Loading...Since the horrific sequence of events that started on October 7, I have been asked about the historical roots of the conflict. Much of the important information is well known and easily accessible, from the biblical accounts of the Conquest of the Promised Land, up through 1948, on to the Second Intifada, till today. I won’t be covering this information here, and I will not be offering my political or personal opinions on the matter. I will instead provide some important and widely unknown historical information on one of the significant aspects of the matter.
In a section of my book Armageddon: What the Bible Really Says About the End, published earlier this past year, I discussed how the expectation that “The End is Near,” largely based on interpretations of the book of Revelation, came to affect broad swaths of American culture in ways that almost no one would suspect. I should say emphatically that I’m not one of those religion scholars who thinks religion is at the heart of everything. But it is at the heart of some things, and one of those things is American foreign policy on the Middle East.
One question few people have asked (and fewer answered correctly) is: what lies at the heart of the widespread support of Israel among American evangelical Christians? I stress: I’m not taking a political or personal stand here on the blog on this issue. I’m interested in the historical question.
The question is particularly intriguing because, as one recent NY Times editorial indicated, support of the nation of Israel is widely attested among Christians who are otherwise opposed to Jews and Judaism and are often antisemitic. How does that work exactly?
In my book I address the question. In one way the answer is simple, but in another way, the history is complex. In my explanation I begin with the French Revolution.
I bet you didn’t see that coming.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
“The two Ways converged. . . .” Hmmph!
But on a more serious note, I find expectations of the Jews returning to Israel and then fighting a great battle go back before the French Revolution. For example, in 1669, Massachusetts clergyman Increase Mather, commenting on Rom. 11:26 that “all Israel shall be saved,” asserted that “after the Iews [sic] are brought into their own Land again,” there will be a great battle between the “converted” Israelites and their enemies, and “after this shall begin the resurrection of the dead.” (I. Mather, The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation Explained and Applyed 8.) I’m away from my sources right now (in The Gambia), so I can’t check if Mather had Revelation in mind, but it does sound like it.
I will also have to recheck Thomas Brightman’s 1615 pamphlet, Shall They Return to Jerusalem Again?
You can probably find them through the Middle Ages. It doesn’t look like these were the direct forerunners of the modern Christian Zionist movement, so much as what happened in Britain during the French Revolution (where event led to event led to… the rapture!). Or so I believe. But I’m always happy to be shown wrong!
Increase Mather’s sermon in 1669 has 60 citations to Revelation, claiming that it predicts what must happen before Israel is converted. (I’ll post a sample in the next reply.) Now, first off, he was doing this in Massachusetts, not England, and I don’t know what impact his ideas had in England nor how much, if anything, he got from there. Nor I am I (yet) prepared to draw a direct connection between Mather and later American fundamentalist Christian Zionism. It sounds like an intriguing topic to research, and I might look into it someday when I’ve finished a current project (which is a fantasy novel involving a religious fanatic, among other characters). If I do, I’ll keep you posted on what I find.
I. Mather 1669 sermon on Rom. 11:26, p. 23:
Prop. 3. Before this salvation of Israel be accomplished, the Pope and Turk shall be overthrown and destroyed. . . .
The truth of this is likewise manifest, because the fifth vial shaketh Rome in pieces; whereas the Iews are not converted till the sixth vial; yea, in the sixth vial their salvation is but begun, by clearing all obstacles out of the way, Rev. 16.10. The fifth Angel poured his vial upon the seat or throne) of the beast. Now what is the seat of the beast, but Rome? That which was the seat of the Dragon, is the seat of the beast, so saith the spirit, Rev. 13.2. But the City of Rome is that which was the seat (or throne) of the Dragons, i. e. the Heathen Emperours as acted by Satan, therefore it is a vain thing for us to expect any general conversion of the Jews, until such time as we hear that Rome is burnt with fire.
I really have a hard time with the conflict in the Middle East. I have a hard time understanding whether it is primarily about land or religion? Land makes some sense but fighting over religion makes no sense to me.
For me I favor Israel because it appears Muslims in that region (and other regions as well) REALLY hate Jews. Hate enough to throw conventional norms of behavior out the window. It pains me.
“I really have a hard time with the conflict in the Middle East.”
Myself also. I would point out that it is not possible for both sides to be right, in a moral sense, but it is quite possible for both sides to be wrong.
If it wasn’t for the problems in Israel/Palestine, Jewish/Islamic relations would be better today.
It is about land
https://jewishcurrents.org/teshuvah-a-jewish-case-for-palestinian-refugee-return
From Peter Beinart
I am an Arab christian
It is important to understand the history of Christianity and modern political history
otherwise you are just relying on your hunch which is influenced by stereotypes that are propagated in the media and Hollywood etc
It was Christians (Bart’s books detail the hostility b/w Jews & Christians at the end of the 1st century) and in particular Western Christians who really hated Jews, which is the origin of anti-Semitism.
Muslims did not have a problem with Jews (see Muslim Spain, Ottoman Thessolinika), until the Zionist imposition on the land of Palestine.
History as ever is our best guide
This is the beginning of a very interesting thread but I have a question on something else.
I’ve tried hard to find the answer online but without success
Do you know the name of the early Christian doctrine that says something like whatever you can say about Jesus’s divine nature (or the nature of the Logos) can also be said about Jesus’s human nature and vice versa — maybe because he’s a single person?
I know this isn’t correct but I keep wanting to call it something like the correlation of opposites.
I associate this with the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch. It may also have a bearing on the controversy about Mary being the Theotokos.
I realize that controversies about the relationship between Jesus’s divine and human natures as well as whether he had a single will were major issues in the early church. But I don’t think that I’m looking for name of these dogmas per se but maybe one of the arguments supporting them.
The christological doctrine that emerged in teh fifth century insisted that Christ was 100% divine AND 100% human (not half of each). The math don’t work, but it’s not the only place in Xn theology that it doesn’t (think Trinity).
I guess I can’t figure out your position on the Trinity and this question which seems to me to be part of the question of the Trinity or at least utterly intwined with it. They’ve been desperately trying to make the Trinity not be incoherent nonsense for almost 2000 years and failed completley, totally, absolutely and of coursee will always fail because it’s trying to claim that this is a true statement [A = B AND A ≠ B]. Oor as you say “The math doesn’t add up”. Do you think the idea of the Trinity is nonsense or not?
I certainly don’t believe in the Trinity. Whether it is “nonsense” or not depends on what realm of knowledge you’re prioritizing. It it is math or logic, yes, it does not make sense (it’s non – sense). If it is philosophy or theology, not necessarily. You can’t use your knowledge of engineering to judge the quality of a limerick; and you can’t use a sledge hammer to turn a screw, and you can’t use analytic logic to assess your understanding of your mother. So too, theology is not math. It has a different range of premises and interests. If you aren’t interested in these, then the Trinity will probably seem like non-sense. But trust me, there are people way smarter than you and me who hold to the doctrine of the Trinity and can justify it on philosophical / theological grounds. I don’t agree with them at all, but it’s not because I’m smart and logical and they’re idiots.
Very smart people can believe, think, say, and do very stupid things[Do I need to give citations?]. Glad you agree Theology is nonsense. I’ve gone over your posts on the Trinity and what is obvious is it really ISN’T in the bible, what’s there is sketchy, doubtful, or a real stretch, it’s virtually all made up, they CHOSE what to believe and for almost 2 millennia they’ve desperately tried rationalize the nonsense into sense, and they’ve always FAILED.
A “realm of knowledge” where it’s true that A=B AND A≠B, a world where math and logic, where reason and rationality, where FACTS don’t matter, IS a realm of nonsense. When you believe contradictions, you can believe ANYTHING, e.g., that the bible is the inerrant word of god, that it contains no contradictions, that there is no problem of evil and that god is benevolent–that everything it does in the bible and otherwise is morally justified. This is how you get good people doing very very bad things! Denying the problems with such ‘realms of knowledge’ allows them to provide the justifications, and the certainties, exploited by “those who use their theological views to harm others”.
Sorry — I don’t think I’ve ever said that I think theology is nonsense. It’s a different kind of sense. So is quantum mecahnics. I do think quantum mechanics is “true” and “theology” is not, but it’s not because it’s nonsense. It’s because in my view it’s not true. Remember what Alice said (I may not be getting this exactly right): “Nonsense? I’ve heard nonsense compared with which *that* would be as sensible as a dictionary.”
This is a reply to your post of January 6, 2024 at 2:23 pm, that post has no ‘reply’ link.
Dr Ehrman, I have repeatedly said I don’t think they’re stupid, that even the smartest people can have ridiculous beliefs, BUT, they can and will defend them with absolutely massively recondite and abstruse erudition, often taking it to levels of abstraction that us mere mortal could not hope to understand. BUT, that does not, can not, and will NEVER mean it’s not at its most fundamental level, vaporware–it’s all a FICTION.
You’re atheist, so how is it that theology isn’t, at ITS core, just fanboys creating and arguing over fanfiction? How can you even argue about anything if it’s OK to simply create whole ‘realms of knowledge’, whole logics where your beliefs make sense no matter how absurd and ridiculous mere ‘Aristotelian’ logic would see it as? Why would I read any theology? It’s empty BS. Can an atheist NOT agree to that? What can the theology of a fictional god offer? How can it matter [other than due to the numbers and power of believers]?
Belief systems are massively complex and incredibly brilliant people subscribe to ones I don’t agree with. My impression is that you’ve never actually read serious theological discourse and are ridiculing it without really understanding it. I personally don’t think that’s a useful approach if you want actually to have a conversation with someone and understand them, as opposed to trash them, in either religion, politics, or, well, quantum physics.
100% human and 100% divine: sounds like a mystery I don’t get!
Dr Ehrman’s reply is really disappointing and almost laughably absurd. To think it’s somehow OK to throw away the law of noncontradiction [see Unorthodox Texts post]! He said that’s Aristotelian logic, the ‘doctrine of the Trinity isn’t based on’ such. FFS, to cavalierly throw away noncontradiction? Aquinas said it was essential to human reasoning, it’s just foundational to rational thinking, Socrates, Plato, Leibniz, Kant, Russell, et effing al would hurl to hear such absurdities.
His deference for theologians in unjustifiable and, telling? I never thought he would engage in such shoddy thinking. This is a desperate attempt to claim the Trinity is not nonsense, the same when he tried to claim quantum mechanics defies logic, which is sadly ignorant thing to say. I almost begged him to talk to a physicist about that but he ignored that comment. When you accept contradictions, you can prove anything is true, that’s why it’s such a dangerous belief to support. I simply can’t fathom why he does this, he refuses to address the simple fact that very intelligent people can believe absurdities and defend them eloquently, eruditely, in depth and at length.
How many modern theologians have you read? Do you think, for example, that Stanley Hauerwas and Rowan Williams are idiots who subscribe to nonsense?
Also I’m not so sure why you think I’m being cavalier. Do you mean I haven’t thought about the issues? Or are you just incensed that I don’t agree with your view that serious theology is by definition utter nonsense?
Feel free to respond to those to responses separately, since they are indeed very different.
Hello Dr Ehrman, I have an urgent question relating of Jesus claiming to be God. I know this post of yours does not speak on this, nevertheless, I wanted to get your attention. You are very diligent in historical proof and I have utmost respect for your desire of truth. With that said, I want to know your opinion on Mathew 4. Satan assumes Jesus to be the “Son of God,” the same title John the Baptist denotes to him in John 1:34. In Mathew 4:6, Satan calls Jesus to throw himself down, and in verse 7 Jesus responds, “‘Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'” Jesus assumes the title of “Lord your God.” I have heard you say the synoptic gospels don’t explicitly say Jesus is God (just the gospel of John), but it seems to me this is a clear example of Jesus assuming authority of God. Would love an answer, thank you!
The verse is usually interpreted to mean that Jesus will not jump because if he does so he will be putting “the Lord God to the test.” He’s not telling the Devil to stop trying to tempt him because he himself is the Lord God. (Just as he refers to God as someone other than himself in the two other temptatoins)
I don’t think mainstream Christians from non-evangelical denominations have apocalyptic views about the current State of Israel.
Yes, normally not — I completely agree. But I’m talking about evangelical support.
Thanks for these posts, Bart. I’ve been thinking more about the historical roots of this conflict and these posts will certainly help!
Bart.
What was different about the reign of Pope Vigilius in the eyes of those Anglican theologians? Did they believe that the popes who came before him were basically decent?
Also: excuse my confusion, please, but did those Protestants *welcome* the French Revolution, despite all the violence, since they believed it marked the beginning of the end the papacy (the Beast)?
Sorry for the length of the length of the questions!
I think most Protestants thought all the Popes were corrupt…. And no, the Protestants in Britain were terrificed by what was happebning in France; I don’t know if the claims about the imminent end were in order to provide a salve on their fears that omething similar could come to England — so they could claim It’s a GOOD thing (our of their terror) or not….
Similar to Christianity, Islam also has apocalyptic groups which feed the problems there and reject peace. Some are looking for the Mahdi to come at the end of time (like the Christian “son of man”), others the return of the “twelfth Iman” and some say they are the same person. While in Afghanistan and in other opportunities, I got to talk with Muslim officers from various mideast countries as well as work with some almost daily in my job. They emphasized the Shia twelfth Imam following (“twelvers”) that believed they have the duty to create the apocalyptic conditions in the world so he can return. It is significant because Iranian leadership was supposedly twelvers (most Shia are to some degree) determined to create world chaos and apocalyptic conditions needed for the return. Plus for him to return in Jerusalem, it must be under Muslim control. The problem with Iran is that the political leaders ARE the religious leaders, so no disagreement.
So, I’ll confess your Armageddon book has been on my “too read someday” list but not prioritized because I figured I already knew most of this stuff (pre-mil,post-mil, Pre-trib, post-trib, Hal Lindsey, etc.). But this part I didn’t know! Wow! Moving much higher up on my list!
I also get into the Branch Davidians, Climate Change, and other things….
A very interesting cliffhanger you’ve posted here. One which piqued my curiosity, so I went digging about and rather quickly found out that the lady’s will seems to never have included such a codicil or expression regarding the famed oaks. Consistent with much of what Christians consider to be scripture, the story of Ms. Parminter is based on a bit of mythology which nonetheless had a huge impact:
“…the story of the Oaks was mythology that arose sixty years after the death of Jane Parminter in 1811. I have been able to examine the original probate copy of the will and can confirm that it contains no clause whatsoever in regard to the oaks nor is there a codicil. A letter from Oswald Reichel, a distant relative and a historian, who was living at A la Ronde at the time was published in the local newspaper, the Exmouth Journal of 24 June 1911. He refers to the story of the oaks as “a curious myth, the source of which appears to be a little book entitled “The Oaks of A la Ronde” written by an imaginative lady with material supplied by a still more imaginative travelling foreigner”.
What say you?
https://jsbookreader.blogspot.com/2011/12/oaks-of-la-ronde.html
Ineresting. The best biography of Lewis Way (Stanley Price and Munro Price) argues otherwise, but I’m not a british religious historian; maybe they were duped? I really don’t know.
This brings to mind an historical question I’ve wondered about: Is there any evidence of population replacements in Canaan/Israel/Judea/Palestine? If I understand the history correctly, there was an insurrection in first-century Roman Palestine, and in the aftermath some of the Jewish residents left and some stayed. Many of the ones who stayed later converted to Islam, adopted the Arabic language and writing system, and eventually began to consider themselves to be Arabs. Is this correct? If it is not correct and there was a population replacement, where did the old population go and where did the new population come from? And when?
The Hebrew Bible give inconsistent reports about the various residents of Canaan after the conquest. In one part they are said to be destroyed and in others that they were still very much around. If the Israelites did take their cities, as reported, then obviously there must have been a good deal of displacement. When Judah was conquered in 586 BCE the leaders and otehr elites were deported ot Babylon, but everyone else remained. The “Captivity” ended about 50 years later under the Persians, but some (many?) of the descendants of the deportees decided to stay in Babylon. After the Jewish uprising in 70 CE lots of Jews fled to other places (as they had before during other military events); after the second uprising in 135 Jews were no longer allowed in Jerusalem and from then on, until 1948, there was no “homeland.” I’m not familiar with many converting to Islam later. Maybe someone else on the blog can fill us in.
As far as I can tell, most Muslim palestinians are descendant from *Christian* converts from Judaism who had lived in the land. Samaritans first, then pal/leb christians resemble ancient levantine jews the most. Muslims are after them. It appears to me both groups resemble levantine jews to a greater extant then ashkenazim do although they definitely have strong descent from them. Ashkenazi jews have a massive contribution from europeans as well.
https://www.razibkhan.com/p/more-than-kin-less-than-kind-jews
As a former believer, I was an ardent pro-Israel kinda guy, and my reasoning was simple, and two-fold: A) we (the USA) needs to support Israel because that’s how we ensure God will bless us (a la Gen. 12:3). And, B) we need to help move that prophecy stuff along; the more we help, the sooner that Jesus will split the eastern sky (oh, and rain down destruction on this sinful world!). In short, I wanted to “support” Israel, in the hopes of a rapture and armageddon and all that fun stuff, and in the process…destroy most of those unbelieving Israelis! How’s that for a fair piece of hypocrisy?
Yes, many of the most virulent supporters of Israel today int the evangelical community are vehement in their belief that Jews themselves, as individuals, (unless they believe in Jesus) will roast in hell forever. Quite remarkable really. John Haggee is one of the more infamous of the lot.
Hagee tried to put a theological spin on Hitler. Very disturbing!
I just finished your book on Revelation for the third time. I’ve been especially interested in the discussion of the beginnings of Zionism as we see it today. I want to read more. Do you have any suggestions? I came across the work of Alison Weir. Are you familiar with her?
I’d start with the books I mention in that section of the book (in the endnotes)