“Theological minefield”, “walking on eggshells”, “the elephant in the room” – these are the expressions that come to mind whenever I consider controversial theological topics. How does one talk about Israel, predestination, the millennium, Genesis 1, penal substitution, or women in leadership, to mention a few?
Taking Israel as an example, this issue will attempt to draw a map, so to speak, by presenting an overview of different views. This provides a relatively neutral foundation and entry for further discussion.
In a next issue, I will explain value squares as a tool to understand what is at stake in a particular discussion and why emotions run strong. This can help us to understand the ‘other side’ better.
You can also watch this content as a VIDEO PODCAST
Both Ends of the Spectrum
Different Christian viewpoints on Israel – and the church – can be arranged along a simple line, creating a spectrum.
As we will see, that the debate is often framed in this way, starting with two categories, Israel and the church, may already be part of the problem, but we will keep it for now.
I start with the two ends.
On one end, we have Christian Zionism. Simply put, this movement consists of Christians who actively support the State of Israel in various ways, including political support. For them, Israel has become a cause. Christian Zionism supports Israel for biblical reasons. At its simplest, God promised the land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants, therefore the land belongs to the Jews – although they will have to accept Jesus as Messiah at some point.
Christian Zionism is not just a Christian version of Zionism. Christian Zionists are not Zionists who happen to be Christians; we are dealing with two distinct movements. The original Zionism was primarily a Jewish movement, initially secular, political, and national, beginning in the late 19th century. Its aim was a national homeland for the Jewish people in what was then often called Palestine, part of the Turkish Empire. This movement eventually led to the founding of the State of Israel.
Today, Zionism remains a Jewish movement supporting the state, but for reasons quite different from those inspiring Christian Zionism. There is also religious Jewish Zionism with its own religious and biblical motivations, but likewise distinct from the Christian narrative. So Christian Zionism stands apart; it is not merely a subset of Jewish Zionism.
At the opposite end of the spectrum stands Christian antisemitism, which we can dismiss outright. It is incompatible with Christianity to hate, despise, or reject an ethnic group based on its identity. Although Christian antisemitism has regrettably played a significant role in history, it is not a valid option.
Moving slightly away from this extreme, we run into two more terms: Replacement Theology and Supersessionism. You may be familiar with these. Replacement Theology is the idea that the church has replaced Israel because Israel failed to fulfil its role as God’s people. Thus, the church is considered the new or spiritual Israel.
Supersessionism comes from the idea of one thing superseding another—that is, taking its place or rendering it obsolete. It is a more technical term, preferred by theologians, but means essentially the same: the church has superseded Israel. These views have been dominant in church history up until the middle of the 20th century. The church was seen as the new Israel, replacing or superseding the old.
Of Labels and Brands
Interestingly, Christian Zionism is a label embraced by its adherents, whereas Replacement Theology and Supersessionism are labels imposed by others, often with negative connotations. They are not normally used as self-identification.
Recently, scholars like Michael Bird and Scott McKnight have critiqued these labels in their 2023 book God’s Israel and the Israel of God: Paul and Supersessionism (paid link). They note that New Testament scholars are wary of being branded supersessionists or replacement theologians, as these terms have become pejorative:
The effect of the club is that … the one thing New Testament scholars don’t want to be accused of is “supersessionism” (Bird & McKnight 2023:21)
The reaction against Supersessionism has given rise toa relatively new term, Post-Supersessionism. As a perspective it emerged after the Holocaust prompted theologians to reconsider Christian-Jewish relations and adopt a more positive view of Jewish people. It is not a unified position on Israel or its people; it encompasses diverse views united mainly by their rejection of Supersessionism. For this reason, it has no place on the spectrum.
Toward the Middle: Restorationism
Having looked at positions defined largely by their response to replacement theology, we can now move toward views that occupy the middle of the spectrum. One term to add is Restorationism, an older view dating back to the Reformation and the Puritans. It holds the belief or expectation of a national restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, preceded or followed by spiritual restoration.
Restorationism is more a belief than an active cause, often content with observing biblical prophecies and interpreting how these events might unfold. Its origin is the Reformation’s emphasis on a more literal biblical interpretation. Prophecies about Israel’s return to the promised land were understood as predictions still awaiting literal fulfilment. Restorationism later evolved into Christian Zionism as a more active expression of such beliefs.
Toward the Middle: Inclusion, Expansion, Fulfilment
Between these positions lies still more middle ground with terms that are somewhat overlapping: Inclusion or Expansion Theology, Fulfilment Theology, and Sectarian Supersessionism.
Fulfilment Theology is broad and somewhat vague, centred on the idea that the New Testament and the New Covenant fulfil the Old Covenant. Proponents of fulfilment offer varying explanations, such as viewing Jesus as the true Israel(ite) who fulfils Israel’s calling and mission. This raises questions. Does it make Israel obsolete? Or not? Is the church a renewed Israel and therefore in continuity with Old Testament Israel (so, no replacement)?
At the very least it follows from this view that Israel is unlikely to still have a special role to fulfil, although there may or may not be a place for a national Israel in God’s future.
Sectarian Supersessionism is the view advocated by N. T. Wright. The church does not replace Israel. But: the new overrides and surpasses (and is better than) the old.
Michael Byrd and Scott McKnight argue that some form of supersessionism is unavoidable for Christians because the Christian faith is seen as fulfilling or superseding the Jewish faith. How can you be a Christian and not believe that the new, Christianity, is better?
An analogy may help. Think of God’s Word and revelation as an operating system. When a new version is released, the system is not replaced by something entirely different; it is updated. The earlier version remains part of the story, but eventually becomes obsolete and unsupported. This happened, for instance, at Mount Sinai. After Moses, you could not be an Israelite and reject the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant – and continue to do your own sacrifices, even though it was perfectly okay for Abraham to do this.
So, do the death and resurrection of Jesus represent an update? It seems that way. But let’s be careful: If so, it makes the system of law and temple obsolete, not necessarily Israel.
Inclusion or Expansion Theology rejects replacement theology, instead viewing the people of God as expanded to include believers from all ethnicities. Those who believe in Jesus become part of this people, so Israel is not replaced or superseded. It widens in a much larger, non-ethnic community, which we call the church.
If so, does this mean the church is Israel? [As an aside: There are two or three statements in Paul that are often taken to state this outright. However, their interpretation is itself a minefield of intense and emotional debate. Some readers believe he applies the title Israel to the whole church; others believe he reserves it for ethnic Israel. The relevant statements are: the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16, “all Israel” in Romans 11:26, and perhaps the ‘true’ Jew of Romans 2:29. Is Paul applying the label ‘Israel’ to the whole church, including both Jewish and Gentile believers, or is he speaking of Jewish (un)believers only? The disagreement is one reason this discussion remains so contentious.]
Israel and the Church
Is the church Israel? This question brings us to the core issue. Does the church replace Israel and therefore, yes, it is Israel? Is it a renewed Israel? Does it expand Israel? Can the church be said to be Israel in any sense? And what does that mean for Israel in an ethnic or national sense, that is, for the Jewish people?
Put like this, the question is hard, perhaps impossible, to resolve. The debate is often framed incorrectly because it treats Israel and the church as the only two categories. We need to introduce a third category, to correctly grasp the conundrum.
A Third Term
I have often heard people say, “Israel is God’s people!” However, this prompts the question, “And what are we?” Surely the church is – also? – God’s people.
Passages like Ephesians 2 indicate that the New Testament knows only one people of God. The twelve gates (twelve tribes) and twelve foundations (twelve apostles) of the one city of God in Revelation 21:12-14 point to the same truth. The church is a royal priesthood, a kingdom of priests – the same phrase Exodus 19:6 uses for Israel. Believers in Christ are descendants of Abraham by faith, children of promise, children of God.
Yet, while the church is certainly God’s people, it is obviously not Israel ethnically. And in Romans 11 Paul assumes that ethnic Israel remains “his people” in some sense. Yet Israel is not identical with the church. And there is only one people of God. How can all these statements be true at the same time? Conundrum is the right word for this!
The core issue therefore involves three concepts: Israel, the church, and the people of God. This is often overlooked, reducing the problem to a binary formulation. Did you catch the hint in the title: “Israel and the People of God”, not “Israel and the Church”?
Israel, the church, and the people of God make up a triangle. We are dealing with a triangular, not a binary dilemma.
We must ask: If Israel is God’s people, in what sense? If the church is God’s people, what does this mean for Israel?
Finding a formulation that does justice to all biblical texts is challenging. In part the controversy is the result of failing to grasp the complexity of using terms that overlap or don’t always carry the exact same meaning.
A Third Strategy
In the process of trying to understand the dilemma, we have stumbled upon a third helpful strategy to deal with controversial issues, besides mapping and the value square. We may be able to reframe the problem and present a different take or perspective that breaks out of the assumed framework. As in: Israel, the church, and the people of God make up a triangle; this is not a binary dilemma.
Another example: In dealing with interpretations of the Millennium in Revelation 20 and the scenarios that follow from this, the understanding of the kingdom of God as already present but not yet in fulness enables us to adopt a more dynamic view of ‘the end’ (see The Still Great Planet Earth). If the focus is taken away from a scenario of end-time events, the details of the scenario matter less.
Next Month: Value Squares!
Mapping before judging is a smart move. Even if we don’t change our minds, we will at least be better informed.
Next month, for practical purposes, I will focus on two main views: Christian Zionism and Fulfilment or Expansion Theology, as these represent the most common alternatives.
Stay tuned: What are value squares and how can they help us to address and perhaps defuse this controversy?
Attribution
Lead image created with ChatGPT
Israel: NASA. 2003. Palestine in 2003 NASA Satellite Image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_in_2003_NASA_satellite_image.jpeg (Public domain)
References
Unless indicated differently, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Bird, Michael, and Scot McKnight (eds). 2023. God’s Israel and the Israel of God: Paul and Supersessionism (Lexham Academic; paid link)
Hornstra, Wilrens L. 2000. The Still Great Planet Earth: Four Scenarios for the End of the World, Version 1.43 (Create a Learning Site)
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in this text are ‘affiliate links’. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. If you purchase anything through such a link, you help me cover the cost of Create a Learning Site.