Universal Religious Zionism

Showing Gratitude to Saul, Supporting David, Paving the Way for Solomon – The Three-Stage Development of the State of Israel as a Messianic Process

An Introduction to Universal Religious Zionism

OVERVIEW (The complete article can be found below)

What actions should be taken today to advance Religious Zionism? Should we reinforce existing practices, such as the study of Torah from a modern, Zionist perspective, the settlement of Judea and Samaria, the promotion of national-religious values, and active participation in the development of the State of Israel in accordance with Jewish tradition? Or is it time to reevaluate the path of Religious Zionism, rethink its values, and set new goals?

Historically, the success of Religious Zionism was driven by the strategy of Rav Abraham Yitzhak Kook, which involved working on two levels: implementing practical policies for the present while laying the groundwork for the future. Rav Kook implemented this approach by founding the Merkaz ha-Rav (Central Universal Yeshiva), which began to develop concepts that served as the basis for the development and activities of Religious Zionism in the 1970s and 1990s. This dual methodology – maintaining current practices and innovating for the future – must be continued today.

Decades have passed since Rav Kook’s era, and what was once a distant vision has become a reality. However, a new vision transcending practical short-term goals and marking the emerging frontiers of Religious Zionism has yet to be defined. The lack of long-term goals is weakening the spiritual authority and leadership of Religious Zionism. Now, more than ever, Religious Zionism needs its “I have a dream” defining moment.

The purpose of this article is to articulate such a vision.

***

Modern Religious Zionism is rooted in Rav Kook’s profound revelation identifying Theodor Herzl’s secular Zionism as Mashiach ben Yosef, a forerunner of Mashiach ben David. Rav Kook formulated this idea in his 1904 article, Misped b’Yerushalaim (The Lamentation in Jerusalem), following Herzl’s death. This premise led Rav Kook to guide Religious Zionism towards practical support for Herzl’s secular Political Zionist movement, viewing it as the initiation of the messianic process. Simultaneously, according to Rav Kook, the future focus of Religious Zionism should involve laying the groundwork for the next stage of the messianic process – Mashiach ben David, who would succeed Mashiach ben Yosef and fulfill Geula, redemption.

This compelling concept empowered Religious Zionism by revealing its role in the messianic process. Rav Kook’s vision gave the movement tremendous energy allowing it to make substantial contributions in all facets of societal life, most notably the settlement of Judea and Samaria, which changed the entire direction of the development of the State of Israel. This concept was extraordinarily fruitful for Religious Zionism, as it unwaveringly supported the realization of the program of secular Political Zionism.

Generations have passed. Mashiach ben Yosef has nearly completed his monumentally successful journey. The goals of classical Zionism, once regarded by many as mere dreams – such as creating a viable Jewish State and gathering the exiles – have been achieved. Once a revolutionary movement, Zionism functions in “maintenance mode”; its goals no longer generate enthusiasm and do not inspire. Mashiach ben Yosef is “dying” and should make way for Mashiach ben David. However, no social group in Israel can assume such a biblical role. Mashiach ben David is not on the horizon[1].

Then, at what stage of the messianic process are we now?

Without an answer to this question, Religious Zionism is at an impasse, unable to formulate long-term goals, develop, and lead.

In response to this central issue of Religious Zionism, we propose to replace the two-stage model of the messianic process with the three-stage model. The two-stage model is predicated on two dynasties in the United Monarchy of Biblical Israel: the House of Saul, embodying Mashiach ben Yosef, and the House of David, embodying Mashiach ben David. The kingdom, however, had three kings: Saul, David, and Solomon. We propose to treat each king as a distinct stage in the messianic process and then project the royal triad onto the history of the modern State of Israel.

Each of the kings – Saul, David, and Solomon – had a unique rationale that interpreted the meaning and purpose of their reign. King Saul sought the security and normalization of his people, which the Israelites explicitly demanded: “That we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles” (1 Samuel 8:20). Secular Political Zionism sought similar goals – the normalization of the Jewish people and its security – which was the basis for Rav Kook’s identification of this movement with Mashiach ben Yosef, a modern-day Saul.

Following Rav Kook’s footsteps, we analyze the other two kings, David and Solomon. King David prioritized the Jewish people’s connection to God through a national religious revival, culminating in the return of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. King Solomon’s mission was to spread the monotheistic faith of the Torah to mankind, culminating in the Temple of Solomon, a magnet for the nations – the mission worthy of Mashiach ben David. However, Solomon could only reach such a level and have such an impact on the world because he “stood on David’s shoulders.”

David, a unique and extraordinarily important figure, deserves his special place in the messianic process – “Mashiach ben Yehuda” will be an appropriate term for David based on his tribal lineage.

If we recognize an intermediate phase – David, Mashiach ben Yehuda – connecting Saul, Mashiach ben Yosef, and Solomon, Mashiach ben David, our current position in the messianic process becomes clear: We are transitioning from Saul to David. This transitional phase is marked by Israeli society’s notable shift towards a more pronounced national religious identity.

The era of Saul, manifested in secular Political Zionism, is coming to a successful close, and we are eternally grateful for the tremendous achievements of this movement. While Solomon is not yet visible, David is manifest in modern Israel: it is the Religious Zionists with their vanguard, the settlement movement in Judea and Samaria. Their goals coincide with those of the biblical David: a national religious (rather than national secular) revival.

Having supplemented Rav Kook’s concept of Herzlian Political Zionism as Mashiach ben Yosef or modern-day Saul with our concept of Religious Zionism as Mashiach ben Yehuda or modern-day David, and thus having determined our present place as a transition between these two phases, we can ask the next logical questions: What will be the nature of the future social movement in Israel that can embody Solomon, Mashiach ben David? What will distinguish it from its predecessor, today’s Religious Zionism? In other words, what will be the next great goal of Religious Zionism?

As we pointed out earlier, the primary difference between David and Solomon is the breadth of their mission. While the former seeks a spiritual renaissance for the Jewish people, the latter aims to catalyze a spiritual transformation of all humanity. Thus, when we project King Solomon into the State of Israel of the future, we envision that it must be the movement capable of making the Divine Light accessible to humanity so that “all the families of the Earth shall be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3). In other words, the future Solomon, Mashiach ben David, will represent the State of Israel as a source of Divine Light for humanity.

How can such a transformative movement, an embodiment of Solomon, emerge? And what should we do to pave the way for Solomon’s universal mission?

In search of an answer, we turn once again to Rav Kook.

In 1910, Rav Kook outlined a roadmap for the development of Judaism in the coming centuries (Shmona Kvatzim 3:1). In this program, he asserted that the Jewish people are divided into three ideological factions based on their cultural values: the religious, whose values are the study of Torah and the observance of commandments; the secular nationalist-Zionist, whose values are the settlement of the Land of Israel and the creation of the State of Israel; and the liberal universalists, for whom humanistic and universal values are central. According to Rav Kook, the future of Judaism will be a synthesis of these three ideologies.

A century later, we have reached the halfway point: Rav Kook’s followers have fully integrated national ideals into the religious framework, creating modern Religious Zionism. But the universalist ideals remain unincorporated, external to Judaism. This means that our current efforts should be directed toward this second half of Rav Kook’s vision: the incorporation of universal values into Judaism.

It is important to emphasize that this integration process does not involve the introduction of foreign ideals into Judaism but rather reveals the essence of Judaism. The two “new” types of ideals, national and universal, which may seem external to Judaism, are, in fact, deeply rooted within it.

Let’s summarize the mission of the royal triad projected onto the State of Israel. In the first stage, “the reign of King Saul,” secular Zionism realized national ideals by establishing the Jewish State. In the second stage, “the reign of King David,” national and religious ideals intertwined. In the third stage, “the reign of King Solomon,” national-religious principles will be integrated with universal values to form what we have called, following Rav Kook’s terminology, Universal Religious Zionism. This will complete Rav Kook’s grand program of the evolution of Judaism by synthesizing all three ideologies.

Universal Religious Zionism will be able to relate to humanity and lead the Jewish people in its ultimate mission to become “a light to the nations” (Isaiah, 49:6).

During the present phase of redemption, the phase of King David, to hasten the arrival of the era of King Solomon, Mashiach ben David, we must initiate the transition of Religious Zionism into its universal form. This will require

• Developing a religious (not just pragmatic) understanding of such universal components of civilization as science and technology, the arts, social development, environmental protection, etc.
• To harmonize universal, religious, and national values in accordance with Rav Kook’s vision[2].
• To raise a new generation of Religious Zionists capable of becoming leaders in realizing these values.
• To understand world history, not limited to the Jewish people, as an ongoing dialogue between humanity and God.
• To engage in interfaith dialogue, especially with Christianity, that will contribute to the advancement of Judaism.
• To support and expand the Noahide movement, which promotes the universalization of Judaism.
• To engage in a nationwide dialogue about the importance of the Temple and its role for all humanity.

Reorienting Religious Zionism toward these goals will not be easy. We have become accustomed to Religious Zionism emphasizing the national agenda while often downplaying the universal agenda. However, we must acknowledge that the ideological national agenda has been successfully implemented. Therefore, we must not only continue our practical work (of which much remains to be done) but also look at our mission from a broader perspective and set our new goals for the future.

In summary, our principle is this: We show our gratitude to Saul, support David, and pave the way for Solomon.

We express our gratitude to Saul – the revolutionary secular Zionist movement – for establishing the State of Israel. While this state may have its share of shortcomings (what state does not?), its very existence and substantial material strength represent an unparalleled achievement.

We support David – the contemporary Religious Zionism and settlement movement – by promoting national-religious values, participating in all facets of the State of Israel and aligning it with the ideals of Jewish tradition.

We pave the way for Solomon – the emerging Universal Religious Zionism – by fostering and promoting the modernization of Orthodox Judaism by integrating universal values.

This approach will position the emerging Universal Religious Zionism as the spiritual foundation of the future State of Israel and the Jewish people.

FULL ARTICLE

1. The Objective of This Article

This discourse aligns with the basic concept of Religious Zionism, based on the teachings of Rav Abraham Yitzhak Kook, which views Zionism as a messianic process. However, our goal is to redefine the conventional understanding of this ideology by drawing on Rav Kook’s texts. We recognize that Religious Zionism is entering a new phase of development that involves a reorientation toward previously unexplored goals and values. Our discussion will address fundamental issues and suggest adjustments to the broader perspective.

2.  The Traditional Understanding of the Two-Stage Messianic Process and its Reinterpretation in Religious Zionism

Usually, discussions about the Messiah or the messianic process are understood as an eschatological perspective, reserved for a distant future, “the end of times.” In the context of Religious Zionism, however, this perspective is different. The ideology of Religious Zionism, as shaped by Rav Kook, embraces the concept of a “current historical messianic process” that involves the active participation of all sectors of Israeli society, including the secular realm. The messianic era is not limited to eschatological expectations but is also relevant to understanding and shaping contemporary life.

In ancient Israel, the term “mashiach” (literally, “Anointed One”) was used to refer both to eschatological redemption in the distant future and the unfolding of contemporary national history. The Tanakh uses this term to describe notable figures such as Kings Saul, David, Solomon, as well as later kings of Judah and even the Persian king Cyrus (1 Samuel 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11; 2 Samuel 19:22; 23:1; Lamentations 4:20; Isaiah 45:1). Therefore, the application of messianic concepts to the understanding of contemporary life is not a novelty, but a tradition rooted in classical Jewish sources.

***

In his work “Laws of Kings and Wars” (12:2), Maimonides emphasized that we cannot foresee the course of the messianic process and that our understanding of it will become clearer as it unfolds. It is, therefore, not surprising that throughout Jewish history, there has been a continuous process of reinterpretation and refinement of messianic concepts.

Previously, when the time of Mashiach was viewed as a distant future event, his arrival was perceived as a singular moment, an event without distinct stages. However, as the time of Mashiach draws near, the details become more discernible, allowing us to perceive his coming as an extended process rather than a singular moment and to divide this process into phases.

In the Talmud and much of classical Jewish literature, Mashiach is commonly understood as Mashiach ben David. Although there is mention of a “preceding Mashiach,” Mashiach ben Yosef, his role is minor. Maimonides does not mention Mashiach ben Yosef at all.

In the Kabbalah, however, there is a greater emphasis on Mashiach ben Yosef. The prototypes of these two Mashiachim are represented by two dynasties of ancient Israelite kings (who, as we have noted, were already referred to as Mashiachs in the Tanakh): Saul serves as the prototype for Mashiach ben Yosef, while the House of David forms the basis for Mashiach ben David.

This gives rise to the notion that the process of Geulah (redemption) will unfold in two distinct phases, associated with two Mashiachs: Mashiach ben Yosef will lay the groundwork and create the material conditions for the Redemption, and when this phase is completed, Mashiach ben Yosef will “die” (similar to how King Saul perished in his time), and after him will come Mashiach ben David, whose purpose is to bring the Geulah to its final fulfillment.

***

Over the past 250 years, leading Jewish thinkers and the founders of Religious Zionism have re-examined traditional notions of Geula and the two Mashiachs.

In the late 18th century, Rabbi Elijah, the Vilna Gaon, depersonalized Mashiach ben Yosef and presented the concept that it would not be an individual leader but rather an epoch and social movement that would transform the world and advance the messianic process in the Jewish world and humanity at large. These ideas were considered so radical that the Vilna Gaon refrained from publishing them openly. However, they were circulated among his followers and influenced prominent rabbis associated with the subject.[3]

In the mid-19th century, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer boldly advocated a reevaluation of traditional Talmudic eschatology, reintroducing the concept of Mashiach in the context of contemporary history. He saw the active efforts of the Jewish people to return to Zion as an integral part of the messianic process.[4]

In line with this trend, Rav Kook, in his famous article “Misped b’Irushalaim” (Mourning in Jerusalem) following Herzl’s death in 1904, defined the non-religious Zionist movement as a messianic process at the stage of Mashiach ben Yosef. The correlation between the goals proclaimed by the First Zionist Congress in Basel, such as the normalization of Jewish life and the security of the Jewish people, and the goals for which King Saul was chosen, as stated in 1 Samuel 8:20 – “Then we will be like all the nations, and our king will judge us, go out before us, and lead our battles” – was inescapable. Therefore, Rav Kook concluded that the religious community should support the explicitly non-religious Zionist movement because it is an integral part of the messianic process. It is essential to lay the foundations for the material development of the State of Israel, much as Saul once built the ancient Jewish state despite his conflicts with the prophet Samuel. In the future, through our work and efforts, Mashiach ben David, a spiritual leader, will succeed and assume his role.

This religious interpretation of the non-religious social movement brought about an unprecedented revolution in Judaism. It was not immediately embraced even by religious supporters of Zionism, but gradually became the fundamental basis of Religious Zionism. This concept fueled the movement’s energy and propelled its achievements, especially the Jewish settlement of Judea and Samaria, which drastically changed the course of Israel’s development after 1974.

However, the passage of a century has shown that the concept, when perceived simplistically, begins to falter and thus requires further clarification. Today, as we witness events unfolding, we can see additional details of the Messianic process that may have been visible to our giant predecessors on whose shoulders we stand. These new nuances and the refinement of the basic concept serve as the focus of this article.

It is crucial to emphasize that the process of reevaluating messianic concepts has been ongoing for centuries. Suggesting adjustments in this area is a natural part of the developmental process rather than something that contradicts the classical approach of Judaism.

3. Revisiting the Concept of the Two-Stage Messianic Process to Understand Where We Stand Today

Today, the first stage of the messianic process, Mashiach ben Yosef, is nearing completion. The goals of Herzl’s political Zionism – the normalization and protection of the Jewish people – have been fundamentally realized. Although these goals continue to function as regular tasks of the state apparatus, they no longer inspire enthusiasm or serve as aspirational goals. Therefore, they cannot drive the further development of the country. This indicates that the mission of Mashiach ben Yosef is ending; he is “dying.”

But who can succeed him?

According to the concept of a two-step messianic process, Mashiach ben Yosef should have been replaced by Mashiach ben David. However, in today’s State of Israel, no social movement could be identified with Mashiach ben David in the same way that Herzl’s Zionism was identified with Mashiach ben Yosef by Rav Kook in 1904.

So how do we define our contemporary era when Mashiach ben Yosef is on the verge of passing, and yet there is no sign of an emerging Mashiach ben David? In other words, where do we stand today in the messianic process?

This question is not merely theoretical or abstract. Understanding the trajectory of our country’s development and our role within it profoundly influences our ability to act and the course of action we choose.

In response to this question, we propose to revise the basic schema of Religious Zionism: to move from a two-stage messianic process to a three-stage one. The two-stage model is based on two dynasties in the united monarchy of biblical Israel (as described in the Tanakh, especially in the books of Samuel and Kings). However, this kingdom had three Mashiach kings: Saul, David, and Solomon. We propose to treat each as a separate stage in the messianic process.

The idea of “Mashiach son of Joseph” is a messianic projection of King Saul, who was from the tribe of Benjamin, the younger brother of Joseph. The idea of “Mashiach son of David” is a messianic projection of King Solomon, the son of David. The intervening reign of King David is not in the original scheme and must be reintroduced.

Thus, after Saul (Mashiach ben Yosef), it should be David’s turn (whom we named “Mashiach ben Judah” based on his tribal lineage), and only then Solomon (Mashiach ben David). To understand the characteristics of each stage, we must compare the defining governing principles of Saul, David, and Solomon and project them onto the history of the State of Israel.

Each of the kings – Saul, David, and Solomon – had a distinct rationale, a unique interpretation of the meaning and purpose of their reign. Accordingly, they each had their own approach to their relationship with the prophets and the Temple.

4. The Reign of Saul – Mashiach ben Yosef: Normalization and National Security

As we had previously emphasized, when the people of Israel asked the Prophet Samuel to appoint a king, their priorities were normalization and security: “Then we will be like all the other nations; our king will judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” (Samuel I, 8:20). Saul’s actions were entirely consistent with these stated ambitions.

At the same time, spiritual pursuits were not his priority. For Saul, adherence to the general Jewish tradition was crucial, especially the observance of the laws of kashrut (I Samuel, 14:33). His relationship with the prophet Samuel, however, was complex. Saul considered it essential to appear before the people in the company of the prophet, as this act legitimized his royal status (Samuel I, 13:8, 15:30). Yet he didn’t obey the command to destroy the Amalekites. Furthermore, Saul did not attempt to restore the Ark of the Covenant, which had been abandoned at Kiriath Jearim after it was returned to the Israelites by the Philistines (1 Samuel 7:1). Matters such as the Temple were entirely outside his sphere of interest.

These characteristics of Saul’s reign are echoed in modern Israel, where the secular state respects Judaism and encourages adherence to tradition. It never fails to invite religious authorities to essential ceremonies. On the political level, however, it disregards religious goals and takes no interest in the affairs of the Temple.

5. The Reign of David – Mashiach ben Yehuda: Spiritual Revival of the Nation

King David’s attitude toward religious matters differed markedly from the ambivalence of King Saul. This attitude of David was evident even before his duel with Goliath. Faced with the enemy, Saul’s army interpreted the Philistines’ verbal provocations as attempts to “defy Israel,” referring to the people and the nation (1 Samuel 17:25). David, however, interpreted these insults as an affront to God. Consequently, he asked, “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he dares to defy the ranks of the living God?” (I Samuel 17:26).

From King David’s perspective, Israel as a nation is, first and foremost, a manifestation of Divine Providence. Thus, in his view, the nation’s life is inextricably linked to the heavens and sustained by an ongoing connection with God. Therefore, during King David’s reign, the spiritual renewal of the nation took precedence over material planning.

King David paid particular attention to the counsel and guidance of the prophet Nathan, who often gave the king stern rebukes. David eventually returned the Ark of the Covenant to its rightful place in Jerusalem. However, he was concerned that his capital city lacked a proper dwelling place for the Lord. Although he was eager to build the Temple, King David was never commanded to do so.

God gave David His message through Nathan: “When your days are done, and you lie with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own issues, and I will establish his kingship. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish his throne forever” (II Samuel, 7:12). The reason why David can’t build the temple is not explained here. However, it’s clear that a fundamental difference between David and his successor caused the building of the Temple to be postponed until the next generation.

6. The Reign of Solomon – Mashiach ben David: A Universal Appeal to Humanity

By the time Solomon ascended to the throne, the nation had already achieved a measure of security and stability, largely due to the efforts of Saul and David. In addition, significant progress had been made in the religious renaissance. Solomon did not have to engage in warfare throughout his reign – his era was marked by peace.

Unlike David, who focused primarily on domestic national interests, Solomon was outward-looking, seeing his mission as spreading the faith in the One Almighty and the teachings of the Torah to all mankind. He pursued this mission, in part, through numerous dynastic marriages and the establishment of economic and political alliances.

As a result, Solomon was ideally suited to build the Temple, which would attract high-ranking visitors from various nations, play an influential role, and become a powerful vehicle for spreading the Divine Light.

Solomon made this mandate clear during the dedication of the Temple when he included in his prayer a request that God hear the petitions of individuals from all nations: “If a foreigner who is not of Your people Israel comes from a distant land for the sake of Your name, for they shall hear about Your great name and Your mighty hand and Your outstretched arm — when he comes to pray toward this House, oh, hear in Your heavenly abode and grant all that the foreigner asks You for. Thus, all the peoples of the earth will know Your name and revere You, as does Your people Israel; and they will recognize that Your name is attached to this House that I have built.” (Kings I, 8:41-43).

An example of such influence is seen in the visit of the Queen of Sheba, who traveled to meet King Solomon, see the Temple, and learn about his religion (Kings I, chapter 10).

The primary purpose of the Temple was not only to serve as the center of the national religion but also to represent the light of the Almighty to the nations of the world.

Therefore, it was not David’s mission to build the Temple – the building of the Temple became necessary only during Solomon’s reign.

David himself told Solomon that God would not allow him to build the temple because he had “shed much blood and fought great battles” (I Chronicles 22:8). This does not imply any “sins of killing in war” but rather underscores the point that a state of war hinders the spread of ideas, while peaceful relations facilitate such opportunities.

During Solomon’s reign, the Jewish people had not yet grasped their mission; likewise, the nations of the world were not ready to receive God’s Word. It was like a towering structure built on too narrow a foundation. Consequently, the United Monarchy disintegrated into two competing states after Solomon’s death. It took several centuries of prophetic preaching, new frameworks for the life of the people, and a change in the mindset of humanity at large for a portion of the Torah to begin to spread in the form of Christianity and later Islam. However, the Jewish people, then in exile, were not in a position to advance this endeavor.

However, the scenario for Israel and humanity has evolved in our time as we have entered a new phase of the messianic process.

***

The Tanakh tells us that King Solomon was obliged to provide his wives with a degree of cultural autonomy, a circumstance that sometimes led to idolatry.[5] His wives were noble women whose affiliations helped establish important political ties, making it implausible to deprive them of their cultural freedoms. However, the situation became so complex that it is thought to have had a negative effect on Solomon himself.

We must recognize that dealing with other cultures and value systems is inherently complicated. Whenever we seek to influence someone, we must allow them to interact with us with their cultural baggage. This interaction is risky.

In extrapolating from King Solomon’s time to the present and future “universal phase” of Judaism’s development, it is crucial to recognize that the story of King Solomon’s wives illustrates that incorporating universal values into Judaism can carry inherent risks. However, the presence of such risks does not negate the centrality of this process: without it, the Jewish people cannot fulfill its mission. Thus, Solomon’s marriages, though potentially fraught with spiritual risk, were not whimsical choices but necessities. From this analogy, we understand today that the process of integrating universal values may risk the possibility of making mistakes. However, this potential risk should not deter us from the mission since stopping it would be a more significant error with even greater consequences. Instead, as in any endeavor, we must carefully assess the potential risks and take preventive measures.

7. Saul, David, and Solomon: A Comparative Analysis of the Royal Triad

As we have explained, the ancient Jewish state underwent three stages of development. Each stage had its agenda and achieved its goals while building on the accomplishments of the previous stage.

In the first phase, King Saul successfully fought Israel’s enemies and established the state. In the next phase, King David forged a connection between the nation’s existence and divine providence. In the final phase, King Solomon carried out the national mission to spread the Divine Light among the nations.

The emerging nation didn’t need a temple during the first phase. As part of the nation’s spiritual revival in the second phase, David envisioned the concept of the Temple, although its construction was not yet realized. Finally, during the third phase, the Temple was built to signify the Divine Presence among the nations.

This progression is summarized in the following table:

The king and corresponding messianic stage	The king’s priorities	The king’s attitude toward the Temple
Saul – Mashiach ben Yoseph	Normalization and security	King Saul was ambivalent about the Temple
David – Mashiach ben Yehuda	Spiritual revival, strengthening the connection with God	King David was eager to build the Temple, but the nation and the king were not ready for this mission
Solomon – Mashiach ben David	Dissemination of Torah Concepts Among the Nations of the World	King Solomon built the Temple

Each stage of this process built upon the foundation established in the previous stage. King David ignited the nation’s spiritual renaissance based on the solid national foundation established by King Saul. In turn, King Solomon fulfilled his mission of propagating the monotheistic faith by drawing upon the spiritual fabric of the nation cultivated by King David. This can be symbolically represented as a pyramid composed of three concentric circles built upon each other: from the state to the city to the central structure. That is, from the Sacred State of the Chosen People under Saul to David’s Holy City and finally to Solomon’s Holy Temple.

Moving from one stage to the next required a significant shift in the priorities and policies of the kingdom, from national security to the spirituality of the people and then to global mission. Such dramatic changes cannot occur without escalating tensions between the outgoing and incoming kings. Each king had a strained relationship with his successor, was reluctant to recognize his heir, and sometimes even attacked him. King Saul tried to eliminate David[6]. Similarly, King David did not initiate the coronation of his son Solomon as his successor until the dispute with Adonija flared up, forcing David to act at the urging of Bathsheba and the prophet Nathan.

8. David in Today’s Israel: Bridging Saul and Solomon

Based on our exploration of the Three Kings and the vision of Rav Kook, who made the connection between the Zionism of his time and the messianic process by identifying the movement initiated by Theodor Herzl as Mashiach ben Yosef, we can relate the chronicle of modern Israel to that of the ancient Jewish state and its kings. The two goals of Zionism outlined by Theodor Herzl – the normalization and protection of the Jewish people – have been realized in the modern State of Israel. In terms of the ancient Jewish kingdom and the messianic process, the current juncture corresponds to the completion of the first phase of redemption – the reign of King Saul, or Mashiach ben Yosef.

The next stage in the messianic process involves the infusion of a religious-spiritual dimension into the regular life of the state. In essence, the recognition that the Jewish state represents a higher level of dialogue between the Jewish people and God is reminiscent of the epoch in ancient Israel when King David succeeded King Saul. At present, one movement in Israel is striving to achieve this very thing – the Religious Zionist movement. Its influence can be seen in all facets of Israeli state life – government, business, agriculture, science, the arts, and military service. One particular aspect, based on the ideology of Religious Zionism and unique to this movement, is the establishment of settlements in Judea and Samaria.

In this context, we can see striking parallels in the confrontation between Religious Zionists and the settlement movement, representing the emerging King David and the classical Zionists in Israel, symbolizing the departing King Saul. Just as Saul feared that David would replace him as king and sought to destroy his successor, the old Zionist elite confronted the settlement movement and sought to discredit and destroy it. Just as Saul’s pursuit of David ultimately proved futile because of the incursion of the Philistine armies, the old Zionist elite’s attempts to dismantle the settlement movement also failed because of escalating national security concerns with the Palestinian Arabs. Crucially, just as David refrained from retaliating against Saul and revered him as the king of Israel, Religious Zionists honor and uphold the principles of Herzlian Zionism, whose primary objective was state-building and national security.

We return to the initial question of this article: Where do we find ourselves within the redemption process of the modern State of Israel? Currently, we are navigating the transitional period situated between two pivotal phases of the messianic process. We are moving from the reign of Saul, or Mashiach ben Yosef, exemplified by Theodor Herzl’s non-religious political Zionism, to the reign of David, or Mashiach, heralding the spiritual renewal of the nation, represented by Religious Zionism. This transitional phase is marked by Israeli society’s notable shift towards a more pronounced national religious identity. The onset of the third phase, the reign of Solomon or the era of Mashiach ben David, remains a future anticipation.

9. The Dual Mission of Religious Zionism: Present Realpolitik and Future Ideological Foundations

What course of action should we take now, in the transition between the metaphorical King Saul and King David?

In the early twentieth century, Rav Kook appealed to religious Jews to support secular Zionism on a pragmatic political level. His efforts were directed toward King Saul’s priorities: normalizing and securing the nation. At the same time, Rav Kook anticipated the reign of the metaphorical King David and set goals for future efforts. In 1924, he founded the Central Universal Yeshiva (Mercaz ha-Rav) in Jerusalem to train the next generation of national spiritual leaders. These leaders would be charged with preparing for the shift in national priorities from establishing the Jewish state as a sanctuary for Jews to the spiritual revitalization of the State of Israel.

Today, while the current generation of Religious Zionist leaders is engaged on a practical political level in the hands-on work of the settlement movement, which is oriented toward King David’s priorities as the spiritual rejuvenation of the nation, they should also be focused on future transformations that will usher in the reign of the allegorical King Solomon, the era of Mashiach ben David.

The primary difference between King David and King Solomon lies in the breadth of their missions. While David focuses on national goals, Solomon expands his vision globally. David seeks a spiritual renaissance for the Jewish people by establishing Jerusalem as the nation’s political heart and the center of the national religion. In contrast, Solomon seeks to catalyze a spiritual transformation of all humanity by positioning Jerusalem, the spiritual center of Judaism, as humanity’s connection to the God of Judaism. Paving the way for King Solomon thus means making the Divine Spirit accessible to humanity so that “all the families of the Earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3).

10. Rav Kook’s Program for the Development of Judaism: Unifying the Ideals of the Three Factions within Jewry

Let’s examine how this work will be done.

In 1910, Rav Kook outlined a road map for the development of Judaism in the coming centuries (Shmona Kvatzim 3:1). In this program, Rav Kook asserted that the Jewish people are divided into three ideological factions based on their cultural values: the religious, whose values are the study of Torah and the observance of commandments; the secular nationalist-Zionist, whose values are the settlement of the land and the creation of the Jewish state; and the liberal universalists, for whom humanistic and universal values are central. According to Rav Kook, the future of Judaism will be a synthesis of these three ideologies.

A century later, we’re halfway there: Rav Kook’s followers have fully integrated the principles of national Zionism, while the universalist ideals remain largely unincorporated. This means that our current efforts should be directed at precisely this work’s second half: the incorporation of universalist ideals into Judaism.

In the first stage, “the reign of King Saul,” non-religious Zionism realized national ideals by establishing the Jewish State. In the second stage, “the reign of King David,” national and religious ideals intertwined, forming modern Religious Zionism. In the third stage, “the reign of King Solomon,” national-religious principles will be integrated with universal values to create what we have called, following Rav Kook’s terminology, Universal Religious Zionism. This will complete Rav Kook’s grand program of the evolution of Judaism by synthesizing all three ideologies.

It’s important to emphasize that this integration process does not involve the introduction of foreign ideals into Judaism but rather reveals the essence of Judaism. The two “new” types of ideals, national and universal, which may seem external to Judaism, are, in fact, deeply rooted within it.

Historically, the Torah has served as a source of universal values for humanity. However, to survive under the harsh conditions of exile, Judaism had to “reduce itself” to a state of katnut, smallness. Judaism temporarily abandoned national values (an independent state and everything associated with it) and universal values (including science, art, and outreach to humanity). Universal values tend to draw the individual into a larger world, a move that, in exile, threatened Judaism and the survival of the Jewish people. To survive, a self-imposed “ideological ghetto” was created, characterized by indifference to the ideas and problems of the outside world. Without this protective isolation, many Jews seeking to express their “universalist” talents might have drifted away from Judaism.

However, as the Jewish people and Judaism emerge from exile, the restoration of national and universal dimensions and the return of Judaism to the state of the gadlut, greatness, is imperative.

Thus, the integration of universal values represents a process in which important elements of Jewish doctrine, though always inherent but dormant in exile, are now blossoming from their roots in Jewish tradition.

Jews who hold universalist ideals in high regard often drift away from Judaism because they don’t see these values reflected in their religion. Thus, there is a significant divide between the universalist camp and the Religious Zionist camp. (A century ago, the gap existed between religious Jews and non-religious Zionists, which has been bridged within Religious Zionism today). The integration of universal values into Religious Zionist ideology, forming Universal Religious Zionism, will facilitate the overcoming of this divide and thus bring us closer to the “reign of King Solomon,” the Mashiach ben David.

11. Universal Religious Zionism: The Harmonizing of Universal Values and the Jewish Tradition in the Modern Era

The time has come for Religious Zionism to recognize the religious significance of “secular life” and to incorporate its universal values. This will be the task of Universal Religious Zionism, which unites Orthodox, national, and universal values. However, we should not rush to embrace all universal values wholesale. Instead, we should proceed cautiously, identifying and integrating only those elements within each value we recognize as “sparks of Divine Light.” Rav Kook’s methodology of harmonizing universal values with Jewish tradition will ensure we do not compromise the core national and Orthodox religious values inherent in Religious Zionism.

This is no easy task. A hundred years ago, many influential Orthodox rabbis maintained that there was neither a way nor a need for Judaism to embrace national Zionist ideals. However, these ideals coexist harmoniously within mainstream Religious Zionism, which has become a significant component of Israel’s ideological landscape.

Today, only a fraction of Religious Zionists are willing to participate in this transformative process. A parallel can be drawn to a century ago when the Orthodox world fragmented into a small group of pro-Zionists, a relatively small sect of anti-Zionists, and the ambivalent majority that lacked a definitive stance. Religious Zionism today mirrors this with its division into Haredi Zionists (Hardal), Modernists, and Centrists. Despite this division, the Modernist faction within Religious Zionism today has considerable influence and a significant following, similar to the strength of Zionist supporters within the Orthodox group a century ago. And it is this Modernist group that is poised to become the primary conduit for the ideas of Universal Religious Zionism in the coming decades. They should lead this effort to fulfill Judaism’s destiny when “Teaching will go out from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:3).

During the centuries of exile, the Jewish people lived in survival mode, much like the “dry bones” of Ezekiel’s vision. Judaism was exclusively intranational, shielding Jews from the outside world. Consequently, during this long period, the Gentile world had limited influence on Judaism, and Judaism had even less impact on the Gentile world. Now, as the Jewish national body is resurrected from “the bones” in modern Israel, and God “causes breath to enter the body” (Ezekiel 37:5), this breath will come “from the four winds” (Ezekiel 37:9), symbolizing influences from all over the world.

12. Longing for the Temple: Sacred Aspirations and National Priorities

During the reign of King Saul, building the Temple was not a national priority. Similarly, in the twentieth century, during the height of secular Zionism, the Temple played no role in Israeli life. After the Israeli army gained control of the Temple Mount in 1967, Moshe Dayan downplayed its importance, comparing Har ha-Bayit to the Vatican. At the same time, the Chief Rabbinate issued an official religious edict prohibiting ascent to the Temple Mount on halachic grounds.

During King David’s reign, the Temple was conceived and became a top national priority, but it was not built because King David and his people were not yet prepared for the task. Similarly, we’ve recently seen a growing interest in Israeli society to visit the Temple Mount. Numerous religious scholars have joined the small but rapidly growing group of rabbinic authorities who support ascending and praying on the Temple Mount.

However, in our days, in the phase of David, the building of the Temple is still beyond our reach. Like King David, our generation must accept that the Temple can only be built during the “reign of King Solomon” in the impending era of Mashiach ben David. Consequently, we are responsible for actively preparing ourselves to facilitate this monumental endeavor.

This preparation certainly includes practical activities such as increasing Jewish pilgrimage to the Temple Mount and organizing prayer there. But these actions alone are not enough. The fundamental question lies in the very meaning of the Temple, yet many, even within the religious community, lack an understanding of why the Temple is needed in our time.

The Temple is not to be built merely to serve internal Jewish needs. To build the Temple, we must understand its role as a beacon of Divine Light for all nations and as the nexus of humanity’s relationship with God.

In Solomon’s day, the focus was not on the Temple as a building, which served primarily to attract people from around the world, but on the message that Solomon’s reign brought to the world.

Today, in the age of depersonalization of the messianic process, King Solomon, also known as Mashiach ben David, represents a state of the Jewish nation where the State of Israel is a source of Divine Light for humanity. Once this level is reached, the current fundamental challenges of building the Temple will be reduced to technical issues and resolved accordingly. This change will occur because the nations will become genuinely invested in the Temple. The building of the Temple will serve as a symbol that recognizes the spiritual significance of the State of Israel.

13. The Path Forward: Paving the Way for Solomon

During the present phase of redemption, the phase of King David, to hasten the arrival of the era of King Solomon, Mashiach ben David, we must initiate the transition of Religious Zionism into its universal form. This will require

• To develop a religious (not just pragmatic) understanding of such universal components of civilization as science and technology, the arts, social development, environmental protection, etc.
• To harmonize universal, religious, and national values in accordance with Rav Kook’s vision[7].
• To raise a new generation of Religious Zionists capable of becoming leaders in realizing these values.
• To understand world history, not limited to the Jewish people, as an ongoing dialogue between humanity and God.
• To engage in interfaith dialogue, especially with Christianity, that will contribute to the advancement of Judaism.
• To support and expand the Noahide movement, which promotes the universalization of Judaism.
• To engage in a nationwide dialogue about the importance of the Temple and its role for all humanity.

By engaging in these steps, we contribute to the ongoing process of redemption and lay the groundwork for the forthcoming era of King Solomon, when universal values are fully realized within the context of Judaism. This approach will position the emerging Universal Religious Zionism as the spiritual foundation of the future State of Israel and the Jewish people.

Acknowledgments:

I am immensely grateful to Rabbi Uri Sherki, who helped me develop the ideas of this article from the very beginning when I first formulated them in 2005.

I am grateful to Ariel Margulis and Alex Shlyankevich, with whom we collaborated on this text, for our fruitful discussions and valuable contributions. Alex Shlyankevich also worked tirelessly on the English translation of this text, a task that required a deep understanding of the subject matter. His efforts have been instrumental in bringing this work to a broader readership, and I could not be more appreciative of his dedication and skill.

I am grateful to Ariel Margulis and Alex Shlyankevich, with whom we collaborated on this text, for our fruitful discussions and valuable contributions. Alex Shlyankevich was also responsible for the English translation of this text, a task that required a deep understanding of the subject matter. His efforts have been instrumental in bringing this work to a broader readership, and I could not be more appreciative of his dedication and skill.

Special thanks go to Dr. Zvi Leshem for his crucial help and critical comments.

I would also like to thank all those who assisted me in the preparation of this article: Itzhak Streshinsky, Nechama Simanovich, Svetlana Rousakovski, Vassili Schedrin, Elena Chopko, Chaya Umbarov, Gershon Levitsky.

[1] Rav Kook does not elaborate on this aspect because the transition between Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David was not a pressing issue in his time.

[2] For an in-depth discussion on developing and implementing these ideas, see the article “Universal Religious Zionism: Ideology and Praxis.” https://www.pinchaspolonsky.org/en/universal-religious-zionism/3/

[3] In all cases, when we mention the teachings of the Vilna Gaon on the messianic process, we are referring to the book “Kol HaTor.” This book was published in the 20th century by the descendants of the Gaon’s disciples and, according to their tradition, reflects the Gaon’s messianic vision. There are alternative opinions regarding the authenticity of this book in relation to the teachings of the Vilna Gaon, but this controversy is beyond the scope of this article.

[4] During the Talmudic period, in order to mitigate the desperate and fierce resistance of the Jews against Rome and to prevent the destruction and annihilation of the Jewish people, the sages formulated the concept that the messianic hopes were not to be realized by human efforts in the historical process, but rather at the “end of times”. Rabbi Kalisher, in his book “Drisat Zion” (Seeking Zion), published in 1860, asserted that the messianic era is part of an ongoing human history and that the Jewish people must actively bring about the arrival of Mashiach through their own efforts.

[5] According to the Tanakh and Jewish tradition, King Solomon had an exceedingly large number of wives, suggesting purposes beyond personal needs. These marriages were political, linking King Solomon’s kingdom with other states and attracting foreign guests to Jerusalem. One specific example is the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Jerusalem, which is said to have influenced her and her country’s understanding of Torah concepts. The Ethiopian tradition also recognizes this (Kebra Nagast, chapter 28). The goal of King Solomon’s dynastic marriages seems to have been to facilitate cross-cultural contacts and to spread Torah ideas to other nations (Yevamot, 76a: “And Solomon allied himself by marriage with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter”.

[6] The conflict between Saul and David was not motivated by personal ambition, for David was loyal to Saul and the king knew it. The real issue was the future of the dynasty. That is why King Saul was angry with his son Jonathan, who was willing to give the throne to David. King Saul told his servants: “He said to them, “Listen, men of Benjamin! Will the son of Jesse give you all fields and vineyards? Will he make all of you captains of thousands and captains of hundreds?” (I Samuel 22:7). This is more than a personal conflict; it is a conflict between different groups and strata of society, possibly even tribes, representing different ideologies.

[7]   For an in-depth discussion on developing and implementing these ideas, see the article “Universal Religious Zionism: Ideology and Praxis.” https://www.pinchaspolonsky.org/en/universal-religious-zionism/3/

 Please, make your input!