SHOULD WE PRAY FOR ISRAEL?
To get the correct Biblical view in answer to this question, we need to understand and view the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, and not the other way around. People often misunderstand and mistinterpret the scriptures by doing this.
“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem . . . For the love of the house of Yahweh our God I will pray for your well-being”—Psalm 122:6,9 NJB
There is the Old Testament exhortation above to pray for Jerusalem, which represents the ancient nation of Israel. Yahweh is referred to as “the God of Israel,” “the Holy One of Israel” (Psalm 41:13; 59:8; 68:8; 78:41; 106:48). Today, there are a number of Christians who strongly believe that the modern nation of Israel, which was established in 1948, should be prayed for. Is this what God wants us to do? We are told to:
“Pray for all people. Ask God to help them; intercede on their behalf, and give thanks for them”—1 Timothy 2:1 NLT
Notice that Christians are urged to “pray for all people,” that is, for individuals, but not any nation. Ancient Israel was still a nation back then when 1 Timothy was written, but there is no encouragement to pray for either that nation, or the Roman Empire, which controlled that part of the world.
“Pray this way for kings and all who are in authority . . .” Why? For what reason?” . . . so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity”—1 Timothy 2:2 NLT
Again, there is no direction to pray for any nation.
“The longing of my heart and my prayer to God is for the people of Israel to be saved”—Romans 10:1 NLT
Paul’s prayer is for the “people of Israel to be saved,” but not the nation of Israel.
God’s ancient people, “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Corinthians 10:18 NAB; NJKV), with its capital Jerusalem, and God’s Temple within it, was literally what Psalm 122:6,9 was encouraging people to pray for in pre-Christian times. But how about today? How can we apply this today?
For Christians, the New Testament tells us that there are “two covenants” that we need to distinguish between. “The present city of Jerusalem” (Galatians 4:25,26 NIV) represents “the old covenant,” “which has been replaced” (2 Corinthians 3:14,11 NLT) by the “new covenant” with “Christ” as “mediator” (Hebrews 9:15). “The Jerusalem above,” “the heavenly Jerusalem,” “the new Jerusalem” (Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 21:2) represents the “new covenant” for Christians today, with Jesus as the “mediator”. This is the “Jerusalem” that Christians are to pray for today. The Israel that Christians today should pray for is the Christian “Israel of God,” where “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything” (Galatians 6:15,16 NIV).
For more detailed scriptural information about why fleshly, earthly Jerusalem and Israel are not part of Bible prophecy, nor are they do they have any special place in God’s purpose, etc. — see the following articles on this website:
“Does Modern Israel Fulfill Bible Prophecy?”
“Restoration Prophecies — Israel of God”
“Spiritual Use of ‘Israel’ in the Bible”
“Are Restoration Prophecies About Israel Literal — or Symbolic?”
13 thoughts on “SHOULD WE PRAY FOR ISRAEL?”
BA: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem . . . For the love of the house of Yahweh our God I will pray for your well-being”—Psalm 122:6,9 NJB
GW: As Dan Barker has said “Nothing fails like prayer.” Now is not the time for useless rituals like prayer. Now is the time for an effective coordinated counter-attack. God does not exist. We know this. The current terrorist attack against Israel would not have happened, if God did exist.
BA: There is the Old Testament exhortation above to pray for Jerusalem, which represents the ancient nation of Israel.
GW: Who cares what the OT says about this? It does not provide useful and ethical advice for the current situation.
BA: Yahweh is referred to as “the God of Israel,” “the Holy One of Israel” (Psalm 41:13; 59:8; 68:8; 78:41; 106:48). Today, there are a number of Christians who strongly believe that the modern nation of Israel, which was established in 1948, should be prayed for. Is this what God wants us to do?
GW: What are you talking about? God does not want us to do anything! How could he? He doesn’t exist! See my Holocaust argument for the proof.
BA: We are told to: “Pray for all people. Ask God to help them; intercede on their behalf, and give thanks for them”—1 Timothy 2:1 NLT
GW: If God did exist, prayer would not be necessary. God would prevent atrocities like the Holocaust and the current terrorist attack, without being asked to do it. Isn’t this obvious? Of course it is.
BA: Notice that we are to “pray for all people,” but not any nation. Ancient Israel was still a nation then, but there is no encouragement to pray for either that nation, or the Roman Empire, which controlled the entire area.
GW: Prayer doesn’t work, and God doesn’t exist. You are speaking of irrelevancies. What do you think that Israel, the US, and the rest of the world should do in response to the terrorists now attacking the people of Israel?
BA: “Pray this way for kings and all who are in authority . . .” Why? ” . . . so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity”—1 Timothy 2:2 NLT
GW: What a joke!
BA: Again, there is no direction to pray for any nation.
GW: There should be no direction to pray! Don’t quibble about the potential beneficiary.
BA: “The longing of my heart and my prayer to God is for the people of Israel to be saved”—Romans 10:1 NLT
GW: If God did exist, he would SAVE people from atrocities without being asked! Why can’t you understand this?
BA: Paul’s prayer is for the “people of Israel to be saved,” but not the nation of Israel.
GW: The people of Israel or the nation of Israel. This is a distinction without a difference.
BA: God’s ancient people, “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Corinthians 10:18 NAB; NJKV) with its capital Jerusalem and God’s Temple within it, was literally what Psalm 122:6,9 was encouraging people to pray for in pre-Christian times. But how about today? How can we apply this today?
GW: Today we can relinquish these silly ideas about prayer and God and do something that really works.
BA: For Christians, the New Testament tells us that there are “two covenants” that we need to distinguish between.
GW: This is complete nonsense! If God did exist, there would be one covenant which God would not change. He would always prevent horrible harms to people. Why can’t you see this? It is obvious.
BA: “The present city of Jerusalem” (Galatians 4:25,26 NIV) represents “the old covenant,” “which has been replaced” (2 Corinthians 3:14,11 NLT) by the “new covenant” with “Christ” as “mediator” (Hebrews 9:15).
GW: Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe that God would replace an earlier covenant with a new one? That is ridiculous. You are forgetting that God would be perfectly rational and moral, and thus he would implement Correct Universal Ethics for Persons from the beginning. This is how we know that God does not exist!
BA: “The Jerusalem above,” “the heavenly Jerusalem,” “the new Jerusalem” (Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 21:2) represents the “new covenant” for Christians today, with Jesus as the “mediator”. This is the “Jerusalem” that Christians are to pray for today.
GW: There is only one Jerusalem. Stop fabricating multiple Jerusalems! Your quoting silly ancient books in this situation is not helpful. In fact, it is impotent and insensitive to victims.
Your slurs are reminiscent of what the apostle Paul said about his treatment, and is quite apropos:
“We work wearily with our own hands to earn our own living. We bless those who curse us. We are patient with those who abuse us. We appeal gently when evil things are said about us. We are treated like the world’s garbage, like everybody’s trash–right up to the present moment”—1 Corinthians 4:12,13 NLT
“But God’s truth stands firm like a foundation stone”—2 Timothy 2:19 NLT
BA: Your slurs are reminiscent of what the apostle Paul said about his treatment, and is quite apropos:
GW: I make no slurs.
BA: “We work wearily with our own hands to earn our our living.
GW: Who is the “we” here? I doubt that Paul did much work with his hands. He was mostly all mouth.
BA: We bless those who curse us .
GW: What a dumb thing to do. You should criticize those who curse you. Cursing an intellectual opponent is unethical.
BA: we are patient with those who abuse us.
GW: How patient? Jesus advised followers to turn the other cheek if assaulted. What a dumb idea.
BA: We appeal gently when evil things are said about us.
GW: Better to appeal assertively.
BA: We are treated like the world’s garbage, like everybody’s trash–rught up to the present moment”—1 Corinthians 4:12,13 NLT
GW: Examples? Unfortunately, many Christians complain even when their beliefs are fairly and reasonably criticized.
BA: “But God’s truth stands firm like a foundation stone”—2 Timothy 2:129
GW: The truth is that God does not exist. This has been proven by many arguments, including my own Holocaust argument in which you have found no error and continue to evade.
Your “own Holocaust argument,” etc., is obliterated by Jesus himself:
“If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first . . . If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you”—John 15:18,20 NAB
“I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves . . . when they persecute you in one town flee to another . . . And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. Do not think I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword”—Matthew 10:23,28,34 NAB
BA1: Your “own Holocaust argument,” etc., is obliterated by Jesus himself:
GW1: Nonsense. Jesus is dead. The Holocaust had not happened at the time Jesus was alive. He never heard my argument. You have heard it and yet you evade it. We know why.
BA1: “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first . . . If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you”—John 15:18,20 NAB
GW1: False. People have hated without ever knowing Jesus or knowing he even existed.
BA1: “I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves . . . when they persecute you in one town flee to another .
GW1: Flight may be helpful, but so may fighting back. Jesus advocated “turning the other cheek” which is one of the dumbest things he ever said, if he said it.
BA1: And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
GW1: Belief in souls is just a superstition.
BA1: Do not think I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword”—Matthew 10:23,28,34 NAB
GW1: Jesus sometimes contradicted himself. He was not a good philosopher or teacher.
You claim that “Jesus sometimes contradicted himself.” Perhaps you could give an example or two supporting your claims.
BA: You claim that “Jesus sometimes contradicted himself.” Perhaps you could give an example or two supporting your claims.
GW: Certainly. I mentioned one half of a contradiction and you mentioned the other half. I said that Jesus said “turn the other cheek” and then you said that Jesus said “Do not think I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword”. He is advocating nonresistance and even inviting aggression in the one case and aggressive resistance in the other. The contradiction is obvious.
Jesus’ saying that he came “to bring not peace but the sword,” does not mean that he was instructing his disciples to be aggressive and violent toward anyone. He was foretelling the results of people choosing to follow him and his teachings. His disciples are to be “peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9 NAB). Jesus said that as a result of his disciples choosing to obey and follow him, “the world hates you,” because “you are no longer part of the world . . . since they persecuted me, naturally they will persecute you . . . for they have rejected the one who sent me” (John 15:18-21 NLT). Jesus predicted the world’s aggression against his disciples. He was not instructing, or inviting, his disciples to be aggressive toward anyone. Jesus set the perfect example in this regard when he was being unjustly and cruelly executed, by offering no resistance, and praying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34 NIV).
Thus, there is no contradiction between ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘I came to put the sword’ (Matthew 5:39; 10:34).
BA2: Jesus’ saying that he came “to bring not peace but the sword,” does not mean that he was instructing his disciples to be aggressive and violent toward anyone.
GW2: He is implying that he CAME to bring the SWORD. That is an instigation, encouragement, or advocacy of violence. This is obvious.
BA2: He was foretelling the results of people choosing to follow him and his teachings.
GW2: False. It was not just a prophesy about others. He said what HE was doing and was going to do. Read the verse carefully. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34, NIV He is saying that he CAME to bring a SWORD! What do you do with a sword? You cut, injure, maim, and kill people.
BA2: His disciples are to be “peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9 NAB).
GW2: Yes, now you are pointing out the contradiction. If you are in a situation where somebody physically attacks you, there are many response options. What are some of them? 1) counter attack, 2) flight, 3) hiding, 4) attempt at persuasion and negotiation, 5) submission or surrender, or 6) inviting a second attack. Jesus never presented a consistent position on what to do. We have evidence that on different occasions he advocated #1 and #6, at the least. And so, he contradicted himself. This is obvious. I know why you can’t or don’t see this.
BA2: Jesus said that as a result of his disciples choosing to obey and follow him, “the world hates you,” because “you are no longer part of the world . . . since they persecuted me, naturally they will persecute you . . . for they have rejected the one who sent me” (John 15:18-21 NLT).
GW2: Well, he was correct about that. When any person speaks out for a radically different idea, whether right or wrong, some people are likely to attack him, verbally or physically. What do you think would happen if I spoke in favor of atheism in front of a mosque in Iran? It would not go well.
BA2: Jesus predicted the world’s aggression against his disciples.
GW2: Yes, he did, and he turned out to be correct in that prediction. But I would have made the same prediction and been correct too.
BA2: He was not instructing, or inviting, his disciples to be aggressive toward anyone.
GW2: False. See above. You are just misinterpreting the verse you yourself cited.
BA2: Jesus set the perfect example in this regard when he was being unjustly and cruelly executed, by offering no resistance, and praying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34 NIV).
GW2: Nonsense! He would have set a good example by staying out of Jerusalem. He intentionally entered Jerusalem and set the wrong example. He wanted to become a martyr. He could have lived at least 10-15 more years, preaching his opinions, if he had not gone to Jerusalem. Nothing fails like prayer, and God does not exist. We know these things.
BA2: Thus, there is no contradiction between ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘I came to put the sword’ (Matthew 5:39; 10:34).
GW2: False. The contradiction is obvious. Your biases don’t allow you to understand the contradiction. Take a hundred people who do not have biases either way and who have not previously read these two verses. Ask them to read the verses in context and ask their opinion about them. I bet at least 90 of 100 will correctly see the contradiction. But you are blinded by your biases, mainly stemming from your early unfortunate indoctrination into religion.
There is no contradiction! You’re mistaken.
Jesus said:
“You must not suppose that the result of my coming will be peace for the world. The result of my coming will not be peace but a sword”—Matthew 10:34 The New Testament by William Barclay (Also see Luke 12:51 in this translation)
Jesus is foretelling the RESULTS of peoples acceptance and rejection of his teachings.
BA4: There is no contradiction! You’re mistaken.
GW4: There is a contradiction! You are mistaken! Let’s compare the two verses one after the other:
1) “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34, NIV
2) “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” Matthew 5:38-39
In the first verse, Jesus speaks favorably about aggression or violence, but in the second verse he speaks favorably about nonresistance. Aggression is contradictory to nonresistance. What is remarkable is that these contradictory verses occur in the same book known as the “Gospel of Matthew.” Jesus could have clearly stated his position on how to ethically respond to attack by another, but he didn’t. He “spoke out of both sides of his mouth.” He spoke in a contradictory or hypocritical manner.
BA4: Jesus said: “You must not suppose that the result of my coming will be peace for the world. The result of my coming will not be peace but a sword”—Matthew 10:34 The New Testament by William Barclay (Also see Luke 12:51 in this translation)
GW4: This does not match the NIV which puts the advocacy of aggression in the first person with the “I”. You are once again up to your old tricks by cherry picking a Bible version which fits with your preconceived bias and picking a version which is not among the versions chosen by most scholars.
GW4: Let’s examine your other citation: “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” Luke 12:51 NIV. Division is not the same as a sword or aggression. So, this verse does not convey the contradiction.
BA4: Jesus is foretelling the RESULTS of peoples acceptance and rejection of his teachings.
GW4: Nope. He is basically saying “I came to bring a sword.” He is advocating violence. The use of swords causes injuries and death. Surely you know this. But if Jesus came to bring a sword, then that attitude and remark could indeed encourage his followers to be violent. So, my interpretation is correct in a primary sense, while your interpretation could be correct in a secondary sense. But, verse #1 contradicts verse #2, as I have shown. You are unable to see this because you are blinded by early religious indoctrination, you have not been trained in critical thinking, and you use cherry picking methods.
GW4: You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free, someday.
Your condescension knows no bounds, which is similar to:
“Is there a single one of us rulers or Pharisees who believes in him? This foolish crowd follows him, but they are ignorant of the law”—John 7:48,49 NIV
Your stubborn refusal to reason on the facts is similar to:
“Although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: ‘Lord, whom has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?’ Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with heir hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.’ These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him”—John 12:37-41 NKJV
There are no contradictions anywhere in the Bible! You haven’t proved a thing!
BA5: Your condescension knows no bounds, which is similar to:
GW5: I show no condescension, just correction of false and/or irrational thinking.
BA5: “Is there a single one of us rulers or Pharisees who believes in him? This foolish crowd follows him, but they are ignorant of the law”—John 7:48,49 NIV
GW5: What does it mean to believe in Jesus? It probably had a different meaning in ancient times than it does today. However, there is one thing in common – we do not believe that Jesus was a messiah, the son of God, God himself, divine, or supernatural in any way. There is just no good evidence to support any of those hypotheses.
BA5: Your stubborn refusal to reason on the facts is similar to:
GW5: What facts? There are the facts of the verses, when we use the best editions or versions of the Bible. They are what they are. And they clearly show the fact of the contradiction of support for aggression vs. support for passivity from the same man – Jesus, the alleged speeches of the same man.
BA5: “Although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:
GW5: Ah, you are forgetting that there is not a single first-person, author-identified, low-bias, promptly written, eye-witness report of any event in the life of Jesus, period. You are just repeating stories. And you are also presenting older stories that are totally irrelevant to the contradiction I have pointed out to you in the stories about Jesus. The alleged words of Isaiah have nothing to do with the alleged words of Jesus which we have been discussing. You are off the tracks.
BA5: ‘Lord, whom has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?’ Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with heir hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.’ These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him”—John 12:37-41 NKJV
GW5: This has nothing to do with the contradiction I pointed out to you.
BA5: There are no contradictions anywhere in the Bible! You haven’t proved a thing!
GW5: One contradiction is right in front of your eyes. It has been presented to your mind. It is there for all to see. You disagree, and I disagree with your disagreeing. Too bad you cannot see the truth. But there are clear reasons for that.