This article was originally published by the Homiletic and Pastoral Review (July 26, 2024).
The horrific Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023 and the ensuing war in Gaza have raised many questions among Catholics: Should they support Israel? And if so, should they do so on purely political or moral grounds (such as international law or just war theory), or should they also take into consideration other biblical and theological factors? Does modern Israel still benefit from any kind of special status today as God’s chosen nation, or should we view it as a purely secular political entity like every other state? This article will consider these questions and seek to provide some basic theological and catechetical principles and guidelines for Catholics concerning the “mystery of Israel.”
Origins of Israel
The origins of Israel go back to the book of Genesis. In Genesis 12, God calls Abram to leave his homeland, promising to make of him a great nation, a great name, and a worldwide blessing (Gen 12:2–3). God later elevates these promises to a covenant by solemnly swearing that he will give to Abraham’s descendants the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession (Gen 15:18–21), raising kings from among them (Gen 17:5–8), and blessing all nations through them (Gen 22:16–18).
The covenant and promises are passed on to Abraham’s son Isaac (Gen 26:3–5, 24) and to his grandson Jacob (Gen 28:13–15). After Jacob struggles with a mysterious angel, God renames him “Israel” — possibly meaning “one who strives with God” (Gen 32:28). The Lord later confirms this name change as he repeats his promise to make of Jacob’s descendants a great nation in the land of Canaan (Gen 35:10–12).
Covenant and Land
After Jacob’s descendants are enslaved in Egypt, God reveals more clearly that his covenant with Israel is to be a national bond of family kinship: Israel is God’s “first-born son,” called to “serve” or “worship” him (Exod 4:22–23).1 The Lord will sovereignly redeem his people from Egyptian slavery, adopt them as his own, and lead them into the land that he promised to their forefathers (Exod 6:6–8).
At Mount Sinai, the Lord adopts Israel as his “treasured possession.” If they abide by the terms of the covenant, they will be a “kingdom of priests and holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6), called to reveal God’s purposes to all nations (Exod 34:10). Yet there are conditions to the covenant: Israel’s unique calling requires them to be holy, as the Lord is holy (Lev 19:2). The terms of the covenant are stipulated in the Torah — the Law of Moses. Faithfulness and obedience to the Torah will lead to blessings, including dwelling in the land in peace and security. But unfaithfulness and disobedience will unleash curses, with the ultimate curse being exile from the land.
The primary sign of God’s covenant with Israel — the land — unsurprisingly gets a lot of attention in Scripture. The promise of the land to Israel is mentioned at least 176 times — making it the most frequently repeated promise in the Bible.2 The promise originates in Genesis (Gen 13:14–17; 17:8; 26:3–4; 35:10–12), and is the goal of the Exodus (Exod 6:8; 33:1; Deut 1:8). It is at the heart of the message of the prophets, who tirelessly remind Israel that even if they are sent into exile because of their sins, God will eventually return them to the land. The message is the same among the pre-exilic (Amos 9:14–15; Isa 11:10–12; Jer 16:14–16), exilic (Ezek 28:25–26), and even post-exilic prophets (Zech 10:6–12).
Significantly, even after the return from Babylonian captivity, the prophets continue to announce a future return from the four corners of the earth that will be permanent and secure. These prophecies were not fulfilled at the return from Babylonian captivity, which was limited in scope and temporary (the Jews were sent into exile again in 70 AD by the Romans). These prophetic oracles point to the likelihood of still a future “new Exodus” when Israel will return to the land.
In short, even if Israel is unfaithful to God, God remains faithful to Israel. While the prophets call Israel to covenantal fidelity, warning them of severe judgment if they fail to do so, they also steadfastly announce the nation’s future restoration. Even in the midst of sin and apostasy, God never ceases to remind Israel, “You shall be my people, and I will be your God” (Jer 30:22; Ezek 36:28).
And yet, as important as it is, the land is not the ultimate dimension of the covenant. The Lord also announced that he would establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and house of Judah. This new covenant would confirm, not abrogate his original covenant with Israel, which the Lord declared to be as firm and enduring as the order of creation (Jer 31:31–37).
From New Covenant to Supersessionism
Jesus of Nazareth revealed himself as the Messiah who came to fulfill the promises of the Old Testament by establishing the New Covenant with Israel. Yet in a tragic twist of fate, most Jews did not accept him. The conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authorities ultimately led to his crucifixion and death — a cruel execution instigated by human sin that providentially became the source of salvation for the world.
The first Christians were all Jews who lived out their faith in continuity with their Jewish heritage. Soon, however, Gentiles began to flow into the nascent Church and quickly became the majority, while Jewish-Christians dwindled and eventually disappeared. With the Church now largely composed of Gentiles, Christianity and Judaism grew increasingly antagonistic to each other.
By the second century AD, the Church Fathers began to launch a theological offensive against Judaism. If Christianity was true, they reasoned, then Judaism was not. If the Church was the new people of God, then the Jewish people were no longer. This idea later became known as supersessionism or replacement theology: The Jews rejected Christ; therefore God rejected the Jews and replaced them with the Church. By rejecting the Messiah, the Jews forsook their status as God’s covenant people. God’s promises, therefore, no longer applied to Israel but were transferred to the Church, the “new” and “true” Israel. Although this supersessionist view never became official Church doctrine, it was so widespread that it became the de facto “standard theological foundation” for the Church’s historical relationship with Judaism,3 even to the point that most Christians assumed that it was an integral part of the Gospel message.
Did God End His Covenant with Israel?
Despite the Jewish rejection of Jesus’ messianic claims, the New Testament never teaches that God abrogated his covenant with Israel. Jesus came to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:6; 15:24), and he established the New Covenant primarily with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer 31:31; Luke 22:30).4
Jesus also said that he came “not to abolish but to fulfill” the Law and the prophets (Matt 5:17). As seen above, both the Law and the prophets underscore the land as the primary sign of God’s covenant with Israel. Nothing in the New Testament indicates that Jesus ever abrogated this promise. On the contrary, in his eschatological discourse, Jesus says that “Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24) — implying that a temporary period of Gentile domination over the holy city would eventually end and be followed, presumably, by a return of the city under Jewish sovereignty.
St. Paul’s view on the permanence of God’s covenant with Israel is unequivocal: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! . . . God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” (Rom 11:1–2). Although “as regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake,”5 Paul continues, “as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:28–29).
The 1985 Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism adds that the permanence of Israel is “a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within God’s design.”6 And the aptly named 2015 document, “The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable” confirms that, based on St. Paul and Nostra Aetate 4, “the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel,” and thus “a replacement or supersession theology” claiming that a Church of Gentiles replaced a “rejected synagogue” is now “deprived of its foundations.”7
A “New” and “True” Israel?
Even if we grant that God has not revoked his covenant with the Jewish people, is the Church not the “new” and “true” Israel? Although this idea has some precedent in Catholic tradition, it is not biblical. The expression “New Israel” does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. Of 77 instances of the words “Israel” or “Israelite,” these terms are never used as synonyms for the Church or for Christians. They always refer to the “original” people of Israel.
There are only two instances where “Israel” is used in a special sense. The first is Paul’s claim that “not all who are of Israel are Israel” (Rom 9:6, NABRE). Yet Paul is not extending the identity of Israel here to include all Christians. He is, rather, restricting the term to include only those Israelites who believe. In other words, physical descent is not enough to be a “true Israelite”; faith is necessary as well.
“Israel” is also used in a special sense in Galatians 6:15–16, where Paul writes: “Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God” (RSV2CE). The RSV translation sounds as if all who walk by the rule of Christ (i.e., all Christians) are the “Israel of God.” But the RSV leaves out the crucial word “and” (Greek kai) from the original text, which the NABRE renders more accurately: “Peace and mercy be to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God.” Thus, all those who follow Christ’s rule (all Christians) are not identical with the “Israel of God” (those Jews who believe in Christ) but distinct from them.
The concept of a “New Israel” is not only foreign to the New Testament. It also does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.8 If the Church is the “new Israel,” it is by virtue of being grafted into the original Israel and sharing in its promises, not by replacing Israel and appropriating its promises (Rom 11:17–18). Nevertheless, because the expression “new Israel” is so often misunderstood in a supersessionist way, implying that the Church has replaced the “old Israel,” perhaps it is best avoided altogether. As Nostra Aetate says, “although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures (NA 4). Gifts and Callings goes even further: If the Church is called the new people of God, this is “not in the sense that the people of God of Israel has ceased to exist”; nor does it mean that “Israel as the people of God has been repudiated or has lost its mission.”9 On the contrary, the covenant “remains valid on the basis of God’s unfailing faithfulness to his people”; Israel thus remains “God’s chosen and beloved people of the covenant which has never been repealed or revoked.”10
Israel in the Age of the Church
If God’s gifts and the calling to Israel are irrevocable, what then is Israel’s role in the age of the Church?
Arguably, the very survival of the Jewish people throughout history, despite facing relentless persecutions and existential threats, already witnesses to God’s faithfulness to his people. Moreover, the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel — as foretold in Scripture — could well be a prophetic sign further testifying to God’s covenant love for Israel.
This does not mean that this covenant is salvific on its own, apart from Christ and the Church. Catholics cannot endorse a “dual-covenant theology” whereby Christians would be saved by Christ and Jews by Judaism. As the 1985 “Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church” explains,
the Church which is to be “the all-embracing means of salvation” in which alone “the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained . . . must of her nature proclaim Jesus Christ to the world” . . . Indeed we believe that it is through him that we go to the Father (cf. Jn. 14:6) “and this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (Jn 17:33).
Jesus affirms (Jn 10:16) that “there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all.11
At the same time, while Jesus calls everyone to follow him, the initial Jewish rejection of the Messiah was not without its purpose. It led to the preaching of the Gospel to non-Jews so that “through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles.” If the Jewish rejection of the Gospel brought about “the reconciliation of the world,” reasons St. Paul, how much more will their acceptance of the Gospel be a blessing to the world, namely, “life from the dead” (Rom 11:11–16).
Given Israel’s ongoing role in the economy of salvation, even despite Jewish unbelief toward Jesus, St. Paul warns Gentile Christians not to become arrogant toward the “olive tree” of Israel (cf. Jer 11:16–17). Though “natural branches” (Jews) were broken off because of their unbelief, and wild branches (Gentiles) were grafted in through faith, the latter should “not become proud, but stand in awe” — for God can easily cut off the wild branches (Gentiles) and graft the natural branches (Jews) back into the tree (Rom 11:17–24).
The troubled history of Jewish-Christian relations — when Jews were often persecuted by Christians who indeed had become “proud” toward their own roots — indicates that Paul’s advice went largely unheeded.12 Some have even suggested that “St. Paul had done more than give a warning; he had prophesied” by foreseeing the historic hostility of Gentile Christians toward their roots, leading to their own cutting off from the olive tree.13
Could there be a correlation between the historical antagonism of Gentile Christians toward Israel and the massive dechristianization of formerly Christian nations in the past two centuries? Paul seems to indicate that the Gospel will go full circle — from the Jews to the Gentiles, then back to the Jews. In other words, after the “times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24), it appears that the Gentiles will turn away from the Gospel, which will then return to the Jewish people from whom it originated:
(1) Jews reject -> (2) Gentiles accept -> (3) Gentiles reject -> (4) Jews accept
Accordingly, St. Paul invites Christians to reflect on “this mystery”: “a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25–26).
How, then, will Israel be saved? To answer this question, we must turn to modern Israel.
From Ancient to Modern Israel: Biblical Zionism
Given the centrality of the land to God’s covenant with Israel, could the modern return of the Jews to Israel be a fulfillment of prophecy and the “first fruits” of Israel’s redemption? There are good reasons to believe that this may be the case, and that divine providence is at work behind the return of the Jews to Israel. If God’s gifts and calling to Israel are irrevocable, then this must include the gift of the land and Israel’s calling to live in it.
What is the alternative? Could the return of the Jewish people to their historic land after two thousand years of exile be a mere accident of history, bearing no relation to God’s designs? Hardly. The Bible’s numerous prophecies anticipating Israel’s return to their land open the door to another possibility, known today as Zionism.
Zion is the biblical term for the city of Jerusalem that goes back to King David (2 Sam 5:7). The Psalms constantly praise God who “dwells in Zion” (Ps 9:11). Zion is called “the city of the great King” (Ps 48:2), because it is the place where God will dwell forever (Ps 132:13–14). Given that the Lord will “return to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem” among his people (Zech 8:2–4), it seems fair to say that God is the first Zionist.
Through centuries of exile, dispersion, and persecution, the Jewish people never forgot their biblical, religious, and historical attachment to Zion. In the late nineteenth century, Zionism emerged as a nationalist movement with the goal of establishing a homeland for the Jews in their ancestral land. Although there are various strands of Zionism, its basic definition is simple: Zionism is “the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.”14 Accordingly, today Zionism is the movement supporting the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. Thus, Zionists can be Jewish, Christian, or members of any (or no) religion. While this idea should be largely uncontroversial in theory, Zionism is often vilified today for a variety of reasons — whether theological, political, or moral.
Are these objections to Zionism legitimate? Let us consider a few common ones.
Common Objections to Zionism
- Does the New Testament not “fulfill” the promises of the land to Israel by spiritualizing them and transferring them to Christians, so that heaven is now our true “Promised Land”?
This view of “fulfillment,” whereby God’s promises to Israel are invalidated and dissolved, as it were, into spiritual promises for the Church, is rooted in a supersessionism that, as seen above, is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament. While the Promised Land is certainly a type that anticipates and points towards heaven, the fulfillment (heaven) does not abolish the sign (the land of Israel). It’s not either/or but both/and.15 There is nothing in the New Testament that warrants the abrogation of God’s promise of the land as an “everlasting possession” to Israel (Gen 17:8), or the hundreds of prophecies announcing Israel’s future return to the same land (see Matt 5:17–18).
- Is Zionism not an outgrowth of nineteenth-century Protestant dispensationalism that reduces the role of the Church to a mere “parenthesis” in salvation history until God restores Israel to its glory of old?
Supporting the return of the Jews to the land of Israel does not presuppose dispensationalist theology or undermine the centrality of the Church as agent of Christ’s salvation. Zionism merely acknowledges the biblical connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, without making any claims about the role of the Church. As seen above, Zionism originates in the Bible, not in nineteenth-century dispensationalism.
- The modern Zionist movement is largely secular and even irreligious in nature. How could such a project be the work of God?
Contrary to common opinion, the Zionist movement today is largely driven by biblical faith. Though many of the early Zionist pioneers were indeed secular (as are many modern Zionists), the movement has deep religious roots. Moreover, why would the presence of secular elements hinder the fulfillment of God’s purposes? Even Israel’s “golden age” under King Solomon was marked by worldliness and sin, including widespread social injustice, sexual immorality, and idolatry. This did not prevent God from acting, even through flawed human institutions. In the same way, the modern State of Israel could very well be a providential step towards the fulfillment of God’s purposes, even despite its many imperfections.
- Is Zionism not a political endorsement of certain right-wing political regimes or ideologies?
Biblical Zionism in principle merely recognizes the biblical and historical attachment of the Jewish people to the land of Israel. It does not endorse any political or ideological camp, nor does it require supporting the policies of any particular Israeli government. On the contrary, many Israeli Zionists are sharply critical of their own government. While it is true that Zionism today tends to be primarily associated with right-leaning religious communities, Zionists are found on the entire political spectrum, from right to left. In the same vein, Catholic Zionism should support the right of the Jewish people to live in their ancestral homeland without necessarily taking any particular stand on related questions such as Israel’s borders, the political form of the modern nation-state of Israel, or how it should live in peace with its non-Jewish citizens and neighbors.
- Is Zionism not a form of Jewish supremacy that discriminates against Arabs? Does Zionism not call for the expulsion of the Palestinians from their land?
These claims are incorrect. Many Zionists support the peaceful coexistence of Jewish and non-Jewish citizens of the State of Israel. While it is true that there are some Zionist extremists, Zionism and justice are not mutually exclusive. To be fair, the October 7 massacre and ensuing war have made the prospect of peace even more challenging, especially given the widespread culture of anti-Jewish incitement and denial of Israel’s right to exist in the Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim world. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible to be a Zionist and at the same time love the Palestinians and advocate for a just and peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- Should Christian support for Israel not be conditional upon the prior conversion of Jews to Christ, or at least upon them living as a just and holy nation?16
As much as Christians may hope and pray for the conversion of Israel, requiring it as a precondition for supporting the right of the Jewish people to live in the land is contrary to the teachings of Scripture. In fact, the prophet Ezekiel teaches an opposite sequence of events: First, he anticipates that the Lord will gather Israel from all nations back into the land “for the sake of [his] holy name” (Ezek 36: 8–12, 22–24; 37:12). Then, following this ingathering, the Lord will cleanse his people, pour out his spirit upon them and effect their spiritual transformation by giving them a new heart (Ezek 36:25–28; 37:14). While God always calls his people to repentance and purification, Ezekiel indicates that, at least to some degree, the physical restoration of Israel will precede its ultimate spiritual restoration and sanctification.
- Does the Catholic Church not reject Zionism as a viable theological option?
While it is true that there has been some historical reluctance on the part of the magisterium to endorse biblical Zionism, this position was rooted either in unofficial, non-magisterial supersessionist presuppositions that the Church has since repudiated,17 or in Vatican diplomacy seeking to avoid unnecessary tensions in the Middle East.
If God’s gifts and calling to Israel are irrevocable, then this cannot exclude God’s primary gift to Israel — the land. Biblical support for Israel does not contradict or undermine the Catholic faith in any way, but is wholly in continuity with God’s revelation. Respected Catholic theologians have recently made compelling cases for Catholic Zionism. Gary Anderson believes that the Jewish return to Zion, though also a call to responsibility and justice, is “part of God’s providential design and eternal promise to His people Israel,” even despite the uncertainty that surrounds the future of the current State of Israel.18 Gavin D’Costa, likewise, in his article “Catholic Zionism,” argues that “the existence of the Jewish State is a sign of God’s fidelity to his people,” even if this does not require endorsing a particular form of government for the Jewish state.19 There is no reason why faithful Catholics cannot embrace and support God’s biblical promise of the land to the Jewish people.
The Salvation of Israel
St. Paul’s hope for the salvation of Israel is closely tied to the salvation of the whole world. As he writes, “a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25–26). In a remarkable paragraph, the Catechism explains:
The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by “all Israel,” for “a hardening has come upon part of Israel” in their unbelief toward Jesus . . . The “full inclusion” of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of “the full number of the Gentiles” will enable the People of God to achieve “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” in which “God may be all in all.” (CCC 674)
In other words, first, the “full number of the Gentiles” must come into the household of faith. Paradoxically, this salvation of the Gentiles will likely be followed by a great apostasy of the Gentiles, when many will be “cut off” because of their unbelief (Rom 11:22; 2 Thess 2:3). Second, “all Israel will be saved” with the “full inclusion” of the Jews in Christ’s salvation. Third, after his recognition by “all Israel,” the Lord will return, fulfilling his own words that his people would not see him again until they say to him “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt 23:39; Luke 13:35). In this way, the salvation of Israel will be “life from the dead” for the world (Rom 11:15).
Though we do not know exactly how the salvation of “all Israel” will occur, Scripture provides some hints. First, as we have seen, it would appear that the nation’s redemption will occur in two stages — a physical ingathering in the land followed by a spiritual transformation (Ezek 36–37).20 Many believe that this scenario is playing out before our eyes in the Zionist movement and birth of the State of Israel (the physical ingathering), followed by the rise and rapid growth in recent generations of the Messianic Jewish movement — Jews who believe in Jesus (the spiritual transformation). Second, it seems that the final redemption of Israel will occur under much duress following the nation’s return to the land (Ezek 38–39).21 According to the prophet Zechariah, “all the nations of the earth will come together” against Jerusalem (Zech 12:3). In this dark hour, the Lord will shield the inhabitants of the holy city and destroy its enemies (Zech 12:8–9). Yet he will provide much more than a military victory, for in that moment of Israel’s greatest trial, God will pour out his Spirit upon his people and grant them a most extraordinary revelation:
And I will pour out on the house of David a spirit of grace and supplication, then they shall look on me whom they have pierced. And they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him as one weeps over a firstborn. (Zech 12:10)22
Conclusion
God’s irrevocable gifts and calling to Israel exclude the notion of supersessionism: Despite the Jewish rejection of Christ, God has not rejected his people. The Jewish people continue to play a role in the age of the Church, witnessing to God’s faithfulness by their very existence and by their return to the land of Israel. Zionism, in its broadest definition, is not the product of nineteenth-century Protestant dispensationalism but is deeply rooted in Scripture. While Israel’s national aspirations of living in their homeland as promised in the Bible cannot be equated with their salvation, the prophets and St. Paul give us reasons to believe that the return of the Jews to the land may well constitute the “first fruits” of their redemption, that is, a physical restoration to be followed by a spiritual transformation under great duress. If this is the case, we can expect to see increasing hostility against Israel and hard times ahead. Yet Scripture indicates that it is in those circumstances that the Jewish people will “look on him whom they have pierced” and welcome him with the words “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” And so, all Israel will be saved, and it will be life from the dead for the world.
- The Hebrew verb avad (Exod 4:23) means both to serve and to worship. ↩
- For a compilation of the promises of the land to Israel, see “God’s Promise of the Land to the People of Israel”. ↩
- Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable (2015), 17. ↩
- Some have interpreted the parable of the wicked tenants (Matt 21:33–46; Mark 12:1–12; Luke 20:9–19), in which the vineyard owner puts to death the wicked tenants in charge of his vineyard and entrusts it to others, as teaching that God would reject Israel and replace it with the Church. But Israel cannot be equated with the wicked tenants here. In reality, Israel is the vineyard (Isa 5:7; Ps 80:8–16), and the wicked tenants represent the chief priests and the Pharisees. Thus, the parable does not say anything about replacing the people of God, but about replacing the figures of religious authority ruling over the people of God. ↩
- Without any basis in the original text, the RSV and NRSV translations make a theologically loaded addition to Rom 11:28, asserting that the Jews are “enemies of God for your sake.” ↩
- Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church (1985), VI, 1. ↩
- Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable, 10 December 2015, 17. ↩
- The expression “new Israel” appears twice in the documents of the Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium 9; Ad gentes 5). ↩
- Gifts and Calling, 23, 32. ↩
- Gifts and Calling, 33, 34. ↩
- Notes, I.7. See Acts 4:12; Rom 1:16; Gal 2:16, 21. ↩
- See Edward H. Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, 2nd edition (New York: Paulist Press, 2004). ↩
- Elias Friedman, Jewish Identity (New York: Miriam Press, 1987), 109. ↩
- A Definition of Zionism (jewishvirtuallibrary.org). Types of Zionism include Political Zionism, (Jewish) Religious Zionism, Socialist Zionism, Christian Zionism, Messianic Zionism, and others. Catholicism is in agreement with some, but not necessarily all of them. The present article assumes the basic view of Zionism as defined here. ↩
- While certain aspects of Old Testament religion rooted in the Mosaic covenant (such as the sacrificial worship and Levitical priesthood) include conditional aspects that indeed came to an end when they were fulfilled in Christ, Israel’s election and promise of the land are rooted in the prior Abrahamic covenant, which God repeatedly describes as being unconditional and irrevocable (Gen 28:13–15). ↩
- This was the view expressed by Pope Pius X in 1904 when he met Theodor Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism. The pope told Herzl that he could not support the nascent Zionist movement because “The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.” Theodor Herzl: Audience with Pope Pius X (1904). As seen above, the pope’s (non-magisterial) reluctance to grant any theological legitimacy not only to Zionism but even to the Jewish people unless they convert to Christ, was rooted in a supersessionism that contradicts the teachings of both Old and New Testaments. ↩
- For example, the 1998 document “We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah,” published by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, quotes Pope Saint John Paul II as saying that “ ‘erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people.’ Such interpretations of the New Testament have been totally and definitively rejected by the Second Vatican Council” (III). ↩
- Gary A. Anderson, “How to Think about Zionism,” First Things, April 2005. ↩
- Gavin D’Costa, “Catholic Zionism,” First Things, January 2020. ↩
- Some philosophers and theologians have argued that the people of Israel have walked a veritable “way of the cross” over the past two thousand years in their sufferings — tragically, often inflicted at the hands of Christians. For Jacques Maritain, “Jesus Christ suffers in the passion of Israel,” and “the passion of Israel is more and more clearly taking the shape of the Cross.” Jacques Maritain, “The Mystery of Israel,” in Ransoming the Time (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1941), 177, 179. Others have argued that the “Via Dolorosa” of the Jewish people, reaching its nadir in the Holocaust, united them mysteriously with Christ. Their “crucifixion” in the Nazi death camps profoundly humbled them and served as a remote preparation for the birth of the State of Israel, and for their future encounter with grace: “As he walked slowly across the stage of history, the Jew took on an uncanny resemblance to Jesus: beaten, spat upon, mocked, derided, bleeding from his judicial scourging, crowned with the thorns of incomprehension, bearing his cross on the way to Golgotha. Jewry ran the gauntlet of the nations. ‘The Jewish Diaspora within Christian Europe’ summed up Maritain, ‘is one long Via Dolorosa.’ Mystically speaking, Jewry as a whole was nailed to the cross and died under Hitler. ‘We all died in Auschwitz’ cried out that great soul A. J. Heschel, in the name of all the Jews of his time. On the third day, three years after the conclusion of hostilities in 1945, Jewry rose from the dead; the State of Israel was proclaimed.” Elias Friedman, Jewish Identity (New York: Miriam Press, 1987), 68. ↩
- Perhaps Israel’s final tribulation will be concurrent with the “ultimate trial” of the Church under the rule of the antichrist (CCC 675). ↩
- Author’s translation. Zechariah’s prophecy — written some five centuries before Christ — that Israel will “look on me whom they have pierced” is so striking (how can God be “pierced”?) that several modern translations modify it (without any basis in the original Hebrew text or in the ancient Greek and Latin translations), rendering it as they will “look on him whom they have pierced” (RSV2CE, NRSV, NABRE). ↩
