CUFI Leader John Hagee confirms Christian Zionism is anti-Semitic

US Politics
on 73 Comments

Evangelical pastor John Hagee, the leader of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the US’ largest pro-Israel organization and the most powerful group in the Christian Zionist movement, has adamantly insisted that Christian Zionism is anti-Semitic.

WorldNetDaily (WND), a far-right website published an article in March 2015 about the “Blood Moon Prophecy,” an end-of-times theory that lunar eclipses are a sign that the world is on the brink of destruction and that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is near. The lengthy piece is about Hagee’s film Four Blood Moons, which endorses the eschatological theory. Toward the end of the article, WND quotes a spokesperson for Hagee:

“WND falsely claimed that Hagee does not believe that Jews need Jesus to be saved. In fact, Hagee never made such a claim and years ago directly denied assertions that he holds a dual-covenant theology,” he wrote. “In addition, while WND acknowledges that Hagee rewrote sections of ‘In Defense of Israel’ to clarify his relevant position, WND failed to note that the associated video promotion was also changed to accurately reflect his theology.”

Translated: WND claimed that Hagee believed the Jewish people could be saved by God without abandoning Judaism and converting to Christianity. Apocalyptic Christian Zionist John Hagee censured the publication for spreading a lie and defensively clarified that he does indeed believe that the Jewish people are going to burn in Hell for all of eternity unless they abandon Judaism and convert to Christianity.

In short, Hagee firmly insisted that Christian Zionism is anti-Semitic, and that the reason CUFI so obsessively and blindly defends Israel is not because they care about Jews (who, in their mind, will face eternal damnation unless they renounce their religion and become Christians) but rather because they genuinely believe the world is on the verge of total annihilation and the Bible supposedly tells them they must do so.

Christian Zionism

Christian Zionism is the belief that God gave the Jewish people the land of Israel in historic Palestine. Christian Zionists hold that this is part of a biblical prophecy, and is a necessary prerequisite before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the ensuing Day of Judgment.

This is not a view shared by all Christians, yet is very common among Evangelicals and conservative Protestants. In recent years, it has gained prominence in the US, particularly in the Bible Belt. A late 2013 Pew Research study found 82% of white evangelical Christians in the US believed God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people, while only 40% of US Jews believed the same.

John Hagee is the leader of CUFI, the most powerful Christian Zionist organization in the US, and likely in the entire world.

Some Jewish and Zionist organizations have criticized Hagee and the Christian Zionist movement. Eric Yoffie, former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, publicly proclaimed that, vis-à-vis “Israeli-Palestinian politics, John Hagee and the CUFI are extremists.” Yoffie “called for Reform congregations to not participate in CUFI’s events and to continue to call for public condemnation of inflammatory and bigoted statements from Christian Zionist leadership.”

Many Jewish and Zionist organizations, however, see Hagee and CUFI as important allies. At the CUFI 2013 Summit, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations—a coalition of 51 US Jewish groups, including some of the most prominent—voiced support of biblical Christian Zionist prophecies. “The prophets were not prophets of doom but prophets of hope; you just have to read it right,” he told them. “Here’s my advice: Don’t bet against the Jews. And the ‘Jewish lobby’ is a myth, but it’s our job to make it a legend.”

Israel itself has been more than happy to support CUFI. Ron Dermer, Israeli Ambassador to the US, spoke glowingly of the organization at its 2014 summit. Prime Minister Netanyahu has also enthusiastically supported the group, and has spoken at several of their annual summits.

Hagee’s History of Extreme Views

Hagee, who thinks we are the last generation of humans, is no stranger to controversy. In late 2014, he claimed that Ebola (along with the civil rights protests in Ferguson and elsewhere) was God’s way of “punishing” America, because Obama was trying to “divide” Israel.

The pastor has even gone so far as to essentially defend Adolf Hitler.  In a 2005 sermon, Hagee asserted that God sent Hitler as a “hunter,” in order to “hunt them [Jews] from every mountain and from every hill and out of the holes of the rocks … to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

Once again, these are the views of the leader of, in CUFI’s own words, “the largest pro-Israel organization in the United States with over two million members and one of the leading Christian grassroots movements in the world.”

The Washington Post indicates that CUFI “can boast that it has members from every congressional district in America.” Foreign Policy included John Hagee in its list of the 50 Republicans with the most influence on foreign policy. The evangelical Christian Zionist was a much sought-after figure by the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. He ended up endorsing John McCain.

WND’s founder and CEO Joseph Farah responded positively to Hagee’s firm insistence on his Christianity-rooted anti-Semitism. “I’m happy to hear that Hagee no longer subscribes to those anti-biblical positions,” he said. “But we never asserted what Hagee believes, only what he said on videotape. I’m gratified he has repudiated all of that. It’s time for him to clean up another mess.”

Like Hagee, Farah resolutely maintains that Christian Zionism is, in its very essence, an anti-Semitic ideology, as, in his view, it is an “anti-biblical position” to claim that Jews are not automatically damned to eternal suffering in a lake of fire merely by virtue of their being Jewish.

h/t Max Blumenthal for discovering this article

About Ben Norton

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer based in New York City. His work has been featured in a variety of publications. You can follow Ben on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton. His website is BenNorton.com.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

73 Responses

  1. JeffB
    March 27, 2015, 12:18 pm

    @Ben

    Believing Jews are going to hell for the same reason (not having Jesus as their savior) that Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists are going to hell is not anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is about treating Jews unequally not equally. Believing that Rabbinic Judaism (as opposed to the “true Judaism” of Christianity) is a fraudulent burned husk of a dead religion now replaced by new and better covenant since the incarnation of God’s son is Christianity not anti-Semitism.

    But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one… When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear….For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality itself, and is therefore completely unable, by the same sacrifices offered continually, year after year, to perfect those who come to worship

    The Christian conservative position asserts the full humanity and equality of Jews and thus refutes anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism as a word quite literally came from the doctrine that Jews are incapable of salvation, that baptism was ineffectual on Jews the same way it would be ineffectual on materialized demon. Hagee is asserting exactly the opposite. The current liberal Christian doctrine, Jews have a special covenant and a salvation outside of blood of Chris is IMHO denying their tie to the universal human condition and original sin in Christian theory. That’s far far more dangerous.

    • just
      March 27, 2015, 12:38 pm

      Good grief, JeffB. Your ‘thoughts’ are frightening.

      Thanks, Ben. It seems that it is a mutual use by dangerous and extremist ideologues with somewhat similar ambitions of domination, driven by egomania and a weird perversion of religion.

      In other religion- related news:

      “Exposing Anti-Islam Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Latest Deception

      One of America’s most prominent Islam bashers has a long history of making things up.

      While promoting her new book, Heretic, on a March 23 episode of “The Daily Show,” Somali-born author and anti-Islam activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali made a staggering claim: “If you look at 70 percent of the violence in the world today, Muslims are responsible,” she told host Jon Stewart.

      Stewart did not demand any evidence and Hirsi Ali provided no citation. However, she made a strikingly similar statement in a March 20 essay previewing her new book for the Wall Street Journal: “According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies,” Hirsi Ali wrote in WSJ’s Saturday Essay, “at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims.”

      I contacted the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a leading British foreign policy think tank, to inquire about the source of Hirsi Ali’s statistic. According to IISS spokesperson Kat Slowe, IISS did not state such a figure in its research.
      ….
      “I have spoken to a number of our experts and they cannot identify where this statistic may have come from,” Slowe told me.
      ….
      History of fraud

      Hirsi Ali’s highly suspect statistic is only the latest deception by one of the world’s most prominent opponents of Islam. While other anti-Muslim activists like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have marginalized themselves on the fringes of the far-right, Hirsi Ali remains a darling of the American mainstream media. In Heretic, a polemic recycling many of her past arguments against Islam, she calls for the emergence of a Muslim Martin Luther — the authoritarian 16th-century zealot who called for burning down the synagogues of Jews, whom he compared to a gangrenous disease. With the book’s release, Hirsi Ali has been welcomed with open arms by the BBC, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, and a relatively accommodating Jon Stewart. ABC News has even run an excerpt from Heretic, while the New York Times Book Review hosted her for an interview filled with hardball questions about her favorite children’s books.
      …….
      When Brandeis University canceled plans to award Hirsi Ali an honorary degree in April 2014, it appeared that her increasingly vitriolic tirades against Islam and its adherents had caught up with her. But then came the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, a seemingly clarifying moment that Hirsi Ali and fellow anti-Islam activists seized on as confirmation of their darkest prophecies. Two months later, she released Heretic.

      Having rebranded herself a brave “reformer” following in the footsteps of the Selma marchers, Hirsi Ali has found her way back into the mainstream limelight. While American media demonstrates an endless appetite for her polemics about Islam, holding her to account remains taboo.”

      Read it all @ http://www.alternet.org/media/anti-islam-author-ayaan-hirsi-alis-latest-deception

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        March 27, 2015, 6:31 pm

        I don’t have a problem with Ali criticizing Islam. After all, she found it oppressive. What I object to, is her selective criticism of it to the exclusion of other faiths. Where is her condemnation for all of the bad things done by the militaries of nations with millions of Jews and Christians in the West and in Israel? How can she not see the role of Judeo-Christian exceptionalism in Western and Israeli foreign policy?

      • Neil Schipper
        March 27, 2015, 8:12 pm

        Questioning the wisdom or realism of Hirsi Ali’s call for an Islamic “Protestant Reformation” is something I can see a smart person doing.

        But attempting to tarnish her by calling attention to Martin Luther’s anti-Judaism? F*ck, that’s dumb. Says much about Blumenthal, and about ‘just’ for cheering him on.

      • Donald
        March 28, 2015, 9:21 am

        Why is it dumb? You mean dumb in some political sense? Martin Luther was an anti-Semite and Blumenthal is rightly criticizing the fatuous idiocy one often hears, which is that Islam needs to go through something like the Reformation. I’ve never understood why secularists say this, except maybe it is out of sheer historical ignorance. Do people want to see a century or more of religious wars?

        In fact, one could say the fighting between Sunnis and Shiites bears a certain resemblance to the fighting between Catholics and Protestants. I think people must have in mind that the Reformation brought about religious freedom, but that came more than a century after Luther and was more a reaction to all the bloodletting.

      • mariapalestina
        March 28, 2015, 4:51 pm

        “Hirsi Ali wrote in WSJ’s Saturday Essay: ‘at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims’.”

        You could say Israel’s frequent invasions of Gaza, in which almost all the victims are Palestinian, were “wars involving Muslims.”

        Would be interested to know how many of that 70% of fatalities are Muslims killed by Israel & the U.S. (& their non-Muslim allies) in “wars involving Muslims.”?

      • JeffB
        March 28, 2015, 11:01 pm

        @Donald

        I agree with you. al Baghdadi’s belief in a more literal interpretation of the early Islamic teachings and reinterpreting them directly into the modern world without all the historical baggage is very much a Muslim version of sola scriptura. His focus on absolute obedience rather than morality is analogous so sola fide… You can make a fairly good case he is Martin Luther though I think Jan Hus is likely the better analogy.

        As for religious freedom and the end of the religious wars I’m not sure you aren’t conflating two things.

        The 1618 /1648 agreement did come from the violence but that didn’t grant freedom to individuals rather it granted religious freedom to governments. Governments were free to set religious policy without interference.

        I’d say that individual freedom came from the spirit of the radical reformation after it mellowed. In particular a state church become impossible once the doctrine of a church for the elect rather than a church that was (small-c) catholic. And that took more than just a century to really take hold. In short Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems to mean “liberalism” not “the reformation” which wasn’t really liberal.

    • pabelmont
      March 27, 2015, 1:19 pm

      JeffB is right. Christian Zionism (or the end-times version of that if there is more than one version) is NOT antisemitic. It is equal-opportunity horrible: everybody who is not (sufficiently ?) “Christian” at the end of time will burn in hell. Everybody.

      They support Israel because their belief system predicts a cataclysmic war in M/E at Armageddon and Israel seems likely to start that war and fight it. After that, screw the Jews, who cares?, but screw everybody else as well. Burn babies. burn!

      Wow what a Christian religion those guys have. All I can say is, “Wow!” Great stuff. All that Bible (actually two of them) to read, and all they can see is anti-Gay, anti-Abortion, and End-Times cataclysm (and the Rapture, never forget the Rapture!)

      • Walid
        March 27, 2015, 2:31 pm

        “They support Israel because their belief system predicts a cataclysmic war in M/E at Armageddon ”

        Although the Book says the massing of the armies of good and those of evil took would take place at Armageddon, the actual battle would be taking place 130km to the south just outside of Jerusalem at the Valley of Kidron. The armies of the good would be led by Jesus and the Moslem Mahdi, (so say the Moslems but under the supreme command of Jesus). I was always intrigued why both armies wouldn’t actually fight then and there but perhaps they’d need to have Jesus leading them and for that, they’s need to go to Jerusalem.

        It’s somewhat just as odd as the story of Little Red Riding Hood that the wolf met in the woods but still went through the hassle at the grandmother’s house when he could have eaten Red Riding Hood there at their first encounter.

        Too much religion is a dangerous thing.

      • OyVey00
        March 28, 2015, 12:56 am

        That you have to believe in Jesus or will burn in hell is pretty much the core message of the New Testament and thus Christianity. And Islam also damns infidels to hell.

        Horrible? Maybe for feel-good liberals who put trigger warnings on top of their posts. But Christianity and Islam offer everyone a chance to convert and be saved. Unlike, well – a certain other religion.

      • just
        March 28, 2015, 8:17 am

        “It’s somewhat just as odd as the story of Little Red Riding Hood that the wolf met in the woods but still went through the hassle at the grandmother’s house when he could have eaten Red Riding Hood there at their first encounter.”

        +1 Walid!

      • just
        March 28, 2015, 9:12 am

        “That you have to believe in Jesus or will burn in hell is pretty much the core message of the New Testament and thus Christianity. And Islam also damns infidels to hell.”

        Which and whose interpretation? I need to know so that I can show my friends who have intermarried without forced or cajoled conversion of either husband or wife… Muslims do believe in Jesus.

      • OyVey00
        March 28, 2015, 3:38 pm

        @just

        Islam or Christianity?

      • Walid
        March 28, 2015, 9:39 pm

        “Muslims do believe in Jesus.” (Just)

        They not ony believe in him, but also say that he will be their ultimate savior in the final big battle against the bad-guy nations of Gog and Magog (Ya’juj and Ma’jouz in Arabic, Mooser should have fun with that one).

    • W.Jones
      March 27, 2015, 11:14 pm

      For better or worse, JeffB is generally right on this one.

      • khyungbird1890
        March 28, 2015, 2:35 am

        I have to say I can’t see why this is a surprise (the “unconverted Jews are going to Hell” part, that is, setting aside the question of whether thinking nonbelievers will go to Hell is technically racism/Anti-Semitism, an argument I’m skeptical of). I’ve read like a jillion Christian Fundamentalist end-of-the-world Rapture novels (the Left Behind series, the Christ Clone Trilogy, etc.) and on top of their universally anti-Arab/anti-Islam bigotry they always assert that Jews, while “chosen” and thus deserving of some sort of pat on the head, still have to convert to Christianity in the end or else they’ll burn in Hell. Jack Chick tracts are the same way. This is Fundamentalist Protestantism 101.

      • Giles
        March 29, 2015, 10:19 am

        “That you have to believe in Jesus or will burn in hell is pretty much the core message of the New Testament”.

        Actually it is love thy neighbor.

        Now the Old Testament….that’s a different story.

      • OyVey00
        March 29, 2015, 10:57 am

        Actually it is love thy neighbor.

        That’s one of the commandments from the OT. Jesus said that even if one follows all the commandments it’s impossible for a human to never sin in his life and thus all of them will go to hell. Unless they believe in him of course.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 29, 2015, 11:16 am

        Jesus said that even if one follows all the commandments it’s impossible for a human to never sin in his life and thus all of them will go to hell.

        does Jesus say that, or does he say ‘even if one follows all the commandments it’s impossible for a human to never sin in his life’ and then from that you concluded >thus all of them will go to hell?

      • RoHa
        March 30, 2015, 2:30 am

        Love?

        In the NT Jesus spends a lot of his time threatening people with the outer darkness. I’m likely to end up there, and it will be worse for me. I can do a bit of wailing, but I haven’t got many teeth left to gnash.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      March 28, 2015, 9:28 am

      Speaking as a liberal Christian, I have never heard of the doctrine that “Jews have a special covenant and a salvation outside of the blood of Christ”. References, please.

      • Walid
        March 28, 2015, 9:46 pm

        David, every religion believes it’s the one and only special in the eyes of God. It began with the Jews, then with the Christians that believe the Jews screwed up in not recognizing Jesus as the awaited Jewish Messiah, and the Moslems that believe that both Jews and Chritians screwed up in not accepting Islam as the one and only true religion. They’re all nuts.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        March 29, 2015, 1:38 pm

        I disagree. Christianity does not regard Judaism as a false religion: the Jewish Bible is incorporated into the Christian Bible. It regards it as partial truth: a step on the way. Islam does not regard Judaism and Christianity as false religions, but steps on the way to Islam. Jews and Christians have a recognized place in Islamic society: they are to practice their religion, not to be forcibly converted to Islam; God will correct them in the afterlife.

        We religious people are not as nutty as you think, nor as intolerant.

      • eljay
        March 28, 2015, 9:55 pm

        || Walid: David, every religion believes it’s the one and only special in the eyes of God. … They’re all nuts. ||

        Amen. :-)

      • JeffB
        March 28, 2015, 10:25 pm

        @David Gerald Fincham

        Well it would help if you had said which denomination you were so I could target a bit on what you would care about.

        A sample http://americaninterfaith.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/a-sacred-obligation-rethinking-christian-faith-in-relation-to-judaism-and-the-jewish-people.pdf

        This is from: http://americaninterfaith.org

        A good survey: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savh.htm

        Example detailed argument for pluralistic salvation: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567134

      • David Gerald Fincham
        March 29, 2015, 5:47 pm

        I don’t have any ‘denomination’. I am a member of the Church of England, which is the historic catholic church of England. Its members’ theological views range from extreme protestantism to extreme catholicism, from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism.

        I read the first article you quoted from the Christian Scholars group. I don’t recognize it as liberal Christianity. It is more like the Christian Zionism within the English church that supported the Balfour Declaration. (British Jews were largely opposed to Zionism.)

        In Jesus the Christ the covenant with the Jews was extended to all of humanity. Jesus is the savior of the world. All salvation is through Christ, but it is not limited to Christians, that would be absurd. Christians are the ones that know about it, and their role is to announce the good news to others, including the Jews.

      • RoHa
        March 29, 2015, 12:53 am

        Not so, Walid. Most Buddhists don’t really care about God at all, and some varieties of Hinduism teach that all religions are just different paths to the same destination.

      • Walid
        March 29, 2015, 7:28 pm

        “Christianity does not regard Judaism as a false religion: the Jewish Bible is incorporated into the Christian Bible. ”

        Gerald, sorry, I didn’t mean it as an insult. Nonetheless both old and new Testaments were forbidden to Catholics and only the clergy allowed to read them for around 1000 years. The Protestant William Tyndale was strangled and his body burned at the stake in 1536 for having translated the Bible into English, which a few years later was developed into the accepted KJV. but The Jewish Bible was not incorporated into the Christian Bible but the Christian Bible became an offshoot of the Jewish one.

        BTW, Melchizedek, the first priest, is mentioned in the Catholics’ Mass at the end.

      • Walid
        March 29, 2015, 7:53 pm

        “It is more like the Christian Zionism within the English church that supported the Balfour Declaration. ” David Gerald Fincham

        David, Christian Zionism under a different label such as “millenarism” existed there from days of Puritanism and long before Bafour was born. It fizzled out but in 1799 it resurfaced and became a potent force by 1840 when with Antony Ashly Cooper, it was believed that the Jews were ready to return to Palestine, to kick off the second coming. That same year, there was the false story circulated in Damascus to discredit the Jews about the blood of a Christian priest, Father Thomas, used in Passover rituals.

      • RoHa
        March 30, 2015, 2:32 am

        “I am a member of the Church of England,”

        So not really religious, then, David?

    • Donald
      March 28, 2015, 9:43 am

      Along with others here, I agree with JeffB’s first point–fundamentalist Christians think everyone except those who convert are going to hell, so it is a form of political correctness in the bad sense to claim they are somehow singling out Jews.

      Jeff’s second point about what some other Christians do in singling out Jews as special as dangerous is right, but not necessarily for who he means. It would depend on the historical circumstances, I suppose, but nowadays it would probably be Christians who are ashamed of historical Christian anti-semitism who would adopt that line and the danger would be for Palestinians, whose own rights are ignored out of a fear that criticism of Israel is somehow anti-Semitic.

      • Mooser
        March 28, 2015, 6:14 pm

        I am certainly not going to hell. It is simply out of the question. I will not spend eternity in some place that isn’t air-conditioned.

      • eljay
        March 28, 2015, 9:57 pm

        || Mooser: I am certainly not going to hell. It is simply out of the question. I will not spend eternity in some place that isn’t air-conditioned. ||

        Maybe Hell is air-conditioned…but the temperature’s set so low that you spend eternity shivering and wishing you were somewhere warmer. ;-)

    • MRW
      March 29, 2015, 2:31 am

      the Reformation brought about religious freedom

      What a crock, Donald. The Islamists practiced religious freedom 800 years before the idea dawned on an ignorant Europe.

      It is you who is misinformed. Ditto JeffB. Badly educated. And Blumenthal is no better.

      EDIT: killing adherents of a certain religion is far more provocative and indicative of their own efforts to repel their own destruction. And who can blame them. Hirsi Ali is a phony who wants to sell books.

  2. Citizen
    March 27, 2015, 1:11 pm

    Does Hagee know that believing in an afterlife is not a condition of the Jewish religion? The Zionist jewish leadership take Hagee’s cash and support, laughing behind his back all the way at him and his foolish and often impoverished fundy nut jobs.

    • Krauss
      March 27, 2015, 2:49 pm

      The Jewish establishment has decided to dance with the devil with this guy. He very clearly articulates that unless Jews convert to Christianity then they’ll burn forever in hellfire or whatever.

      You may think they are getting the last laugh, but you must understand that these alliance do not come without costs. It also sends a signal to the troops that these people are to be trusted. It changes the internal culture.

      I’m not as cavalier as you are about these things, precisely because these alliances have been done in such a hurry.

      • Mooser
        March 28, 2015, 6:18 pm

        “I’m not as cavalier as you are about these things, precisely because these alliances have been done in such a hurry.”

        Sometimes that’s the better way to go. I mean, look at what resulted from the long, slow series of debates that were to reconcile Reform and Orthodox Judaism. A divorce, wasn’t it?

    • MRW
      March 29, 2015, 2:37 am

      CUFI is run by a Jew, not Hagee: David Brog. Read Jews On First.
      http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/cufi_obsession.html

      The rabbi who runs that site is one of the few truth tellers, imo.

  3. MHughes976
    March 27, 2015, 1:42 pm

    The general Christian belief is that salvation comes from faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom God’s love is shown to the world. The liberal turn is to think that God will find other ways to save those who have sought to encounter his love in other fashions, the conservative turn to insist that there is no salvation ‘outside’.
    The conservative ‘dispensationalist’ tradition, of fairly recent origin but I think inherited by Hagee from JN Darby, gives a special role to Jewish people, who have a special assignment to vindicate the ancient prophecies: they do not for now see that these prophecies point to Jesus, but they (or very many of them) will be allowed a blinding revelation of the truth at the very last moment when they have done the special, political work in the Holy Land that no one else can do. While engaged on that mission they are not really ‘outside’ Jesus’ dispensations. There is thus no obligation on Christians to press for Jews to become Christians here and now.
    There is no parallel Christian mission for non-Christians of any other stripe. Those Jewish people who refuse to take part in their mission will of course share the fate of all non-saved humanity.
    Some Jewish leaders (like Yoffie, cited here) will not want to accept any mission on grounds that will seem to them absurd and vulgar. Others, like Hoenlein, will throughly welcome the idea that the prophets of old were as it were founders of Zionism and Zionist hopes.
    Whether all this – egging on Jewish people to do drastic things on the strength of religious teachings and interpretations that most Jewish people (and most Christians) do not accept and then threatening them with punishment if they will not comply – amounts to anti-Semitism depends on definitions. It would not exactly reflect ‘prejudice against Jews’.
    In general I don’t think that Christian ‘dispensationalist’ Zionism is just another form of anti-Semitism or of colonialism or of racism. It’s too peculiar and by itself.

    • Walid
      March 29, 2015, 8:12 pm

      “I am a Catholic ( non practicing ) and was taught that we are the chosen people and “anyone ” who is not one of us on “the last day”, will go (or is that can go) to hell. ”

      Both concepts were borrowed from the Jews. The Vatican now says that all the people on Earth are God’s Chosen. No more favourites.

      • MHughes976
        March 30, 2015, 9:50 am

        For those interested, there seems to be quite a good summary of Dual Covenant Theory in ‘Fire in the Ashes’ ed. Patterson and Roth and in ‘One of a Kind’, Adam Sparks. The central characters seem to be a) on the Jewish side, Martin Buber, who suggested general acceptance of the idea that Jews need not become Christians or Christians Jews, suggesting that Jews need not regard Christians as idolaters b) on the Christian side, such paragons of Protestant liberalism as Paul van Buren and Reinhold Niebuhr, both very strong liberal Christian Zionists.
        It’s very important to recognise that Zionism has left-wing or liberal support not just because of the Jewish influence in the Democratic Party in the US and the Labour Party in the UK but because some very influential and sincere progressive intellectual figures came to adopt it.
        In another corner of the debate we find ‘Messianic Jews’. They are not taken too seriously at the moment but one of their leaders, MItch Glaser, also wrote what seems like a well-informed paper summarising some important aspects of Dual Covenant, which of course he rejected.
        The Catholic process was rather different, of course. But Pope John Paul, speaking some time in the 80s at a conference in Mainz, specifically said that God’s covenant with the Jews had not been revoked. Though almost all theological statements can be interpreted in different ways it is not hard to see how close this sort of statement could bring us close to Christian Zionism.
        All this helps us to see what a wrench it will be for any mainstream Christian organisation to commit itself to treating Zionism as the moral mistake that it is. Intricate and elaborate webs of misleading thought by highly respected people will have to be brushed aside.

  4. amigo
    March 27, 2015, 2:18 pm

    “Hagee asserted that God sent Hitler as a “hunter,” in order to “hunt them [Jews] from every mountain and from every hill and out of the holes of the rocks … to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

    Hagee, point of order!!.

    Israel was not created until 1948.Hitler was long dead.I guess Netanyahu has taken over that task.

    BTW, I am a Catholic ( non practicing ) and was taught that we are the chosen people and “anyone ” who is not one of us on “the last day”, will go (or is that can go) to hell.No last minute conversions .You had your chance to convert but you screwed up .Tough luck.One thing that bothers me is , I will have to be in the company of all of Israel,s leaders .I guess I had better get religion , again.

    • just
      March 27, 2015, 3:13 pm

      +1, amigo!

      “Pat Robertson: ‘Was the co-pilot a Muslim? Why did he want to kill all those people?’”

      http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/pat-robertson-was-the-co-pilot-a-muslim-why-did-he-want-to-kill-all-those-people/#.VRRMF1IJuq0.twitter

      Just another longtime Islamophobic, ‘Christian Zionist’. Doubt it? Read this:

      “VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., July 10, 2002- Pat Robertson will be honored by the Chicago chapter of the ZOA for his consistent support of Israel with the State of Israel Friendship Award on Sunday, July 14.

      …As a result of his unyielding support, Robertson has also been recognized with the Millennium Jerusalem 2000 Council Award by the State of Israel Jerusalem Heritage Study Programs, Defender of Israel Award in 1994 by the Christians’ Israel Public Action Campaign, and the Distinguished Merit of Citation Award in 1979 by the National Conference of Christians and Jews.”

      http://patrobertson.com/PressReleases/ZionistAward.asp

      • amigo
        March 27, 2015, 4:09 pm

        “Pat Robertson: ‘Was the co-pilot a Muslim? Why did he want to kill all those people?’” Just

        I must be spending too much time around zionists.That was the first ,(very fleeting ) thought that came to my mind.

        Is someone smoking ziocaine in the room.

      • ckg
        March 27, 2015, 6:38 pm

        I was listening to former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett’s radio program on my morning commute when the news broke that the co-pilot had locked the pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the plane. Bennett, and I am paraphrasing, said, “We don’t know the names of either the pilot or co-pilot yet, but I’m wondering if he was ‘Islamist'”. Jeesh.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      March 28, 2015, 9:49 am

      “Land of Israel” is not the same thing as the State of Israel. It is a biblical term without a very precise definition, but a good idea can be obtained from the territory proposed by the Zionist leadership at the Paris peace conference in 1919. It included all of what became Mandatory Palestine, plus southern Lebanon up to the Litani river, plus some land to the East of the Jordan. The State of Israel was declared IN the Land of Israel, not AS the Land of Israel.

    • Mooser
      March 28, 2015, 6:25 pm

      I’m going to Heaven, the place that’s the best. That’s where I’m gonna go when I die. When I die and I’m layed to rest, gonna go to the place that’s the best! ‘Cause I’ve never been a sinner, I never sinned, so I got a friend in Jesus! So you know that when I die, he’s gonna set me up with the spirit in the sky. I got it covered.

      • Mooser
        March 28, 2015, 6:28 pm
  5. Annie Robbins
    March 27, 2015, 3:43 pm

    i guess i am not that concerned about the claim that Jews are automatically damned to eternal suffering in a lake of fire merely by virtue of their being Jewish. after all, this is the same religious ideology that believes in original sin. essentially, isn’t every human being who is not baptized and has not accepted christ also subject to the same fate as the jews (i fit in this category also)? so why the focus on racism, anti semitism or jews? if it’s an equal opportunity offender, across the board damnation of everyone based on religious beliefs unlike theirs, how is that racist per se? maybe i am just confused. i don’t know the ins and outs of the bible.

    Hagee firmly insisted that Christian Zionism is anti-Semitic, and that the reason CUFI so obsessively and blindly defends Israel is not because they care about Jews (who, in their mind, will face eternal damnation unless they renounce their religion and become Christians) but rather because they genuinely believe the world is on the verge of total annihilation and the Bible supposedly tells them they must do so. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/confirms-christian-semitic#sthash.drLKRaub.dpuf

    if the reason CUFI obsessively and blindly defends Israel is because they genuinely believe the world is on the verge of total annihilation and the Bible supposedly tells them they must do so., then how is that anti semitic? not caring about jews is not anti semitic. there’s a big leap between not caring and hating someone or some people.

    granted, i think hagee is an anti semite, for other reasons mentioned in this article. and i don’t like him, for reasons i’ve articulated in this 2013 article: ‘You live or die based on your support of Israel’ — Christian Zionists are no nightflowers!

    – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/02/christian-zionists-nightflowers#sthash.rsh30ePj.dpuf

    but i don’t see how believing the rapture will come and burn everyone to a crisp if they don’t believe in christ is anti semitic, per se.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      March 27, 2015, 6:24 pm

      Exactly! I think the author of the piece might be hoisting Hagee on his own petard, rather than making a serious claim that Hagee is anti Jewish for his theology.

    • Mooser
      March 28, 2015, 6:29 pm

      “after all, this is the same religious ideology that believes in original sin”

      Original sin, my tuchas. I’ve been trying my whole life and I haven’t come up with anything out of the ordinary, let alone patentable.

    • MRW
      March 29, 2015, 3:10 am

      but i don’t see how believing the rapture will come and burn everyone to a crisp if they don’t believe in christ is anti semitic, per se.

      The Mormons believe you go to the planet Varoomph-doomph. I don’t think they french-fry, though.

  6. Atlantaiconoclast
    March 27, 2015, 6:23 pm

    Christian Zionism is incredibly moronic and ironically, very un-Christian, but I don’t understand how its anti Jewish to believe that Jews need Christ to be saved. I don’t personally believe that Jews need Christ, as I’m no longer a Christian.

    But if a religion says that all must go through Christ to be saved, its a matter of doctrine, not bigotry. Now can bigotry arise from that? Sure, but this constant application of the label of “anti Semitic” to anything remotely negative about certain Jews or Judaism is tired and ridiculous.

  7. Neil Schipper
    March 27, 2015, 8:46 pm

    A highly intelligent guy like Ben Norton understands that it’s just as easy to spin Hageeism as an ideology infused with love for Jews, a loving concern for their eternal souls, and containing notions of Jews being “almost there” and needing a prayerful nudge.

    But Norton’s real religion, anti-Israelism, compels him (and Blumenthal) to spin it the other way: “Antisemitism!!

    It’s quite transparent: the more people trash talk Hagee, the weaker the alliance between the American heartland and Israel.

    Not a bad tactic, and not new.

    I suspect a highly intelligent guy like Ben Norton also has opinions about some influential Islamic constituencies, and their notions of Jewish lives and Jewish souls. But Islamophilia is an arrow in the quiver of anti-Israelism, so on that subject he will stay silent.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 28, 2015, 7:54 am

      hm, not sure hagee’s comments about hitler can be “spun” another way. granted he’s retracted the statement but what kind of person thinks like that to begin with? try explaining that away.

      and about your “islamophilia” comment. i’d never even heard of the term but i just googled it. it was recently invented by islamophobes and is bandied about by the likes of robert spencer, daniel pipes, melanie phillips and their ilk. what “Islamic constituencies” might you be referring to? and if someone is already a muslim, then how can that word be applied? for wouldn’t that word be applied, like judophilia is to non jews (like christian zionists), to someone who is outside the religion to begin with? so who exactly do you mean?

      i find your framing of islamophilia as a “subject” confusing, perhaps because, as i mentioned, it’s the first time i have ever heard of it, and coupled with the term “constituencies” implying several groups of muslims (who by virtue of already being muslim – well of course they would like their own religion – they already worship it!). seriously, what do you even mean? and how could anyone be anything but silent about a topic (or subject as you call it) one would have never even heard of unless one hangs out at hate sites or reads daniel pipes!

      anti semitism is a label that has been thoroughly trashed by over application. as the primary favored ad hominem crutch, unfortunately used as a weapon routinely and manipulatively in the first line of hasbara defense in support for israel, it has been thrown about casually, worn down, overwrought and over used.

      but your segue here, from a discussion on what does or does not qualify as anti semitism (which everyone has heard of !) to this term “islamophilia”, used in an attempt to bash the author, while perhaps creative, rings hollow. and what’s it got to do w/hagee? nothing that’s what.

      it’s almost as if the definition of anti semitism is now up for grabs it’s been bandied about so much. and now you’re calling “anti israel” a religion! is there no end to this madness?

    • Annie Robbins
      March 28, 2015, 7:57 am

      p.s. and it wasn’t hagee’s accusers who invented the idea advocating all jews pack up and head off to israel was grounded in anti semitism. just sayin’. it’s disingenuous to call this an anti semitic trope (as has been done repeatedly by israel supporters) and then turn around and bash someone with it if applied to someone (like hagee) you so clearly support.

      i mention that because while i question whether the christian belief jews with burn in eternal damnation if they don’t accept christ is anti semitic (for reasons i have explained elsewhere in the thread), i don’t think it’s a “tactic” being “spun”, under the circumstances.

      • MRW
        March 29, 2015, 3:15 am

        Standing with Israel was not written by Hagee. It was written by David Brog, a Jew, Executive Director of CUFI. Hague only wrote the foreword.

    • Mooser
      March 28, 2015, 6:35 pm

      ” But Islamophilia is an arrow in the quiver of anti-Israelism, so on that subject he will stay silent”

      Islamophilia? Gee, funny, none of my Spel-Cheks or Dictionary recognize “Islamophilia” as a word.

      Could you define “Islamophilia” for us, Neil?

      EDIT: Oh, I see, Annie Googled it. Oh my, “Islamophilia”.

  8. JLewisDickerson
    March 27, 2015, 10:48 pm

    RE: “CUFI Leader John Hagee confirms Christian Zionism is anti-Semitic”

    MY COMMENT: We poor, ignorant, lost souls are so fortunate to have the likes of John Hagee, Chuck Norris, Michelle Bachmann and the omnipotent Jon Voight* to educate us about all the E-V-I-L that is afoot in the world today! Praise the Lord!

    SEE: “Stars of David: Jon Voight”, by Rabbi Shraga Simmons, Aaish.com, September 13, 2014
    The clear-thinking, Academy Award-winning defender of Israel shares his thoughts with Aish.com.

    . . . For decades, Voight has been one of the most outspoken voices defending Israel and the Jewish people. “My connection to Israel is a result of everything Judaism has given the human race,” he says. “I’ve always been in awe of the Jewish people. They are the conscience of the world.”

    Voight was raised a religious Christian, and as an avid reader of the Bible – he calls the Torah “the greatest gift to humanity” – has always respected the Jewish people. “God told Abraham: ‘Those who bless you will be blessed, and those who curse you will be cursed.’ That’s exactly what we’ve seen over the past 4,000 years,” says Voight. . .

    . . . Voight is sensitive to the professional risks, but is determined to push on. “My agent says, ‘Jon, maybe for the sake of your career it’s better not to be talking about this stuff.’ But I’m getting older and thinking more about the future, of what world we are leaving for our grandchildren. If I’m going to make a difference, the time is now.”

    Voight sees Israel’s battle as a microcosm of the larger battle against evil. “Israel is a moral beacon, the vanguard of our values of liberty and justice. If Israel is demonized in its fight against terrorists and religious extremists, then we are all at risk. History has proven that these battles start with the Jews, but do not end with them. If Israel falls, we all fall.”

    As for his willingness to speak out, Voight told Aish.com: “There is evil afoot and if my voice can be heard, it is my obligation to do so. I think that all sane people should have a passion for Israel at this time. The stakes are very high and we can no longer get away with being ignorant.”

    ENTIRE ARTICLE -http://www.aish.com/j/sod/Stars-of-David-Jon-Voight.html

    • JLewisDickerson
      March 27, 2015, 10:49 pm

    • JLewisDickerson
      March 27, 2015, 10:52 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie wedding: Actress’s father Jon Voight was ‘not invited’ to the private nuptials in France”, by Jenn Selby, Independent.co.uk, 29 August 2014

      [EXCERPTS] Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s wedding was probably one of the most eagerly anticipated high profile nuptials since those that cared about the royal wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in 2011.

      Yet somehow, they managed to keep the whole event, held at the $60million (£36million) Chateau Miraval in the south of France the couple purchased in 2008, so under wraps, no-one realised it had even taken place until some days afterwards.

      Jolie’s father, Jon Voight, found out about it around about the same time that everyone else did. And by everyone else, we mean the rest of the world, because the veteran actor wasn’t actually invited.

      Questioned about the nuptials on Thursday morning (28 August), Voight apparently told TMZ that he first read about them via an online news site.

      Asked whether he was upset not to be invited, he responded by saying he was busy with the Emmy Awards anyway, having been nominated for a prize for his portrayal of the character Mickey Donovan in TV series Ray Donovan.

      Jolie and Voight have endured a turbulent relationship in the past. Back in 2001, Voight told Access Hollywood that Jolie had been suffering from “serious mental problems” and said that he had urged her to seek professional help.

      Following his comments, the then 26-year-old fired back by telling reporters she did not consider it “healthy” for her to be in his company.

      They eventually reconciled in 2011, sometime after the incident and after Jolie had amassed a total of six children. . .

      . . . Earlier this month, Voight stirred controversy when he accused Penelopé Cruz and her husband Javier Bardem of ‘inciting anti-Semitism’ after they signed an open letter condemning the Israeli government’s Palestinian ‘genocide’. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/angelina-jolie-and-brad-pitt-wedding-actresss-proisrael-father-jon-voight-was-not-invited-to-the-private-nuptials-in-france-9698790.html

      • eljay
        March 27, 2015, 11:32 pm

        … For decades, Voight has been one of the most outspoken voices defending Israel and the Jewish people. “My connection to Israel is a result of everything Judaism has given the human race,” he says. “I’ve always been in awe of the Jewish people. They are the conscience of the world.”
        . . .
        Voight sees Israel’s battle as a microcosm of the larger battle against evil. “Israel is a moral beacon, the vanguard of our values of liberty and justice. If Israel is demonized in its fight against terrorists and religious extremists, then we are all at risk. History has proven that these battles start with the Jews, but do not end with them. If Israel falls, we all fall.”

        Not only are “the Jewish people” (i.e., all Jews, including hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists) not the “conscience of the world”, but Israel – an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” that for almost 70 years and with impunity has been engaged in (war) crimes – is anything but “a moral beacon, the vanguard of our values of liberty and justice”.

        Voight is nuts. His daughter is right to avoid him.

      • ckg
        March 28, 2015, 8:56 am

        Thanks–I’ve always wondered about the relationship between Jolie and her wacko father. Now I know.

      • JLewisDickerson
        March 29, 2015, 2:01 pm

        P.P.S. HERE is a nice photo of Jon Voight and young Angelina Jolie. Draw your own conclusions.

        ANOTHER EXCERPT FROM SELBY’S INDEPENDENT ARTICLE:

        [EXCERPT] . . . They (Angelina Jolie and Jon Voight) eventually reconciled in 2011, sometime after the incident and after Jolie had amassed a total of six children.

        “I suddenly saw things differently and everything shifted,” Voight said of the change in attitude that led to the pair repairing their relationship. “That one moment changed my whole life. It gave me back my daughter and my family. Being reunited with my Angie is very precious to me. I adore my grandchildren, they are my great love. It makes me so emotional and grateful.”

        Pitt’s immediate family were all reportedly in attendance.

        However, comments made by Voight to Good Morning Britain earlier hinted that his absence from the ceremony had been amicable.

        “I’m very happy that I can legitimately call him my son-in-law, this wonderful fellow who I love,” he told the ITV show.

        “You know what they are very happy. The kids must have had a wonderful time at the wedding, they all had their things to do and it must have been very beautiful so I’m very happy for them.

        “She’s working now with Brad, and I’ve got a couple of things to do, but as soon as we can we’ll get together and it’s going to be exciting.” . . .

        SOURCE – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/angelina-jolie-and-brad-pitt-wedding-actresss-proisrael-father-jon-voight-was-not-invited-to-the-private-nuptials-in-france-9698790.html

        P.P.P.S. SO, WHY THIS INCREDIBLE CHANGE IN JON VOIGHT’S ATTITUDE (“I suddenly saw things differently and everything shifted”)? My theory is that Angelina Jolie’s attorney made it very clear to Jon Voight that if he did not ‘make nice’, Angelina Jolie would ‘go public’ with details of her childhood with Jon Voight that would make Woody Allen look like a saint.
        Mind you, that’s merely a theory of mine (i.e., a suspicion on my part)!

      • JLewisDickerson
        March 29, 2015, 2:18 pm

        P.P.P.P.S. I should add that I have never known what to make of the allegations against Woody Allen except that Mia Farrow appears to be very, very angry with him.
        That said, I have to admit to not having read very extensively on the matter.

      • JLewisDickerson
        March 30, 2015, 6:29 pm

        P.P.P.P.P.S.
        OR, PERHAPS ONE OF THEM (JOHN VOIGHT & ANGELINA JOLIE) WAS JUST IN THE OTHER’S WAY WHEN THE CAMERAS TURNED TO FACE THEM! THERE JUST WASN’T ROOM IN (THE) FRAME FOR TWO.

  9. W.Jones
    March 27, 2015, 11:11 pm

    Ben,

    You wrote:
    Farah resolutely maintains that Christian Zionism is, in its very essence, an anti-Semitic ideology, as, in his view, it is an “anti-biblical position” to claim that Jews are not automatically damned to eternal suffering in a lake of fire merely by virtue of their being Jewish.

    This of course is incorrect. It is not virtue of merely based on being Jewish that the “Christian” Zio Evangelicals think this happens, but rather on whether one believes Jesus is the Messiah or not. Certainly, they would not consider Messianic Jews to be condemned. The parallel to this kind of thinking are Israelis who believe that Christianity is idolatry and that Christians get condemned.

    Thus, the Christian Zionists are not so much anti-semitic as intolerantly anti-Judaism, and unfortunately there are parallels on the Israeli side.

  10. Joe Catron
    March 28, 2015, 5:35 am

    Believing your religion is the right one, and Judaism isn’t, is not anti-Semitism. The attempt to link the two positions is not only a non sequitur, but a transparent one to boot.

    Here’s a good rule of thumb: if a claim doesn’t focus *particularly* on Jewishness or Judaism, as opposed to the majority of humanity, then whether you like it or not, it isn’t anti-Semitism.

  11. ckg
    March 28, 2015, 9:07 am

    I agree with many commenters here. Hagee is not anti-Semitic. But he definitely is anti-Muslim and anti-gay. You don’t need to dip into theology to understand that.

  12. JeffB
    March 29, 2015, 10:32 pm

    @David

    I’m just going to start a new subthread on this. As mainline protestant churches go the global Episcopal is definitely one of the better ones in terms of their pronouncements on Jews.

    Here are the basics (same document all over the internet): http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/na/episcopalian/683-ecusa88july
    I think you should pay particular attention to their statements regarding believing that incorporating the Hebrew bible and incorporating Judaism are the same thing.

    Your church most certainly does agree with my statemetns on replacement theology being the traditional view and them deviating from it. “The traditional doctrine in Christianity says that prior to the birth of Jesus the Jewish people had a living covenant with God and Christianity came to replace Judaism and render it obsolete. ” but they themselves have a more nuanced position that the original call for Jews may be irrevocable. Here is a sample article which does a nice job of summarizing: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/article/jews-and-christians-seek-move-contention-cooperation

    • David Gerald Fincham
      March 30, 2015, 2:56 pm

      “The traditional doctrine in Christianity says that prior to the birth of Jesus the Jewish people had a living covenant with God and Christianity came to replace Judaism and render it obsolete. ”

      In sixty years of worship in Christian churches I have never heard such an opinion expressed – perhaps “traditional” means more than sixty years ago.

      Yes, this sort of dialogue between Christians and Jews is good stuff. But what about the third sibling, Islam? They should be involved as well. Christians have a much greater natural affinity with Muslims than they do with Jews, because the Quran regards Jesus as a great prophet. Jews, I think, tend to regard him as a blasphemer.

      • lysias
        March 30, 2015, 3:27 pm

        Supersessionism:

        Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology, is a Christian theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism.[1] Supersessionism is the belief that the Christian Church has replaced the Israelites as God’s[2] chosen people[1][3] and that the Mosaic covenant has been replaced or superseded by the New Covenant.[4] From a supersessionist’s “point of view, just by continuing to exist, the Jews dissent.”[5] This view directly contrasts with dual-covenant theology which holds the Mosaic Covenant as still valid for Jews. While supersessionism has been common throughout the history of Christianity and remains a common assumption among Christians, since the Holocaust it has been rejected by some mainstream Christian theologians and denominations.[6]:1–5

  13. FreddyV
    April 9, 2015, 9:35 am

    @Lysias,

    Supersessionism or “Replacement Theology” is something of a canard used by Christian Zionists to attack orthodox Christianity.

    The argument is that God has forsaken the Jews in favour of a new group of people now known as Christians. Ironically it is Christian Zionism that holds the belief that Christians are the group currently enjoying God’s favour and will continue to do so until they are raptured to Heaven, when God’s attention will again turn to the Jews.

    The apostle Paul spent a great deal of time correcting the Christians of Rome on this error when they thought that they had become the recipient of God’s favour rather than the Israelites.

    The book of Romans explains that only those who are in Christ are in God’s favour, whether Jewish or non Jew. All are broken off from relationship with God and can only commune with Him through Christ.

    The basic issue Christian Zionists have is a lack of understanding that Christ’s arrival didn’t change the people, it changed the economy. Instead of temple worship, sacrifices and priests, Christ brought a new covenant through His blood, which made the old one obsolete.

Leave a Reply