Recently we were discussing the Helen Thomas broujaja and the question of who “owns” the land of Israel/Palestine inevitably arose.
I’m not going to solve that long-standing and thorny question in this blog post, but I can offer some considerations that need to be taken into account when forming an opinion on the subject.
First let me note that there is room for different opinions, here. The issue is a complex one, and people of good will can take different positions—regarding the founding of the modern state of Israel, regarding its role in God’s plan, and regarding what should happen with it in the future.
In previous comboxes, some readers asserted that support for Zionism is so important that opposition to Zionism ipso facto makes one an anti-Semite. This claim is etymologically ironic in that many of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine are, in fact, Semites, but even allowing for this irony, it is simply not true. Zionism has been and remains controversial within the Jewish community itself.
Just to eliminate potential confusion at the outset, let’s define our terms. I will be using the term “Zionism” in two senses: (1) The belief that the modern state of Israel should have been founded and (2) the belief that the modern state of Israel should continue to exist. There are other ways in which the term can be and historically has been used, but these are the two ideas that we will interact with here.
Note that one can be a Zionist in one sense but not the other. One could be a Zionist in sense (2) only and hold that, while the modern state of Israel should not have been created, now that it has been, it has a right to defend itself and to continue to exist. On the other hand, one could be a Zionist in sense (1) only and hold—for example—that, while it was right to create the modern state of Israel, that state has morally forfeited its right to exist due to human rights violations or that while it may have been right to found the state of Israel in the 20th century, if unstable Arab states start getting nukes and a regional nuclear war is about to start then the best thing for the welfare of the Jewish people would be to leave the region.
Many Jewish people today are Zionists in both sense (1) and sense (2), though not all. There are quite a number who are sense (2) only Zionists, and an even-more-nuclear-future could give rise to a significant number of sense (1) only Zionists.
Some Jewish people are Zionists in neither sense (1) nor sense (2). This is the case, for example, with the gentlemen pictured, who are members of Neturei Karta, who hold a view that was quite common among Orthodox Jews prior to the founding of Israel.
This view is that the Jewish people should not try to control the land of Palestine on their own and that they should regain statehood there only through the coming and the actions of the Messiah. Trying to take control of Palestine prior to that point, on this view, constitutes a usurpation of God’s plan and is viewed as a violation of the three oaths held to regulate relations between the Jewish people and the nations during the present age.
Neturei Karta is by no means the only Jewish group holding this view, BTW.
These people are not anti-Semites. They don’t even deny that the Jewish people have a special title to the land of Palestine. They simply see the legitimate control of this land as an eschatological reality that should not be confused with contemporary Zionist aspirations.
I thus hope that the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is a little more clear and that we can discuss the issue without people wanting to automatically play the anti-Semitism card.
That said: Who owns the land?
There are two main perspectives from which this question needs to be evaluated: the prophetic and the ethical. In this post we’ll look at the prophetic perspective.
Many here in America have reflexively treated the prophetic aspect of the question as unambiguous and definitive: God promised Israel the land in the Old Testament, and so it’s theirs. Case closed.
But prophesy often is not so straightforward in its interpretation or application. God also made it clear that, if Israel committed certain sins—or sins of a certain character and magnitude—that it would be dispossessed of its land, at least for periods of time. And there are passages warning the Jewish people to submit to their conquerors and that they will not be restored to the land for a set time and things like that.
There is also the question of the way in which many Old Testament prophesies have found fulfillment through Christ in ways that would not have been expected previously. The impact that this phenomenon has on the promises regarding the land is something that cannot be ignored.
For its part, the Catholic Church acknowledges that the Jewish people still have a special role in God’s plan. That’s something I’ve written about before. But the Church does not teach that the Jewish people have a right to possess the land of the modern state of Israel in the present day by divine promise. In fact, the Holy See has studiously avoided saying that.
It has even gone so far, in its 1993 Fundamental Agreement with Israel, to state:
The Holy See, while maintaining in every case the right to exercise its moral and spiritual teaching-office, deems it opportune to recall that, owing to its own character, it is solemnly committed to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders [art. 11:2].
In its specific application, this passage is referring to disputed territories like the West Bank and Gaza rather than to the territory of Israel as a whole, but the same principle applies in general. The Holy See treats the question of what people have title to what territory as a temporal affair and thus something that goes beyond the Church’s purview. The Church can certainly raise moral objections to various courses of action, like trying to forcibly kick out the people who currently have title to a territory. But the question of who has title is treated as a temporal rather than theological issue. The Church does not hold that any particular people has an immutable divine right to a particular territory.
This is not to say that a Catholic could not hold that Israel does have a right to the land in the present day due to God’s promise. That is an opinion within the realm of permitted theological speculation. But it is not something the Church has signed off on. The Church has remained conspicuously neutral on that theological question as it applies in our age.
One could thus hold the opinion that the Jewish people have a right to that land in our day, that they have a right to the land but not in our day (perhaps at the Second Coming or near it, if we are not now near it), or that they no longer have a special right to the land. Each view is permitted.
This deals with the subject from the prophetic perspective. What about the ethical one?
That will be the subject of our next post.
In the meantime: What are your thoughts?
Two nits to pick on grounds of language:
First, the fact that the Palestinian Arabs speak a Semitic language is neither here nor there. ‘Anti-Semite’ is, and always has been, a euphemism for ‘Jew-hater’. The etymology of the word ‘Semite’ has nothing to do with the case.
Second: Broujaja? Jaja? For crying out loud, it’s French, not Spanish.
Jimmy knows that, and was very clear about this in his first Helen Thomas post. All he said here was that it was “etymologically ironic.”
Even more ironic is that most Jews are actually descendants of either Germans, Russians, or Khazars. Neither of these people are Semitic in the least. Therefore these Ersatz-Jews have no blood right to the Land of Israel. The real issue is that the Goyim are too terrified of the anti-Semite label and fear denouncing the Zionists.
Bottom line the Northern Ten tribes lost their covenant blessings in 720 BC and the remaining Southern Tribes lost their covenant blessings in 70 AD. So Judaism is a dead religion, made extinct by Jesus in 70 AD, and has been forsaken by God for almost 2000 years.
Can’t wait for part 2! Excellent Jimmy!
Even more ironic is that most Jews are actually descendants of either Germans, Russians, or Khazars.
Really? Where’s your evidence of mass conversion to Judaism among the Germans and Russians? Or your evidence that any significant number of Khazars survived beyond the 10th century AD?
The Khazar theory is a favourite idea of antisemites, British Israelists, ‘Aryan’ racial theorists, and other such lunatics. I’m afraid I’m not going to accept it on your say-so.
All he said here was that it was “etymologically ironic.”
Fine. How is that relevant? What’s the purpose of even bringing it up?
Tom,
So you agree with me that that Judaism is a dead religion? Once the temple was destroyed in 70AD, Judaism became dead as a dodo. Tell me when is the last time the High Priest offered atonement for the Nation? Did not Paul( or some other Apostle) say in Hebrews 8:13,”By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.(NIV)” So even Paul said the Old Covenant was soon to disappear. Yup, it disappeared in 70 AD. So my disagreement with Zionism, Christian Fundamentalists who are pro-Israel, and other Christian groups has nothing to do with anti-Semitism but with properly understanding the New Testament.
I, too, would like to see the evidence Tom asked for.
Dear Ronald,
You worte:
Once the temple was destroyed in 70AD, Judaism became dead as a dodo.
Well, why? Wasn’t the temple destroyed one (or twice) before 70 A. D.? Did this mean the end of Judaism? Christianity does not destroy Judaism, it completes it. This was part of the purpose of all of the, “You have heard…but I say,” statements in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was bringing the Law back to its ORIGINAL intent, not making something different.
St. Paul did not mean by the use of the word, “new,” different. He means, basically, by the word, “new,”completed, in the sense of fulfilled. The moral aspects of the Old Covenant are still in effect (Ten Commandments). In fact, this is just plain silly. Jesus, himself, said (Matt 5: 17 – 19):
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So, if all things have been accomplished and the Old Law passed, does that mean we can sin? Of course, not. The Old Law has been completed in the sense that the ceremonial portion of it is no longer in effect, but both Jews and Christians, alike, are still bound by the idea of not worshiping false Gods, not killing, etc.. Do you think the God of the Jews is any different than the God of the Christians? How can those parts of the Jewish religion still be alive for the Christian Church if the religion, itself, is dead? Only the ceremonial portion is dead.
You seem to be mistaking two related ideas: religion and covenant. A religion is a way of worshiping; a covenant is a relationship. Jesus completed the Old Covenant, making a new covenant, but not a different covenant. The new covenant is written in men’s hearts, not on paper or in the blood of sheep and goats. It no longer requires external ceremonies to obtain the forgiveness of sins, since Christ’s work is eternal, but Christ’s work on the Cross replaces the law with a better law in the sense that is was done, once, for all. That law encompasses the Jews.
Really, the fall of the Temple marked the end of a community of Jews (hence, the Diaspora – the dispersed), nothing more. If Judaism is a dead religion, so is Christianity, since the idea of the Mass is borrowed from the Jewish Temple service.
Where did you get such ideas. I cannot believe it was from a Catholic. It goes against everything the Church has taught about its relationship with Judaism from the beginning.
St. Paul said (Rom 7:12 – 13):
So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
He also said (Rom 11:25 – 36):
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in,
and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
“and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.
Just as you were once disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,
so they have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy.
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.
O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen.
How could the gift of God be irrevocable if the religion is dead?
If you mean the ceremonial part of the religion, only, was lost, then we have no quarrel. If you mean the existence of the Jews and their unique relationship with God as expressed in the moral part of the religion was lost, then this is not the Catholic view.
The Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate, clearly states:
4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)…
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).(12)
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
Please, clarify what you mean.
The Chicken
I will avoid the lengthy tome and just summarize my position as follows: Amillennialism and Augustine. Yes we are spiritually bound with Jews. My dispute is that those who claim they are Jewish are not Jews by God’s definition. Similarly many people claim to be Catholic, but they also would also fail that test by God’s or the Vatican’s definition.
Dear Ronald,
You wrote:
My dispute is that those who claim they are Jewish are not Jews by God’s definition. Similarly many people claim to be Catholic, but they also would also fail that test by God’s or the Vatican’s definition.
One is Jewish by tribe by virtue of the heritage of the mother. One may convert to Judaism (such as Ruth did) and then be counted as a Jew in religion.
One is Catholic by virtue of baptism, be it baptism of water, blood, or desire. Too many historical cases have proven this, some involving a living Pope (such as in the Edgardo Mortara case).
If you have a claim for God’s definition of a Jew or Catholic any different than the ones I have stated, please provide supporting documents.
I do not understand. Am I correct in understanding you to be implying that there are people in Israel (many of them?) who are not really Jews and, therefore do not deserve the country? Simply put, a DNA test would handily resolve the issue, at least from a tribal standpoint. There may be converts living there. Are they any less Jews? Few people make a claim to a religion, in this day and age, with ulterior motives. Perhaps that were true in the Renaissance or Classical Eras, but today? What would it gain them? Almost no one thinks that Israel, today, is not occupied by Jews. The purpose of this post is to look at some of the reasons pro or con the propriety of the occupation.
The Chicken
Let me say that according to the Mishnah, the status of the offspring of mixed marriages was determined matrilineally. While in the Bible the status of the offspring of mixed marriages was determined patrilineally. So the Jews don’t follow their original teaching. So my claim is that there are almost no Jews, by God’s definition, left in the world.
Similarly I meet many Catholics baptized as infants, who fundamentally reject the bulk of Catholic teaching. I think it is a misnomer to still call such individuals Catholic after they have rejected their faith.
Not all marriages in Judaism after the Dispersion were mixed marriages. There were still many in-group marriages, probably. Even with the patrolineal/matrolineal distinction, statistically, the same number (or almost the same number) of people would have Jewish heritage through the mother or father, so, at most, the number would be decreased by 50%. One can do a type of Punnett square to determine the probabilities. Let J = Jew, N = non-Jew, M = maternal line, P = paternal line. After the first generation (P listed, first):
M
J J
P NJ NJ
N
N NJ NJ
M
N N
P NN NN
N
N NN NN
M
J J
P JJ JJ
J
J JJ JJ
M
N N
P JN JN
J
J JN JN
Sucessive generations will, eventually, reach a Gaussian distribution with 25% J, 25% N, and 50% JN/NJ. So, there would still be 25% pure and 25% JN (= J, functionally). Any biologist in the crowd can correct my math (haven’t done Punnett suqres in years, but the Pascal triangular distribution in the outcomes will reach a Gaissian distribution in the limit as n —> infinity. So, no matter what, unless there were a determined attempt to stop the Jewish line, there would still be at least half Jews in the population, even if only the paternal line determined who was a Jew.
Even if a Catholic rejects the faith, according to new documents by the CDF, they are still Catholic unless they formally defect (an actual process involving the bishop). I agree that they shouldn’t be able to say that they are practicing Catholics, however.
The Chicken
Chicken:
I guess we have reduced the determination of who is a Jew to a Mendel’s Pea Experiment. I will not quibble with your math, but I claim it does not apply to this problem. A better way of stating the Mathematical problem is as follows: What is the probability that a Jew living in 2010 has 100% patrilineal lineage, because this is the only lineage that counts in God’s eyes.
To make this statistics even problem interesting, let us assume that a generation is around 25 years and that 10% of all Jewish marriages have been mixed over the past 2000 years. So what is the probability that a Jew in 2010 is a patrilineal descendant of Jew living in the year 10 AD?
To make this statistics even problem interesting, let us assume that a generation is around 25 years and that 10% of all Jewish marriages have been mixed over the past 2000 years. So what is the probability that a Jew in 2010 is a patrilineal descendant of Jew living in the year 10 AD?
This is a mixing problem in mathematics (diffusion, etc.). The equations are highly sensitive to the initial conditions, so, without knowing drift patterns, number of offspring, etc. it is impossible to give exact figures, and this is assuming that these are interacting particles and not people with free will. However, there are certain assumptions that one can make to simplify this, such as tribal loyalty and the general isolation of Diasporic Jews in history. I don’t have the time to do the research necessary to give even an approximately real answer (a demographer may have already looked at a similar problem, if you are so inclinded to research the literature). All I can say is, barring outside influences, the probability would be reduced by, at most, by 50% if there were exactly mixed marriages. Other factors could have intervened. Math has a hard time dealing with free will. Just look at the mess which is the Stock Market 🙂
The Chicken
Obviously, there must still be Jews in the world, even by your Biblical definitions (which can be argued – many Jews also quote Scripture, not just the Mishnah or the extra-Biblical portion of Halakhah to show matrilineal descendancy). St. Paul points out (Rom 25 – 27):
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in,
and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
“and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
This implies that there will be an Israel of some sort, inhabited by Jews, who will convert, but are not now converted. He clearly makes a distinction between the part of Israel which is Christian (new and unhardened) and the part which is not (old and hardened). The only natural counterpart of Gentile, above, is Jews and this part of Israel is not yet saved in Biblical times, although Paul expected them to be converted, later. We do not know, when – certainly not by 70 A.D., otherwise, John or one of the other disciples would have told us that the conversion of the Jews were complete.
I see no evidence from Scripture that the Jewish religion was expected to become void. It was expected to become completed when, after the full number of Gentiles converted, the Jews convert. This is the whole point of Romans chapter 10 and 11.
I do not see any evidence, properly demonstrative, that there are almost no Jews in the world.
By the way, it doesn’t matter whether Jewishness is defined matrilinearly or patrilinearly, the result would be symmetric, any way, since, on average, there are approximately the same number of male and female offspring. There would still be roughly the same number of Jews.
The Chicken
My simple math problem can be solved to within an order of magnitude. There have been 80 generations since 10 AD. The distribution between men and women is about 50%. Also assume that 10% of all marriages are Mixed between a Jew and a non-Jew. The statistics would indicate .9 raised to the power of 80 that a person has 100% patrilineal descent. This number is 0.0002. So I claim that very few Jews can claim that they are tribally Jews. Intermarriage was such a problem that Ezra told the Jews to divorce their foreign wives. Jews in America have one of the highest intermarriage rates in the world.
In addition the 10 Northern Tribes were cut-off in 720 BC, the remaining Southern Tribes were cut-off in 70 AD. To top it off from my previous post on the NC Register:
The covenant with King David is fulfilled via Jesus Christ. The land covenant that the Fundamentalist like to bring up is first mentioned in Genesis 13:15.
However, the Bible teaches that God’s covenant with Abraham’s descendants was a conditional covenant, not unconditional. In Genesis 17:9-14 the Jews were warned that they must keep the covenant or be cut off from God’s people. Leviticus 26:40-45 teaches that the Jews must confess and forsake their sins in order to maintain the covenant. Joshua 23:15-16 and 2 Chronicles 7:19-22 not only teach that the covenant was conditional, but they also specify that the Jews would lose their land grant if they broke the covenant.
Judaism and all her conditional covenants were fulfilled via Jesus Christ. The Old Covenant was made obsolete in 70 AD and all previous promises with the Jewish people were made NULL and void at this time.
My simple math problem can be solved to within an order of magnitude. There have been 80 generations since 10 AD. The distribution between men and women is about 50%. Also assume that 10% of all marriages are Mixed between a Jew and a non-Jew. The statistics would indicate .9 raised to the power of 80 that a person has 100% patrilineal descent. This number is 0.0002.
This type of math does not apply to the situation at hand. Aggregate statistics assumes a closed system. So does my Punnett square calculation above, but I was only talking about a closed system in the example. As my later post mentioned, to calculate the exact number, one must use non-linear mathematics. The type of equations one must use are called reaction-diffusion type equations. The mother and father “react” to form children, then the family is diffused throughout the population. I don’t have time to even try to set up, much less solve a model for this. Reaction diffusion tends to show “banding,” such as in a zebra strips (in fact, this type of equation was used to model zebra strips about twenty-five years ago). Again, without knowing the diffusion pattern of the population, there is no way to know exactly how many Jews of either lineage is present. For instance, your situation with 10% non-Jews was, in fact, mirrored in Ezra’s time, but when the non-Jews diffused out of Israel, the population rebounded to 100% Jew. The probable banding of Jews is what has caused the various groups of Jews in various countries.
In addition the 10 Northern Tribes were cut-off in 720 BC, the remaining Southern Tribes were cut-off in 70 AD.
Cut-off? The situation with the Southern tribes was no different in 70 A. D. then it was during the Babylonian captivity: the Temple was destroyed and the Jews were scattered. In fact, the Babylonian captivity may be a type of the current diaspora.
In any case, not a single Church Father pointed out in any writings that the Jews were no longer Jewish. None of them expected the Jewish race to become extinct through intermarriage.
Although Jesus fulfilled the covenant, not everyone has been brought into it, yet. That includes some Jews. St. Paul is explicit about that.
In any case, a person may become Jewish by conversion, as Ruth did. Who knows how many have done so.
Again, I find no support for your argument that there are few Jews (if any) in Israel.
The Chicken
Chicken,
I would encourage you to read my scripture references. The Jews are under a conditional covenant. When you rebel and disobey God you are rejected. Very simple! The Babylonian captivity only lasted 70 years. It has been almost 2000 years since the temple was destroyed. The Jews have rejected God in totality by rejecting Christ. Study the church fathers and history you will see that several of them considered the Jews utterly forsaken.
Unfortunately in this day of political correctness, people automatically assume that my statements are anti-Semitic. I challenge them to study history, the church fathers, and the Bible and draw a TRULY objective conclusion.
Finally the Church is the New Israel (CCC#877).