Jump to content

Talk:Christian Zionism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zionism-Israel.com being judged NOT WP:RS[edit]

FYI at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#zionism-israel.com_on_Zionist_history as of 1/1/09. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI after that discussion started someone must have rebooted the search engine because suddenly dozens of uses popped up and there were no more denials it was a reliable source, at least on a case by case basis. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this article now and looking quickly at the page, I think they have an ax to grind in favoring some Xian Zionist groups over others and therefore are not a reliable source for this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable history presented as fact[edit]

The article Christian Zionism has failed to include 4 rather pertinent areas, or rather excluded those four areas to produce a POV article.

  1. why no mention of the first any largest Christian Zionist movement....The Crusaders...a rather large and obvious gap in the article...
  2. The Christian evangelical messianic movement for the redemption of the Holy land one aspect was the Templars. who ended up as a nasty bunch of racists who most certainly were not pro Jewish Zionism...not the nicest bunch of the evangelical messianic movement but probably the most well known...
  3. And of course the [Franciscans] in the Holy Land who seek the redemption by settlement and evangelical conversion of the Holy land to Christianity...
  4. The American Christian evangelicals as in the American colony of Jerusalem.
missing areas within the article...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be moved in toto to Restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land where it more properly belongs...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that information should be included briefly in history - but only where a reliable source identifies them as "Christion Zionism." There doubtless is relevant material in Restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land and I'll check it out. However, there is no doubt this phrase is widely used and deserves its own article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Crusades had nothing to do with Christian Zionism, as they did not seek to establish a Jewish state in the Holy Land, but an explicitly (Western) Christian one. They would have opposed anything like the modern state of Israel because that state is not founded on Christianity. In addition the Crusades were not exclusively focused on the Holy Land either (the Reconquista of Spain, which unlike the Eastern crusades was ultimately successful, is also considered part of the Crusades). Most Christian Zionists thus despise the Crusaders and everything they stood for (Read, for example, what the Armstrongites, who were among the most prominent of the Christian Zionists, had to say on the subject); anti-Catholicism (many Christian Zionists including the Armstrongites, Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye are quite strongly anti-Catholic) plays a role as well since the Crusaders were Catholic and following the Pope's orders. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper exegesis[edit]

The article used the term newspaper exegesis to describe the methods used by Christian Zionists. This is an interesting term, since it accurately describes the unusual practices of several Protestant scholars, who are said to have a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other. ADM (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What ever it is, it does not have a source in this article so I have changed it to something more generally descriptive of the contents. Not necessarily final or best option. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source info or it may be removed[edit]

The box on top of this page reminds us: consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. Over next week or two I'm gong to source things that I consider most easily sourceable and remove obvious WP:Original research. Also looks like a lot of duplication in the first two history sections that needs merging, including the English section. Plus a recent theological development section. Things that may or may not be true that are questionable, controversial or don't seem critical to the article and which no one else sources will be removed. Many but not all of those things I'll tag first as I go. So heads up! The always bold...CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom‎[edit]

I think this article may be a lost cause - if anyone wants to try to fix it, please do, or it could redirect here. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to clean up this one and then see if there was anything of use additional there. Otherwise merging might be a good idea. Already cleaned up relevant entry on Israel lobby in the United Kingdom. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's the same editor who created the CZ in the UK article that you are cleaning up afterwards. He still doesn't understand how to write and source an article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mentioned it, yes, it would help if he would thoroughly review WP:Policy. Including the one about discussing things in talk if you expect to have your questionable edits kept. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical reference not appr[edit]

"Many Christian Zionists believe that the people of Israel remain part of the chosen people of God, along with the "ingrafted" Gentile Christians[Romans 11:17-24] (dual-covenant theology)."

The citation of Romans 11:17-24 in and of itself is not a citation to dual-covenant theology. No citation outside of this Bible verse supports this view. In fact the verses 17-24 themselves make no reference to a dual covenant. Romans 11 uses the device of an olive tree. The Jews being grafted in as natural branches of the olive tree. There is a mention of a covenant in Romans 11:27. The article does not mention this verse either in the context of dual-covenant theology, nor does the article mention this verse explaining the meaning of this covenant.

69.246.19.173 (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck[edit]

I don't know if he belongs in here at all, given that he is a Mormon and Mormonism is not universally considered to be part of Christianity (some Mormons and non-Mormons have recently begun describing that faith as the "fourth Abrahamic religion"). Perhaps a separate article on Mormon Zionism would be worthwhile? It could mention historical parallels with the Mormons' own history (i. e. between Utah and the State of Israel, fleeing from persecution, etc), as these have been discussed in the literature, of course. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Christian Restorationism into Christian Zionism[edit]

The two articles overlap with all of the content of the Restorationism article included here already. The differentiation between the 19thC and 20thC movements is tenuous, and importantly was ignored in Nahum Sokolow's seminal 1919 work "History of Zionism", in which he writes:

"In reviewing the gradual evolution of the Zionist idea over such a wide field, I could not restrict the meaning of the term " Zionism " to the Zionist Movement and Organization of the present day. I had to go back to the beginning of this idea, and to extend the meaning of "Zionism" to all aspirations and efforts tending in the same direction."

Combining the two would turn two substandard articles into one good article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been merged. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Lloyd George[edit]

There is no mention of David Lloyd George who according to himself was converted to Zionism by acetone. http://www.balfourproject.org/lloyd-george/ Wool Bridge (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may folloow that link, but you will find no mention of acetone. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hechler and many others not even mentioned[edit]

I am surprised by the paucity of information on William Hechler, the Blackstone memorial, Orde Wingate, given their considerable influence on Zionism and a number of other influential and important Christian Zionists. ‘When it came to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of Theodor Herzl, it was noted by the editors of the English-language memorial volume that William Hechler would prove “not only the first, but the most constant and the most indefatigable of Herzl’s followers”. [1]. Cpsoper (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent non-dispensationalists added[edit]

Have added references to some prominent Protestant non-dispensationalists, before and after Darby.Cpsoper (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Have added Owen and Rutherford with short quotes too as prominent exemplars illustrative of widely held Puritan attitudes to the Jews and Restoration long before J N Darby.Cpsoper (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

An author has removed this page from the 'parent category' 'Zionism', this needs explanation before reverting. It is arguable that Christian Zionism is the parent of Zionism, at least according to the eminent secular Israeli historian Anita Shapira (ref in intro in Zionism page).Cpsoper (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author was me. For the removal, it doesn't really matter whether :Category:Christian Zionism is the parent OR the child category of :Category:Zionism. In both cases, it is redundant to classify this article in both categories, and I suppose that in both cases Christian Zionism would be the more appropriate category to classify this article into. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Marco, but please explain why redundant? There will be enquirers who look at this question from both angles - those interested in the question from a question of Jewish and national history, and others who consider the question as a matter of theology or church policy, not to say politics - both are important perspectives, and whilst intertwined and interdependent in a most unusual way for Jewish-Christian relations (I won't expand here now on this but this article and the one on Anti-Zionism outline why), also sufficiently distinct to justify the inclusion in both categories, in my view. If you perceive I'm wrong please explain why. BW.Cpsoper (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ See Paul Merkley, The Politics of Christian Zionism 1891-1948, ISBN 9780714644080

Overstated importance of Christian Zionism in the United States?[edit]

The section titled "Recent political analysis and developments" contains many dubious statements about the importance of the movement in the U.S. I wouldn't deny these statements, if there were demographic studies or well-researched, unbiased literature to back them up:

In United States politics, Christian Zionism is important because it mobilises an important Republican constituency[citation needed]: fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants who support Israel.

How large is that specific constituency? It's not even clear that most fundamentalist Christians or evangelical Christians are Zionists.

Almost all of this section needs citation and reads like it was written by someone how would like to overstate the significance of Christian Zionism in the U.S., whatever the case may be. I am hesitant to remove it entirely, but what what is the alternative?

Zombiedeity (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs radical revision, to prune some rather overreaching assertions. Things are changing rapidly, many 'evangelical' bodies (not the same as fundamentalist in the US) are increasingly changing to a more hostile stance toward Israel, many of the PCA constituents and some (not all) amillennial teachers deny any Biblical role for Israel, Kim Riddlebarger, Hendriksen, Palmer Robertson, Gary Burge for example. There has also been significant representation by senior representatives of a number of large parachurch bodies: WEC, Langham PI, various Bible Societies and Missions at the Anti-Zionist Christ at the Checkpoint conference. There has been a blurring of the formerly sharp distinction with liberal churches in this as in many other areas. Cpsoper (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is wildly offensive and inaccurate to suggest that those who reject dispensationalism are "hostile toward Israel" or "liberal". Conservative Reformed Christians, Confessional Lutherans, and the entire span of Church history before 1830 held that the Christian Church is the Israel of God. Many Reformed, Lutheran, and even mainline support Israel for pragmatic reasons rather than theological reasons. And yes, conservative Reformed Christianity is growing, along with post/amillennialism and partial preterism. — Confession0791 talk 20:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the harsh response, but Covenant theology has been the historic position of the Christian church for centuries -- until relatively recently. Still many CT's support Israel for pragmatic reasons without the theological underpinnings associated with dispensationalism. —Confession0791 talk 03:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Anti-Zionist resolutions in the Anglican Church[edit]

Have added a short section on CoE's support for EAPPI, and subsequent mainstream UK Jewish reaction. Cpsoper (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Proponents Section[edit]

I just added some citations for proponents of Christian Zionism, but as I added a Washington Post reference for Mick Huckabee, I was not entirely sure it would qualify. In the article it talks about Huckabee's position regarding Israel and while it positively infers he is, it doesn't explicitly call him a Christian Zionist. Given it is a bit controversial, should we create a standard by which someone can be considered a true proponent? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying up[edit]

Along with some helpful changes this edit [1] has removed several categories, and many similar links without explanation or discussion. This is a rather broad brush just for a tidy up. Cpsoper (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore any Categories you feel are appropriate. Editor2020, Talk 03:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so for, again, BW. Cpsoper (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected Criticism[edit]

By evangelical Christians in the US as shown in this video by Pastor Steven Anderson: https://archive.org/details/PastorStevenAndersonMarchingToZion 41.146.35.140 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

The interpretation of ancient writings must be left to experts and it is not ok for editors to add their own interpretations. That is the gist of WP:PRIMARY. Consequently the following is not admissible. There are also citation errors here. In the second one, Against Heresies is nowhere near the cited page numbers. Iraneus is commenting on the coming of the Antichrist as foretold in scripture and doesn't mention Jews explicitly at all. Including it on this page is a real stretch; doing so without reference to an expert secondary source is a serious breach of policy. Likewise, Hippolytus refers to "the people" and expert attention is needed for deciding if this means the Jews rather than Christians (whom he believed were the rightful inheritors of God's patronage). Zerotalk 01:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hippolytus[1] and Irenaeus[2] foresaw a Jewish return from exile, despite their unbelief in Jesus.

References

  1. ^ Hippolytus, Romanus (c. 202 AD). Treatise on Christ and the AntiChrist Sn.54, Translated by Philip Schaff (PDF). CCEL. pp. 537–538 (in pdf file). {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Irenaeus (c.180 AD). Against Heresies, book 5, ch. 25.4, 28.2, 30.2,4 Translated by Philip Schaff (PDF). CCEL. p. 845,849,853,854 (in pdf file). {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Zerotalk 01:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, To editor Zero0000:. As the primary source page indicates, the distinction can be difficult. Primary sources are distinguished by their proximity to the event rather than age, with prophetic expectation, antiquity paradoxically increases distance. As to original research, if a citation of plain sense is OR, then most Christian writers would be excluded here. If it is encyclopaedic only to cite digested material, there is, as has been well demonstrated in contemporary situations, good evidence of perpetuating preconceptions. Both writers expect a Jewish restoration to the land and both identify the Antichrist as of Israel and they also both link the two phenomena. This may be unpalatable, but the quotes below make it manifest. I have corrected the pdf pages for ccel pdf of Irenaeus.
Hippolytus' text speaks plainly of Jewish return to the land from which they have been dispersed (already true at time of his writing).
He explains explicitly that he expects the Antichrist will raise the Jewish kingdom, 'And under this was signified none other than Antichrist, who is also himself to raise the kingdom of the Jews.' (p.526)
He opines that as the Messiah literally descended from Judah, so the Antichrist will be from Israel's Dan. 'For as Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan.' (p.521)
Then in the text cited, (p.537-8) continuing on the subject of Antichrist, 'As his tribe, then, and his manifestation, and his destruction, have been set forth in these words, and as [the number of] his name has also been indicated mystically, let us look also at his action.For he will call together all the people to himself, out of every country of the dispersion, making them his own, as though they were his own children, and promising to restore their country, and establish again their kingdom and nation, in order that he may be worshipped'
Thus citation is neither obscure nor difficult. Call it OR if you will, it's simply citing a writer who makes his own opinion manifest.
Irenaeus his forerunner is still more explicit, writing at a time when Jerusalem was devoid of Jews and the Temple was in ruins:
'Another shall come in his own name,him ye will receive,”calling Antichrist “the other,” because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one “who feared not God,neither regarded man,” to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,—that is,the earthly Jerusalem,—to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: “And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice' p 1363
'For when he (Antichrist) is come, and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the apostasy, and accomplishes whatever he shall do according to his own will and choice, sitting also in the temple of God, so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ; wherefore also shall he deservedly “be cast into the lake of fire:' p. 1370
He too ascribes his lineage to Israel's tribe of Dan, p 1375
'But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire' p 1376
I don't believe there's any 'stretch' at all in citing these writers anticipating a restoration of Jews to their land. Of course, there is not the political activism, or sympathy for Jewish emancipation of Victorian Restorationists or 'Christian Zionists', but as early progenitors of the expectation, their writings are otherwise remarkably contemporary, and justify a brief reference. Both belie the assertion that this expectation was novel to the 16th century. Cpsoper (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my opinion on this. To cite these sources as if they were pro-Zionist while ignoring their eschatological nature is a travesty. If it is all so clear, find a solid secondary source and cite that. We aren't allowed to do our own interpretations of primary sources. Zerotalk 02:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpsoper: There are many easily accessible secondary sources about this, I don't understand why you don't want to use them. This book is one such source. Here is another one. They don't seem to support your view though, or the ideas of Christian Zionism, so maybe it's better to just leave Iranaeus out - I can't find any evidence that Iranaeus is a major thinker for this belief - the only connection seems to be that Iranaeus was a millenarian and according to Britannica the Christian Zionists were also millenarians, but the sources I have from JSTOR trace the ideology back only to 19th century dispensantional premillennialism - I don't know if it was formally heresy, but the Catholic church has censored the parts of Iranaeus' writings on millenialism, but beyond that I don't see any connection to radical Protestanism - Christian Zionism is traced back to American puritanism but even there it is not clear what they are talking about - since they believe in "New Israel" it's murky whether the first thinkers mean a spirtual restoration (the restoration of Jews to Israel the Church) or actually the restoration of Jews to the Old Israel. To sort it out, I would have to spend a lot more time on it then I want to, but I can email you some articles if you want. Seraphim System (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Zero0000: Thank you, I will not press it, but my claim was 1/ Hippolytus and Irenaeus are not primary sources, not by the ordinary definition, since they are not close witnesses of an event, on the contrary it is far removed from them. 2/ If citing a distant but authoritative writer's plain and precise opinion on a subject is a violation of primary source rules, most of wiki would have to be rewritten. It is unusual for distance to be prospective not retrospective, but that is the nature of prophecy.
To editor Seraphim System:, the term Christian Zionist is indeed anachronistic, see Lewis,[1] but it serves as useful label and has become commonplace for political activists for Jewish Restoration before Jewish Zionism, of whom they were many. As I wrote above, neither are Victorian proto-Zionists, noone claimed that. Even the early Puritans, and later contemporaries like Samuel Rutherford explicitly opposed Jewish emancipation, whilst eagerly anticipating a Jewish Restoration. A serious ignorance of the subject is betrayed by claiming the doctrine of Restorationism which gave birth to the political activism of Christian Zionism is rooted in early dispensationalism, for the politics read Lewis or for the doctrine a helpful summary is in Murray[2], both root the doctrine in the early post-millennial Puritans' writings (a minority were pre-mill, none of course dispensational - Darby's scheme) and hint at earlier writers still, long before dispensationalism in 1840s. Its earliest political advocates per Lewis were postmillennial in the 1790s, but he continues the banner was largely carried by pre-mills from the 1820s on, though not entirely even now.
I can only go by what the sources say. I know more about Christianity then I do about Judaism. The sources I saw say it was about wanting to destroy the Ottoman Empire.Seraphim System (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I looked into it a little more. Again it seems like you are trying to put your own read on Christian Zionism. You can read also Charles Spurgeon. Regarding dispensationalism, it is effectively the separation of Israel and the Church. You would need to start with Calvin and covenant theology and make up your own mind, what you the word "Israel" means. If you take it too far it ends up in some very bad places, but that is a minority view and not in keeping with the spirit of this view that is rooted in honoring the New Covenant. Calvin writes about the "salvation of the whole Israel of God" but as I said above, much has been made of that phrase and interpretations remain murky.The vast majority of sources today hold with Darby's dispensationalism, not Calvin. Seraphim System (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks To editor Seraphim System:, won't digress, but Lewis upon whom I have drawn heavily is well worth reading, and shows the nature of the interactions between political and spiritual motivations, (see some quotes here)personified in Shaftesbury and Palmerston, drawing extensively from primary sources and interacting with most authorities Jewish and Christian on the subject. Spurgeon is a case in point of one who opposed dispensationalism strongly (see embedded quote) but was an equally fervent restorationist (see sermon ref in article), his pre-mill credentials are now somewhat disputed, because of vaguer less consistent expressions. Calvin usually equated the church with Israel in his exegesis for profit of hearers, but his British Puritan admirers especially largely saw Jewish Restoration as necessary and important and frequently prayed for it (Murray documents this extensively for many), many Calvinistic US heirs of the Puritans, Cotton and Increase Mather, Jonathan Edwards for example, seem to have followed this pattern, with a firmly belief in Covenant Theology and Restoration, long before Dispensationalism fanned the flames of this expectation (again Murray treats on the earlier aspects of this, Merkley the later developments (including Blackstone)).Cpsoper (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your citation of comment is upon Adv Her. 4 not 5. Irenaeus in this passage explicitly refers to the literal city 'the earthly Jerusalem', not the spiritual metaphor. It is plain these two writers, shortly after the Apostles expected a Jewish return to Israel after the diaspora. They expected a Restoration, even if unlike later counterparts, they were not sympathetic to Jewish suffering. Nevertheless, given the difference, I will forego a reinsertion of these two sources themselves. Cpsoper (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problematic statement said that Irenaeus and Hippolytus "foresaw" something, and for that the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus are undoubtedly primary sources. By the ordinary definition and any other definition I've ever met. Zerotalk 12:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, but does that not also apply to Herzl his assistants as well as the Christian genuine 'proto-Zionists'? Would we argue Herzl's works couldn't be cited in passing on a Zionism page on primary source grounds, despite being a much closer participant? Enough said, (at least by me). Cpsoper (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lewis, Donald (2 January 2014). The Origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury And Evangelical Support For A Jewish Homeland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 380. ISBN 9781107631960.
  2. ^ Murray, Iain (June 1971). the Puritan Hope. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. p. 326. ISBN 9780851512471.

Miscellaneous comments[edit]

  • This source that someone just added has material quite different from the text it was attached to. A fair report of this source would mention the author's contention that Christian Zionists are noted for their antagonism to Islam. Zerotalk 13:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • MidEastWeb, cited twice, is a private website that does not satisfy WP:RS. An example of why is the sentence "In August 1840, The Times reported that the British government was considering Jewish restoration." which is copied verbatim and thus violates copyright as well. In fact, the original in The Times of 17 Aug 1840, page 3, is an anonymous letter to the editor and is thus unusable even if it is reported accurately (which it isn't). Zerotalk 13:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essay tag[edit]

The article is still messy, but there is more referenced text and some opinion sections have been pruned, and unsubstantiated assertions flagged. Others may disagree but I have removed the essay tag, and left the synth tag.Cpsoper (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Christian Zionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Zionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Zionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Christian Zionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Christian Zionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to 'Biblical Interpretations - Other' - Better things found in Hebrews - A Better Priesthood[edit]

I removed the latter two sentences of paragraph 1 as they are both vague and misleading in their presentation of argument/sources and claims.

The obsoletion of Mosaic Covenantal observance is not replaced by the Church but by an individual priesthood of every believer: The Priesthood of Melchizedek which replaces en-blanc (in whole) the Levitical-Aaronic Priesthood (Heb. 7:18)

In this Epistle, Paul relates how we have such better things in Christ; a better Savior; a better Covenant; better promises; a better priesthood, etc. and Christ's superiority over all these things which He subordinates. The Priesthood of Levi is temporary as coming from a descendant of Abraham who owed tithes to his fathers. Of whom All died, Aaron, Levi and all his priest-sons in due course. This is juxtaposed by the writer of Hebrews with Melchizedek, of whom it is written that he "abideth a priest continually", being without mother or father, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor ending of life (Heb. 7:3-4); to whom Levi's father (to whom he owed respect, deference and tribute) Abraham gave the tithes - thus signifying his own deference, and thereby the inferiority of his descendant Aaron's High-Priestly office and priesthood as compared to Melchizedek's.

But I am getting away from my point, the Church can no way then be spoken of as fulfilling the role of the priesthood and certainly not "faithful Jews and the Temple", faithful Jews by no necessity being priests at all and the Temple (Levitical Priesthood and sacrifices) being superseded by the Priesthood of Melchizedek and by the singular (Heb. 7:27-28) and final (Heb. 10:12) sacrifice made by the High Priest of it (Jesus), who offered up Himself.

Furthermore the much abused expression that in Christ there is "neither Jew nor Greek" is in reference to a letter written to the Galatian Christians who are by virtue of their faith (Gal. 3:26) 'in Christ'. This does not abrogate the Mosaic claim of the Jews to the land which God has promised to them and in fact is not concerning them or their fate, this being done in Romans 9-11. Unbelieving Jews are not 'in Christ' and so this verse is not relevant to the issue of Jewish claims to the land of Israel.

Martin Luther King[edit]

King wasn't a public supporter of Zionism according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_an_Anti-Zionist_Friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.115.74 (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

prominent fluff[edit]

The adjective "prominent" is used 9 times in this article to promote the importance of different people. It is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Nobody who was not prominent in some way should be here at all, so the adjective is not only redundant but amounts to commentary in Wikipedia's voice (including when it is an opinion copied without attribution from a source). Zerotalk 01:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Blackstone and other nonsense[edit]

This article is a whitewash from start to finish. There isn't a single mention of the rapture or the Battle of Armageddon that are a key part of the thinking of many Christian Zionists. And how about this whopper: The tycoon William Eugene Blackstone was inspired by the conference to publish the book Jesus is Coming, which took up the restorationist cause, and also absolved the Jews of the need to convert to Christianity either before or after the return of the Messiah. Listen to what Jesus is Coming actually says (presentation edition, 1908), caps in original:

"In the first Restoration [from Babylon], because of their blindness, and hard, stony hearts, they rejected and killed Jesus. But in the future Restoration they shall repent of all this, and have CLEAN HEARTS, and accept of CHRIST, who will be their King." (p170)
"Surely Israel shall be restored; but there is an awful TIME OF TROUBLE awaiting her. Their sins are mountain high. Upon them is the guilt of innocent blood, even the precious blood of Jesus Christ. ... Yes, they shall repent and loathe themselves. They 'shall pass through the sea with affliction.' Many shall die, but the third part shall be saved." (p174)

And so on. This sort of stuff is not fringe. There is even a good source in the article that makes it clear, but the source is not cited for its main point. Instead, the vision of 2/3 of Jews being killed (other than a small fraction that converted in time) and the rest finally accepting Christ is hidden behind the phrase "inevitable future events". How pathetic. Zerotalk 13:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the Rapture or Armageddon inspired political involvement on behalf of the Jews by all Christian Zionists? It certainly is a prominent part of much dispensationalist teaching, as you've cited, but that hardly amount to evidence for motivation. You have quoted Blackstone's writings and the inaccuracy needs correcting or clarifying, I haven't examined this. As Lewis and others have documented, Christian Zionists and Jewish belivers in Jesus were often involved in political activism on behalf of the rights of rabbinic Jews, for example in the Damascus Blood Libel and later in the pogroms in ways that had nothing to do with the Lord Jesus' second coming.Cpsoper (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(@Cpsoper: Sorry, I didn't see your reply until now.) Please read this page which is not the best possible source but there are plenty of good sources that say much the same thing. There is no single basis to all of Christian Zionism, but the Rapture and Armageddon was and is a common part of that basis and that should be mentioned. (I didn't say "all Christian Zionists"; I said it is not fringe.) At the moment it is not mentioned even in cases such as Blackstone where it was a central aspect. Your last sentences ignore human complexity. Despite what Blackstone wrote (as I quoted above), it is absolutely clear from his writings that he was touched by the plight of the Jews he met in Palestine and wanted to help them materially. To a Christian fundamentalist like him, there is no contradiction. Armageddon wasn't something he wished upon the Jews, but something that his religious beliefs told him was going to happen no matter what. Zerotalk 03:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: Sorry I didn't alert you to the edit. I agree with much you've written, Armageddon, Gog and Magog and their appalling descriptions do loom large in Christian thought, as it has from Patristic times with Hippolytus and Irenaeus. It's important to distinguish between sensationalist fringe writers and mainstream spokesmen, and as you hint it's not surprising to see a Muslim primary editor apparently cherry picking some of the more alarming streams of expression for effect. I know of Dyer, though regarded him as a minor & rather eccentric voice, but never read of Michael Evans before sampling your quote. Most Christian sources I read don't advocate war, however strongly they support Israel, and take pleasure in peace, even if it spoils their hermeneutic, though there certainly are exceptions. It'd be easy to cite the Brotherhood as representative of Al Azhar or ISIS as spokesmen for Islamists worldwide, and just as erroneous. There are also Christian Zionists, who are liberal, not evangelical, though diminishing in number, Merkley (ref in the article) gives many accounts, and some who are Roman Catholic too. CUFI and the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem are fairly widely regarded sources for the evangelical streams, though both have prominent critics and prominent criticisms of their continuity with historical antecedents, named in the article. I agree reference to apocalyptic events is appropriate, with good secondary sources, but better to use academic sources, without an overtly tendentious Antizionistic or Antiamerican bias, would it aid proper study to caricature a whole movement? My time is limited, but happy to comment and add as able. Cpsoper (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The repeated statements in Christian exponents about a future Jewish return to Israel from the 19th century onwards certainly, cannot be read by most Jews as anything other than deeply condescending- to use an oxymoron, as sniffish philosemitism, whose declared aims of moving (their) Jews from Europe were props to some self-serving Christian religious purpose and, esp. in English texts, as a means of using 'repatriated' puppets to further England's imperial outreach. This is there from Shaftesbury onwards, and this article is quite deficient in its exiguous use of such abundant sources. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate list[edit]

The list under the heading "notable proponents" has been removed as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. While I don't discount the amount of effort put into listing/updating/sourcing the list, it does not have a place in this article. As it stands, it is just an indiscriminate list of people. While everyone listed certainly meets WP:GNG as a person, that's not the same as saying they are specifically notable for being a Christion Zionist. Because it is just a list of names, it does not establish that fact. Nor is there any organization to the list. It's currently just an alphabetical dumping ground, some of whom are modern politicians, some modern evangelists and theologians, others from the era of establishing Israel as a state, etc. There's no indication of why they are deemed notable for inclusion. And 40% of the article's sources are solely dedicated to this list and not used in any other area of the article.

What needs to happen

I would support a separate list article of notable Christian Zionists with the following provisos:

  • It would be necessary to define why someone included is notable as a Christian Zionist. That needs to go beyond the fact that they have a Wikipedia article and just so happen to be a CZ. Why are they notable for that particular position (as opposed to being notable for other reasons).
  • It would need to organize the list or identify who/what they are (or both) - either by grouping similar categories (i.e. modern era politicians, modern era theologians, etc) or by at least listing some information about why they are included in the list. That could be a column in a table, or it could be separate tables.
  • The above items would need to be well defined so that the list does not become a dumping ground for every person on Wikipedia who happens to be a Christian Zionist - otherwise we'll just end up with a massive (and useless) list of every dispensationalist who happens to have a Wikipedia article (which is the direction it's headed now). There needs to be clear and defined inclusion criteria as to why they are notable for being a Christian Zionist.

Note: Just because it was removed, doesn't mean it's irretrievable. Should the above criteria be able to be met, the existing work done is up to this edit could be used as a starting point for a legitimate list article.

On a related note, there are people on this list that are probably Zionists but not necessarily Christian Zionists. There is a distinction between being a Zionist and being a Christian Zionist. Christian Zionism has specific eschatological associations, and further comes with presumption that Jews will ultimately convert to Christianity as a matter of prophetic fulfillment. One can be a Christian and a Zionist, but that doesn't make them a Christian Zionist. As a supporter of a state of Israel without the additional elements, they're just a Zionist Christian. There are at least a few people on this list that I would put into that bucket, as well as some who may be Christian Zionists, but the supporting citations only identify them as being supporters of the state of Israel. As an example of the latter, the source America’s 20 Most Influential Pro-Israel Evangelical Christians lists Sarah Palin. While some people on that source's list are identified as being listed because of the prophetic significance of Israel, it does not do so with Palin. It just says "Sarah Palin promised to deepen the strategic partnership between Israel and the US and defend Israel’s security. 'Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East'". As a Pentacostal, it could be concluded that she's a Christian Zionist, but that's WP:SYNTH because you're drawing a conclusion not specifically stated in the source. So don't just put Zionist Christians on the list unless it can be sourced that they are Christian Zionists (I'd accept something that points out their theological position without specifically stating the words Christian Zionist/ism). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, subscribe to all the points above. As a student of history (particularly the history of the beginnings of this early-modern phenomenon in the 17th century) I think this article has to be able to make a very clear separation between history proper and post-WWII politics. I personally am only interested in the possible historical part of this article, as long as this clear separation I am talking about exists. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Butlerblog@Warshy I agree also. Doug Weller talk 06:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way. I just realized also that the expression "Christian Zionism" as a distinct field of historical study is a pretty recent phenomenon. I'd say, without researching the matter, that it is a pretty 21st century new thing. In the historical literature of the 17th century of the 1980s and 1990s this used to be called still simply "Philo-Judaism" and/or Calvinist Millenarianism (Very important, the mainstream historical literature calls it Millenarianism, not Millenialism. Currently Wikipedia argues the two are different things, when in fact they are not.). Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first statement except that it isn't quite that young. Examples around the middle of the 20th century are not hard to find. I disagree that it was equivalent to "philo-Judaism" which did not necessarily involve a Jewish homeland aspect. Relevant older words mostly applied to Christians included "restorationism". Zerotalk 05:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the observations. I was referring for example to this item:
  • Katz, David S., Philosemitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England, 1603-1655, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1982.
Some strains of Millenarian Puritanism in the 17th century did start to adopt the "restoration" aspect you mention, especially after the establishment of the Protectorate. We also have to be careful, because there is also the other "restoration" involved, i.e. the restoration of Charles II to the throne in England. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the Stone-Campbell movement.
I also agree that any list should only include dispensationalists, not Christians that happen to support Israel. —Confession0791 talk 22:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To distill this down, the following definition sums up succinctly what is included and what is not (emphasis added):

Christian Zionism can be defined simply as "Christian support for Zionism that is based on theological reasons"... This definition of Christian Zionism would exclude the view of those Christians who might call themselves 'Zionists' in the sense that they support the idea that there should be a Jewish state in at least part of the land. They believe that Jews have a right to some of the land and that, because of the animosities between the two communities, the only viable solution is to have Jewish state and a Palestinian state. Although Christians who hold this view might call themselves 'Zionists', they would not be included in the above definition of 'Christian Zionism' because their support of Zionism is not based on theological considerations. - Colin Chapman, Whose Promised Land? 2002, page 254

ButlerBlog (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mennonite sources[edit]

I have tagged two sources purportedly supporting the Mennonite publication of an article condemning Christian Zionism, that do not mention Mennonites, Christians or Christian Zionism. I suspect Elfelix added these sources (edit 1, edit 2) to support the phrase "what is called the ongoing illegal seizure of additional Palestinian lands by Israeli militants", but as the text makes clear that this is the viewpoint of the Mennonite article and not a statement of fact by Wikipedia, it is not necessary to cite sources to support it independently. I am tagging the sources but not removing them outright, because the contributing editor is, to my knowledge, currently unable to edit this page. Ibadibam (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should be cited from more advanced knowledge on the topic, such in the case of the Wesley's.[edit]

Possibly WP:NOTFORUM

If the post is not using all material available or citing sources that do not have a bias or sway in the discussion. John Wesley for example, like other Ministers of the past, are not here to speak for themselves. We have to take what they said and not the limited potential misinterpretation of others. Which is what the sources cited as refernce in this post and the other are doing. Neither is from any real Wesley scholarship such as Randy Maddox or Harris Franklin Rall who wrote a book entitled, Modern Premillennialism and the Christian Hope in which he points out that in Wesley's case for example, he was very clear in his doctrines. Zionism is not a doctrine he wrote of, neither is premillenialsim which is tied often to Zionism. Thus, the links used here are biased and not based upon any information that is very familiar with Wesley's works. Both links are citing a hymn by his brother, who likewise did not hold to Zionist views akin to modern Zionism with a return to a physcial land.Wesley;s works show that he was likely amillenial and he was also partial preterist in his view since he stated that most prophecies which are used by Zionist have already happened with the fall of Jerusalem in 70. See his notes on Matthew 24-25. That end point can not be denied as it is clear in his own writings. This does not line up with Zionism. Early British restorationism is not the same as Zionism. It is clear in Romans 11 for example that Wesley believed in a conversion of the Jews to belief in Christ, but not a return to the land. Other British Methodist held the same view, but not on a return to the physcial land. Wesley's notes on Genesis 17, Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 3 and other areas prove this. His notes on Revelation do as well. Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant — Not to be altered or revoked; not with thee only, then it would die with thee but with thy seed after thee; and it is not only thy seed after the flesh, but thy spiritual seed. It is everlasting in the evangelical meaning of it. The covenant of grace is everlasting; it is from everlasting in the counsels of it, and to everlasting in the consequences of it; and the external administration of it is transmitted, with the seal of it, to the seed of believers, and the internal administration of it by the Spirit to Christ’s seed in every age. This is a covenant of exceeding great and precious promises. Here are two which indeed are all-sufficient, that God would be their God. All the privileges of the covenant, all its joys, and all its hopes, are summed up in this. A man needs desire no more than this to make him happy. What God is himself, that he will be to his people: wisdom to guide and counsel them, power to protect and support them, goodness to supply and comfort them; what faithful worshippers can expect from the God they serve, believers shall find in God as theirs. This is enough, yet not all.- NOTE TO WESLEY IT WAS "EVANGELICAL", "GRACE" NOT A LITERAL CARNAL COVENANT. Ezekiel 47: Verse 23 And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord GOD. His inheritance — This certainly looks at gospel times, when the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and both put on a level before God, both made one in Christ Jesus. -NOTE THE LITERAL INHEREITANCE OF THE LAND IS IN CHRIST, NOT A PHYSICAL LAND On Jeremiah 3 he wrote: Verse 18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers. Judah — The two kingdoms shall become one. - NOTE SPIRITUAL KINDGOMS AS YOU WILL SEE WHEN READING FUTHER Shall come — Of their captivity, a promise of their enjoying again their ancient possession at their last conversion. -READ FURTHER TO SEE THAT HE DOES NOT MEAN A LITERAL POSSESSION Verse 19 But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me. Put — Esteem thee as my child, ’till thou give some proof, of thy repentance. Give thee — How shall I put thee into possession of that pleasant land. -HERE Of nations — Great hosts and multitudes of nations, or Gentiles, that shall be joined to them in the gospel church. - THE LAND IS THE HEAVEN, BOTH JEWS, GENTILES AND ALL WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS. Thou shalt — On this condition, that thou wilt own me, and not return any more to idols Here is another example from his OWN writings in Isaiah 11, which is a passage Zionist believe point to a future return to the land. Wesley believed it was spiritual: Verse 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. My holy mountain — In Zion, in my church. - NOTE HE IS SAYING IT IS SPIRITUAL. The sea — The channel of the sea. return to 'Top of Page' Verse 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. A root — A branch growing upon the root. Ensign — Shall grow up into a great tree, shall become an eminent ensign. The people — Which not only the Jews, but all nations, may discern, and to which they shall resort. Rest — His resting-place, his temple or church, the place of his presence and abode. -SPIRITUAL, READ FURTHER Glorious — Shall be filled with greater glory than the Jewish tabernacle and temple were; only this glory shall be spiritual, consisting in the plentiful effusions of the gifts, and graces, of the Holy Spirit. -NO THIRD TEMPLE ACCORDING TO SOME ZIONIST VIEWS Verse 11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. The second — The first time, to which this word second relates, seems to be the deliverance out of Babylon: and then this second deliverance must be in the days of the Messiah. To recover — From all places far and near, into which either the ten tribes or the two tribes were carried captives. Pathros was a province in Egypt. -ALREADY HAPPENED AT THE RETURN FROM BABYLON Verse 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Nations — All nations, Jews and Gentiles. Out-casts — That were driven out of their own land, into foreign parts. Israel — Of the ten tribes. Verse 13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim. Ephraim — Of the ten tribes, frequently called by the name of Ephraim. Of enemies they shall be made friends. The adversaries — Not the body of Ephraim, for they are supposed to be reconciled, and they shall not be cut off, but live in love with Judah, as we see by the next clause; but those few of them who continue in their enmity together with all the rest of their adversaries. NOTE- GO TO 16: Verse 16 And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt. As it was — As there was another high-way from Egypt. All impediments shall be removed, and a way made for the return of God’s Israel from all parts of the world. He mentions Assyria, because thither the ten tribes were carried, whose case seemed to be most desperate. - NOTE ALREADY HAPPENED NOTE - NEXT CHAPTER Verse 4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. Nations — The Medes and Persians and other nations, which served under them in this war.-NOTE IT SAYS SERVED, NOT WILL SERVE, NOT FUTURE. NOTE NEXT CHAPTER WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT: Verse 2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors. Rule — Which they literally did, after their return into their own land. But this was more eminently verified in a spiritual sense, in the days of the gospel. -NOTE SPIRITUALSENSE, IN THE SAYS OF THE GOSPEL. TO WESLEY THERE WAS NO FUTURE RETURN TO THE LAND If you read his notes on Matthew 24 and 25 and Rev you will also see that he believed that almost all prophecies concerning these books had been fulfilled. He never expressed any form of Zionist views on the milleniam, the temple, a physical return to the land (see also his sermon the Great Assize, The Way of the Kingdom, The Spread of the Gospel, The Signs of the Times). My point is that if we want to keep Wikipedia unbiased and clear in it's citations, we should use sources from the original, not websites that make potentially biased claims. In other words, let's hear it or read it from the horses mouth. If we allow links and sources to remain that promote only one side or view, we are being biased. We also are only showing one potential side and not referencing others. So unless you have someone who was doctrinally clear in their stance on an issue, it is biased. And that is the case here. I also used caps in my comments to you to distinguish between my words and Wesley. Not as a show of hostility. Just wanted to note that. I wont worry with this post any further. If you choose to leave it as it is, then so be it. But maybe others in the future can see the talk and bring more information to adjust the post accordingly so that it is cited and referenced in the correct direction on either position on the topic. ThrowbackChristianity (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_Zionism&oldid=1229752313"