convoluted interpretation
Reader comment on item: The Bible's Role in American Support for Israel
in response to reader comment: Verbum Solum Habemous

Submitted by Bart Willruth (United States), Sep 1, 2006 at 16:35

Dear Michael

In responding to Dr. Pipes vis a vis the inherent danger of trusting the motives of Christian support of Israel, I was taking to task the political pragmatism involved in forging an alliance with irrational evangelical fundamentalism. I was not arguing theology.

Christians of your ilk certainly want to see Israel established, thinking that it is the fulfillment of ancient prophecy. However, you also expect Israel to be attacked in a military holocaust of unbelievable proportions. You expect it to happen soon. If it were to occur, you would no doubt find it to be joyful because the end would be a hand. One might wonder what kind of friend of Israel you are.

Christian literalists have gone through wildly varying interpretations of the bible and Israel's role throughout the centuries. Perhaps not in our lifetimes, but eventually as time passes and it becomes obvious that Israel isn't going to bring back the temple and its associated cult of animal sacrifices, it is certain that the fundamentalist interpretation will be revised. If Pat Robertson woke up tomorrow and told his audience that God had spoken to him in a vision and showed him that Israel was an abomination and a secular state not living according to the Torah, and should be destroyed, his sheep would surely follow.

By the way, in your own words you affirmed what I asserted, that your (God's) agenda with Israel is eventual conversion or damnation, that the Jews will eventually recognize Jesus as the Messiah or be roasted in the fires of hell forever. After all the forced "conversions" and persecutions of Jews by Christians throughout the ages, it amazes me that they would find common cause with Christians who once again believe the choice for Jews is convert or be damned.

Bart Willruth

bart@specialty-lamp.com

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.