We live centuries later in another world. What is left in our theologies and churches of these old views on prophecy and restoration? We could sum ip many questions in this respect. How do Christians today relate in their religious convictions to the State of Israel and to Jerusalem? Is there any specific religious relation or attachment towards the Land and the State of Israel? A more specific question would be in this year 1998: In how many churches was there a special prayer of thankfullness because of the 50th anniversary  of the State of Israel? Or did most pastors hesitate to express a word of thankfulness? According to majority opinion amongst the Christians the church should only pray for the many victims of the ongoing violence and bloodshed in the Middle East, and that in a very balanced way  - equally for Jews and Palestini­ans. This is, indeed, perhaps the most important task of prayer. But: is it not possible to say any­thing theologically from a Christian point of view on Israel and Jerusalem? Perhaps theolo­gy could better keep silent after somany mistakes and failures in the past? Should we not be modest after somany theological ideologies, that turned to be destructive for the Jewish People? Have we learnt modesty after the Enlightenment? Or - even more - after the shock of the Shoah? Or have we learnt nothing from our many mistakes in mixing up religion and politics?  

Take the most famous example of the religious discussions on the status of Jerusalem. Should according to fundamentalist Christians quotations of the biblical prophets become decisive at the political negotiation table? Jerusalem has always been and is also today a place of tension and violence - just because of the deep attachment to Jerusalem of the followers of the three monotheistic religions. The history of the city of peace is full of explosions of hatred and has seen a lot of cruelties. Till this very day Jerusalem is the scene of opposing claims and of political conflicts. Since 1967 the government of Israel declared the undivided city the eternal capital of the State of Israel. But Palestinians have not given up hope to make Jerusalem also the capital of their State of Palestine. It is a tremendous problem that by all parties political aspirations are defended with religious arguments. Sometimes it is proposed, especially by official church bodies, to separate strictly, in talking on Jerusalem, between political and religious argumentation. But is this helpful? It seems impossible in the Middle East in general and in Jerusalem in particular to seperate religion and politics. If separation is impossible, it must be aspired, however, to distin­guish clearly between religious and political positions. In religious dialogue one is called to understand the other; in the political field one must try to reach compromise. Religion is often abused by fundamentalist and absolutist political forces as a weapon. Especially Jerusalem has become the concentration point of  clashing political and religious claims. The political conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people, which has been going on for such a long time, finds its climax in the most sensitive issue concerning the status of Jerusalem. In recent years there were rays of hope in the hearts of many because of the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan, and because of the agree­ments between Israelis and Palestinians. In our time the negotiations on Jerusalem should result in solutions and compromises. We have seen examples of political compromises in South Africa and in Northern Ireland. But Jerusalem is different. There is, at present, a crisis of confidence that threatens to unravel the whole peace process. We can only hope and pray that the forces of moderation and prudence will prevail over the forces of absolutism and extremism on all sides.

Fundamentalist use of prophetic texts adds fuel to the fire. Biblical texts cannot be interpreted  as blueprints for the future at the end of the 20th century. That does not mean that we have to close the bible and cannot quote the prophets anymore. But we should study the bible first in its historical context. And then try to interpret prophetic words for our time in such a way, that we don't loose hope and take courage to find our way to peace and justice. Let us quote one example, a prophetic text from Isaiah 19: 24-25: "In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the arth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying: "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heretage' ".  How should we read and interpret such a text? Gives it concrete solutions for the negotiation-table? Or turns this prophetic outlook us all into pacifists?
Let me restrict myself to my own religion: How should Christians read these words? Should they on the basis of this prophecy try to dictate political standpoints? Or should they rather rejoice in these words and keep hope that divine promise will not be in vain? Should Christians not feel encouraged by these words to listen very carefully to the standpoints and convictions of others? Are there perhaps little rays of hope in the Middle East? The same names of the prophetic text are still around: Israel, Egypt and Syria. Let us have look into the situation of Jerusalem, the name of the city which is most used in prophetic texts. Have Christians listed long enough to the Jewish and Muslim views?

In listening to the many and different Jewish voices on Jerusalem one is struck by the strong emphasis on the centrality of Jerusalem for Judaism. The land (erets) is in the Hebrew Bible and in the Jewish tradition the privileged land of God, the only place where the Torah can be completely observed. Jerusalem is the heart of this land. Never in times of exile this conviction was forgotten or relinquished. The people of Israel saw and sees its vocation and destiny only realized in this land and in this city. If the bible speaks about a marriage between God and Israel, the mystical tradition of the Zohar regards the land as the marriage contract. In Jerusa­lem, the very centre of the land, is the story located of Abrahams willingness to sacrifice Isaac, here lies the very beginning of the kingdom of David, and here stood the First and the Second Temple. The midrasj adds in a creative way new dimensions to the biblical tradition. Thus it is told that on the day of the destruction of Jerusalem the Messiah is born. Another tradition knows that in a dream the prophet Jeremiah saw Sion as a weeping mother, crying for her sons and daughers who were killed or deported. And again another tradition tells that everyone who is in sorrow for Jerusalem, is helping for her redemption and will see her joy. Many customs illustrate that the words of Psalm 137:5 were taken literally: "If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand whither". Opinions differ on the messianic significance of the land and of Jerusa­lem. Some see in the return of the Jewish people to the land and the establishment of the State of Israel 'the beginning of the sprouting out of redemption', but others are very careful not to define the State of Israel in messianic terms because they fear that this will lead to even more violence and bloodshed. Although there were many fierce discussions in the beginning of the 20th century, the Zionist movement was convinced that only in the land of Israel with Jerusa­lem as its centre a Jewish State could be established and be faithful to its identity and vocation. Although the 'New Historians' in Israel today express very different views on Zionism, there is  till today a general consensus among Jews that Jerusalem is the heart of the land, the centre of Judaism, and that the city must remain open and undivided.

But, let us have also a look into the Muslim view. In 638 Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslims. In  Arabic the name for Jerusalem is al-Quds, the Holy, given to the city by caliph Abd al-Malik, who finished in 691 the building of the famous Dome of the Rock with the golden roof which dominates the city to the present day. Another and earlier name given to Jerusalem was Bait al-maqdis, the holy house, a name that was a reminder of the temple, while the temple mountain was called al-Haram. First Mohammed established the direction of prayer, the kibla, towards Jerusalem, which decision stressed the spiritual significance of the city for Muslims. Although the direction of prayer was changed already after eighteen months to Mecca, yet Jerusalem remained holy in Islam. There is in Islamic tradition a saying of Mohammed which makes Jerusalem the third holy city for pilgrimage in Islam: "Camels are prepared for travelling only to three mosques: the Holy Mosque [in Mecca], my Mosque [in Medina], and al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem]". According to tradition, one night when Mo­hammed was sleeping near the Ka'aba in Mecca, he was woken up by the angel Gabriel and brought to Jerusalem on the horse Buraq. There he met with Abraham. Moses and Jesus. Together they fulfilled the ritual prayer, which was led by Mohammed. In Islamic tradition this event was linked to the belief in Mohammed's ascension to heaven, al-Miraj, which meant to Muslims a strong confirmation of the special revelation ­to the prophet and his divine mission. After Jerusalem was conquered in 638, the city became more important for Muslims, also as a place of pilgrimage. The Dome of the Rock marked the place where Mohammeds journey to heaven began. It marked also the triumph of Islam over Christianity, as the dome of the new sanctuary surpassed far away the dome of the Holy Sepulchre. The period of the crusades (1096-1291) has greatly increased the importance of Jerusalem in the eyes of the Muslims and is remembered until today as a cruel and terrible agression against the holiness of Jerusalem. The crusaders were never seen as 'people of the book', the honorary Quranic name for Jews and Christians. 

After listening long and carefully  to Jewish and Muslim views Christians are allowed to express their own views on Jerusalem and Israel and may enter into a thorough dialogue with the other adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths. Let me now try to sum up shortly (too short) the different Christian viewpoints on Jerusalem and Israel, and then, at last, give a summary of my own standpoint.
More than once I have written on these different models of Christian ideas on Jerusalem, the Land of Israel and the State of Israel, especially in 1988, the year of the celebrations of 40 years State of Israel. Since then the political situation is changed radically, but the Christian positions are still the same. All the models are underbuild by Scripture references. Some models strenghten each other, some contradict each other. The models are not strictly separa­ted. They show theoretical distinctions, but in reality and practice they overlap. The models describe Christian ideas on the Land of Israel, but especially on Jerusalem, because the Land of Israel finds - for Christians like for Jews - its concentration point in Jerusalem. Let us try:

1. The Land of Israel is in heaven
The Christian attachment to the Land of the bible and to Jerusalem shows a great diversity. For many centuries Christians were more interested in the Promised Land in heaven than on earth, more in the heavenly than in the earthly Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 was regarded as the final end of the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel and sometimes seen as the divine punishment for the unbelief of the Jews in Jesus as the Messiah.
2. The Land of Israel is in the church
In the so-called substitution-theory many Christians believe, that the church has taken over all the promises from the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. They find Jerusalem symbolically in their churches, especially in the eucharist.
3. The Land of Israel as a sacrament
Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics have more sensitivity than most Protestants for the specific holiness of the earthly Land of Israel and especially of Jerusalem. They want to kepe the status quo of the Holy Places. Pilgrimages connect the participants to the divine revelation that Holy Places proclaim. There they want to pray and celebrate the liturgy. Jerusa­lem means to them a sacramental reality par excellence, because in this city  the Holy Sepul­chre preserves the memory of the concreteness of Christ's resurrection.

4. The Land of Israel as Idea
For many Christians the names Israel and Jerusalem have become ideas that symbolize the as­signment of all people to work for justice and peace. It means not in the first place a concrete city on the map. They tend to idealize Jews as a wandering people and living in exile. For them Jerusalem is everywhere and nowhere (Utopia), or: it is there wherever justice is being done. Sometimes they regard the suffering Palestinian people as the 'new Israel'. 
5. The Land of Israel as an 'experiment of the Torah'
This view is strongly expressed in official documents of the Dutch Reformed Church and reflect the thoughts of the theologian Hendrikus Berkhof. The concrete land of Israel is a kind of 'experimental garden', where the Torah must be lived by the Jewish People in an exemplary way. This opinion causes that Christians have great and often exaggerated expectations from the State of Israel.
6. The Land of Israel as the focuspoint for the end of times
Some Christians see the prophecies concerning the end of times as being fulfilled in our days before our eyes. They particularly look upon the unification of Jerusalem in 1967 as the beginning of that end-time. The events around Israel and Jerusalem are for them the setting of the stage for the coming again of Jesus. They hope to hasten his coming by supporting uncon­ditionally the State of Israel and they mostly disregard the plight of the Palestinian people.
7. The Land of Israel as a sign of God's faithfulness
This view is strongly expressed in the Declaration of the Synod of the Evangelical Church of Rhineland, Germany, in 1980. It mentioned "the insight that the continuing existence of the Jewish people, its return to the Land of promise, and also the foundation of the State of Israel, are signs of the faithfulness of God towards his people".
8. The Land of Israel as a place of learning and dialogue
Israel was always a place for archeology. But only recently Christians have discovered Israel, and especially Jerusalem, as a place where they can study better than else­where the Jewish origins of Christian faith, where they can meet with members of the indigenous Palestinian churches and where they can engage in dialogue with Jews and Muslims. They experience the city with all her tensions, with her colourful diversity, as an enormous challenge for Christian faith and theology. They try to learn respect for Jewish and Muslim identity, listen to the anxieties of the Christian minorities, and develop a higher esteem for human beings as holy than for all kinds of holy sites. But also the Christian village Nes Ammim in Galilee is such a place of study and dialogue, the village where I lived with my family 1974-1981.

A few words on my own view. It is easier to give my view on Jerusalem, but this view is also meaningful for the Land and the State of Israel, because Jerusalem is the concentration point of the Land. I would like to distinguish four characteristics of Jerusalem:
1. The particularity of Jerusalem.
Christians can confirm the Jewish particularity of Jerusalem. The universality of Jerusalem finds its basis in this particularity. The Jewish particularity is not exclusive and can give room to the Palestinian people to celebrate its own particularity (so David Hartman).
2. The universality of Jerusalem.
In prophetic vision Jerusalem is the focuspoint of the pelgrimage of all the nations to Sion. The  place of Jerusalem in Christianity and Islam could be seen a a sign of the universal significance of Jerusalem.
3. The centrality of Jerusalem.
More than Rome, Constantinopel, Wittenberg and Geneva is Jerusalem the birth place of the Christian faith. The Christian ecumene is rooted in Jerusalem.
4. The concreteness of Jerusalem.