Christian Zionism and the Restoration of Israel

How Should We Interpret the Scriptures?

Colin Chapman

• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9781725297333
  9781725297340
• eBook ISBN:
  9781725297357
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Critique et interprétation bibliques

How should Christians today understand the many promises and prophecies in the Old Testament about the future of Israel and its land? Are Christian Zionists justified in believing that these have been fulfilled in the return of Jews to their land since the 1880s and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948? This book discusses all the key texts about the restoration of Israel that are quoted in these debates, questioning the Christian Zionist interpretation and offering an alternative. This is followed by a detailed study of two important Old Testament texts dealing with the future of Israel, Ezekiel 33-47 and Zechariah 9-13, understanding them in their original context and exploring how they are interpreted in the New Testament. This is no theoretical, ivory-tower debate. We are dealing here with the most bitter and protracted conflict of the last 150 years; and the way we interpret the Bible has profound political consequences.

Part 1

Christian Zionism

What are the key questions?

Introduction

We begin by asking why there are such fundamental disagreements between Christian Zionists and those who challenge this approach. The answer is that it’s partly because of different understandings of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and partly because of different assumptions about the interpretation of the Bible.

If so much depends on the way we interpret the Bible, we need to discuss the key texts that are regularly quoted in these debates—like Paul’s conviction that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25), Jesus’ saying about Jerusalem being trampled on by the nations “until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24), and his answer to the question “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6–8). These texts are important because most, if not all, Christian Zionists believe that they demonstrate the theological significance of the recent return of Jews to the land and the establishment of the Jewish state.

We then ask one of the most fundamental questions of all: if we want to understand the Old Testament in its own terms, are we not obliged to interpret it literally? Isn’t there a danger in spiritualizing everything in the Old Testament? How, for example, do we understand the concept of the nation, the chosen people, in the Old Testament, and the way it is understood in the New Testament? What does it mean that the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham as “an everlasting possession” (NIV), “a possession for all time” (REB)” (Gen 17:8), and is the land an important theme in the New Testament? We can’t escape the fact that questions about the nation and the land are closely related and fundamental in all these debates.

The next question also relates to the way New Testament writers interpret the Old Testament: what is the relationship between biblical Israel and the church? What difference did the coming of Jesus the Messiah make to the disciples’ understanding of Israel? Was the new Christian community something completely new or a continuation of Israel? Is there any justification for some Christian Zionists to make a direct connection between God’s promise to Abraham and his descendants (“I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse” Gen 12:3) and the present State of Israel?

We then address the controversial question of the millennium, since it is associated in the minds of many Christian Zionists with the return of Jews to the land and the reign of Jesus in Jerusalem after his second coming.

The final question concerns the way we understand the hand of God in the history of Zionism and the State of Israel. Hasn’t there been something miraculous about the creation of the Jewish state, and doesn’t this suggest that God was behind the whole process because it was part of his plan for the Jewish people and the world?

1

Why do Christians have such different views
on these subjects?

The fundamental reason that Christians have differing views on these matters is that there are serious disagreements over the history of the conflict and over the interpretation of the Bible. It is often hard to decide which of these is more important and takes precedence over the other. For some Christians, biblical interpretation is more important and must inevitably determine the way they understand history. For others, the history is all-important, and the Bible has to be interpreted to fit their understanding of the history. Ideally, however, there should be no tension between our understanding of the history and our interpretation of the Bible.

1. Different interpretations of the history10

It may be simplistic to speak of “the facts of history,” since any attempt to describe events is likely to include some kind of interpretation. In the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, therefore, we need to recognise where there is general agreement about what has actually happened, and at the same time understand the different interpretations that have been given by both sides. So, for example, there can’t be much disagreement that Jews were around five per cent of the total population of Palestine in the 1880s when the Zionist movement began. But there is bound to be disagreement about the aims of the early Zionists and the strategies they adopted in order to achieve their goals. Did they, for example have any intention of integrating with the Arabs? Is it fair to describe Zionism as a settler-colonial movement? There can’t be much disagreement about what happened in the different stages of the Six Day War in June 1967. But there is some disagreement about what led up to the war. Was it simply Nasser’s bellicose rhetoric, the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba and his request that UN forces should be withdrawn? Or did Israel engage in provocative acts in order to complete the conquest that was unfinished at the time of the armistice in 1948? And how do we understand what happened after that? What were the intentions and policies of successive Israeli governments? Were they ever serious about withdrawing from East Jerusalem and the West Bank? Has the Palestinian leadership ever been serious about making peace with Israel and accepting its existence?

The two narratives can be laid out side by side—the first being more sympathetic to the Jewish/Israeli side, and the second (in italics) more sympathetic to the Palestinian side. This list is not exhaustive, but illustrates the differences between the two narratives.

a) The earlier history

• The Jews say their ancestors first settled in Palestine some time between the twentieth and eighteenth centuries BCE.
• The Palestinian Arabs say they have been living in Palestine since at least the seventh century CE, and that they are racially mixed since their ancestors include Canaanites, Romans, Greeks, Crusaders, and even Jews.
• The Jews say that the kingdom that lasted from the tenth century BCE (under David) to the sixth century BCE was the only independent nation state that had ever existed in the land prior to 1948.
• The Palestinians say that if we accept claims that are based on possession of the land centuries ago, then Mexico would have a right to parts of the USA, the Spaniards could claim Mexico, and the Arabs could claim Spain. The existence of ancient kingdoms cannot lead to a denial of basic rights of freedom and self-determination today.
• The Jews say that although many of their ancestors were driven out of Palestine by the Romans in 135 CE, groups of Jews remained in several centres in the land, and have continued to live there right up to the present time. There was a regular flow of pilgrims and immigrants from Jewish communities in Europe.
• The Palestinian Arabs do not deny this—and they add that for 1,300 years there was hardly any friction between these small Jewish communities and their Arab neighbors within Palestine. Indeed, for decades prior to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 the Jews of the Holy Land regarded themselves as Palestinian Jews.

b) The Zionist movement

• The Jews say that since 1882 they have constituted a majority in the city of Jerusalem.
• The Arabs point out that in the whole of Palestine the number of Jews in 1880 was 24,000, which amounted to approximately 5 percent of the total population. In 1900, they were still less than 10 percent.
• The Jews argue that when they started returning to Palestine from the 1880s...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Permissions
• Acknowlegments
• Introduction
• Part 1
• Why do Christians have such different views on these subjects?
• When Paul expresses his confidence that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26), is he not speaking about the future of ethnic Israel and their salvation?
• What about Jesus’ prediction concerning the future of Jerusalem (Luke 21:24)?
• What about Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question about restoring the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:1–8)?
• Why not interpret the Old Testament in its own terms—literally—allowing it to interpret itself instead of importing categories from the New Testament? Isn’t there a danger of spiritualizing everything in the Old Testament?
• If the people and the land are so central to the story of the Old Testament, how can the New Testament offer a re-interpretation of these themes?
• If the people and the land are so central to the story of the Old Testament, how can the New Testament offer a re-interpretation of these themes?
• Isn’t “Israel” different from “the church”? Doesn’t this mean that the church was something new, and that even after Christ, “Israel” still has a distinct identity?
• What about the millennium? Doesn’t a literal millennium assume that Jesus will be reigning from Jerusalem?
• Isn’t there something miraculous about the creation of Israel? Isn’t the State of Israel “a miracle of God and a fulfilment of biblical prophecy.”105
• Part 2
• How would Ezekiel’s prophecy have been understood during and immediately after his lifetime?
• How do New Testament writers understand the fulfilment of Ezekiel’s prophecy?
• Can Ezekiel’s prophecy be related to contemporary history?
• Part 3
• Zechariah interpreted as a literal description of the end times
• Zechariah’s message in his own context
• Zechariah as interpreted in the Gospels and Epistles
• Zechariah’s prophecy as understood in Revelation
• Epilogue
• Bibliography