How Should We Think About “Israel”?
To say that Israel has been in the news of late is an understatement. The seizure of the hostages by Hamas back in October 2023, Israel’s military actions in Gaza since then, and more recently, against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, have provoked strong reactions around the world and a polarizing of opinion for and against Israel’s responses, not least insofar as they have affected the civilian populations. Even to write that sentence without appearing to be inappropriately “taking sides” has been a challenge in a world that seemingly does not do nuance very well. To say that the issues are complex with a long history behind them is equally an understatement.
There is, of course, more to this regional conflict than might otherwise have been the case due to what we might call the Christian angle. First off, there are two “Israels” in view: the nation state that was created by UN resolution in 1948, and what we might call “biblical” Israel, which in Old and New Testament terms is sometimes referencing the land and sometimes the Jewish people (and even the latter potentially sub-divides, as we shall see). The question is how these “Israels” relate; Christians are inclined to find this particularly confusing.
The “Israel lobby” in the US is especially strong—in part because almost as many Jews live there as in Israel itself—but perhaps equally as much because of support from evangelical Christians. Their support may at first seem quite hard to understand. After all, Christian history has a long and dark history of claiming “the Jews killed Jesus,” which provided a supposed justification for antisemitic vilification and violent persecution over the centuries.
In the same vein, since the Reformation, evangelicalism has treated Judaism as a legalistic religion of “good works”–based salvation (aka, “works-righteousness”—earning your way to heaven by your own good deeds), rather than one of grace through faith. It’s been assumed that the Apostle Paul taught that Jesus ended the law and its legalistic religious practices, but Jews rejected him and hence God “cancelled” them (in today’s language) as his people.
This chronic misreading of first-century Judaism has been corrected by recent scholarship—in the so-called “New Perspective” on Paul—but popular perception always lags behind the academy. The typical evangelical sermon continues to perpetuate those flawed assumptions, with first-century Pharisees cast as ready-made pantomime villains (legalistic hypocrites) to be unfavourably contrasted with Jesus and Christian faith.
To understand evangelical support for the state of Israel notwithstanding this very negative background, we have to understand evangelicalism’s fundamentalist roots (which co-exist alongside the more obvious influences of Reformed theology, Calvinism, more recently neo-Calvinism, and its “cultural conservatism” which has a chicken-and-egg relationship with its theological conservatism).
Alongside taking almost everything in the Bible literally, irrespective of its genre, fundamentalism is enamoured by something called “dispensationalism,” which (in relevant part) believes that God’s prophetic promises to Israel in the Old Testament will be fulfilled through a literal nation-state. Hence the fundamentalist Christian excitement about the creation of Israel in 1948. Dispensationalists are highly focused on detailed biblical timelines for prophetic fulfilment being reflected in current affairs. And because they link the return of Jesus—more specifically, the Rapture, which is a peculiarly fundamentalist belief—to the prior fulfilment of biblical prophecies concerning Israel as a nation, supporting Israel becomes essential to their vested interest of ushering in Christ’s return. Against this backdrop, it will be obvious that pretty much anything and everything that Israel does, militarily or politically, becomes beyond criticism—if for no other reason than the greater good of God’s ultimate purposes for the world (or more specifically, for fundamentalist Christians) being fulfilled.
I said earlier that there are multiple “Israels,” but so far we’ve only touched on the modern state and the fundamentalist commingling of that with prophetic references to “biblical” Israel. The latter term in itself is far from straightforward. Whenever the Bible speaks of “Israel,” we need to look carefully at what (or to whom) it is referring.
One major New Testament passage is Romans chapters 9–11. Here we find Paul making some complex, if not also cryptic, statements such as, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel,” “It is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring,” and (quoting Isaiah), “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.”
The plot thickens still further when Paul says, “Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way, all Israel will be saved”—the “all” here meaning . . . what, or who, exactly? And when and how might this come about? Some version of a Christian “revival” amongst Jewish people, perhaps?
How are we to read these and other biblical references to “Israel”? The nation of Israel in Bible times? The state of Israel today? Are the two synonymous (as fundamentalists assume) or are they the same in name only? Perhaps that’s where the confusion comes in. The name was only chosen at the last minute, by David Ben-Gurion. Before that, the international community spoke of it as simply “the new Jewish state.” In drafts of the declaration, space for the name was left blank. Various had been proposed, including the favourite until then, Judaea.
At times in Scripture, “Israel” is speaking of the Jewish people. But does that mean all of them? And if so, what makes someone Jewish? Is it from the father’s side or the mother’s side? Or does it require both? To what extent does intermarrying with non-Jews dilute “Jewishness” to a point where offspring are no longer ethnically Jewish? Or, is it all about nurture (a Jewish upbringing), rather than nature?
Perhaps Paul was thinking of “Israel” as those individuals who faithfully follow the Jewish faith—a way of thinking about what “being a Jew” means that’s been borrowed from evangelical thinking about what “being a Christian” means. Maybe Paul was using “Israel” as a collective term for a “faithful remnant” of “true” Jewish believers, rather as fundamentalists think of themselves in relation to other Christians.
If those questions are not enough, where does Torah fit in? If there is one thing you would think was the defining characteristic of being faithfully Jewish, it would be following the Old Testament commandments (traditionally, 613 of them). But that’s simply not possible anymore in the absence of a temple and priests and given the inapplicability of many of them to modern life. It’s surely not enough to follow a selection—or just those that we see as feasible. Evangelicals would get very twitchy about that, if it were Christianity we were talking about. And then there’s the perpetual question of interpretation: does switching on an electric light on the Sabbath constitute “work”? Whose Torah interpretations are the correct ones? Cue more evangelical twitching when “interpretation” is mentioned! And what about the oral Torah that many Jews would also treat as authoritative? Evangelical twitching would reach a sola scriptura crescendo at this point. Or is the ongoing practice of Torah irrelevant (even a negative) to Jews being saved; is it all about whether individuals (Jews or gentiles) come to Jesus or not (per the evangelical gospel)?
The purpose of this article has not been to offer definitive answers so much as to identify the many questions. For example, if and to the extent that fundamentalist-influenced evangelicals see the modern Zionist state of Israel as a straight divine fulfilment of prophecies concerning “biblical” Israel—ticking off one more event on the prophetic timeline towards Christ’s return—then that will significantly influence their thinking.
I will close with some personal observations.
If the fulfilment of a biblical prophecy depends on condoning (or turning a blind eye towards) what would otherwise be considered unacceptable actions, militarily or politically, then I would question its validity. Surely religious history teaches us the shameful horrors that have been perpetrated in God’s name. For Christians, right and wrong actions must be judged in the light of the moral and ethical framework of Jesus. This is not to rule out the notion of “just war,” but the word “just” is there for a reason—the Geneva Convention exists to regulate it.
Does the state of Israel need to defend itself? Certainly. Does it need to reckon that its current allies might one day let it down and therefore it must ensure it remains self-sufficient for its survival? For sure.
There are many complexities involved, and a long history of wrongs going back two millennia—not least in the last hundred years. Simply “picking a side” is not enough, especially if it’s on the grounds of dubious biblical interpretation.
In summary:
Christians need to recognise that “modern Israel” (the nation-state), and “biblical Israel,” are not synonymous. They cannot be treated interchangeably in how we read the Bible or the times we are living in.
The modern state of Israel and its people have a right to exist and to live peacefully without the perpetual threat of annihilation. They have a right to defend themselves against real and imminent threats with proportionate responses.
The actions of Israel—and its neighbours—should be subject to scrutiny and critique according to the same standards that the international community expects of any modern, civilised state, and held to account accordingly.
Palestinian people need to be able to live peacefully in a land they can call home. The Balfour declaration in favour of a Jewish homeland back in 1917 included the words, “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”
The international community should be proactively working to establish a framework in which these goals can be achieved and sustained.
Fundamentalist-influenced Christians must see that no biblical prophetic fulfilment justifies military or political actions that Jesus himself would find unacceptable. Palestine and its people (non-combatants especially) are not to be viewed as acceptable collateral damage to facilitate a particular view on Christian eschatology concerning Israel and the end times.
As one commentator has rightly said, “It shouldn’t be the case that one people group, on the basis of religion or ethnicity, has different rights from another people group”—and nor, we might add, based on questionable interpretations of “the Bible says …”
Finally, the Church is not the “new Israel.” The Church has not replaced Israel in God’s heart or purposes—we should not read biblical references to “Israel” in that way. Paul says in Romans 11:29 that “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (clearly meaning, in this Romans 9–11 context, God’s covenant and calling to Israel as his people; the verse is not talking about individual Christians). There remains a relationship between “the God of Israel” and “the Israel of God” which is not for Christians to denigrate or to authoritatively pronounce on. One day all will become clear.