Christian Zionism: a road map to Armageddon?

Christian Zionists are those who believe that the political state of Israel exists today by specific biblical mandate and should be supported without question by all Christians.

Stephen Sizer takes a different point of view and has recently published a book on the subject. Here we pick up on some of his conclusions. . .

Development of CZ

Seven observations can be made concerning the development and contemporary significance of this movement:

1. Christian Zionism, through its active and public support for Jewish restoration to Palestine, predated the rise of Jewish Zionism by at least 60 years.

2. Its origins lie within 19th-century British premillennial sectarianism. By the early 20th century it had become a predominantly American dispensational movement and pervasive within all main evangelical denominations.

3. While the strategic value of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was a significant factor in British foreign policy during the 19th century, it became a dominant feature of American foreign policy by the end of the 20th century.

4. Without the initiative and commitment of British Christians (clergy, politicians and statesmen) during the 19th century, it is questionable whether the Jewish Zionist dream of a national homeland in Palestine would have been realised.

5. Without the sustained political support of Christian Zionists in America, and significant government funding, it is doubtful whether the state of Israel would have remained in existence since 1948, let alone continued to occupy and settle the West Bank since 1967.

6. Conservative estimates would suggest that the Christian Zionist movement is at least ten times larger than the Jewish Zionist movement and has become the dominant lobby within contemporary American politics.

7. Underpinning Christian Zionism is a novel theological system based on an ultra-literal and futurist reading of the Bible which, while its origins are rooted in the Reformation and Puritanism, is essentially the product of early 19th-century millennialist sectarianism.

Variant forms of CZ

Four distinct strands of contemporary evangelical Christian Zionism emerge based on their theological understanding of the relationship between the Church and Israel; their approach toward evangelism; Restorationism; Eretz Israel and the settlements; Jerusalem; the Temple; and Armageddon.

These are: covenantal premillennialism; messianic dispensationalism; apocalyptic dispensationalism; and political dispensationalism.1

Covenantal premillennialism and messianic dispensationalism share a common commitment to evangelise Jewish people before the Second Advent. Messianic dispensationalism, by virtue of its two covenant theology, is also committed to reviving Jewish worship including Temple practices. It shares with apocalyptic dispensationalism a strong emphasis on end times prophecy as well as a pessimism regarding peace in the Middle East. Apocalyptic dispensationalism also shares with political dispensationalism a commitment to maintaining strong US military and political ties with Israel. Political dispensationalism may be distinguished by its disavowal of evangelism, its optimistic eschatology and reinterpretation of the Christian gospel. For political dispensationalism the purpose of the Church is to support and bless Israel since the Jews are accepted by God on the basis of their own covenant and will recognise their Messiah when he returns. If covenantal premillennialism may be regarded as the most orthodox and benign form of Christian Zionism, political dispensationalism appears to be the most problematic. The following chart summarises the distinctive elements of each.

Type of Christian Zionism Distinctive Elements
1. Covenantal Premillennial Evangelism and Restorationism
2. Messianic Dispensational Evangelism and the Jewish Temple
3. Apocalyptic Dispensational Prophecy and Armageddon
4. Political Dispensational Defending and blessing Israel

Critical assessment of CZ

The fundamental question Christian Zionists must answer is this: what difference did the coming of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus Christ make to the traditional Jewish hopes and expectations concerning the land and people?2 Clarence Bass crystallises the issue with a series of more specific rhetorical questions:

'It is legitimate to ask whether Dispensationalism is not orientated more from the Abrahamic Covenant than from the Cross. Is not its focus centred more on the Jewish kingdom than on the Body of Christ? Does it not interpret the New Testament in the light of Old Testament prophecies, instead of interpreting those prophecies in the light of the more complete revelation of the New Testament?'3

Christian Zionists believe that the coming of Jesus Christ made little or no difference to the nationalistic and territorial aspirations of first-century Judaism. They appear to read the Old Testament in the same way that the first disciples did before Pentecost, believing the coming of the kingdom of Jesus meant a postponement of Jewish hopes for restoration rather than the fulfilment of those hopes in the Messiah and his new and inclusive messianic community.

In its apocalyptic and political forms especially, Christian Zionism distorts the Bible and marginalises the universal imperative of the Christian message of equal grace and common justice. Kenneth Cragg summarises the implications of its intrinsic ethnic exclusivity:

'It is so; God chose the Jews; the land is theirs by divine gift. These dicta cannot be questioned or resisted. They are final. Such verdicts come infallibly from Christian biblicists for whom Israel can do no wrong - thus fortified. But can such positivism, this unquestioning finality, be compatible with the integrity of the Prophets themselves? It certainly cannot square with the open peoplehood under God which is the crux of New Testament faith. Nor can it well be reconciled with the ethical demands central to law and election alike.'4

Such literalist assumptions preclude any possibility of an alternative reading of the Bible, history or a just and lasting outcome to the Middle East peace negotiations. Instead, Christian Zionism shows an uncritical tolerance of Rabbinic Judaism and an endorsement of the Israeli political Right. At the same time it demonstrates an inexcusable lack of compassion for the Palestinian tragedy and the plight of the indigenous Christian community. In doing so, whether intentionally or otherwise, it has legitimised their oppression in the name of the gospel while committing the Jewish people themselves to an apocalyptic future far more horrifying than even the Shoah.

Christian Zionism only thrives on a literal and futurist hermeneutic in which ancient Old Testament promises of blessing to the Jewish people are applied to the contemporary state of Israel. To do so it is necessary to ignore or marginalise the New Testament which reinterprets, annuls, fulfils and expands these promises in and through Jesus Christ. Palmer Robertson has summarised this progressive revelation of the purposes of God:

'In the process of redemptive history, a dramatic movement has been made from type to reality, from shadow to substance. The land which once was the specific locale of God's redemptive working served well within the old covenant as a picture of Paradise lost and promised. Now, however, in the era of new-covenant fulfilment, the land has been expanded to encompass the cosmos ... In this age of fulfilment, therefore, a retrogression to the limited forms of the old covenant must be neither expected or promoted. Reality must not give way to shadow.'5

The choice is ultimately therefore between two theologies: one based primarily on the shadows of the old covenant; the other on the reality of the new covenant. In identifying with the former, Christian Zionism is an exclusive theology that focuses on the Jews in the land rather than an inclusive theology that centres on Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. It consequently provides a theological endorsement for racial segregation, apartheid and war. This is diametrically opposed to the inclusive theology of justice, peace and reconciliation which lie at the heart of the new covenant.

To suggest, therefore, that the Jewish people continue to have a special relationship with God, apart from faith in Jesus, or have exclusive rights to land, a city and temple is, in the words of John Stott, 'biblical anathema'.6 Paul's warning to the church in Galatia concerning the nationalistic and legalistic Christian Judaizers infecting the church of his own day is perhaps an appropriate description of and response to contemporary Christian Zionism: 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son' (Galatians 4.30).

Based on covenantal presuppositions, it is contended that a biblical approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict will work and pray for the peace and security of the Jewish and Palestinian people because they are created in the image and likeness of God with intrinsic meaning, value and dignity. It will acknowledge that Jews and Palestinians, like all other races, have the right to self determination and to live within secure and internationally recognised borders. It will support international peace efforts based on biblical principles of justice and peace, on mutual recognition and reconciliation. Unlike Christian Zionism, covenantalism finds it unnecessary to justify or sacralise the State of Israel through tenuous biblical or theological arguments. It also distances itself from those who seek to impose a predetermined and apocalyptic agenda on the people of the Middle East.7

With the repudiation of the destructive elements of Christian Zionism, Jews and Arabs, like Isaac's children, Jacob and Esau, can be assisted by Christians to stop fighting over their birthright and start sharing the blessings.8

This article is an edited extract from Stephen Sizer's new book, Christian Zionism: a road map to Armageddon?, published by IVP at £14.99, ISBN 1 84474 050 1.

Notes
1. It is recognised that these variant forms of CZ are not entirely discrete and that there is a degree of overlap, especially in their theological perspectives. Furthermore, some CZ agencies are circumspect in their official doctrinal statements on controversial subjects such as the settlements or Temple. This study has therefore relied on the published views of leaders and representatives of these agencies, recognising that their views remain their own and do not necessarily reflect those of their organisation as a whole.
2. Colin Chapman, 'Ten questions for a theology of the land' in The Land of Promise, eds. Philip Johnston and Peter Walker (Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP, 2000), pp. 172-187.
3. Clarence Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1960), p.151.
4. Kenneth Cragg, The Arab Christian A History in the Middle East (London, Mowbray, 1992), p.238.
5. O. Palmer Robertson, 'A new-covenant perspective on the land' in The land of Promise, eds. Philip Johnston and Peter Walker (Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP, 2000), pp. 140.
6. John Stott, cited in Don Wagner, Anxious for Armageddon (Scottdale, Herald Press, 1995), p.80.
7. Colin Chapman, Whose Promised Land? (Oxford, Lion, 2002), p.274.
8. Yeheskel Landau, an illustration given in an unpublished talk at St. George's Cathedral, Jerusalem, December 1998.

© Evangelicals Now - January 2005
Please consider supporting this ministry by subscribing.