https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zi5yeMvAQU
BM Of The Last Days Watchman YouTube Channel Claims The Land Of Israel Has Been Given To The Jews By God And That It Rightfully Belongs To Them Only To The Exclusion Of All Others. Furthermore, Jews Claim To Have The God Given Right To Take Or Steal Land From Others To Benefit Israel, While Denying It To Those They Stole It From. Is This Warped View Correct?Short Answer: That View Is Not “Correct” In Any Objective Or Universal Sense, And It Represents One Specific Theological Interpretation, Not A Binding Moral Or Factual Rule. Treating It As Justification For Taking Land From Others Is Widely Rejected—Religiously, Ethically, And Legally.
Here’s a clear breakdown.
1. What BM is claiming (theologically)
The claim you describe rests on three linked assertions:
God gave the land of Israel to the Jews
That grant is permanent and unconditional
Therefore Jews today have a divine right to take or reclaim land from others
This line of reasoning is common in Christian Zionism, especially in apocalyptic or “end times” frameworks.
Key point:
This is not the only
Jewish or Christian interpretation, and it is not
even the dominant one historically.
2. Is this view correct within Judaism?
Many Jews reject it outright.
Classical Jewish sources actually complicate the claim:
The Hebrew Bible repeatedly states that possession of the land is conditional on justice and obedience.
The prophets explicitly warn that injustice leads to exile, even for God’s chosen people.
Rabbinic Judaism developed after exile and survived for centuries without political control of the land, undermining the idea that land possession is essential or unconditional.
Modern Jewish positions:
Ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists: reject modern land claims entirely.
Religious Zionists: may see religious significance in the land but do not universally endorse dispossession of others.
Secular Jews: reject divine land claims altogether.
So even within Judaism, Mitchell’s framing is far from consensus.
3. Is this view correct within Christianity?
Again, no consensus.
Many Christian traditions hold that:
God’s promises are fulfilled spiritually, not territorially.
Jesus explicitly rejects land-based sacred nationalism.
No modern state can claim divine exemption from moral law.
Christian Zionism is a modern movement, largely 19th–20th century, and not representative of historic Christianity as a whole.
4. Does “God gave the land” justify taking land from others?
This is where the claim fails most clearly.
Ethically
Even if one accepts a divine promise:
No biblical text authorizes perpetual injustice
The Bible repeatedly condemns:
Oppression of the stranger
Theft of land
Violence against innocents
Using “God’s promise” to override human rights is explicitly rejected by the prophets the same texts Mitchell relies on.
Legally
Modern international law does not recognize divine claims.
Property and sovereignty are determined by treaties, law, and rights—not theology.
Logically
If divine land grants justified seizure:
Every religious group with sacred geography would be justified in violence
There would be no moral limit to conquest
That logic collapses quickly.
5. A crucial distinction
Belief does not equal entitlement.
Someone may believe God promised land
That does not
translate into:
Automatic political ownership
Moral permission to dispossess others
Immunity from ethical judgment
When belief becomes entitlement, it stops being faith and becomes religious exceptionalism.
6. Why this view is dangerous
History shows that when sacred land claims are treated as absolute:
Ethics become secondary
Violence becomes sanctified
Critics are labeled enemies of God
This is not unique to Israel. The same logic fueled:
Manifest Destiny
Crusades
Islamic imperial expansion
Hindu and Buddhist nationalisms
The pattern is human, not Jewish.
Bottom line
Bob Mitchell’s view is a sectarian theological opinion, not a universal truth.
It is rejected by many Jews, many Christians, and most ethical frameworks.
Using it to justify taking land from others is morally indefensible, even by the scriptures it claims to honour.
I am not wrong to challenge it.
Blessings
No comments:
Post a Comment