominate. However, the quote doesn't define what "Jewish genes" means. It surely does not imply that a genetic Jew is someone whose genetic material is mostly derived from the patriarchs, as that would almost certainly not be applicable to anyone at all who is separated from them by more than two generations. He also does not say whether the shift from patrilineal to matrilineal was legitimate as regards the covenants. To be clear, I am asking about the full Israelite identity, as Dispensationalists often separate partaking fully in the covenants verses spiritual blessings only. I am asking about those who are full partakers in the OT covenants -- is it common among Dispensationalists to believe that this is exclusively for those who are patrilineally descended from Jacob? How is this Israelite identity determined?

Some Christians, particularly in the United States, believe that America has a divine obligation to support or defend the modern state of Israel. This belief is often linked to the promise in **Genesis 12:3**, where God says to Abraham, *“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.”* Is this verse the primary theological basis for that belief?

Zechariah speaks of “all the peoples” (Zech. 12:2), “and all the people of the earth will gather against it (Jerusalem)” (Zech. 12:3), and “I will gather all the nations to fight against Jerusalem” (Zech. 14:2). These verses do not seem to be referring to the Romans in A.D. 70. Further on, Zechariah continues, saying: “On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem” (Zech. 12:8), and: “Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle” (Zech. 14:3). I concluded that none of this fits with what happened to Jerusalem in A.D. 70, when the Romans conquered Israel. Finally, the passage says that the Lord will save Israel on that day (Zech. 14:3), whereas in A.D. 70, the Lord judged Israel, as written in Luke 21:20–24. So how can preterists say that Zechariah is speaking of A.D. 70 if, in this passage, the Lord is saving His people? james stuart russell the parousia The AD 70 Doctrine description

As the gospel spread beyond Israel to the Gentile world, many began to ask important questions about God's promises to the Jewish people. In *Exodus 4:22*, God declares, *“Israel is my firstborn son,”* highlighting Israel’s special place in His redemptive plan. But with the coming of Christ and the message of salvation extended to all nations, we now see Christians referred to as adopted sons and daughters of God through faith. This raises important theological questions: Has Israel’s special status been replaced by the Church? Do Gentile believers now stand in place of Israel as God's chosen people? Or does Israel still hold a distinct role in God's unfolding story? This topic invites reflection on God's faithfulness, the unity of His promises, and how both Jews and Gentiles fit into His plan through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is my understanding that after Joseph presented Jacob to Pharaoh, the king gave the Hebrews (Jacob and the rest of his party) some very fertile land (Goshen) in which to dwell by themselves. It seems that Egyptians held people who were shepherds in abomimation. QUESTION: Do we have a good idea of where exactly Goshen was located; or is the exact site pretty much conjecture?

From this answer it is stated "Peter, James, John (the twelve) were followers of Christ's earthly ministry to Israel (the circumcision)." and from a comment there given for clarity, "The gospels were directly to Israel regarding the coming kingdom of heaven and 'prophecy' that was revealed to Israel's prophets "since the world began" (Luke 1:70).". The answer states that, while all of the New Testament is profitable for those in the Church it is the Apostle Paul's writings that are specifically to and for the Church with the rest (especially the Gospels) specifically to and for the nation of Israel. The twelve Apostles were Christ's ministers to Israel and Paul was Christ's minister to Gentiles. The Dispensationalist view seems to be that Jesus is building His Church now and **some Jews** believe and are added to the Church. At some point the Church will be removed from earth and then **lots of Jews** will believe but they will not be part of the Church (because the Church age is over). > And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. - John 10:16 (KJV) In this passage John records Jesus saying **to the Jews** that there is one sheepfold of His sheep into which "other sheep" will be brought. The natural reading of this seems to be that Jesus' sheep are the believing Jews and the "other sheep" who are not of this fold that will be brought in are the Gentiles. This appears on the surface to be the exact opposite of dispensational thought wherein Jews believe in Jesus and are added to the Church and where there are two "sheepfolds", Israel and the Church. Parenthetic: A similar difficulty arises in Romans 11:11-24 where the wild olive branches (Gentiles) are grafted into the good olive tree (Israel) so that there will be just one olive tree. My question for Dispensationalists regarding John 10:16 is: How is the plain reading of this passage overcome?

I'm writing an essay about Christian Zionism, and I'm a bit unclear on the end-times beliefs of pre-millennialism and post-millennialism. I understand the basic timelines of both, but where does Jewish emigration to Israel fit in? At what point (and in which belief system) are Jews either supposed to convert to Christianity or be ruled by a tyrant?

Gal 6:16 NASB95 >And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy [be] upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

I was speaking with a Dispensationalist pastor and he made the claim that "the Old Testament always defines Israel as genetic Israel". I mentioned Josh. 8:33 as a counterexample, but he said that that verse is talking about the "assembly of Israel" which should be distinguished from Israel proper, which he claims must be genetically defined. Notes from a friend of mine who attends his church similarly say that "Every time ‘Israel’ is read in the OT, it only ever means a genetic descendant of Jacob (and sometimes it means a subset of this group—northern 10 tribes) – ethnic Jews." This strikes me as particularly radical--even for Dispensationalists--since it would exclude converts to Judaism from Biblically defined "Israel". Is there any basis for these assertions? Unfortunately, I was unable to ask the pastor about where he got this idea from. It strikes me as incompatible with Josh. 8:33-35. Exodus 12:42-49 and Ruth 1:16 are also relevant. I know that Dispensationalists don't all emphasize *genetic* Israel the way this pastor did, since some of my dispy friends also were surprised by this claim. **Are there other Dispensationalist authorities that would make the claim that "Israel" in the Bible is always be defined genetically?** If so, what reasoning is used to justify it? If not, then what Dispensationalist doctrine might this pastor have been misinterpreting? ***Update:*** This article by Thomas Ice seems to also take this view, especially the quotations from Fruchtenbaum's book *Israelology: The Missing Link In Systematic Theology* and Ruthven's *The Prophecy That Is Shaping History: New Research on Ezekiel’s Vision of the End* seem promising. However, I'm not sure sure if these works emphasize the *genetic* aspect (i.e., excluding converts to Judaism). Do either of these works actually define "Israel" this way, and if so, how do they justify it?

I have heard the concept that in the end times there will be a 7 year peace treaty signed with the nation of Israel, and that three and a half years into that treaty, it will be broken. What is the biblical basis for this idea?

Considering that in the Jewish mindset at the time of Jesus, as we learn from Paul in Romans 9:6-13, the Jews thought that they were "the children of promise" descended from Isaac (not Ishmael) and "God's elect" descended from Jacob (thus Paul citing God's election of Jacob over Esau), **why then, in John 8, the Judeans refer to themselves as "children of Abraham" rather than the "children of Jacob" or something else?** I understand that Paul used Abraham as a model of faith, but faith was not the topic in John 8:30-59. Why did Jesus's interlocutors refer to themselves as "children of Abraham"? Did they implicitly acknowledge that the *Idumeans* (roughly [the leftover of the Edomites in the Hellenistic period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom#Hellenistic_period) , descendants of Esau) and the *inhabitants of the Nabataean Kingdom* (descendants of Ishmael [according to Josephus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmaelites#Josephus '_Antiquities)) were their brothers too, two neighboring peoples in the South that they looked down on? Wouldn't it be more natural that in the discussion of freedom they wanted to emphasize to Jesus of their being the *children of promise* and of their *election* over Esau? Or to take it one step further, since they were from the Jerusalem area, maybe they should have called themselves "**children of Judah**" whose ancestors may have stayed there, not ever been "enslaved" (being exiled to Assyria / Babylon)?

In Chronicles, David took a census on the people of Israel. However, God became angry at this, and he proceeded to destroy about 70,000 people in result. >1 Chronicles 21:1-16 : 1Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel. 2So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Take a census of all the people of Israel—from Beersheba in the south to Dan in the north—and bring me a report so I may know how many there are.” 3But Joab replied, “May the Lord increase the number of his people a hundred times over! But why, my lord the king, do you want to do this? Are they not all your servants? Why must you cause Israel to sin?” > 4But the king insisted that they take the census, so Joab traveled throughout all Israel to count the people. Then he returned to Jerusalem 5and reported the number of people to David. There were 1,100,000 warriors in all Israel who could handle a sword, and 470,000 in Judah. 6But Joab did not include the tribes of Levi and Benjamin in the census because he was so distressed at what the king had made him do. > **Judgment for David’s Sin**
> 7 God was very displeased with the census, and he punished Israel for it. 8Then David said to God, “I have sinned greatly by taking this census. Please forgive my guilt for doing this foolish thing.” 9Then the Lord spoke to Gad, David’s seer. This was the message: 10“Go and say to David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I will give you three choices. Choose one of these punishments, and I will inflict it on you.’” > 11So Gad came to David and said, “These are the choices the Lord has given you. 12You may choose three years of famine, three months of destruction by the sword of your enemies, or three days of severe plague as the angel of the Lord brings devastation throughout the land of Israel. Decide what answer I should give the Lord who sent me.” > 13“I’m in a desperate situation!” David replied to Gad. “But let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great. Do not let me fall into human hands.” > 14So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel, and 70,000 people died as a result. 15And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But just as the angel was preparing to destroy it, the Lord relented and said to the death angel, “Stop! That is enough!” At that moment the angel of the Lord was standing by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. > 16David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth with his sword drawn, reaching out over Jerusalem. So David and the leaders of Israel put on burlap to show their deep distress and fell face down on the ground. But this passage does not state the reason for God doing this. What was so wrong about taking census of people of Israel?

I was reading 12:3 and I started to wonder whether or not that blessing was for Palestinians too, as descendants of Abraham. Thank you.

I remembered recently that long ago, in middle school, my history teacher told us in the class that Yahweh, the Hebrew God was a god part of a polytheistic religion, and that He wasn't even the king of gods(like Zeus from Greek religion), and that Abraham choose Him(Yahweh) from the other gods to be the all-mighty, all-knowing, all-powerful, single God to his new monotheistic religion, that he passed to his son Issac and his grand-son Israel and it became the God of Israel nation and trough Jesus(who was part of the Israeli nation, kingdom of Judah), it became God-The Father for us, Christians. This sounds like a blasphemy to me, but is this based on any historical discovery, or has it any theological or historical veracity?

I encountered an opinion that the Old Covenant is still valid and that Israel is still the Chosen Nation of God. I haven't checked the accuracy of the source, but I read on the Internet that St. John Paul II said that "God has never revoked the Old Covenant". Also, St. Paul wrote in Romans 11 a difficult passage about the Jews, particularly in Romans 11:29 : > "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (RSV). On the other hand, in my language, during the Liturgy of Good Friday, something like "Jews that used to be Chosen Nation in past" is said. (Some say that's a wrong translation; I didn't check the Latin original). Also, the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21 says: >"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it." (v. 43). This seems to state that the Church replaced Israel as a Chosen People. So, what is the Catholic solution to this seeming contradiction?

Maybe this question is better suited for Biblical Hermeneutics, but it is on-topic here too. We know that King Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem for God, then the Assyrians or Babylonians (I forget which) destroyed the temple and scattered the Israelites to foreign lands. Eventually they were sent home by the King of Persia and they rebuilt the temple. Then the Romans came and destroyed the temple shortly after Jesus's life and Resurrection and the Jews were once again scattered to foreign lands. In the 20th century after WW2 the Israelites had an initiative to return to "The Promised Land" — many of them have, where they have been in regular conflict with the Arabs. My question is why do some Christians believe that when the Jews will rebuild the Temple of Solomon for the third time, and that this will trigger the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Christ. Does this have a biblical basis. Is this mentioned in the apostle John's Revelation?

We read in Exodus 4:22 that the people Israel are God's firstborn son: > "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My > son, My firstborn. (NASB) So now, how can Jesus be the firstborn Son of God, let alone the only Son? Several of the "prophecies" about Jesus mentioned in the Gospels refer to what is in fact a statement about Israel the past and present. For example Matthew describes the family of Jesus leaving Egypt and says: > "He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what > had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I > CALLED MY SON."" - Matthew 2:15 (NASB) The Prophet referred to in Mathew 2:15 is Hosea, who says: > When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. > 2 The more they called them, the more they went from them; they kept > sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols." - Hosea 11:1–2 > (NASB) The problem I have with such interpretations of Jesus' actions as fulfilments of propecy are that they were 1) about Israel 2) statements about the past rather than predictions and 3) the behavior being described is hardly matching the character and actions of Jesus in the gospels. How do Christians reconcile the logic of Jesus being God's firstborn son or even the only son, with the actual words of God in the Old Testament about the nation of Israel? I don't mean metaphorically, but what is the actual reality? How are the later verses in the Gospels interpreted? On the one hand they seem as "additional" interpretations of the "original" verses about Israel, but read "in the light of the Gospel". But that can't negate the original meaning, can it? In reality, which is it?

When one watches the 1955 epic, *The Ten Commandments,* one gets the impression that enslaved Israel had been expecting God to send a deliverer for four hundred years. Is this true? A promise is given by God in Ex. 3,17: > And I have said the word to bring you forth out of the affliction of Egypt, into the land of the Chanaanite, the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and Pherezite, and Hevite, and Jebusite, to a land that floweth with milk and honey. (Douay-Rheims) But there, God is already speaking to Moses. When and where is Israel's deliverance from Egypt first prophesied? Had they been expecting a deliverer for four hundred years?