CAN ZIONISM BE CHRISTIAN?
The idea that Jews do not need the Gospel or conversion is sometimes subsumed under the title, “Christian Zionism,” although the designation can simply mean Christians who support Israel. The term “Christian Zionism” ends up being like Silly Putty. Each person makes what they wish out of it.
One must realize that the term Christian Zionist can cover a wide range of beliefs. Elwood McQuaid articulates the most benign and simplistic view this way:
“At its root, Zionism simply means a commitment to the inherent right of the Jewish people to have an internationally recognized homeland in the Middle East — the place referred to by Jews today as ‘Eretz Israel.’ Whether or not people consciously utter the word about themselves, if they accept the concept of a biblically endorsed Jewish right to the land, they are Zionists.”19
But there was a so-called Christian Zionism (which said Jews do not need Jesus or the New Covenant), championed in the 1970s by Franklin Littell in his book, The Crucifixion of the Jews. Littell went so far as to classify any who do not see Israel as the suffering servant redeemed under the Old Covenant alone, guilty of “theological Antisemitism”20 and “major sin.”21 And he labels dissenters of his view as nothing more than “heretics and apostates” and “illegitimate rather than authentic expressions of Christian preaching and teaching.”22 It is unfortunate that Littell was able to argue from the anti-semitic statements and ideas of Reformer Martin Luther.
Littell also summarized succinctly the core of this strain of Christian Zionism, reprinting the statement released by an ecumenical council in 1973. The pertinent sentences include:
“The singular grace of Jesus Christ does not abrogate the covenantal relationship of God with Israel (Romans 11:1-2). In Christ the Church shares in Israel’s election without superseding it.”23
In a very strange twist, the man most responsible for popularizing the “Two Covenant” view (in the 1920s and 1930s) was a Jewish thinker and author named Franz Rosenzweig. Much like Hagee does today, Rosenzweig attempted to create a rationale for not evangelizing Jews while leaving intact the viability, authenticity and acceptability of both Judaism and Christianity. Predating postmodernism but in postmodern fashion, Rosenzweig argued that Jews had their own subjective truth inside Judaism and Christians had their own subjective truth in Christ. Both were right, according to Rosenzweig.
As well, Rosenzweig taught that Jewish blood inherently gave all Jews shelter under the Old Covenant (the New Covenant being only for Gentiles), but John 1:12-13 asserts that only receiving Christ gives salvation and linkage to the family of God and that the salvation given is given to those “who were not born of blood. ... but of God.”
Rosenzweig’s ideas were a master stroke of accommodation, tolerance and ecumenicity but simply are not true to the New Testament. Arguments like Rosenzweig’s, we must remember, appeared at least in germ form in the second century with Trypho and were soundly refuted by Justin Martyr.24 Church history shows that even the first inklings of a double way of salvation were never tolerated by the Church. Early Christians only affirmed what they knew the Bible taught.
Nearly everyone who champions this “Two Covenant” idea since Rosenzweig, knowingly or unknowingly, repeats his arguments. In 1949, Rosenzweig’s “Two Covenant” view was seriously demolished by Jakob Jocz in his book, The Jewish People and Jesus Christ.25
Jocz was astute in pointing out that election under the Old Covenant was national, whereas under the New Covenant in the age of grace election is individual. This is the key to understanding the “Two Covenant” error. Individual Jews and individual Gentiles must accept God’s offer of salvation in Christ.
Jocz further explains:
“The profound difference between Paul and the Synagogue ultimately turned round the question of the meaning of ‘Jew’. To Paul, a Jew is not defined by race or tradition, but by the moral qualities which link him spiritually to Abraham ... Israel to Paul is not defined in terms of race or colour, but faith.”26
George Foot Moore rightly observes, “For this national election Paul and the church substituted an individual election to eternal life, without regard to race or station.”27
This idea of not evangelizing Jews may be gaining some popularity lately in the American Church. More recently, an organization calling itself Bridges for Peace, led the way drafting a pledge to not proselytize Jews and got 50 local Christian churches and groups ranging from Catholic to various mainstream Protestant denominations to sign on. The document was given to Israeli legislators.28
The idea that Jews do not need the Gospel or conversion is sometimes subsumed under the title, “Christian Zionism,” although the designation can simply mean Christians who support Israel. The term “Christian Zionism” ends up being like Silly Putty. Each person makes what they wish out of it.
One must realize that the term Christian Zionist can cover a wide range of beliefs. Elwood McQuaid articulates the most benign and simplistic view this way:
“At its root, Zionism simply means a commitment to the inherent right of the Jewish people to have an internationally recognized homeland in the Middle East — the place referred to by Jews today as ‘Eretz Israel.’ Whether or not people consciously utter the word about themselves, if they accept the concept of a biblically endorsed Jewish right to the land, they are Zionists.”19
But there was a so-called Christian Zionism (which said Jews do not need Jesus or the New Covenant), championed in the 1970s by Franklin Littell in his book, The Crucifixion of the Jews. Littell went so far as to classify any who do not see Israel as the suffering servant redeemed under the Old Covenant alone, guilty of “theological Antisemitism”20 and “major sin.”21 And he labels dissenters of his view as nothing more than “heretics and apostates” and “illegitimate rather than authentic expressions of Christian preaching and teaching.”22 It is unfortunate that Littell was able to argue from the anti-semitic statements and ideas of Reformer Martin Luther.
Littell also summarized succinctly the core of this strain of Christian Zionism, reprinting the statement released by an ecumenical council in 1973. The pertinent sentences include:
“The singular grace of Jesus Christ does not abrogate the covenantal relationship of God with Israel (Romans 11:1-2). In Christ the Church shares in Israel’s election without superseding it.”23
In a very strange twist, the man most responsible for popularizing the “Two Covenant” view (in the 1920s and 1930s) was a Jewish thinker and author named Franz Rosenzweig. Much like Hagee does today, Rosenzweig attempted to create a rationale for not evangelizing Jews while leaving intact the viability, authenticity and acceptability of both Judaism and Christianity. Predating postmodernism but in postmodern fashion, Rosenzweig argued that Jews had their own subjective truth inside Judaism and Christians had their own subjective truth in Christ. Both were right, according to Rosenzweig.
As well, Rosenzweig taught that Jewish blood inherently gave all Jews shelter under the Old Covenant (the New Covenant being only for Gentiles), but John 1:12-13 asserts that only receiving Christ gives salvation and linkage to the family of God and that the salvation given is given to those “who were not born of blood. ... but of God.”
Rosenzweig’s ideas were a master stroke of accommodation, tolerance and ecumenicity but simply are not true to the New Testament. Arguments like Rosenzweig’s, we must remember, appeared at least in germ form in the second century with Trypho and were soundly refuted by Justin Martyr.24 Church history shows that even the first inklings of a double way of salvation were never tolerated by the Church. Early Christians only affirmed what they knew the Bible taught.
Nearly everyone who champions this “Two Covenant” idea since Rosenzweig, knowingly or unknowingly, repeats his arguments. In 1949, Rosenzweig’s “Two Covenant” view was seriously demolished by Jakob Jocz in his book, The Jewish People and Jesus Christ.25
Jocz was astute in pointing out that election under the Old Covenant was national, whereas under the New Covenant in the age of grace election is individual. This is the key to understanding the “Two Covenant” error. Individual Jews and individual Gentiles must accept God’s offer of salvation in Christ.
Jocz further explains:
“The profound difference between Paul and the Synagogue ultimately turned round the question of the meaning of ‘Jew’. To Paul, a Jew is not defined by race or tradition, but by the moral qualities which link him spiritually to Abraham ... Israel to Paul is not defined in terms of race or colour, but faith.”26
George Foot Moore rightly observes, “For this national election Paul and the church substituted an individual election to eternal life, without regard to race or station.”27
This idea of not evangelizing Jews may be gaining some popularity lately in the American Church. More recently, an organization calling itself Bridges for Peace, led the way drafting a pledge to not proselytize Jews and got 50 local Christian churches and groups ranging from Catholic to various mainstream Protestant denominations to sign on. The document was given to Israeli legislators.28
Excerpt of -
THE OTHER GOSPELOF JOHN HAGEE
CHRISTIAN ZIONISM AND ETHNIC SALVATION
by G. Richard Fisher
Read more: http://www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm
.
"Whether or not people consciously utter the word about themselves, if they accept the concept of a biblically endorsed Jewish right to the land, they are Zionists.” I am taken aback by the truth in those words.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fascinating subject, highly relevent today. There are serious political and religious implications. With the movement toward this new "Christian Zionism" of the current American revival, traditional American supporters of Israel, mainstream secular liberals and moderates, are now seen as somehow "anti-Israel," "anti-semitic," and "self-loathing Jews." This is because todays revival has been mostly a rightwing affair, conservative and reactionary, xenophobic and tribal.
ReplyDeleteThe "Us v Them" mentality of the Christian Right automatically pits anyone outside their political sphere as "against" whatever it is they happen to support. The mainstream American left and middle is just as sympathetic to Israel as ever before, but now are accused of being "enemies of Israel" by default, just for being the maintream left and middle.
This causes an undue stress between Israel and America, manifest in Obama's ridiculously low popularity in Israel, especially as contrasted to his tremendous popularity in the rest of the world. These Christian Zionists have created out of whole cloth a contrived but dangerous rift between our two nations, and for Israel this is particularly dangerous as it is existentially dependent on America.
The theological underpinnings of popular Chritian Zionism are disturbing at best, downright subversive at worst - a threat to the existence of Israel. The fundamentalist belief that only a fully united Israel of yore, repleat with the restoration of the Temple, runs counter to the best interests of the modern state of Israel, the Middle East, and Judaism itself. There is no altruistic interest in the well-being of the Jewish people or their "souls" among these Christian Zionists, but rather Israel is simply a means to an end - literally the End. This is an extremely radical and unhealthy alliance, between Israel - in particular the Israeli Right - and the American Christian Zionists. It must be exposed for what it is. Rabid anti-semitic apocalyptic radicalism.
JMJ
I have high doubts that Zionism is the same as Christianity. Zionists do not even believe in Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God.
ReplyDeleteBoateng:
ReplyDeleteAn outstanding observation, friend!
I don't undertstand the friendly relationsdhip and allegiance to an anti-christian nation; An extremely anti-christian populace, whose ruling ultra-orthodox element believe themseslves to "still" represent God's chosen remnant in spite of all the tangible proof.
***
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
II Corinthians 6:14-18.
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Luke 13:35