Against 'Christian' Zionism

The actual title of the article that I link below is Against Catholic Zionism. That’s because the author is writing in a Catholic magazine (Crisis). I put “Christian” in quotes because, like the author of the article, I view Zionism as antithetical to Christian faith. I want to make clear up front what will be clear to anyone who has read the past iteration of Meaning in History (accessible in the archives posts)—I’m not a B16 fanboy in particular, not philosophically and therefore not theologically, and my views on Zionism from that perspective are different from this author’s views. However …

This article raises arguments and discussions that many readers—Catholic or non-Catholic, Christian or non-Christian, religious or non-religious—may find helpful as a tool for thinking through these things. It’s a longish article and I’ll only quote the first few paragraphs, with which I’m in general agreement. Certainly I agree that Zionism as a theological position is antithetical to Christian faith. That means, as the author attempts to explain, that the Vatican view on a Zionist state can only be a prudential judgment which is not binding on any Christian’s conscience. Whether the prudential judgments informing Vatican diplomatic decisions should be totally up for discussion.

Against Catholic Zionism

For orthodox Christians, in no way can the establishment of a modern State of Israel be confused with the fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham because Jesus is the true fulfillment of those promises.

In 2018, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI addressed in an essay how the Vatican historically came to accept the idea of a modern State of Israel. It was only on the grounds of it being a modern constitutional State and operating according to international law. He emphasized the decision was not done without a “theological doctrine” and explained:

That last sentence is awkwardly expressed. What he’s saying is that the decision to accept the idea of a State of Israel was separate and distinct from already articulated theological doctrine regarding the relationship of Christian faith to the Israelite past and the Judaic present.

[at the core of this Christian doctrine] is the conviction that a theologically-understood state—a Jewish faith-state [Glaubenstaat] that would view itself as the theological and political fulfillment of the promises [given to Abraham]—is unthinkable within history according to Christian faith and contrary to the Christian understanding of the promises [given to Abraham about the Land].¹

For orthodox Christians, in no way can the establishment of a modern State of Israel be confused with the fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham because Jesus is the true fulfillment of those promises. To say otherwise would be akin to heresy, the denial of a doctrine. It would deny Jesus fulfilled the Law [Torah] and the Prophets. As fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, we speak of Israel being reconstituted and not of Israel being replaced in supersessionism.

The original form of Zionism, which the Vatican informally accepted, was one founded on a secular movement of Jewish ethnicity. In the early 20th century, the secularism and agnosticism of its leaders seemingly posed little threat of becoming a “faith-state.” Since the Ottoman Empire was in collapse since WWI and left a power vacuum in the Levant, and since World War II ended the Jewish Holocaust with many displaced Jews, the Vatican was willing to accept Jews forming a modern constitutional state within certain territories of the also diminishing British protectorate.² Ancient Jewish ties to Palestine and sympathies for their terrible persecutions made sense for the Vatican to accept what the British inaugurated and left behind.

In the middle of the 20th century, the Vatican certainly never believed or supported that later generations of Jews would advocate violating international law with illegal settlements. They did not foresee appeals to herem—as found under Moses and Joshua—becoming mainstream in modern Israel or that the United States’ fundamentalist communities would encourage Israel behaving like an Old Testament “faith-state.” It would have never supported such a state if it believed serious political powers and religious movements would advocate for restoring a third temple and animal sacrifice. “But religious forces were also always at work in Zionism, and to the surprise of agnostic fathers [of the original Zionism], a devotion to religion has often arisen in the new generation.”³ Now supported by misled evangelicals of a fundamentalist bent, today’s Zionism is no longer your grandfather’s Zionism.

…

… Since an earthly Temple is no longer wanted by God, then religious grounds for claims of a physical Land are also obsolete since the Messiah became the Temple and sign of the Land. 

For phase two of dialogue, Benedict felt the need to emphasize that the second phase of dialogue must center on an additional quote from the New Testament, found in Second Timothy: “if we deny [Jesus], he also will deny us” (2 Timothy 2:12).⁵ This is part of the magnitude of the reality which authentic dialogue must include. There is not one covenant for the Jews and another for Christians. Jesus brought the Old Law, civil and ceremonial, to God’s true goal.

It would be a rejection of Christ to sponsor a return to the Old Law which God brought to an end physically in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple [commemorated as Tisha B’Av]. Christians are not required and should not support any form of Zionism which ignores two thousand years of advancement in law and worship or supplants Christian morals. We don’t accept Sharia law where it disagrees with Christian morals, and we don’t support Old Law where it ignores how Jesus fulfilled it. We certainly don’t return to animal sacrifice. …

There’s lots more. If these issues interest you …