Editorial Perspective
Presenting different religious views on Zionism expressed in the NAPH session on Christian/”Messianic” Zionism versus Modern Religious Judaism: Concord or Discord? (2025 AAR-SBL Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, November 22-25). Viewpoints are preceded by a perspective on antisemitism
Antisemitism
Zev Garber, Los Angeles Valley College
Imagine two citadels of research on antisemitism standing side by side, each dedicated to turning out a product quite the opposite of what the other produces. Each works efficiently for a constituency that waits eagerly for what comes off the academic line. The sign above one school reads “Rationalization and Apologia: Jewish Clannishness and Cultural Separatism,” while the sign above the other suggests “Religious, Racial and Political Antisemitism.” To confuse matters, imagine that each institution uses similar references and texts in well-known contexts in the history of Jewish persecution. In contributing to our understanding of the longest hatred in western civilization, academics use more-or-less the same descriptive labels, so why are the conclusions so different? Is Judenhetzen anti-Semitism or antisemitism (since there is no such thing as “Semitism”)? Are anthropological theology (e.g., Israel as God’s son [Exod 4:22]), chosen people doctrine, etc.) then and successful Jewish accomplishments now contributing factors to distinction or extinction of the Jews? To what extent is Jewish ethnic memory --- arguably different from other group memories --- conducive to self-deception by ignoring or rationalizing negative information about itself? Some want to talk history, others theology. Some are fashioned by the hands of Esau (national consciousness and self-determination in the European tradition) while others dance to Pan’s lyre (Church Fathers and Councils) or to David’s harp (Bible and rabbinic tradition). Still others want to focus on the phenomenon of antisemitism in categories of race, nation and colonialism in modern times. Consider the word “Jew” used so frequently in discussions and depiction of Jewishness, the religion, culture and peoplehood, yet the battle over its meaning has been as intense as any debate of “why the Jews?” in the history of hatred.
Christian/ “Messianic Judaism” Zionism versus “Patriotic” Religious Zionism: Concord or Discord
Ken Hanson, University of Central Florida
The complex theological, historical, and political relationship between traditional Jewish Zionism and the contemporary phenomenon of Christian and “Messianic Jewish” Zionism is significant enough to merit serious scholarly inquiry. Although both movements invoke biblical motifs and speak the language of redemption, their underlying premises and eschatological expectations frequently diverge in ways that generate tension rather than harmony.
The author’s personal experience, drawn from his work in the 1980s with the Christian Broadcasting Network in southern Lebanon, is at least to some degree relevant. His firsthand account illustrates how evangelical media initiatives in the region—ostensibly supportive of Israel and Lebanese Christians—were funded largely by American Christian Zionists and often carried implicit or explicit missionary aims toward Jews. He notes that many of the Christian Zionists and Messianic Jews he encountered viewed the State of Israel as a field for evangelism as much as a political cause. Yet Israeli Jews, secure in their national identity, often perceived these efforts less clearly than diaspora Jews, who have long been sensitive to proselytizing pressures. An encounter with an Orthodox neighbor crystallized the theological danger of such missionary impulses: mass conversion would constitute, in effect, the spiritual extinction of the Jewish people.
The paper then situates traditional Jewish Zionism within the broader framework of ge’ulah, or redemption, tracing its roots through medieval thinkers such as Judah Halevi and Nachmanides. In this view, the return to Zion is an organic outgrowth of Jewish faith, tied to the fulfillment of commandments and the restoration of communal life in the ancestral land. Jewish history in exile (golah) is understood as incomplete, awaiting national and spiritual renewal within the Land of Israel.
By contrast, modern Christian Zionism—of which Messianic Jewish Zionism forms a subset—emerges from nineteenth-century British premillennialism and later American dispensationalism, rather than from Jewish tradition. Many adherents interpret the establishment of Israel as a harbinger of apocalyptic events, especially the Second Coming of Jesus. Central to this framework is the expectation of a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem, necessary for the fulfillment of New Testament prophecies concerning the Antichrist. Thus, while Jewish Zionism imagines redemption, Christian Zionism often anticipates tribulation: the return to Zion is valued not for Jewish continuity but for the mechanics of end-times drama.
The paper surveys scholarly critiques of Christian Zionism, highlighting concerns about political activism, missionary agendas, and the appropriation of Israel as a symbolic stage for eschatology. While acknowledging that many Christian Zionists and Messianic Jews express unconditional support for Israel and have contributed materially to its society and global standing, the author argues that their theological motivations can blur into conditional, conversionist, or even unwittingly antisemitic positions.
Ultimately, the study contrasts Jewish Zionism’s focus on national survival, cultural renewal, and the lived experience of the Jewish people with Christian and Messianic versions that are often framed through apocalyptic spectacle. The latter, the paper concludes, risks transforming Zionism into a vehicle for fundamentalist eschatology rather than an affirmation of Jewish continuity and responsibility.
A Discussion on Zionist Theology: A Messianic Jewish Perspective
Rabbi Joshua Brumbach, DHL, The King’s University
Long before the modern State of Israel was established, the Land played a central role in the efforts and theologies of many early Jewish believers in Jesus. Messianic Jews were active within the Zionist movement in Europe, helped establish settlements in the early 19th and 20th centuries, and participated in the building of the modern State. The Zionist efforts and theologies of prominent Messianic Jews, such as Abram Poljak, Pauline Rose, and Rabbi Daniel Zion, were rooted in religious Zionism and shaped by socio-historic concerns and experiences, such as Antisemitism and the Holocaust.
Centrality of the Land in Scripture
Most of scripture takes place within, or is concerned with, the Land of Israel,1 and the God-People-Land triad is not exclusive to the Tanakh, but carries over into the New Testament. Throughout history, Jewish believers in Yeshua have recognized the interconnectedness of the Land and its role in the future regathering of Israel and the Nations in the Messianic Age.
A humble presence of Jewish believers in Yeshua in Eretz Yisrael was already established by the late 19th century.2 By the 1920’s efforts were already underway to form chavurot and Messianic congregations in Jerusalem and other cities. By the mid-1950’s through 1970’s the Messianic Jewish community grew to a sizable number with the continued arrival of Jews from Europe.
Messianic Jewish Life in Modern Israel
Messianic Jewish life in Israel is vibrant and growing, and there are now over 280 Messianic Jewish congregations.3 That means that Messianic Jewish congregations far outnumber both Reform AND Conservative/Masorti congregations in Israel.4 And not only are the number of congregations growing in number, but Messianic Jews are found in all facets of Israeli society: within the government, organizational and business leadership, academia, and the Israeli Defense Forces. Despite the commitment of the Messianic Jewish community to the State of Israel, it continues to experience societal pressure and discrimination within Israeli society, especially harassment from Charedi and anti-missionary groups.
Conclusion
Zionist support of Messianic Jews is largely due to the scriptural and religious lens through which we understand the inseparable relationship between the God of Israel, the People of Israel, and the Land of Israel, and the geographical orientation of Yeshua’s life and ministry. Yet, this support can be nuanced. For some, this might resemble something more akin to other forms of Jewish religious Zionism, whereas for others it might reflect something closer to Christian Zionism. Either way it is primarily shaped through a prophetic reading and interpretation of Scripture through a covenantal lens. We also cannot dismiss the role of the exponential rise of global Antisemitism on the question of Messianic Jewish support for Zionist concerns.
- E.g., Jer. 30:3; Ezek. 11:17, 28:25-26, 34:13; etc.
- Akiva Cohen, “Messianic Jewish in the Land of Israel,” in Introduction to Messianic Judaism. Eds. David Rudolph and Joel Willitts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 107.
- David Serner and Alexander Goldberg, "The Latest Survey of the Israeli Messianic Movement: The Authors’ Invitation to Friendly Critique." Mishkan: A Forum on the Gospel and the Jewish People 86 (2023), 7.
- As of the writing of this paper, the The Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism identifies on its website 54 congregations (https://reform.org.il/en/congregations/), and the Cionservative/Masorti movement boasts over 100 congregations in Israel (https://www.masorti.org.il/about-masorti/).
Why Israel Matters: The Biblical and Theological Case for Catholic Zionism
André Villeneuve, Grace Communion Seminary
Dr. Villeneuve’s paper explores whether Christians should support Israel, not only on political or moral grounds but also on biblical and theological ones. He argues that Catholic Zionism rests on God’s irrevocable covenant with Israel and the enduring significance of the land.
Covenant Foundations
Israel’s story begins with God’s covenant with Abraham, promising descendants, kingship, and the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession. Exodus portrays Israel as God’s “first-born son,” delivered from Egypt and bound to holiness through the Sinai covenant. The land is the covenant’s primary sign, repeatedly reaffirmed by the prophets, who foresee a future return from exile. Jeremiah promises a “new covenant” that confirms rather than replaces the original.
Supersessionism and Catholic Teaching
Early Christians, initially Jewish, gradually gave way to Gentile majorities. By the second century, supersessionism—the idea that the Church replaced Israel—became dominant, though never official doctrine. Villeneuve critiques this misreading, noting that Jesus came to fulfill the Law and prophets, not abolish them, and Paul insists God has not rejected Israel (Rom 11:1–2). Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate and later documents reaffirm the permanence of Israel’s covenant, rejecting replacement theology.
Israel and the Church
The New Testament never equates Israel with the Church. Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16, often cited, are misinterpreted; Paul distinguishes Gentile Christians from believing Jews. Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s olive tree, sharing its promises but not supplanting them. Thus, Israel retains its covenantal identity alongside the Church.
Israel’s Role in the Age of the Church
Israel’s survival and return to the land testify to God’s fidelity. Catholic doctrine rejects dual-covenant theology—salvation is only through Christ—but affirms Israel’s ongoing witness. Paul envisions a sequence: Jewish rejection, Gentile acceptance, Gentile rejection, and finally Jewish acceptance, culminating in “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25–26).
Objections to Zionism
A substantial portion of the paper addresses objections to Zionism:
· Fulfillment in Heaven: Some claim the land promise is spiritualized into heaven. Villeneuve counters that fulfillment does not abolish the sign; the land remains integral.
· Dispensationalism: Critics link Zionism to Protestant dispensationalism. Villeneuve shows Christian Zionism predates it, rooted in Scripture and tradition.
· Secular Origins: While early Zionists were often secular, God can work through flawed institutions, and today’s movement is shaped by biblical faith.
· Political Ideology: Zionism is accused of aligning with right-wing politics. Villeneuve stresses biblical Zionism affirms Israel’s bond with the land without endorsing specific policies.
· Jewish Supremacy: Charges of supremacy or expulsion are misleading; many Zionists support coexistence. Extremism exists, but justice and Zionism are not mutually exclusive.
· Conversion First: Some argue Jewish conversion must precede restoration. Villeneuve cites Ezekiel, where physical return precedes spiritual renewal.
· Church Opposition: While past caution existed, recent magisterial documents affirm God’s covenant with Israel, making Catholic Zionism a legitimate theological stance.
Salvation and Eschatology
Paul links Israel’s salvation with global redemption: once Gentiles come in, Israel’s acceptance will bring “life from the dead.” Prophets foresee both physical restoration and spiritual renewal, often amid suffering, culminating in Israel’s recognition of the Messiah and Christ’s return.
Conclusion
Villeneuve concludes that supersessionism is untenable. Catholic Zionism, rooted in Scripture and tradition, interprets modern Israel’s restoration as part of God’s unfolding plan—a physical ingathering that anticipates spiritual renewal and the salvation of the world.
Shabbat Zachor (2/28/26;11 Adar 5786)
Amalek and Amalekut: A Homiletic Lesson
In Mitzvah numerology, Commandment 604 is a warrant for genocide:
Remember what Amalek did unto these by the way as you came forth out of Egypt: how he met you by the way, and smote the hindmost of you, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when you were faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore, it shall be, when the Lord your God had given you rest from all your enemies round about, in the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it, that you shall blot the remembrance of Amalek from under the heaven; you shall not forget. (Deut 25: 17-19)
This Commandment confronts an observant Jew, who is committed to living within the bounds of Halakha (Jewish law), a system of divinely inspired biblical commandments, as well as rabbinic decrees and derivations, with a textual ambiguity and a halakhic conflict. That is to say, understand the confrontation with Amalek as a milhemet mitzvah and yet show empathy for the Other, including, the Enemy, demanded by the repeated biblical injunction: “Remember, you were slaves in the Land of Egypt” (Lev 19:34, and elsewhere). How to reconcile the conflict of obligatory Mitzvot is the focus of my article, "Amalek and Amalekut," in I. Kalimi, ed., Jewish Biblical Theology (Eisenbrauns, 2012)
My hermeneutics at this attempt at Jewish biblical theology embraces scriptural peshat, rabbinic midrash, Kabbalistic gleanings, halakhic derivations, and contemporary example. Among my findings are how biblical language molds the Jewish character, and how to resolve the enigma of the Amalek without and within Jewish tradition (Amalekut). An excurses on the divine commandment to obliterate the Seven Nations of Canaan is appended.
Zev Garber, Editor, Iggeret Bulletin