What the Reformers Forgot Part 1 of 2

April 3, 2025
For the days are coming, saith the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah - not like the Covenant that I made with their fathers. (Jeremiah 31:31).

Two thirds of Scripture is comprised of the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament writings called in Judaism by the acronym TENACH, meaning a combination of Torah (Pentateuch), Neviim (Prophets), and Ketuvim(literally "Writings", such as Psalms, certain histories, and wisdom literature.)

Born again Christians generally accept that the primary aim of the Old Testament is to point to the coming New Covenant that would be implemented by the promised Messiah.

Romans 11 tells us that the invisible root of the church is Israel, so we can understand that the two thousand years of Old Testament history under the Law was laying the foundation for what would become the church.

Romans and Galatians tell us that the chief (but not only) purpose of the Law was to teach that we cannot be saved by it and so point us to the Messianic redeemer who would fulfil the law on our behalf and make atonement for our inability to uphold God's standards by His own sacrifice on the cross for our sins.

Hebrews tells that the Levitical priesthood and temple system is a typology of Jesus our High Priest. Read in light of the gospels, the Patriarch Isaac and every prophet of Israel from Moses to John the Baptist is a prophetic type of Jesus, with their ministry, words, or life experiences foreshadowing Yeshua in some way.

The entirety of the Old Testament from Genesis 1:1, the non-canonical Jewish apocryphal writings, and a total of three thousand years of history, at least, from Abraham onward (but actually from the creation onward), all point to Jesus and the New Covenant He would give.

A cursory reading of Jeremiah 31:31 and it surrounding context reveals this passage to be the clearest prophetic prediction in the Old Testament that a New Covenant would be given and that it would be unlike the then existing old one.

 

What the Reformers forgot about Hermeneutics

Jeremiah 31:31 is the clearest prophecy in the Tenach that God would one day make a New Covenant.

In western Protestantism we have a very western perspective of Christianity and its historical development. Yet when we read the Book of Revelation, we see that Jesus shows us the church and its history not from a western or indeed any earthly perspective, but from an eternal heavenly perspective.

Hence, however important the lessons of church history, we need to observe and contemplate that history in a spiritual context from the viewpoint of scripture and not from a Hellenistic or occidental culture, nor through the prism of a Hellenistic or occidental concept of history and how to interpret it.

Revelation reveals to us the church and its role in a salvation history that theologians call Heilsgeschichte, as Christ sees it and chooses to reveal it to us.

The first thing that Jeremiah 31:31 tells us is that the New Covenant was made (literally "cut") not with the predominantly western church, but with Israel and the Jews. The Hebrew term here for covenant is brit, meaning both "covenant" and "testament". Thus, the New Testament is a Jewish covenant document for a new covenant, the same as Torah is a Jewish covenant document for the Old Covenant.

The New Covenant as a covenant was never made with the per se church to begin with, and its covenant document was similarly never given to or through the Gentile church, but through the faithful remnant of Israel whom at that time constituted the primitive Jewish church.

The Reformers failed to redress and correct the replacement theology of Roman Catholicism; instead they wrongly replaced Israel with a Protestant church instead of a Roman one.

They also, like Romanism, began to treat a Jewish covenant document as a Greco-Roman one in the manner in which they understood and interpreted it.

While the Book of Revelation, for instance, is in the apocalyptic genre that evolved through combining both Hebraic and Hellenistic literary forms during the intertestamental period, its imagery and typology are strongly Judaic.

The appearance of Yeshua as High Priest in Chapter 1, in a Levitical setting, gives us a pictorial revelation of Jesus as High Priest that Hebrews gives us as a doctrinal revelation. Later in Chapter 3 in the message to the Church of Philadelphia we see Yeshua in a Davidic role.

Throughout Revelation we see thematic and typological replays of the creation motif from Genesis, and motifs from Exodus, Joshua, Daniel, Ezekiel and other Old Testament Books.

As with John's Gospel, Matthew, James, 2 Peter, and Hebrews - Revelation is a book with a Hebraic literary orientation, although the church is predominantly Gentile.

In other words, God relates His final message to the church through Hebrew eyes.

This relates to Paul's description of our salvation to both Jew and Gentile believer as a recapitulation of the Hebrew Exodus (1 Corinthians 10:1-3), and to Paul's teaching on the final state of church as rediscovering its Jewish root (Romans 11:18 & 25).

The Scriptures also describe Christ's relationship to, and coming for, the church as a Jewish matrimony (Revelation 20, Song of Solomon, Ephesians 5, Matthew 25).

Repeatedly, God in His Word reveals the essential truths of His relationship to the Church within a Judaic frame of reference, and God's revelation of the eschatological destiny and history of the church as seen in Revelation is no exception.

The problem we address here is that, with a few exceptions, the mainstream Christian traditions that sprang from the Reformation depart from scripture and do not do this; they simply ignore the Judaic content and treat it as Hellenistic literature. While we can appreciate some of Luther's reasoning (as Revelation's message was partially for an appointed time), he rejected the book of Revelation as use-less and uncanonical.

The Swiss Reformers largely were radical preterist historicists seeing Revelation as having had a total, instead of partial fulfillment in the early church and a continuous meaning throughout church history, simply spiritualizing away the elements which had no parallel or historical fulfillment in the early centuries of Christian history.

It is both ironic and contradictory that since a cornerstone of Reformed theology (due to influences of 16th century humanism) was a stoic hermeneutical approach to biblical interpretation taking a strict grammatical-historical line, Re-formed theology departs from its own principles and automatically 'spiritualizes' anything about Israel as being for the church.

It does so moreover, not seeing the text applying additionally to Israel as well as to the church, or by a qualified application to the church by way of principle or figure, while retaining the original meaning for the Jews in theSitz im Leben (the cultural and historical setting a text is addressed to and written in) of the text.

It rather does so in the stated replacement of Israel and the Jews by a mainly Gentile church owing little or nothing to its biblically stated Jewish roots - in direct contravention to Romans 9-11. This becomes particularly strange since Luther regarded Romans to be the very heart of scripture and its message, yet his thinking virtually omitted the plain teaching of chapters 9 to 11.

It is also strange that - in their proper reaction against the medievalscholasticism of the Roman Church with its peculiar form of papalgnosticism (later defined as "Sensus Plenior"), where typology and allegory were used to illustrate and illuminate doctrine and not base doctrine on it - the medieval church formulated doctrines to please itself by wild allegorization.

Indeed, we see the same practices continuing today not only in Roman Catholicism, but in the neo-gnosticism employed by the Vineyard Movement and by such New Age influenced pseudo Christian groups as 'Promise Keepers' who build their case not on exegesis (reading fromScripture) but eisegetical (reading into Scripture) allegorization.

So, reacting against these abuses of typological and allegorical method, many upright conservative evangelicals today will act in the same manner as the Reformers did - they simply throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

Consequently a Jewish Bible is divorced from its own cultural roots and interpreted outside of the framework in which it was given by methods devised in the 16th century by humanists.

These grammatical-historical methods are adequate for reading the epistles as letters.

The epistles provide the apostolic prism through which other scripture is to be read. But the epistles themselves use Midrash, typology and allegory in commenting on other scripture such as narrative, apocalyptic and Hebrew poetry.

Grammatical-historical methods are essential and adequate to comprehend basic biblical truth such as the way of salvation and Christian conduct, but in-adequate to grasp the deeper things contained in the Word of God such as Ezekiel, Revelation, Zechariah, and the invisible thread of eschatological undertone that runs through the gospels when viewed from an ancient oriental Jewish perspective instead of a Hellenistic western perspective.

Understanding the complete meaning in these texts will be increasingly important as we approach the parousia with more and more overt signs of the return of Jesus on the horizon.

This has nothing to do with the Alexandrian or even Antiochan schools of the early church, or the writings of Philo, or the Christianised gnosticism ofOrigen. Nor have Midrashic "Pesher" interpretations anything to do with a papal Sensus Plenior.

It has to do with interpreting the Word of God within the parameters in which God gave it.

Strict models of adherence to grammatical historical exegesis was designed by the reformers as a safety mechanism to protect us from deception. Too often, the instrument of protection has become an instrument of deception in itself.

We must remember that the reformers were humanists and their exegetical approach is humanistic, meaning it is man centered.

While we do ask God to guide us in the our interpretation of His Word by His Spirit, grammatical-historical exegesis applied in isolation from Second Temple Period Jewish hermeneutics has reduced understanding the Bible to a mere intellectual exercise.

Utterly atheistic liberal scholars, who are secular humanists (unlike the reformers who were Christian humanists) misuse these same grammatical-historical methods to construct Satanically inspired apostasy.

Shall we reject grammatical-historical apostasy because James Barr uses it to demonstrate what he sees as the folly of evangelicalism (which he derogatorily labels "fundamentalism")? Of course we should not.

The epistles should be read as letters and no other method would be valid for interpreting the epistles. Even in handling other forms of biblical literature, while we must use Midrash, midrashic method does not invalidate grammatical-historical method; it simply sees it as the first step.

We should not reject the validity of the grammatical-historical method because of its misuse by apostates. By the same token, neither should we reject Jewish hermeneutics.

As with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Satan only corrupts things worth corrupting. Despite its limitations, we should not reject the grammatical-historical approach of interpreting the Bible handed down to us by the Reformers simply be-cause unbelievers corrupt and misuse such methods to engineer heresy, and neither therefore should we reject Jewish hermeneutics because cults, or Romanism, or liberal higher critics, or latter day gnostics like John Wimber or Promise Keepers misuse allegory and typology to engineer error and deception.

While the problem has its origins in the Reformation, we still see it currently with other-wise good evangelical scholars such as Dr. Walter Kaiser (who is not even a replacementist), and various Reformed theologians (most of whom are replacementists).

These brethren, to their credit, strive to uphold biblical orthodoxy against heresy and unbelief, but in the process, like the Reformers, treat a Jewish book as a Hellenistic one, losing sight of the root and missing the depth of content which is found when the texts are read through a more Hebraic understanding of the Christian Faith.

Like certain messianic writers in the Mishkan theological journal, I have always found the ideas of Roy Blizzard and David Bivin implausible and the amount of attention their work receives as being out of all proportion to what it warrants. Others in the Jerusalem School, such Joseph Frankovicwho (while admittedly having a very long way to go in the use of Jewish hermeneutics in the New Testament) is at least asking the right questions.

Other messianic scholars such as Dwight Pryer and Arnold Fruchtenbaum, while not focused on Jewish hermeneutics, are well focused on Jewish Sitz in Leben and are finding parallelisms between early rabbinic and early Christian thought, and viewing the New Testament in that light. Hence, we see some bona fide progress in rediscovering the Jewish roots, and not just a lot of the nonsense that transpires on the extreme axis of the messianic movement, where an attempted repackaging of Hebrew Christianity in the wrappings of "yitishkeit" (Ashkenazi diasporic Jewish culture) is attempted - lifting up Jewishness, instead of 'Yeshuaness'. Yitishkeit is anyway but one expression of Jewish culture.

While a proper messianic synagogue "siddur" liturgy, led by a proper messianic rabbi and kantor(such as Stuart Dauerman in Los Angeles or atNetiv Ya in Jerusalem), may be of missiological value in recontextualizing the gospel message to see Jews saved, Yitishkeit is not the original culture of the Bible and is of very little value in rediscovering the Hebrew roots of our faith.

Yitishkeit is no substitute for a Holy Spirit directed scholarship to unveil the Jewish character of the Word of God, and our capacity to properly understand it as its divine author intends it to be under-stood. The mysteries that the faithful church are intended to understand concerning the Last Days, and how to prepare for them, are in the Apocalyptic books of the Bible and are sealed up until the appointed time (Daniel 12:4).

They will never be unsealed until the Hebraic roots of our faith, the Hebraic character of scripture, and the Jewish hermeneutics used by Jesus and the apostles are rediscovered.

Astonishingly and impressively, it was actually Reformed theologians - the Puritan fathers, such as John Lightfoot and John Robinson who at least began to realize these truths over three centuries ago.

In Reformed thinking, correct biblical exegesis is a matter of God using human intellect through the grammatical-historical exegetical method, which shuns spiritualization in reaction to the gnosticism of medieval Roman Catholic scholasticism (which often constructed doctrines out of wild allegorical interpretations resembling Philo, but having little in common with the Hebrew allegory and typology of scripture or the clear uses of Jewish Midrash in the New Testament's handling of the Old).

Yet, when it comes to Israel and the Jews, Reformation theology winds up doing the very things it set out to correct - they spiritualize the meaning, allegorically reading into the text what is not in there; Israel becomes the church to the negation of what the text literally says. Instead of Christians being spiritually grafted into Israel as the New Testament teaches (Romans 11), in this error the church replaces it.

Instead of applying what the text says to the church in addition to applying it to Israel, like the super-cessationist Roman church with its replacementism, they simply allegorize it in violation of t heir own principles.

Curiously however, they do not do this consistently (another flagrant violation of their own principles as grammatical-historical exegesis in theory demands consistency in approach); they will only do it where it pleases them. For instance, to them the curses of the Old Testament remain literally for Israel, while the blessings are spiritualized for the church - despite the fact that most of western Christianity is as backslidden and rejecting of the true Christ as Israel and the Jews ever were.

God is a God of justice who hates unjust scales (Proverbs 11:1).

If He is finished with the Jews, I would like to know just one reason why He should not also be finished with the church.

Fortunately for Israel and the church, the validity of a divine covenant depends not on the infidelity of man, but rather on the fidelity of God.

True, God turns His grace for a season away from Israel towards the Gentile nations (Romans 11:19-20), but this is both partial and temporary (Romans 11:25-29).

A time comes, and is already arriving, when God turns His grace away from the nations back towards His ancient people Israel (Romans 11:25); yet who would ever suggest on this basis that Israel will replace the church?

What the Reformers forgot about Covenant and Ecclesiology

Jeremiah 31:31 tells us the New Covenant will not be like the one God made with the Patriarchs of Israel or Moses.

Jeremiah was up against the problem of a theocratic state gone wrong. People were circumcised as babies and because they were incorporated into the national covenant, assumed that they were in a right relationship with God.

Other prophets like Amos were up against similar problems - people brought their sacrifices to the temple forgetting that these needed to be accompanied by genuine faith and repentance for their offerings to be accepted.

John the Baptist was up against the same situation of certain people thinking that, because they were biological descendants of Abraham and the fathers and circumcised into the covenant, they were automatically included in a right covenant relationship.

The New Covenant to be inaugurated by the Messiah would correct these is-sues because it would not be a covenant of automatic corporate inclusion based on national, ethnic, or cultural identity, nor on the faith of one's parents - but rather individual response to the gospel.

Hence, New Birth would not be of man's will. Regeneration would occur as a result of the sovereign grace of God drawing someone to Jesus personally and their individual response to Him, by which God's Law would be written on their heart.

Anglican errors

Yet, as one example, we see that in the old Anglican Book of Common Prayer in the baptismal liturgy, a baby is pronounced "Born Again", and his or her parents told that the baby is a Christian because of the parent's decision and being born English into the English National Church.

Contravening what the New Covenant was to be, baptism is wrongly equated with circumcision, and a child is pronounced a Christian through the actions of his parents - that is, being reborn by the will of man instead of by the will of God, in direct rejection of John 1:13.

Thomas Hooker proclaimed "A member of the Church of England is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and a Citizen of the Commonwealth is a member of the Church of England", equating a state church with its monarch as head, to Israel and the House of David.

What we in fact have is a Regal Papacy where the next titular head of the Anglican Church, Prince Charles, is a divorced New Ager with a combination of Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic beliefs. For all of its errors, the Continental Reformation was the result of Christian conviction.

In England however, it is an historical fact that the Church of England was born out of the whoredom of a despotic womanizing king who murdered 70,000 of his own subjects.

The English Reformation began as a result of the ambitions of Henry VIII. Absurdly, the British Monarchy still retains for itself the title "Defender Of the Faith", a title awarded by the pope for the persecution of Protestants.

Today, members of the British Royal family convert to Catholicism, the Arch-bishop of Canterbury marches in a pro-cession to Mary in Walsingham calling for reunion with Rome, while the Queen has appointed a Roman Catholic priest as Court Chaplain. Indeed, with the mass martyrdom of Evangelical Anglicans (such as Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, John Hooper, and Thomas Cranmer) by Queen Mary at the behest of the Roman Clergy after the death of Henry VIII, a doctrinal reformation in Anglicanism took place.

But the institution began for political and not theological or moral reasons. And now, with the theological and moral erosion of the Royal family, it is becoming politically expedient to return to Rome, as it appears there are no longer any doctrinal or ethical reasons not to do so.

Anglicanism was born from Rome (and not from scripture), it doctrinally and ecclesiologically never fully broke with Rome, and to Rome it is now returning. The root of this dates back to the shallow doctrinal foundation laid by the reformers that finally caved in.

Many errors result from this for Anglicans, and other mainstream Protestants, that non-conformist churches holding to believer's baptism avoid.

When a young Anglican who is pronounced "Born Again" as a baby actually becomes "Born Again" and able to accept Jesus personally, which new birth proclamation does his church wish him to believe is valid?

Was his vicar telling the truth when he told him he was a Christian and born again as a baby, or rather when he actually became a new born believer?

Telling people they are Christians when they are not (and actually still need to become Christians) is a sure barrier to seeing souls saved.

The mainstream Protestant churches founded by the reformers all have this structural dilemma.

British Israel?

Another error deriving from not recognizing that the New Covenant is made with Israel is the deception among Anglo Saxon and Anglo Celtic Protestants of British Israelism, which has no biblical or ethnological basis whatsoever, and where, once again the throne of David is linked with a British Crown.

James McConnell (who comes from a Sabellian heresy background with a 'Oneness' view of the Trinity, instead of an Athanasian view of Three Persons in One God - it is unclear if he believes in the Trinity biblically, or if he believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all Jesus) is a case in point.

McConnell, pastor of Whitewell - the largest Elim church in Belfast, openly challenged anyone to publicly debate him on his doctrine that the Bible teaches that the British are the ten Lost Tribes of Israel. This idea was accepted by Elim's founder, George Jeffries, but rejected by Elim as a movement, even though the teaching came from Jeffries. Now Elim's current leadership - courtesy of McConnell - gives place to it.

State Religion & False Doctrine

Anglicanism is but one expression of the errors of the Reformers. Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Reform churches all have the same built-in error - a state church where people become members, not by new birth, but by being born into a state church and culture, and having an initiation ritual performed as babies.

The precedent was not established by Hooker, but by Luther.

In order to genuinely reform the church along biblical lines, the first thing the reformers would have needed to do was dissolve the unscriptural Erastian marriage of church and state, and condemn as false Augustine's Cyprianic Doctrine of the Church, which sought to justify it.

Along with this, they would have needed to restore a biblical understanding of believer's baptism as the Baptist sects (who the Protestants normally hated) did.

Luther instead taught Cuis Regio Eius Religio ("What your government is, so your religion is") - if your government is Roman Catholic, so are you, and if Protestant, so are you, and continued sprinkling infants, pronouncing them "Christian" by the will of man instead of by the New Birth through the Will of God. The Reformers failed to reform beyond a very correct but inadequate level.

Where does this error originate?

"The church", by Greek definition ecclesia, means "the called out ones", who may have to leave their culture, family, etc., to become Christians and thus members of the true church (Matthew 10:35-37).

The church is not those born into a national cultural-religious identity, but Born Again, quite possibly, out of their temporal, cultural and religious identity - even when that identity is nominally Christian.

The error has its source with the Emperor Constantine when he made Christianity into a religion of the state, and the false doctrine of Augustinecalled "The Visible and Invisible Church", which sought to justify turning biblical Christianity into a national and cultural Christendom. Augustinedrew many unbiblical and unfortunate mistakes together to rewrite Christianity as a hierarchical and Platonic religion. He drew on the errors of his mentor, Ambrose, the mistaken influences of Cyprian of Carthage, and even imported certain gnostic influences into western Christianity from Alexandria, and embraced Alexandrian ideas of Christology and Pneumatology from the Council of Chalcedon which, although not heretical, were plainly wrong and problematic.

This doctrine said the church was made up of the saved and unsaved, instead of an exclusive fellowship of those personally professing a saving faith through the new birth. It did this by twisting the parable of Matthew 13:38-42 out of context to say that the field where both were planted was the church, when in fact Jesus said it was the world.

Thus, instead of allowing the saved and unsaved to grow up together in the world for Jesus to sort out upon His return, true and false Christians would be together in the church for Jesus to sort out upon His return.

This is not to suggest there were not false believers in the pre-Augustinian church, but rather entrance was to be the result of personal regeneration of which baptism was to be the emblem.

There are two types of biblical passages dealing with baptism: those supporting believer's baptism and those which are ambiguous.

Instead of interpreting the ambiguous passages in light of the unambiguous, the illogical practice of casting doubt on the clear meaning of the unambiguous by seeking to interpret the unambiguous in light of the ambiguous becomes wedded to eisegesis (reading into the Bible what is not in there) as a means to construct an argument which amounted to going back under the Old Covenant.

We must remember Satan's first at-tempt to destroy the church was to Judaize it (see Galatians).

By making the church the new Israel (Romans 11 speaks the language of incorporation, not replacement) and equating baptism with circumcision, the church is Judaized.

What Jeremiah and John the Baptist say Christ would come to undo, and what Paul says Christ did undo in Romans, Constantine and Augustine put back. From here, the medieval papacy evolved into the debacle that the Reformers re-acted against.

Yet, instead of truly reforming the church by removing the error, they too put it back.

Thus, in order to truly reform the church and restore biblical Christianity, the first thing the Reformers would have needed to do was to break the unscriptural marriage between church and state, reject the Augustinian error of the visible and invisible church designed to accommodate this illicit marriage, and reject the baptism of unregenerate babies (whose sins anyway God does not take into ac-count) that was its emblem.

By failing to understand the Jewish root of the church and failing to understand the new Covenant as a Jewish Covenant, with the New Testament as a Jewish Covenant document, the Reformers failed to restore biblical Christianity.

They did restore justification by faith and the supremacy of scriptural authority against tradition, but by no means could they have restored the church to its actual Apostolic foundations without re-discovering that the foundations of the church in Christ are Jewish.

Consequently, nominal Protestantism is as much a problem as nominal Old Testament Judaism ever was.

Liberal Protestantism is also as much a problem (and a heresy) as Roman Catholicism ever was.

While the news media accurately reveals the Roman Catholic priesthood as a flood with criminal homosexual paedophiles and dangerous perverts of every description, even the Roman Church as an institution would not sanction a Homosexual and Lesbian service in one of its cathedrals as the Anglicans have done, or officially sanction sodomite clergy like the Methodists.

Howbeit, for their own self-serving reasons, the Roman Church for decades, formally at least, refused to tolerate Free-masonry, while masonic membership ran wild among the Reformed and Presbyterian clergy, and often still does.

 

Circling the Wagons

By David Passmore • July 14, 2026
Circling the wagons Ruben Rothler LLB, LLM Israel is a society riddled with tension and division. It is sociologically, if not politically miraculous that a country drawing Jews from all over the world is able to exist at all. The army affords a degree of integration as a melting pot. But this is only a marginal source of national unity in the overall scheme of things. More so are the myriads of external threats that face this small country. In the former generation the Ashkenazi (Jews of European descent) - Sephardic (Jews of Oriental descent) divide was far more pronounced. The dominant Ashkenazi establishment held the reins of political and economic power which was resented by the Sephardim. However, due to a combination of inter-marriage and political accommodation much of the chasm that separated these distinct groups was forged. Menachem Begin (an Ashkenazi politician) in 1970 successfully ran on the Likud Party ticket with a campaign that brought Sephardic Jews under his conservative political umbrella. Later the immigration of Russian Jews following the end of Communism would add a whole new dimension to the Israeli demographic milieu. The younger generation of these immigrants tended to adapt well to Israeli society and contributed much to the economy. The wider division in Israeli society that crosses ethnic lines concerns that between religious and secular Jews. This can be further bifurcated to the clash between the secular and specifically ultra-orthodox Jews (Haredim) as distinguished from the national religious Jews (Dati Leumi). The Secular and the Religious generally part on what they envisage a Jewish State to entail. Religious Jews desire the State to strictly adhere to the stipulations of Jewish Law (Halacha), while at present Halakhic influence is largely limited to certain areas of Family Law concerning Jewish citizens. Wider considerations of promoting a socially conservative political agenda would also be forefront amongst the religious mindset broadly. Secular Jews view the imposition of such proposed measures as a serious infringement of their civil rights. With regard to the Haredim, the bone of contention looms larger, in that this group is fundamentally opposed to participating in society at large. This is acutely manifested in diminished contribution to the work force and a refusal to be conscripted into the army. The 2023 judicial reform protests posed a significant threat to social civil order. The nation appeared to be bitterly divided into two opposing camps. This split reflected broader divisions concerning visions of how the country should be governed. The judicial reforms would have weakened the Supreme Court's ability to render the Executive branch accountable. However, the Supreme Court was also accused of using its considerable powers to promote a socially liberal agenda. Left wing secular Israelis tended to oppose the proposed reforms while those on the right (which included the majority of Religious Jews) supported the reforms. Every weekend droves of protesters were brought onto the streets causing major disturbances to traffic. The polarising nature of this impasse threatened the future of Israeli democracy. It was the October 7th attack that brought a swift end to this public debate and civil strife. The nation instinctually united in response to this common existential threat. The judicial reforms were shelved for a future point when the urgent security threats subsided. However, as the war dragged on the enduring issue of Haredi refusal to conscript into the army became more pronounced. Mounting casualties combined with ever increasing manpower demands to field troops on the multiple theatres of action on which the IDF is engaged has depleted the ranks, and the army is now in much need of fresh conscripts. Haredi belligerent refusal to participate in the pressing national defence has escalated from being a political debate to a matter of very practical vital importance. Overall we can observe that the challenges to national unity in successive generations since the establishment of Israel has recurrently been ameliorated by the common necessity of defence towards outside threats. Most recently we can see this happening with regard to the global anti Semitism and anti-Zionism that has been raging since the October 7th atrocities. These hostile attitudes have paradoxically acted as a force which promotes nationalism and a sense of national cohesion in Israel that otherwise might not functionally exist.  (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).

A Divided Nation

By David Passmore • July 8, 2026
A Divided Nation Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM The Haredi community has had a complicated, paradoxical relationship with the State since its founding. Rooted in a Talmudic precept that the Jews are forbidden to resettle the land of Israel en masse by force before the coming of the Messiah, the secular democratic State of Israel presents itself as blasphemous by its mere existence. Yet due to practical considerations such as the need to obtain funding for its religious academies the Haredi leadership reached a settlement with the State's founders that exempted Haredi men from being conscripted for military service. This was at a time when the Haredi population in Israel was relatively small. Over the past decades this demographic ballooned until the point that soon the majority of Jewish children in Israel will be born into Haredi families. Such a situation is clearly unsustainable. Recently the Knesset's (Parliament's) Haredi parties have pressured their coalition partners in government to codify Torah Study as part of the Country's Basic Laws. This was purposefully done to elevate the status of their institutions to be on parity with service in the IDF. Israel is yet to promulgate a written Constitution, so legislation classed as a Basic Law holds Constitutional status for all intents and purposes. These moves by the religious parties represent a back door power grab to enshrine in law very significant hurdles to prevent the enlistment of Haredi men. The burden of Israel's defence is comparatively massive for a country its size and it is vastly disproportionately shouldered by the secular population. Until now there have been political initiatives to conscript the Haredim. But given the huge manpower shortages emerging in the wake of near continual conflict on multiple fronts since the events of October 7th this matter has become urgent and not merely a theoretical discussion of what is fair and equitable. It is important to draw a distinction between the Haredim and national religious Jews (Dati Leumi). The Haredim adhere to a lifestyle entirely committed to observance of Jewish Law and Talmudic study. This is embraced to the exclusion of gainful employment and participation in wider society. They are either outrightly opposed to Zionism or consider themselves non-Zionist. Conversely, followers of the national religious movement in Israel although being observant of Jewish law and learning would alongside this pursue secular professions. Furthermore, they are ardently Zionist and disproportionately serve in IDF combat units. This is often done within the framework of a program called Hesder Yeshiva that combines religious learning with military service. Efforts to cater a similar model for accommodating Haredi participation in the IDF have so far failed to make substantial gains. Such measures designed to override Haredi objections to service based upon modesty concerns by strict segregation of the sexes in these specially formed units have failed to appease the Haredi leadership. For them, any form of military service is considered a dereliction of their duty to fully devote themselves to a Torah lifestyle. They argue that their Talmudic learning and prayers are in itself a form of national service and act to protect the Jewish people spiritually from enemy attack. It is as if two parallel societies exist within Israel. And the trajectory of separation between the two is only growing. The Haredim are cloistered away in their Yeshivas, immersed in lives devoted to adhering to the stipulations of Jewish law. While the particulars of actually running the State is left to the Secular. The Haredim desire all the benefits of subsidizing their lifestyle without contributing to society. What we really have going on here at source is two profoundly different and opposing ideological visions of what is important in life and what is the purpose of a Jewish State. At the State's founding these divergent perspectives were more manageable. Ben Gurion only had to contend with one religious party –the National Religious Party. Later in 1970 Begin aligned with the NRP to form a coalition government that also brought Sephardic Jews under the Likud umbrella which had the effect of bringing unity to the country by bridging the Ashkenazi-Sephardi divide. However, over time Israeli politics has seen a proliferation of religious parties, gaining further leverage as king brokers in forming governments due to the proportionate representation voting system which secular Israelis not uncommonly view as political blackmail. (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).

Why Is It Always Israel? | Zechariah 12 Is Happening Before Our Eyes

By David Passmore • June 29, 2026
P

Pray for South Africa!

By Mea Fredrickson • June 23, 2026
New Paragraph

Disclosure - A Christian response

By David Passmore • June 22, 2026
THE CAPTION AT THE HEAD OF THE POSTER IMAGE FOR THE MOVIE ‘DISCLOSURE DAY’ BOLDLY DECLARES ‘WE DESERVE TO KNOW’ Indeed, we do need to know the truth. But will we find it in Stephen Spielberg’s new movie ‘Disclosure Day’? Could it just as well be entitled ‘DECEPTION DAY’? In an interview with USA Today Spielberg says that evidence of non-human contact has become “overwhelming” to him. He has suggested that his film could raise significant theological questions for Christians. But will it? For us Christians - No, not on our watch! The movie raises no questions for those who accept the proven accuracy of God’s Word, the Bible. The film, which is capturing the imagination of the public, only confirms exactly what scripture tells us about what are in fact extra-dimensional beings. ALIENS OR FALLEN ANGELS? God inhabits the heavenly realm along with a vast array of angels. Because Lucifer, a created angel, wanted to usurp God as ruler of the universe, he was expelled to another realm outside of our time and space, along with one third of the angels who rebelled with him. These fallen angels manifest themselves as demons who can appear on earth and disappear at will. Spiritual hosts of wickedness exist in heavenly places, wherever this realm is, it is not the place where God dwells. ARE ALIENS BENEVOLENT? In the movie, the ‘aliens’ are portrayed as friendly beings who want to help mankind in a time of crisis. If the aliens are really demons, not visitors from outer space, this is a dangerous delusion. Whitley Striber in his book ‘Communion’ writes on encountering ‘aliens’; ‘I felt an indescribable sense of menace. Whatever was there seemed so monstrously ugly, so filthy, so dark and sinister. Of course they were demons. They have to be.’ Many others have reported similar malevolent experiences. During the movie, Daniel claims to have had an encounter with extra-terrestrials during which he received a special gift of empathy, which is regarded by him as the ultimate superpower. However, there is only One who completely understands our human frailty. We read this concerning Jesus: ‘For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet he did not sin.’ (Hebrews 4 v 15). Jesus said: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11 v 28) END TIMES DECEPTION Before he was crucified, Jesus warned his disciples about these last days in which we are living. The first words he used in this context were: “Watch no one deceives you. For many will come in my name saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.” Deception was top of the list! Later, the Apostle Paul wrote about these days: ‘The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.’ (2 Thessalonians 2 v 9) Have you received the love of the truth? Have you received Jesus who is the way, the truth and the life? If not, you are in great danger. Perilous times are here and they are only going to get worse as man turns more and more away from his maker. Things will only change when Jesus returns soon to establish his own Kingdom on earth, where justice and peace will rule. JESUS, OUR ONLY HOPE! The Bible says all human beings are sinners. The message of Jesus is simple; repent and believe the good news, that God wants humanity, his highest creation, to be reestablished in relationship with him. His plan was simple: to give his life in unconditional love for every human being that has and ever will live, by shedding his blood on a Roman cross. In doing this, we can receive forgiveness of sins. Our old life will then be buried with him, giving us new life with the hope of an eternal future of true peace, love and joy, with freedom from pain and tears. Why ignore such a great gift of salvation? If you do, your fate will be sealed for eternity in hell, which is a real place without God, and thus without love, to face only eternal consequences of punishment. We condemn ourselves to such a fate. REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE! Jesus loves you and asks that you repent and believe in him. It would be the best and safest decision of your life! If you commit your life to him, he will give you a new heart, you will be a new person inside. You will also gain a new desire for all that is right and true. And his Holy Spirit will give you an ability to discern the lies of the age we are living in. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave us his only son, that whosoever believes in him, will not perish, but have eternal life.’ (John 3:16) FINALLY, A RECOMMENDATION  All that is described in this leaflet has been open, in the light for millennia. On the other hand, the theory of extra-terrestrial life has been hidden in darkness, awaiting ‘Disclosure Day’. Which would you prefer to believe, the Word of God, or the word of Stephen Spielberg? I made my choice years ago, and have never regretted it! If this message has spoken to you, just call upon Jesus in a short prayer. Confess to him that you are a sinner in need of salvation. Ask him in sincerity to forgive you and to fill you with his Holy Spirit. You will then become what the Bible describes as being ‘born again’. (John 3 v 7) Then you need to seek a Bible believing church where you can be baptised and become part of a group of believers who can help you get to know Jesus more and more fully. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8 v 32)

Prayer request for Teerth Sond

By David Passmore • June 20, 2026
Prayer request for Teerth Sond Petitioned Prayer-Supplication/Personal Prayer/ Collective Prayer/Thanks Giving Prayer Our Dear brethren in Yeshua, my family & myself Teerth request your prayers in The Spirit that the latest drugs Ramicirumab & Pacilitaxel will destroy the cancer cell in the Authority Of The Lord Yeshua in The Power of The Holy Spirit. Targeted Petition: Please stand with us in prayer & fasting; The Lord will target the 2cm legion & that it will be cast out of my Liver in the love (agape), compassion, kindness, grace, mercy of God. I do not deserve it because of me- but By His Stripes we are healed for His Glory. This will allow the main operation to go ahead (which should have been done 18 months ago). Step by Step in the leading of The Holy Spirit and the in the Lord Step by Step, as our beautiful sister Beryl said, has worked on my Spiritual man- thank you Lord for waking me up. Lord raise me up for your glory forever because of your love to me, the family & fellowship- an unworthy sinner saved by your grace & love. Email sent to my Oncologist & my Local MP: Greetings Natasha & Dr Mano Joseph Hope All Is Well Thank you for our meeting today. At our meeting we discussed my MRI & CT scans which were done in May 2026. We discussed the operation on my oesophagus which I believe is the best option. (This should have been done 18 months ago). My Kidney operation will be done- non evasive- Lord willing within the next month. Will you be talking to Mr Chacravaty about this? The liver must be targeted first- this is wisdom and the latest radiotherapy treatments available- proton therapy-radiotherapy atezolizumab and bevacizumab sorafenib lenvatinib regorafenib cabozantinib durvalumab and tremelimumab At the meeting we discussed the next CT & MRI scans to be held end off July. Wouldn't it be to better to have them in August so by then I've had 4 full treatments on the latest medication. Also we have Zolbetuximab on compassionate usage- all glory to The Lord. After all the past wrongs I have no doubt now Dr Joseph you will pursue the best for me and family. Dear brethren- King Manasseh, David, Hannah, The Church For Peter, James, The Lord Jesus Christ for example made petitions onto the Lord. We pray as one body to cast off the illness in the Power of The Holy & The Authority Of Yeshua. The Great Physician who came for the ill. To lay out raised hands 🙌🏽 upon the head of our Lord. ABBA/Daddy/Lord in your mercy have mercy on us. Love you all in Yeshua our Lord & God. Teerth, Family & Fellowship

The End of an Extended Honeymoon – Are Trump and Netanyahu Parting Ways?

By David Passmore • June 19, 2026
The End of an Extended Honeymoon – Are Trump and Netanyahu Parting Ways? Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM  The Israeli public had high hopes for Trump. Unlike his predecessors, he consistently endorsed Israeli measures of self-defence in the different theatres of conflict in which it had to contend. Further to these ends Trump shared in Netanyahu’s determined agenda of preventing the Iranians from pursuing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. During Trump's first term he tore up Obama's negotiated settlement with the Iranians concerning enriched Uranium, echoing Netanyahu’s position that it didn't go far enough. Now in his second term Trump partnered with Israel in a war with Iran that turned out to lack clearly defined goals. The campaign required resolve on the part of America that it wasn't willing to commit. After an initial lightning blitzkrieg that decapitated the Iranian leadership, the Persians dug in and the conflict became a protracted war of attrition hinging on Iran's stranglehold on the straits of Hormuz that could only be realistically lifted by placing boots on the ground or an intensified air war directed against Iranian coastal positions and the destruction of Kharg island, or at least the viable threat to obliterate Kharg island if Iran did not acquiesce. It transpired that Trump and Netanyahu underestimated the resilience of the Iranian regime, thinking that it had already received a near mortal blow during the prior popular demonstrations. So now we are left with a situation where Trump is exasperated with this protracted endeavour and appears to be aiming his frustration towards Netenyahu. A sticking point is Israel's continued occupation of Southern Lebanon. Iran is insistent that Israel withdraw its forces from there as a precursor to fully committing itself to a final status agreement with the U.S. to put an end to its nuclear aspirations. With the midterm elections looming Trump seems to be desperate for an exit strategy from this war. From Israel's perspective the fight against Hizbollah is an inextricable part of the Iranian equation. The IDF has invested massive resources and personnel in the hopes of quashing the Iranian proxy once and for all. Netanyahu is determined to build on the momentum achieved after the spectacular pager attack in 2024. After the catastrophic Hamas massacres of October 7th, the majority of the Israeli public is unwilling to tolerate a capable hostile force on its borders. Trump's proposed solution to this dilemma unrealistically suggests that Syria should take on the role of disarming and removing Hizbollah from Lebanon. In the ultimate reckoning of international relations, America doesn't have iron clad allies, but rather interests like any other nation. If, (as appears to be occurring now) U.S. and Israeli interests fail to align the two countries will cease to act in unison and there may be a rupture in relations on the not-too-distant horizon. Trump has indicated that Israel owes him big time. He has asserted that were it not for his decisive actions they would have been obliterated by Iran's missiles. This is nothing to say of the robust diplomatic support Trump has lent Israel in such forums as the United Nations Security Council and sanctioning officials of the International Criminal Court. Netanyahu is acutely aware of what may be next after Trump. The way public opinion is turning against Israel it is unlikely that the next administration is going to be any way near as friendly as Trump has been thus far to Israel. Trump too of course is mindful of this turning tide opposing Israel. The Iran war has been unpopular to his domestic audience, and the President has been caricatured as Netanyahu’s stooge doing Israel's bidding. Another major consideration for Trump is the colossal impact that the war has had on his other major regional allies: the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. They have received the brunt of the Iranian backlash that has effectively targeted their energy infrastructure and trading routes. They, along with the Europeans have been exerting pressure on Trump to end the conflict and reopen the Straits of Hormuz regardless of whether the most favourable terms of Iranian capitulation are achieved. Israel, however important a strategic asset and technological powerhouse will not override these broader concerns that are endangering global energy markets. An unspoken factor is Trump's propensity for a belligerent severing of his relationship with allies in the political sphere. His public displays of hostility with former political allies such Senator Ted Cruz, Governor Ron Santos and Elon Musk demonstrate a temperament that the same kind of falling out could invoke with strategic allies as well as those political. Both Trump and Netanyahu are approaching the sunset of their political careers and are naturally inclined to deeply consider the legacies they will leave behind. In the international sphere Trump projected himself as a peacemaker from a position of strength. But as many commentators have pointed out, the war with Iran demonstrated the limits of U.S. power. Trump appraised Iran as low hanging fruit that could be swiftly toppled like Venezuela. However, when push came to shove and the only prospect of landing a decisive blow demanded a massive ground offensive on the scale of the Iraq war, he bottled out and sued for a premature peace that will leave Netanyahu in the cold. Netanyahu is anxious to rehabilitate the injury inflicted on his reputation of the greatest disaster to have occurred in Israel's history having happened on his watch. Eliminating Iran as the great regional adversary pulling the strings of its proxies would have done much in this regard. Neither leader is able to craft their legacies as they would have wanted. Trump is choosing the perceived option of mitigating the damage done to his legacy in foreign affairs. He is trying hard to sell his Iran deal as being more than what Obama bargained in terms of guaranteeing a nuclear free Iran. But as further details of his proposal are leaked this is becoming a tall order. Netanyahu is faced with October elections and he may decide to stay the course in Lebanon as otherwise he will seem weak to most voters. Should this happen, we will be in uncharted waters as it will thwart Trump's designs for an immediate end to this affair.

The Battle for Israel's Reputation

By David Passmore • June 17, 2026
The Battlefield for Israel's Reputation Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM Israel has enjoyed strong U.S. support since its founding. Within eleven minutes of Israel's Declaration of Independence Truman recognized the Jewish State. Under the Kennedy administration the Pentagon sold advanced missile systems to Israel. However, it was the 1970 attempted PLO takeover of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan that demonstrated to the U.S. Israel's regional prowess and indispensability for implementing Washington's agenda. During Arafat's attempted Coup Syria mobilized its forces on the Jordanian border in support of the PLO's bid to dislodge the ruling Hashemite dynasty. Upon Washington's direction the IDF also mobilized its army upon its border with Jordan, thereby deterring the Syrians from taking further action. From then, the Pentagon and U.S. military planners invested heavily in promoting Israel's defence. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War disaster Nixon's massive air lift came to Israel's aid. For decades U.S. diplomatic and military support for Israel was a non-partisan issue. Both Democrat and Republican members of Congress voted nearly unanimously in support of measures concerning Israel. However, in the mid 2010's this began to change. To the extent that now 80% of Democrats hold views in opposition to Israel and this is reflected in how their representatives are acting. It is difficult to praise an exact moment when this turning point occurred. For years Democrat grassroots activist groups across the nation were lobbying their local representatives about their attitudes to Palestine and the mass student protest movements following the Gaza war built upon this momentum. The dual standards by the academic establishment were riddled with hypocrisy as if by the same criteria Israel is condemned for its responsive self-defence counter attacks in Lebanon and Gaza, Britain and America would be similarly indicted for what they did to Dresden, Hamburg and Berlin in response to Hitler. This is facilitated by the funding of Western Universities by Qatar and other Islamic interests associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. There is alienation between Israelis and the traditional left-centre Jewish Diaspora in the U.S. with a third of New York Jews voting for Mandani a vehement anti-Zionist in the New York Mayoral election. This is counterbalanced by a growing Jewish Right in America led by Ben Shapiro, David Ruben, Dennis Prager, Mark Levin and Trump advisor Steven Miller who are in political harmony with the Evangelical Right. The Republicans are also approaching a crossroads. Just as the Democrats have been hijacked by the Woke Left there has emerged a virulently anti-Zionist Woke Right led by Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes and Candace Owen who are also attempting to hijack the Republicans. What is alarming here, is the fact that the majority of young Republicans under forty now hold an unfavourable view of Israel. So, it is very much a matter of fighting for the future of the Republican Party. The growing populist movements in Britain and Europe may counter the anti-Zionist and anti- Semitic political activities of the Muslim vote and their left-wing allies. In any eventuality, even if the least favourable trajectory of U.S. public opinion were to further materialize it is unlikely to dismantle the massive military and intelligence sharing cooperation between the U.S. and Israel. The Pentagon views Israel as far too big of a strategic asset in a volatile region to cut ties with. (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).

Urgent prayer request - India

By David Passmore • June 10, 2026
MAJOR PRAYER REQUEST - STEVE MITCHELL MORIEL ORPHANAGE (Andar Pradesh, INDIA) Please read the enclosed missions report from Moriel Missions Branch India: Our children need us and we put a lot of money into buying and then expanding the Moriel orphanage to take in more children. These precious orphan children are coming to Christ and the devil is angry. Until now we had opposition from radical Sheikhs at the Moriel Horeb church we built in Punjab, but the Hindu Authorities in Andar Pradesh have largely until now left us alone. The BJP government is however as wicked as Hamas or Hezbollah - only Hindu (I was in India when radical Hindus burned the Australian missionary family alive in their car; these are the ones who wanted to murder Steve Mitchell when Moriel helped to quickly get him out of the country some years ago). Some pastors have been murdered again in West Bengal. (Samuel, who oversees the Moriel orphanage went to Bible College with one of them). Because our orphan children are Dalet (treated as subhuman 'out casts' by the Hindu caste system), or from Muslim backgrounds, we have largely been been left alone and some of the local officials liked us. This is obviously not a good situation. Prayer is urgently requested. Please pray for Mark Masih particularly that they will not cancel his visa. They are now forbidding us from bringing any more bibles into the country. What would happen if Britain, Australia, or America outlawed Hindus from bringing the Bhagavad Gita into England, Oz, or the USA? MARANATHA Come Quickly Lord Jesus  "You Will Be Hated By Men For My Name's Sake" Matthew 10:22

Staying the course amidst isolation

By David Passmore • May 30, 2026
Staying The Course Amidst Isolation Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM Living in Israel one gets the feeling that the metaphorical walls are closing in. Israel's reputation is being tarnished all over social media and the mainstream media, and this is reflected in massive public disdain towards this country. We are constantly told that there is near consensus amongst academics and commentators that a genocide was committed in Gaza. The very legitimacy of the state is brought into question. The majority of Americans are now hostile towards Israel. There is real fear that the next U.S. administration will turn against Israel. Even if this were to happen passively, by the U.S. refraining from exercising its veto power towards Security Council Resolutions condemning Israeli actions this could be catastrophic. Internally it is a fractured society leaning increasingly right wing which further alienates Israel from world opinion. An example in point is how Ben Gvir mocked the most recent participants of a global aid flotilla to Gaza. Such conduct further agitates outrage at Israel. The left-wing media presents the ruins of Gaza as a mortal wound in Israel's side. When the world observes this level of carnage no degree of public relations can ameliorate the sense of indignation towards Israel. We can liken the situation of Israel to that of a depressed person. All he sees is hopelessness and gloom. But this isn't the first time that the Jewish nation has been faced with such darkness. Things change and we don't know how the geo-political map will reconfigure in the future. We need to ride out this storm and keep going. On a historical note, the situation is reminiscent of what our ancestors faced when we returned from the Babylonian exile to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Nehemiah was faced with constant lies and conspiracies designed to entrap him by hostile actors: Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite and Geshem the Arab. They employed deception, slander and ridicule in order to maintain their political eminence. There was also a certain sense of abandonment amongst the Jews in Israel then as in our own day. We read in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah about the anguish of the leadership in Israel concerning the lack of assistance from the Babylonian diaspora towards the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem and the Temple. Only 20% of the exiles returned to the land. It was largely the poor who returned. Most of the affluent, established Jews remained in Exile. This is a continuing theme in Jewish history. It is also important to observe that from its very beginnings there were bible believing Christians who spearheaded the return of the Jews to their land. The idea of organizing a return of the Jews to Israel began as a Protestant Restorationist objective that can be traced to 17th century Puritan England. The protagonists of the Cromwellian Republic viewed themselves as the new Israel fighting the Papist forces of Satan. Alongside this, interest grew in the notion that biblical prophecies pertaining to the return of the Jews to Israel were a necessary precursor for the return of Christ. The growth of the British Empire in the 19th century lent political clout to Christian Restorationism with specific missions to the Jews established. Although there had been a longing to return to Israel as written in the thrice daily Amidah prayer, Jewish Zionism arose in the midst of mid nineteenth century nationalism and was further fermented by European antisemitism. It was an altogether secular enterprise. Although Israel's situation appears rather stark, we can draw strength from the Providence afforded to our ancestors in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah when they too were faced with defamation. This is also an opportunity to grow closer to our natural allies in the evangelical world who from the beginning of Zionism were steadfast supporters of the project to establish a Jewish homeland in Israel.  (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).