This movement has historical antecedents in Puritan
theology. It was magnified in the 19th
century by Dispensationalism, a Protestant theology which erroneously holds that
God has separate historical programs for the Church and the Jewish people. Not all CZ today is associated with
Dispensationalism, which has seen a rapid decline
over the last decade.
Though CZ has no biblical or theological credibility, as shown
below, I believe that there are strategic
and historical
reasons for supporting the state of Israel—its many imperfections
notwithstanding. Chief among these
reasons, from a strictly Christian perspective, is the dark future the Holy
Land would suffer should it fall again under Muslim rule. In addition to persecution, churches,
monasteries, monuments, buildings, holy places, artifacts, and archaeological
sites would be placed in great jeopardy under an Islamic government (see my FB post on 11/5/25).
Christian Zionism Misinterprets the Old Testament
Promises
Though CZ claims to be “Biblical,” it is founded upon two
fundamental, interpretive errors. The
first error is a misunderstanding of the Old Testament (OT) promises,
particularly as they relate to the Holy Land and the modern state of Israel. CZ takes a highly literal interpretation of the
promises and prophesies pertaining to the Jewish people. In doing so, it fails to appreciate how those
promises and prophesies were fulfilled and transformed under the New Covenant.
In Genesis, God makes a covenant with Abraham, promising the
Holy Land as an “everlasting possession” (Gen 17:8). This promise was renewed to
both Isaac and Jacob. God also made a
covenant with David: “Your house and kingdom will endure before Me forever, and
your throne will be established forever” (2 Sam 7:16). There are a number of Messianic prophecies in
the OT which anticipate Zion’s future glory under divine rule (Isa 2:2-4; Eze
36:22-29, Zech 8:3), envisioning Israel as a blessing to all nations.
Proponents of CZ believe that in order for these Biblical
passages to find fulfillment, the Jews must first return to the Holy Land and
reestablish the state of Israel. The
establishment of the Jewish state, then, is the prelude to the second coming of
Christ (see, Rom 11:26-27) and the millennial kingdom in which He will rule
from Jerusalem. In that day, the Jewish
nation will embrace Christ as their messiah.
- Does the promised land refer ultimately to the historical land of the twelve tribes?
- Will Abraham’s descendants live in that land forever?
- Will the Davidic kingdom reign forever in present day Jerusalem (Eze 37:24-25)?
- Will the nations of the world stream to Jerusalem to learn the OT law (Isa 2:3)?
Throughout its history, the church has taught that the land, the tabernacle/temple, and Jerusalem, are types or shadows of a more perfect kingdom which has been revealed in Christ. This interpretive method views the OT through the lens of Christ’s coming and universal reign.
Even CZ recognizes that the OT tabernacle/temple, along with its sacrificial system, were fulfilled in Christ—a theme that resonates throughout the New Testament (NT). This, despite innumerable OT assertions that Jewish law and worship were to be observed “as a statute forever”:
- Passover, Unleavened Bread, and other holy days were to be kept “as a statute forever.”
- The OT priesthood was to be kept “as a statute forever.”
- The sacrifices and burnt offerings were to be kept “as a statute forever.”
- The rules for purification were to be kept “as a statute forever,” etc.
The book of Hebrews explains at length (chs. 7-10) how the
tabernacle, the priesthood, and the sacrificial system were only a “copy and
shadow of the heavenly things” and “not the realities themselves” (Heb 8:5,
9:23, 10:1). Though CZ fully embraces
the fulfillment of these OT institutions by Christ, it ignores the same teaching
in Hebrews about the OT promises of the land.
These promises, according to Hebrews, are not fulfilled by a piece of real
estate or a political entity such as the state of Israel, but they look toward a
higher reality (emphasis added):
- “By faith he [Abraham] dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb 11:9-10).
- “And truly if they [“the men of old”] had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them” (Heb 11:15-16).
- “For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come” (Heb:13:14).
Similarly, as Hebrews explains, the land in the OT is commensurate with the promised “rest” which Israel and the patriarchs sought after, though many never entered it because of unbelief. The ultimate nature of this rest, according to Hebrews, transcends the physical repose which Israel looked forward to in the land. The land served as a type for the rest which is promised in Christ to both Jew and Gentile. “[W]e who have believed” enter into that rest (Heb 4:3). This rest is rooted in the seventh day of creation, which constitutes a never-ending Sabbath. For this reason, even those Israelites who entered the land did not experience this eternal Sabbath:
- For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience (Heb 4:8-11, emphasis added).
The theology of Hebrews is a direct rebuttal of CZs
literalistic interpretation of the Abrahamic promise of the land. It forever puts to rest the notion that the
promised land is to be equated with a single geographic area or a political
state. Abraham himself “dwelt in the land of promise” and yet sought something
greater. The promise of “entering His
rest,” typified by the land, is still open to all who believe. As precious and historically significant as
the Holy Land is, it falls immeasurably short of the eternal and universal promise
made to Abraham and his spiritual offspring.
It is, in keeping with the hermeneutical approach of Hebrews, a type or
shadow of the heavenly reality revealed in Christ.
As St. Paul says in Galatians, the “Jerusalem which now is,”
belongs to the Old Covenant and is not the inheritor of the promise. Rather, the promise comes through the New
Covenant, being “the Jerusalem above” which “is free, which is the mother of us
all” (Gal 4: 25-26).
What then is this land or divine city which the saints of the OT longed for by faith (Heb 11)? According to the author of Hebrews, it is the “church of the firstborn” established by Christ through His New Covenant (Heb 12). This “heavenly Jerusalem” is both a present reality and an eschatological expectation:
- “For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire… But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel…. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:18, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, emphasis added).
The OT promises do not look ultimately to the Holy Land,
much less to the secular, political state of modern Israel. These belong to “the things that are made,”
and “the things that are being shaken.”
Rather, the promises pertain to “the things which cannot be shaken” (Heb
12:26-28). It is this everlasting “kingdom
which cannot be shaken” that constitutes the Abrahamic, Promised Land.
Christian Zionism’s Confusion Over Israel
The second major interpretive error of CZ turns on the mistaken
identity of Abraham’s descendants and the nation of Israel. CZ believes that Abraham’s true offspring
includes both believing and unbelieving Jews (i.e., those who reject
Christ as Messiah). The latter will
return to the Holy Land to inherit the Abrahamic land promise and establish a
political state, Israel. The
establishment of Israel, in their view, is the prelude to Christ’s second
coming and the conversion of the Jews.
Once again, CZ fails to appreciate how OT concepts are transformed under the New Covenant. In NT theology, the terms “Israel” and “Jews” take on new meaning, applying only to those who belong to Christ according to faith, not according to blood. This means that both Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ are now the spiritual children of Abraham (emphasis added).
- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:28-29).
- For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God (Rom 2:28–29).
By the first century, “Israel” was often understood as being
more than a political or geographic entity (i.e., the original land of the 12
tribes). The word had become synonymous
with the Jewish people, including those of the diaspora, owing to their
religious attachment to the land. Thus St.
Paul could address the Jews in faraway Asia Minor as “men of Israel” (Acts
13:16). Paul himself was not born in
Israel, but in Tarsus (Acts 22:3). Yet,
he considered himself an “Israelite” (2 Cor 11:22, Rom 11:1).
The apostle builds on this expansive meaning when he equates Israel with the people of God, both Jews and Gentiles, who are children of Abraham by faith, rather than by blood:
- For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed (Rom 9:6-8, emphasis added).
What is in view here is not a political entity circumscribed by
time and place, but the people of God who are spread across the entire
earth. Just as the OT promises and
prophesies pertaining to the land find their fulfillment in the church, so the eschatological
regeneration of Israel is also fulfilled by the church. St. Paul, after teaching the Galatians that Abraham’s
seed consists of all those who are Christ’s, closes his epistle by reminding
them that those in Christ are, emphatically, “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).
Likewise, St. Peter, writing to Jewish and Gentile believers in Asia Minor, alludes to Exodus 19:5-6 (Septuagint) by applying the same titles to the church as God did to Israel when He instituted the Old Covenant, even calling the church a “holy nation”:
- But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy (1 Pet 2:9-10, emphasis added).
Across the length and breadth of Biblical history, there is
only one people of God who will inherit the eschatological promises made to Abraham.
St. Paul describes this people as an
olive tree rooted in the patriarchs (Rom 11:17-24.). Some of the blood descendants of Abraham,
represented by the branches, were removed from the tree because of their disobedience,
unbelief, and, later, for their rejection of Christ. Believing Gentiles, on the other hand, were
grafted onto the tree and thus were united with Abraham and the patriarchs.
Nowhere does the apostle continence the CZ belief that
unbelieving Jews are inheritors of the promises or the land. Nowhere does he imply that they will return
to the Holy Land as a prelude or condition for their salvation. Indeed, speaking to the Gentiles in the
church Paul declares, “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake”
(Rom 11:28).
St. Paul does, however, suggest that many Jews will embrace Christ in the future, “and so all Israel will be saved.” God has not forsaken them entirely. Though they are enemies of the gospel through unbelief, historically “they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”
- For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for [the sake of] my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen (Rom 9:3-5).
The portent of their salvation is the final ingathering of the
Gentiles. As Paul explains, “blindness
in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in,
and so all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25-26). Contrary to the teaching of CZ, this Jewish
conversion has nothing to do with the return of the Jews to the Holy Land or
the establishment of the nation of Israel.
These are nowhere in sight.
What, then, does the apostle mean when he says “all Israel
will be saved?” It is not difficult to
see that “Israel,” in this context, does not refer to a particular place or
nation state. Rather, in keeping with its first century usage (e.g., Acts 13:16), “Israel” refers to
a people, that is, the Jews after the flesh (including those of the diaspora). To define the word as a place or nation would
imply that only those Jews living in the state of Israel (or the Holy Land)
would be saved. This is entirely
contrary to the climax of Paul’s narrative which looks toward a general
conversion of the Jews. Paul preached
the gospel to the Gentiles throughout the Roman Empire in the hopes of
provoking the Jews to jealousy (Rom 11:14, 10:9). This, he did effectively, as recounted by the
book of Acts (13:45, 17:5, 18:6, 19:9). Paul, therefore, anticipates that the Jewish
people (or at
Conclusion
(1) A misunderstanding of OT promises, especially as they relate to the Holy Land and the modern state of Israel.
(2) Mistakenly identifying Abraham’s true descendants with unbelieving Jews and the nation of Israel.
In both cases, CZ fails to
recognize that these promises and prophesies of the OT point to the church and
the kingdom of Christ. The promised land
is a type and shadow of the more perfect kingdom which has been revealed in
Christ, “the heavenly Jerusalem.” The true
descendants of Abraham refer to those who belong to Christ according to faith,
not according to blood, so that both Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ are
now the spiritual children of Abraham.
Though the NT anticipates a time when many Jewish people will embrace
Christ as their messiah and savior, the nation of Israel as a political entity
plays no role in the fulfillment of prophecy, serving only as a type and shadow
of the kingdom of Christ.*
Although CZ has no biblical or theological basis, I believe that there are strategic and historical reasons for supporting the state of Israel (see the introduction). Not all will agree. But, regardless of one’s disposition towards modern day Israel, there is no place in Christianity for Jew hatred, which is becoming alarmingly widespread in American society. As St. Paul teaches, though they have become enemies of the gospel for rejecting Christ, “concerning the election they are beloved [ἀγαπητοὶ] for the sake of the fathers” (Rom 11:28, see 3:1-2, 9:4-5, 11:1-2). Those who are beloved by God cannot, at the same time, be the recipients of hatred by Christians who claim to represent God and exemplify His love.
Instead, following the example of the apostle, we should bear
the burden of their unbelief with grief.
“I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish
that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen
according to the flesh, who are Israelites…” (Rom 9:2-3). Paul’s aspiration for the Jews was not
damnation, but salvation. “Brethren, my
heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I
bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge”
(Rom 10:1-2).
Being “beloved for the sake of the fathers” does not mean
that the state of Israel is above criticism, a view implicitly held by those
who support CZ.‡ Indeed, the majority
of Israeli’s oppose the policies of their own government. On, the other hand, Christians need to avoid
turning their criticism of Israel into a foil for Jew hatred. As St. Paul teaches, it is better to bless
than to curse (Rom 12:14).
* While this study focused mostly on the NT epistles of Romans and Hebrews, a broader overview of the NT, including the gospels, reveals numerous incompatibilities between CZ and NT theology.
‡ CZ maintains that the church is obligated to interpret
Genesis 12:3 in a specific way regarding the modern state of Israel: “I will
bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.” Refusing to support
Israel’s political dominance, in their view, incurs divine judgment.
References:
International
Christian Embassy Jerusalem
Does
the New Testament support Christian Zionism?
What's the
Bible's view on Zionism?
