Blog

A Biblical Case for New Christian Zionism

Defending Israel’s Role Without Dispensationalism

 

As Christians navigate the complex intersection of theology and geopolitics, few topics spark as much debate as Zionism-the belief in the Jewish people’s right to a homeland in the land of Israel. Gerald McDermott’s article in The Federalist (July 15, 2025) offers a compelling thesis: Christians can support Zionism without adhering to dispensationalist theology, a framework often associated with end-times scenarios like the rapture. McDermott’s New Christian Zionism proposes a biblically grounded perspective that affirms Israel’s ongoing role in God’s redemptive plan, rooted in a plain reading of Scripture rather than apocalyptic speculation. This thought piece explores the terms and perspectives surrounding this debate, using Christian apologetics to defend McDermott’s thesis while engaging with opposing views.

Defining Key Terms

To frame the discussion, we must first clarify the terms at play:

  • Zionism: Historically, Zionism is the movement advocating for a Jewish homeland in the biblical land of Israel, culminating in the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948. For Christians, Zionism often carries theological weight, rooted in biblical promises about the land (e.g., Genesis 12:7, “To your offspring I will give this land”).
  • Christian Zionism: The belief that Christians should support the Jewish people’s right to a homeland in Israel, often based on biblical covenants. McDermott argues this support can stem from Scripture without dispensationalist assumptions.
  • Dispensationalism: A theological system, popularized by John Nelson Darby in the 19th century, that divides salvation history into distinct periods (“dispensations”) and emphasizes a strict separation between Israel and the Church. It often includes premillennial eschatology, anticipating a rapture, tribulation, and Christ’s literal reign from Jerusalem.
  • Supersessionism (Fulfillment Theology): The view that the Church replaces or fulfills Israel’s role as God’s covenant people, rendering Old Testament land promises obsolete or spiritually fulfilled in Christ. McDermott critiques this as misinterpreting the Bible’s narrative.
  • New Christian Zionism: McDermott’s framework, which affirms Israel’s biblical significance-particularly the promise of the land-without requiring dispensationalist eschatology. It draws on a historical and biblical case for Israel’s enduring role in God’s plan.

Perspectives on Israel’s Role

The debate over Christian Zionism hinges on differing interpretations of Scripture regarding Israel’s place in salvation history. Three major perspectives dominate:

  1. Dispensationalist Zionism: This view, prevalent among evangelical Christians, holds that God has distinct plans for Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists cite passages like Romans 11:26 (“And in this way all Israel will be saved”) and Ezekiel 37:1–14 (the vision of dry bones) to argue that God will restore Israel nationally before Christ’s return. They often link this to end-times events, including a rapture and tribulation. While influential, this perspective is criticized for its speculative timelines and perceived instrumentalization of Jews for eschatological purposes.
  2. Supersessionist (Fulfillment) Theology: Common in Reformed, Lutheran, and Catholic traditions, supersessionism argues that the Church inherits Israel’s promises, with Christ fulfilling the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17). Texts like Galatians 3:28–29 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise”) and Hebrews 8:6–13 (the new covenant supersedes the old) are seen as redefining “Israel” as the universal Church. This view often dismisses territorial promises as historical or symbolic, leading some to reject Christian Zionism as unbiblical.
  3. New Christian Zionism: McDermott’s approach bridges these perspectives, affirming Israel’s ongoing covenantal role without dispensationalist baggage. He argues that Old Testament promises of land (e.g., Jeremiah 16:15, “I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their fathers”) and New Testament affirmations (e.g., Romans 9:4, “to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises”) remain valid. This view avoids rapture theology or rigid eschatological frameworks, focusing instead on God’s faithfulness to His covenants.

A Biblical Apologetic for New Christian Zionism

McDermott’s thesis rests on a straightforward yet profound claim: Christians can support Zionism because Scripture affirms God’s enduring covenant with Israel, including the promise of the land, without requiring dispensationalist eschatology. This apologetic defends his position through three key arguments, grounded in Scripture, reason, and historical theology.

God’s Covenants Are Irrevocable

Scripture consistently portrays God as faithful to His promises. In Romans 11:28–29, Paul declares, “As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” This passage underscores that God’s covenant with Israel, including the promises of land and nationhood (Genesis 15:18, Deuteronomy 30:3–5), remains in effect. McDermott argues that supersessionism misreads texts like Galatians 6:16 (“the Israel of God”) by ignoring their context-Paul’s focus on Jewish believers, not a replacement of Israel by the Church.

Apologetic Defense: The principle of God’s covenantal faithfulness is central to Christian theology (e.g., Hebrews 10:23, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful”). To deny Israel’s ongoing role risks undermining the reliability of God’s promises, including those to the Church. McDermott’s reading aligns with a plain interpretation of Romans 9–11, where Paul warns Gentiles against arrogance toward Israel (Romans 11:18), affirming their enduring place in God’s plan.

The Land Promise Persists in the New Testament

McDermott cites Old Testament prophecies of Israel’s restoration (e.g., Jeremiah 24:6, Hosea 11:11) and connects them to New Testament hints of a future return, such as Acts 3:21’s reference to the “restoration of all things.” While supersessionists argue these promises are fulfilled spiritually, McDermott contends that the New Testament never explicitly nullifies the land promise. For example, Jesus’ promise of a future role for the apostles in a restored Israel (Matthew 19:28) suggests continuity with Old Testament expectations.

Apologetic Defense: Critics like Gary Burge (Whose Land? Whose Promise?) argue that the New Testament spiritualizes the land, citing Galatians 3:29 or Hebrews 11:16 (a “heavenly country”). However, these texts do not negate the physical land promise; they expand it to include Gentiles without erasing Israel’s role. Reason demands consistency in biblical interpretation-if God’s promises to Abraham’s seed include land (Genesis 12:7), and Paul affirms Israel’s covenants (Romans 9:4), then denying the land’s significance requires a stronger scriptural rebuttal than supersessionism provides.

Historical Precedents Beyond Dispensationalism

McDermott notes that Christian Zionism predates dispensationalism, citing figures like Justin Martyr, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Spurgeon, who saw Israel’s restoration as part of God’s plan. For example, Edwards, a Puritan, interpreted Ezekiel 37 as pointing to a future Jewish return, centuries before Darby’s dispensationalism. Similarly, the Balfour Declaration (1917) was influenced by British Christian Zionists like Lord Shaftesbury, who drew on biblical promises, not rapture theology.

Apologetic Defense: The historical witness of the Church supports McDermott’s thesis. Supersessionism, while dominant in some periods, was not universal-early Church fathers like Irenaeus affirmed Jerusalem’s role in salvation history. Reason suggests that dismissing this tradition in favor of a Church-centric view ignores the diversity of Christian thought. Moreover, the reestablishment of Israel in 1948 aligns with biblical patterns of restoration (e.g., the post-exilic return in Ezra-Nehemiah), lending credence to McDermott’s non-eschatological Zionism.

Engaging Counterarguments

While McDermott’s thesis is compelling, it faces challenges from supersessionist and Palestinian Christian perspectives, which must be addressed to strengthen the apologetic case.

Supersessionist Critique

Supersessionists, like Burge, argue that the New Testament redefines “Israel” as the Church, citing Galatians 3:28–29 and Hebrews 8:13. They contend that land promises were conditional (Deuteronomy 28:15–68) and fulfilled historically or in Christ’s universal kingdom.

Response: While the New Testament emphasizes unity in Christ, it never explicitly cancels Israel’s covenantal promises. Romans 11:29’s “irrevocable” nature of God’s gifts to Israel counters the claim that the Church wholly replaces Israel. Furthermore, the conditional nature of the covenant (e.g., exile for disobedience) does not negate its ultimate fulfillment, as seen in prophecies of restoration (Jeremiah 31:31–34). McDermott’s plain reading of these texts as affirming Israel’s role aligns with their historical and literary context.

Palestinian Christian Perspective (Kairos Palestine)

The Kairos Palestine document (2009) rejects Christian Zionism as a theology that justifies the Israeli occupation, arguing that biblical promises are fulfilled in Christ’s universal kingdom, not a modern nation-state. It calls for justice and reconciliation, emphasizing Palestinian suffering.

Response: While Kairos Palestine highlights the ethical need for justice, McDermott’s New Christian Zionism does not endorse all Israeli policies, as he explicitly states. His focus on biblical promises allows for a nuanced stance-supporting Israel’s right to exist while advocating for justice, aligning with the document’s call for reconciliation. Theologically, the document’s universalist reading risks overlooking Paul’s affirmation of Israel’s distinct role (Romans 11:28), which McDermott upholds without dispensationalist extremes.

Dispensationalist Overlap

Critics argue that McDermott’s literal interpretation of land promises resembles dispensationalism, despite his disclaimers. Dispensationalists also cite Romans 11 and Jeremiah to support Israel’s restoration.

Response: McDermott’s framework avoids dispensationalism’s speculative eschatology, focusing solely on biblical covenants. His approach aligns with historical Christian Zionism (e.g., Spurgeon), which predates dispensationalism, and emphasizes God’s faithfulness over apocalyptic timelines. This distinction allows Christians to support Israel without endorsing controversial end-times narratives.

Conclusion: A Balanced Biblical Vision

McDermott’s New Christian Zionism offers a biblically grounded, theologically balanced approach to supporting Israel’s right to a homeland without the speculative excesses of dispensationalism. Through an apologetic rooted in Scripture-Romans 11’s affirmation of Israel’s irrevocable calling, Old Testament land promises, and New Testament continuity-McDermott demonstrates that Christians can affirm Zionism as an act of faithfulness to God’s covenants. Historical precedents, from Edwards to Niebuhr, reinforce this view, showing that Christian Zionism is not a 19th-century invention but a tradition rooted in the Church’s history.

While supersessionists and Palestinian Christians raise valid concerns about spiritual fulfillment and justice, McDermott’s framework does not preclude these values. His call to support Israel’s biblical significance while critiquing specific policies aligns with a commitment to justice and reconciliation, as long as Christians remain mindful of all parties in the conflict. By grounding Zionism in God’s unchanging character and covenantal promises, New Christian Zionism invites believers to honor Scripture’s clear teachings without being bound by dispensationalist dogmas, offering a path forward that is both faithful and reasoned.

Further Reading

Like this post? Become a Citizen Producer!

James K. Bishop

James K. Bishop is a conservative writer and raconteur hailing from Texas, known for his incisive and often provocative takes on political and cultural issues. With a staunch commitment to originalist constitutional principles, he emphasizes limited government, individual liberties, and traditional American values. Active on X under the handle @James_K_Bishop, he frequently engages his audience with sharp critiques of progressive policies, media narratives, and overreaches by the federal government. His style is direct, often laced with humor and wit, which resonates strongly with his conservative followers.