If you are like many today, you believe that the establishment of the modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of Old Testament Bible prophecy. You probably also believe that current geopolitical events involving the nation represents an unfolding of Bible prophecy right before our eyes. The formal recognition of Israel as an independent state in 1948 reignited a huge interest in eschatology and Bible prophecy because many believed that the return of Christ would follow the return of the Jews to Israel within one generation, based upon their understanding of prophecy.
Modern eschatology, or the study of the end of the world, teaches that we are living in the end times, that Israel will have an increasing role in global politics, and that we are getting closer and closer to a seven-year tribulation period. Many today implicitly accept these statements without understanding their origins or whether or not the Bible actually supports these views. Likewise, many just assume that the Church has always taught that the Bible predicted the return of the Jews to the Holy Land in 1948.
It is important to understand the political and religious attitudes and motives of the men who shaped modern Israel. We will see how the views held during and after the Reformation laid the groundwork for Christian Zionism, which gradually evolved from a religious system into a political system. We will then compare the return of the Jews to ancient Israel in 537 BC after the Babylonian captivity with the return of the Jews in 1948.
Postmillennialism is a view of the millennium, or the thousand-year kingdom, that was popular during the Reformation of the 16th century. Postmillennialists believe in a non-literal, thousand-year kingdom that is marked by the advancement of the Gospel and an age of righteousness on Earth. At the end of the millennium, Christ will return, bind Satan, and defeat all evil. Postmillennialists historically have had great optimism that Christ’s kingdom would be materially manifest as the Gospel reaches all nations and the people brought to Christ. When the Church reaches its spiritual height during the millennium, then Jesus will return.
Postmillennialists did not view the Jews as a distinct group of people who, on the basis of their being descendants of Abraham, were still waiting for their redemption as a nation. For example, John Calvin wrote that “the Divine grace was displayed in a more special manner, when of the same race of Abraham God rejected some, and by nourishing others in the Church, proved that he retained them among his children.”[1] Calvin is clearly arguing that salvation belongs to individuals, and not to nations.
Likewise, the American preacher Jonathan Edwards said the following regarding the royal priesthood: “God promised Abraham that his seed should be as the stars of heaven, and as the sand on the sea-shore, meaning primarily not his posterity according to the flesh. John the Baptist said, God is able of the stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Those are the seed of Abraham, as we are taught in the New Testament, that are of the faith of Abraham; Christians, as well as Jews, are the seed of Abraham…So the church is the seed of Jacob, who is called God’s son.”[2]
This view changed over the next hundred years due to two factors. First, religious attitudes toward the Jews were shaped by the influence of the Puritans in the 17th century. Many Puritans believed that Christ would not return until the Jews first turned to Christ as a nation. Because of this, there was an emphasis on the evangelism of the Jewish people and in their return to Palestine. The second factor was economic. For centuries, England’s economy depended upon trade. The East India Company, founded in 1600, established England’s interest in the Middle East as a trade route between India and England. Ports along the Mediterranean Sea were essential for the transportation of goods between the two nations. Control of Palestine ensured a permanent shipping passage. Together, these religious and economic attitudes shaped England’s political policies in the centuries to come.
Over time, many English people came to believe that it was their destiny as a nation to bring about the fulfillment of Old testament Bible prophecy with the restoration of Jews. These religious sentiments also provided some justification for the economic and political policies toward Palestine. Therefore, over the next two hundred years, there coexisted two movements regarding Palestine and the Jewish people: one was religious and the other economic, each having the same objective but with different motives. Whenever there was a serious effort to bring the Jewish people to Christ and restore the nation of Israel, there was a simultaneous economic or political motive.
Tuchman notes that in 1649, the peak and mid-point of Puritan rule in England, the movement to return the Jews to Palestine “was not for the sake of the Jews, but for the sake of the promise made to them. According to Scripture the kingdom of Israel for all mankind would come when the people of Israel were restored to Zion. Only then would the world see the advent of the Messiah or, in Christian terms, the Second Advent. The return was visioned, of course, only in terms of a Jewish nation converted to Christianity, for this was two be the signal for the working out of the promise.”[3]
Around 1830, following the declining influence of the Puritans, there was a shift from the postmillennial view of a godly kingdom on Earth prior to Christ’s return toward a belief that the world would first have to go through a period of great tribulation before Christ would return. For a time, this view was not very different from historical premillennialism, which emphasizes Christ’s return prior to the millennium. The shift was primarily in two areas: (1) a belief that the Jewish people would have a key role in the world in the end times, and (2) a belief that Christ’s return was imminent.
These views emerged into a framework due to the preaching of one Edward Irving, a Scottish pastor, who emphasized eschatology and the return of Christ. Irving influenced a man by the name of John Nelson Darby, founder of the Plymouth Brethren, a church in England. Darby wrote volumes of commentary on Old Testament prophecy during the 1830’s. He is most known for having separated the Bible into different ages that he called dispensations. In his view, God’s economy of salvation is different in each dispensation. For example, in the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, Jews were saved through the law. In the dispensation of Grace, or the Church Age, people are saved through faith. Other dispensations include Innocency and Civil Government. Dispensationalists focus on God’s requirements in the different ages, and on man’s outward response, and ignore the consistent them of grace that runs through the entire Bible. Though some point to men who predate Darby, and who also spoke of different ages of the Bible, there is no question that this teaching became prevalent due to Darby’s influence.
Darby believed that God turned away from the nation of Israel following the dispensation of the Mosaic Law because the Jews fell into disobedience. In response to this rejection, God ushered in the Church Age as a temporary institution through which, for a time, the Gospel is being preached to the nations. But Darby rejected that the Church inherits the blessings of Israel. As such, Darby taught that at the conclusion of the Church Age, God would once again turn his attention to the nation of Israel in the dispensation of the Millennium. According to some dispensationalists, when the Church Age comes to a conclusion, God will restore Israel and reinstate some of the features of the Mosaic Law, such as the animal sacrifices.
To support his view, Darby embraced the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture, initially called the secret rapture when it was invented. According to his belief, the Church must first be removed from the world before God would restore the nation of Israel. This was due to an errant belief on the part of Darby and others who believed that Israel has always been completely distinct from the Church and that there are different timelines of redemption for Israel and for the Church. This view of the end times came to be known as dispensational premillennialism, as it emphasizes different means of redemption for Jews and Gentiles, and that Jesus will return prior to a literal, thousand year kingdom.
Zionism is both a religious and political movement to restore the Jews to their homeland in Israel. It became increasingly popular in the 19th century and was influenced in part by dispensationalists. There were both Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists who took part in this movement. One of the most notable Christian Zionists was Lord Shaftesbury (1801-1885), a British Tory politician. In 1839 he published a piece in “The Times” addressed to all of the Protestant rulers of Europe in which he argued for the creation of a Jewish homeland. Portions of the text reveal how dispensationalism influenced Shaftesbury:
--The fig-tree putteth forth her leaves again (Matt. xxiv 32). Israel’s sons are making the way to Zion, by which we know that summer is at hand. Blessed are all they that wait (2 Thess. iii. 5), and hold fast (Rev. iii. 11), for quickly He cometh. Amen...In the prospect of the Christian church, of the speedy appearing of her glorified head, the zeal of the Lord’s servants hath been stirred up (Rev. xxx. 2).--
Lord Shaftesbury associated the return of the Jews to Israel with the return of Christ. This represented a shift from postmillennialism with its emphasis on evangelism as a means to bring about God’s kingdom on Earth. The gradual shift was one that saw Christ’s return as coinciding with events surrounding the Jewish people, particularly, their spiritual restoration and return to Israel.
Later in the article, Lord Shaftesbury presents a dispensationalist argument for the restoration of Israel on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant:
--With other responsibilities, the circumstances of one peculiar people, whom the Most High hath separated (Gen. iii. 7, Exod. xxxiv. 7), and which covenant no act of theirs, however iniquitous and rebellious, can repeal or destroy.--
In England during the middle of the 19th century, there was an emotional stirring in anticipation of a great revival of “God’s ancient people” and a belief that prophecy was being fulfilled. In his address to the Fathers of the Evangelical Church, Lord Shaftesbury stated in 1845:
--Our Church and our nation have been called to the glorious service of making known the Gospel of Christ to the many thousands of Israel…We rejoice in the end and hopes of this Society, as seeking the fulfilment of a long series of prophecies, and the institution of unspeakable blessings, both in time and in eternity, for all the nations of the world…It is our duty, our most high and joyous duty, that every effort be made, that no exertion be spared, that all our toil be given, by day and by night, that into every prayer, with all our souls, this special supplication should enter, for the revival and exaltation, be it figurative or be it literal, of repentant and forgiven Jerusalem.[4]--
We can see the recurring theme that the end times and fulfillment of Bible prophecy were predicated on a restoration of the Jewish people.
Tuchman is somewhat critical in her analysis of Lord Shaftesbury: “To him, as to all the Israel-for-prophecy’s-sake school, the Jews were simply the instrument through which Biblical prophecy could be fulfilled. They were not a people, but a mass Error that must be brought to a belief in Christ in order that the whole chain reaction leading to the Second Coming and the redemption of mankind might be set in motion.”[5]
Another Zionist influencer was William Henry Hechler (1845-1931), an Anglican priest who lived near London at the end of the 19th century. Hechler was an associate of Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Jewish Zionist who promoted the idea of a Jewish state in his pamphlet Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) in 1896. Herzl was born in Budapest and grew up in Vienna. In his earlier years, he believed that European Jews should assimilate with their host nations. Later, after witnessing what he considered to be entrenched anti-Jewish attitudes among many Europeans, he began to push for the creation of a Jewish state. William Hechler became Herzl’s mouthpiece among the Christian Zionists. Hechler published “The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine” in 1882, prompted in part by the violent pogroms against Russian Jews. Like many others of his day, Hechler believed that the the Jews must return to Palestine before Christ would return.
Perhaps the most well known figure in the establishment of modern Israel is James Balfour (1848-1930). James Balfour, or Lord Balfour, was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1902-1905. Like Shaftesbury, Balfour was influenced by dispensationalism. His biographer stated that Balfour’s interest in Zionism originated with an interest in the Old Testament. Tuchman describes Balfour as one who was “strongly infused, like the Evangelicals and the Puritans, with the Hebraism of the Bible. Long before he ever heard of Zionism Balfour, steeped in the Bible from childhood, had felt a particular interest in the ‘people of the Book.’”[6]
In 1917, Balfour published this letter to Lionel Walter Rothschild, a leader in the Jewish Zionist community and member of the wealthy Rothschild dynasty:
--His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.--
Rothschild was initially opposed to the idea of a Jewish state, being an assimilationist himself. But he eventually saw a practical use for Herzl’s proposal for a Jewish state. At the time, Rothschild was a member of the House of Lords and feared that increasing immigration of poor Jews from the Eastern nations could create anti-immigration sentiments within the British government. A Jewish state in Palestine would solve this problem by attracting those Jews to Palestine rather than to England.[7]
Balfour’s letter to Rothschild became know as the Balfour Declaration and it was to be the governing document for post-war Palestine. The British Mandate, which granted Palestine to the British following World War I, was implemented in view of the Declaration. The Declaration contains two provisions: (1) a national home for the Jewish people and (2) a protection of the civil and religious rights of non-Jews already living in Palestine. This seemingly simple declaration has resulted in an ongoing conflict in the Middle East since Balfour penned it in 1917. The source of the conflict is twofold. Over the next five years, there would be an ongoing debate as to what was meant by “a national home for the Jewish people”. Second, it quickly became obvious that the political objectives of the Jewish Zionists and those of the “existing non-Jewish communities” were mutually exclusive and their aims irreconcilable.
Balfour’s declaration was vague and open to interpretation, probably by design. What was meant by “a home for the Jews”? Did this simply mean that Jews who emigrated to Palestine would be afforded civil and military protection under a new British protectorate? What part would they have in the new government? In the military? Before we understand the confusion, we need to understand how the Declaration was used a political tool during World War I. The first World War involved most of Europe and parts of the Middle East from 1914-1918. The Allies, comprised of Great Britain, Italy, Russia, France, and the United States, fought against the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire, or Turkish Empire, began with the Turks in the 14th century and controlled much of the Middle East until the beginning of the 20th century.
Dispensationalism became a religious rallying cry for a Jewish state, as already discussed. But the British politicians saw in the Declaration a political opportunity for the Allies during World War I. There were Jewish populations in all of the nations representing both the Allies and the Central Powers. It was thought that if the Allies were seen as the champion of a home for the Jews, then the Jewish populations of those nations would exert influence upon their respective governments to align with the Allies.
In 1918, Lord Curzon, who was chairman of the Middle East Committee expressed concerns over a shift in policy toward Palestine that was being pushed by the Jewish Zionists. Curzon wrote to Balfour about his concerns over Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who was the leader of the Zionist Commission in London:
--A Jewish government in any form would mean an Arab rising, and the nine-tenths of the population who are not Jews would make short shrift with the Hebrews. As you may know, I share these views, and have for long felt that the pretensions of Weizmann and Company are extravagant and ought to be checked.[8]--
Balfour replied:
--As far as I know Weizmann has never put forward a claim for the Jewish Government of Palestine. Such a claim is in my opinion certainly inadmissible and personally I do not think we should go further than the original declaration which I made to Lord Rothschild.[9]--
Balfour’s reply to Curzon clearly indicates that he did not regard the Declaration, at least publicly, as promising an independent Jewish state. However, many of the Jewish Zionists seemed to have read into the Declaration an implicit understanding that it really did promise an independent Jewish state. Mr. Justice Brandeis, head of the Zionist movement in America said:
--First, that Palestine should be the Jewish homeland and not merely that there be a Jewish homeland in Palestine.[10]--
It is clear that some of the Zionists wanted a government in Palestine that exceeded the terms of the Declaration. And by now it was obvious to the British government that any solution in Palestine would necessarily result in mistrust and hostilities from one side or both. Some expressed fear of the Zionists. The Communist takeover of Russia the previous year was keenly on the minds of many Europeans. General Macdonogh, Director of Military Intelligence for Great Britain, said the following at the Eastern Committee in 1918:
--I see a good many of the Zionists, and one suggested to me the day before yesterday that if the Jewish people did not get what they were asking for in Palestine we should have the whole of Jewry turning Bolsheviks and supporting Bolshevism in all the other countries as they have done in Russia.[11]--
To which Lord Robert Cecil replied:
---Yes, I can conceive the Rothschilds leading a Bolshevist mob.[12]--
Many historians maintain that the Jewish Zionists did not influence British policy toward an independent Jewish State, and that the British government was pushing for statehood all along. But internal letters do not support these claims. By 1918, the Jewish Zionists were demanding statehood and other concerns would have to yield to these desires.
With the imminent collapse of the Ottoman Empire on the horizon, several of the Arab factions in the Middle East sought independence from the Empire and supported the Allies during World War I. Two prominent figures who emerged during this time were Sherif Hussein, who became a political spokesman representing the Arab factions, and his son Prince Faisal, who would become the first king of Iraq in 1921.
In return for Arab support of the Allies, Sherif Hussein was promised that Britain would support the independent Arab nations of the Arabian Peninsula, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Trans Jordan and Iraq. The guarantee of Arab independence was issued by the High Commissioner of Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, in 1915, two years before Balfour promised a home for the Jews in Palestine. The agreement excluded “portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo”.[13] In contradiction of the agreement, Syria and Lebanon were promised to the French by the secretive Picot-Sykes Agreement. This will not be addressed here as the focus is on Palestine.
The Arabs successfully helped the Allies defeat the Turks. However, the prior commitment to Arab independence of Palestine came into conflict with the interpretation of the Balfour Declaration. In an attempt to resolve this, Great Britain maintained that Palestine was implicitly excluded from Arab independence, based upon the geographical exclusion in the McMahon pledge. The Arabs naturally countered on the grounds that it was illogical, as Palestine is not west of Syria or Jordan. However, this became the official position of Britain, and there would be no independent Arab state in Palestine.
Lord Curzon issued these minutes from The Eastern Committee in 1918:
--The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future…A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine should be the national home of the Jewish people…[14]--
Britain now found itself in a quandary. Giving the Zionists what they wanted meant a failure to live up to its commitment to the Arabs. But by this point, there seemed no stopping the Zionists. Curzon continued:
--You have only to read, as probably most of us do…their pronouncement in the papers, to see that their programme is expanding from day to day. They now talk about a Jewish State. The Arab portion of the population is well-nigh forgotten and is to be ignored.[15]--
Some time later, Lord Balfour seemed ready to concede to the Zionists. In a memorandum to Curzon written in 1919, he said the following:
--The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.[16]--
Balfour’s comment suggests that he was less than forthcoming in his pledge to preserve the rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine. In any event, at the time Balfour wrote the Declaration, there were over 500,000 Arabs or Muslims living in Palestine. There were also 60,000 Christians and 60,000 Jews. It is worth pointing out that many of those Moslems and the Christians were initially opposed to Zionism. Joint committees of Christians and Moslems voiced their opposition to the British government. And perhaps surprisingly, many in the existing Jewish community were opposed to the new policies over concerns of secularization and intolerance for religion under Zionist leadership.
Proponents of the final British policy contend that it was the plan of British government all along to facilitate the creation of a Jewish state, and that Britain had always planned to exclude Palestine from Arab independence. These arguments are baseless. Balfour and others were vague in their presentation of the details of the Declaration and of the British Mandate, and their positions seemed to change depending upon the audience. With regard to Arab independence of Palestine, the official British position is that Palestine was always excluded. However, the exclusion policy of the “portions of Syria lying west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo” does not support this claim. A map of the Middle East clearly shows that the land to the west of these four cities lies in Syria or Lebanon. A person would have to rotate a map 45 degrees clockwise to place Israel west of these districts.
Israel was later founded as an independent nation and formally recognized by the United Nations on May 14, 1948.
For the Christian Zionists, the path toward Israeli statehood was a long journey that involved an evolution in their understanding of Bible prophecy. They cannot point to any specific prophecy promising the restoration of modern Israel or the return of the Jewish people to Palestine. Many point to certain Old Testament prophecies, but this requires unwarranted license in the interpretation of these passages. However, this is not the case with the restoration and return of the Jewish people to Israel in the sixth century BC. We will now look into these events.
During the reign of King Rehoboam, grandson of King David, the nation of Israel was divided into the ten northern tribes, collectively known as Israel, and the southern tribes, collectively known as Judah. Over the next several hundred years, both kingdoms would continually disobey God’s commandments, engage in idolatry, and worship the gods of other nations. As a result, both nations were punished and the people were scattered among other nations according to the punishment in Deuteronomy 4:27.
The sins of the two nations that led to judgment are clearly described in scripture. For example, the prophet Hosea prophesied against Israel by reminding the Jews that it was God who led the nation out of Egypt and cared for them. Despite this, their hearts turned from God (Hosea 13:4-6). Other prophets, such as Amos and Isaiah, also prophesied against Israel. The Lord spoke through the prophet Isaiah and proclaimed that He would raise up Assyria to punish the nation (Isaiah 8:7). The northern kingdom of Israel was taken into Assyrian captivity in 722 BC as the prophet said.
The southern kingdom of Judah, which had sometimes been led by godly men, continued for another 136 years. But they too were often led by wicked men who led the nation astray. As with Israel, God raised up prophets to prophesy against the sins of Judah. For example, Jeremiah told the people that they had as a nation forsaken the Lord and turned to the protection of other nations (Jeremiah 2:13). The same prophet announced that Judah would be destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:9). In 586 BC, King Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and took many captives to Babylon, according to Jeremiah’s prophecy.
In his mercy, God did not abandon the Jewish nation or leave them to wonder how or when they might be restored as a nation. Speaking through the prophet Jeremiah, God told the nation of Judah that they would serve Babylon for a period of 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11). Israel came decisively under Babylonian control in 607 BC. In the years that followed, there were several deportations of Jews to Babylon, and they became a large Jewish community living in exile. These are the Jews who would return to Israel according to the Old Testament prophecies.
We will now look at the circumstances of the return of the Jews to Israel. Long before the destruction of Jerusalem, the prophet Isaiah had announced that King Cyrus of Persia would be the Lord’s shepherd under whom Jerusalem would be rebuilt and the foundations of the temple laid (Isaiah 44:28, 2 Chronicles 36:23). This is an extraordinary prophecy as Cyrus had not yet been born. King Cyrus defeated Babylon in 537 BC. With the defeat of Babylon, the exiled Jews now found themselves living under Persian rule. In the same year, Cyrus issued his famous proclamation, which freed the Jews and allowed them to return to Israel to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:2-4). The captivity that began in 607 BC ended with the proclamation of 537 BC, a period of 70 years, just as the prophet Jeremiah foretold.
The temple was completed in the sixth year of King Darius of Persia in 516 BC. The completion of the temple was a monumental task. Not all of the Persian kings were favorably disposed to the Jewish nation. And not all of the surrounding nations wanted Israel to be reestablished. When the foundation of the temple was laid, there was a great celebration as the people dedicated themselves to the Lord. The priests and Levites, wearing their vestments, celebrated with trumpets and cymbals (Ezra 3:10-11). The people shouted with joy, but those who had been alive during the time of the first temple wept because the new temple was nothing in comparison to the previous one. Israel was restored and the people returned to the Lord.
There is no prophetic significance to the events surrounding 1917 or 1948. The movements that shaped modern Israel were political, economic, and as we have seen, based upon a faulty understanding of Bible prophecy. On the other hand, the return of the Jews to Israel in 537 BC was of great spiritual significance. Prior to the Babylonian exile, the prophets were specific about the sins of the nation, the method and duration of punishment, and the means of restoration. There are no such prophecies concerning modern Israel. And consider that with the exception of Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi, every Old Testament prophet prophesied to the nation prior to the return of the Jews to Israel in 537 BC. It is irrational to think that all those prophets were prophesying about a restoration and return to the land thousands of years in the future rather than speaking to the Jews of their day, who were about to be driven from their land.
For over 400 years, many Christians believed that the return of the Jews to Palestine would hasten the return of Christ. Israel was made a nation, and yet Christ did not return. Nevertheless, many continue to look for signs of the end times because they have been deceived about the nature of Christ’s return, just as many Jews in the first century were deceived in believing that their Messiah would be a political leader rather than a spiritual Savior. Indeed, dispensationalists continue to put their faith in a physical Israel rather than in a spiritual Israel. And they continue to believe that Christ’s return is dependent upon the political events surrounding modern Israel. Their faith is in the restoration of a physical nation and not in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. But we have a greater hope. Christ’s kingdom is spiritual, it is here now, and the timing of his return does not depend upon man’s efforts to bring it about.
[1] John Calvin, Institutes book III chapter xxi sec.6, translated by John Allen (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1936).
[2] Jonathan Edwards. Sermon XIII, 1 Peter 2:9, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Volume 2, edited by Edward Hickman (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 939.
[3] Barbara Tuchman, Bible and Sword (New York: University Press, 1956), 122.
[4] Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G. (London: Cassell & Company, 1886), 104-105.
[5] Barbara Tuchman, Bible and Sword (New York: University Press, 1956), 178.
[6] Op. cit., p. 311.
[7] Op. cit., p. 293.
[8] Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917 - 1922 (New York: George Braziller, 1973), 57.
[9] Loc. cit.
[10] Op. cit., p. 72.
[11] Op. cit., p. 50.
[12] Loc. cit.
[13] Op. cit., p. 1-2.
[14] Op. cit., p. 48.
[15] Op. cit., p. 49.
[16] Op. cit., p. 73.
Copyright © 2024 End of the End Times - All Rights Reserved.