The People and Land of Israel are Central to the Gospel

Introduction

In his book, Jerusalem Crucified, Jerusalem Risen: The Resurrected Messiah, the Jewish People, and the Land of Promise, theologian and scholar Mark S. Kinzer argues that the people and land of Israel are essential to the gospel/good news (euangelion) about the death and resurrection of the Messiah of Israel.  In making this claim, Kinzer contends that followers of Jesus should understand the emergence of the Zionist movement and the establishment of the State of Israel as instrumental in facilitating and preserving the miraculous rebirth of Jewish national life in the land of Israel.

According to Kinzer, the New Testament inextricably ties the suffering that Jesus endures to the suffering his fellow Jews will endure in their future exile in such a way that the suffering of the former both anticipates and participates in the suffering of the latter.  Similarly, Kinzer maintains that the New Testament inextricably ties the resurrection of Jesus to the expectation that his fellow Jews will be restored to the land of Israel.  As Kinzer states,

In a mysterious fashion, the Jewish people were participants in the suffering of Jesus.  I have […] argued that this perspective on the suffering and death of Jesus has a firm basis in the New Testament itself.  The cross of Jesus involves his proleptic participation in the Jewish torments of 70 CE, so that Jewish faithfulness unto death in coming centuries might participate retroactively in his martyrdom.  However, I have also argued that this dynamic correspondence between Jesus and the Jewish people likewise requires a connection between the resurrection of Jesus and the national redemption of Israel.[1]

Kinzer argues that passages in the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles draw connections between the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus on the one hand and the exile and restoration of his people, the nation of Israel, on the other.  For example, Kinzer argues that the placement of a passage on the destruction of Jerusalem in the middle of the passion narrative is meant to show that “Jesus urges them [the daughters of Jerusalem] to recognize how his death—his ‘baptism of fire’ (Luke 3:16; 12:49-50)—anticipates the national conflagration to come.”[2]

After showing through exegetical analysis how various passages in the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles support the claim that the land of Israel, people of Israel, and Torah of Israel have enduring value and are essential to the good news, Kinzer reflects theologically on more recent historical developments, including the emergence of the Zionist movement.  Since Kinzer argues that a future restoration of the people of Israel to the land of Israel is integral to the prophetic gospel and “the G[-]d of Israel is the L[-]rd of history,” those who wish to remain faithful to the covenant must not shirk “the challenge of seeking some meaning in that history” even though “interpret[ing] G[-]d’s historical action in the post-biblical period will always be tentative and open to debate.”[3]  With that qualifier, Kinzer provides what he calls “a theological appraisal of Zionism.”[4]

A Theological Appraisal of Zionism

For the purposes of his theological appraisal of Zionism, Kinzer defines Zionism before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as “an ideology and a movement that asserted the practical priority of establishing a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in the land promised to the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs.”[5]  Kinzer defines Zionism after the establishment of the State of Israel as “an ideology and movement that views the reality of this ‘national home’ as an essential component of Jewish identity and destiny, and which aims to support and strengthen Jewish life in the land.”[6]

In assessing Zionism theologically, Kinzer believes that “four weighty pieces of evidence” should incline followers of Jesus to believe “the establishment of a Jewish national home in the land of Israel (i.e., the success of the Zionist enterprise) was itself providentially ordained by the divine boulē [(plan)], and constitutes a historical fact of enormous theological significance” with a fifth factor “confirming this assessment”:

1. The restoration of Jewish life in the land of Israel is a fundamental component of the prophetic euangelion.

2. An expectation that this restoration would occur before the return of Jesus coheres well with the way this theme is treated in key texts of the New Testament.

3. Some Christians began to understand the New Testament as teaching such a Jewish national restoration centuries before the emergence of the Zionist movement.

4. The Zionist movement originates in part as a continuation of a trajectory intrinsic to a Jewish religious tradition which itself was providentially ordained by the divine boulē, and constitutes a historical fact of enormous theological significance.

5. The establishment of the Jewish State occurred three years after the conclusion of World War II.[7]

Restoration of Jewish Life in the Land of Israel Fundamental to Prophetic Gospel

Kinzer finds textual support for a belief in the restoration of Jewish life in the land of Israel in Luke 21:24, where Jesus states: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Kinzer adduces scholarship arguing that reading this text in comparative perspective with other ancient Jewish writings should lead readers to understand the text’s “expectation that Jerusalem will be restored,”[8] especially when read in the light of Luke 13:35, which has Jerusalem in mind and is discussed further below.  Kinzer contends it is possible that the transition from “the times of the Gentiles” to the restoration of Israel to the land could be a process extending over a period of time.[9]

Kinzer argues that the structure of the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles demonstrates Jerusalem’s centrality to the biblical narrative, including an expectation that Jerusalem will remain central in the future when the people of Israel will be restored to their land:

· Gospel of Luke: Kinzer observes that one of the features of the Gospel of Luke that distinguishes it from other New Testament Gospels is the centrality of Jerusalem in the biblical narrative:

Among the canonical Gospels, only Luke begins in Jerusalem, ends in Jerusalem, and orients its central narrative around a journey to Jerusalem.  Taken together with the particular Lukan material related to the destruction and redemption of Jerusalem […][,] this emphatic geographical structure underlines Luke’s unique concern for the holy city.[10]

· Acts of the Apostles: Kinzer argues that many readers of Acts of the Apostles incorrectly conclude that the New Testament narrative tracks the gradual movement of the apostolic message away from Jerusalem, overlooking the fact that a return to Jerusalem is a consistent feature of the narrative:

[W]hile radiating steadily outwards, the story continually reverts back to Jerusalem.  Paul encounters Jesus on the road to Damascus, and then returns to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-29).  Peter proclaims Jesus to Cornelius in Caesarea, and then returns to Jerusalem (Acts 11:2).  A congregation arises in Antioch, and then sends aid to Jerusalem in a time of famine (Acts 11:27-30).  Paul and Barnabas journey from Antioch to Asia Minor, and then return afterward to Jerusalem for the central event in the book of Acts—the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:2).  From Jerusalem[,] Paul travels with Silas to Greece, and then returns again to Jerusalem (Acts 18:22).  Paul takes his final journey as a free man, and then returns to Jerusalem, where he is arrested (Acts 21:17-23:11) […] In both the greater story of the advance of the apostolic message and the more circumscribed story of Paul, the heart beats in an alternating diastolic and systolic rhythm, with Jerusalem as the perpetual center to which all must eventually return.[11]

· Narrative’s Lack of Closure: Kinzer argues that the author of Luke-Acts deliberately ends the narrative with a lack of closure because there are still elements of the story, like the restoration of Israel, that have not yet taken place:

Luke wants his readers to grasp the rhythmic geographical flow of his narrative, which streams out from Jerusalem always to return again, like waves that beat on the rocks and then return to their ocean home.  He leaves his narrative in mid-flow, in anticipation of its future consummation that will occur at some point after the judgment of Jerusalem.  Rome may be at the “ends of the earth” [(Acts 1:8)], but it is not the end of the story.  The story must end where it began—in Jerusalem.[12]

Kinzer argues that since two of the three pilgrimage festivals celebrated by the people of Israel are associated with the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (Passover and Pentecost, respectively), the third pilgrimage festival (Booths), “which anticipates the final harvest and Israel’s redeemed life (with the nations) in the world to come,” would correspond to an “as-yet-unwritten” third book in a trilogy whose first two parts consist of the story described in the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles:

If the Gospel of Luke is related to Passover, and Acts of the Apostles to Pentecost, then the as-yet-unwritten conclusion to this trilogy will be related to Booths.  In the eschatological celebration that will fulfill the meaning of this holiday, the nations will join Israel in Jerusalem to glorify the One who is the “king over all the earth.”  Thus will be realized the “kingdom of G[-]d,” which, according to the final verse of Acts, Paul proclaimed in Rome “with all boldness and without hindrance” (Acts 28:31).  Only then will the story find its ultimate closure.[13]

Expectation of Jewish Restoration Before Return of Jesus

Kinzer argues that the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles presume a restoration of Jews to Jerusalem before Jesus returns.  In support of this contention, Kinzer points out that in Luke 13:35, Jesus concludes his lament grieving over Jerusalem with words anticipating a future welcome extended to Jesus by his people: “[Y]ou will not see me until the time comes when you say ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the L[-]rd.’”[14]  Kinzer argues that this text, when read in light of Acts 3:19-21 where Jerusalem’s repentance is understood as “a condition for the messianic restoration,” implies the expectation of a presence of Jews in Jerusalem before the return of Jesus.[15]  As confirmation of this prophetic understanding of a Jewish presence in Jerusalem prior to Jesus’ return, Kinzer points to the ascension narrative in Acts 1:6-12 where the reader is told that Jesus “will return in the same way as you saw him [Jesus] go into heaven,” thereby “impl[ying] that Jesus will first descend to the mount of Olives (i.e., to the place from which he earlier ascended), in order to enact in fullness what the prophetic sign of Palm Sunday signified”—the eschatological acclamation of Jesus as king of Israel by his fellow Jews in Jerusalem.[16]

Some Christians Began Understanding New Testament as Teaching Jewish National Restoration

Kinzer points out that “centuries before Zionism emerged as an explicit program among Jews,” individuals in the seventeenth century who were part of “the Anglo-American Protestant theological tradition” started expressing a belief that Jews would return to the land of Israel, with Increase Mather believing this would happen before Jews come to believe in Jesus.[17]  As Kinzer notes, this view would spread widely among members of this tradition, “render[ing] that theological setting especially favorable to the Zionist project” when it emerged centuries later.[18]

Zionist Movement as Continuation of Providentially-Ordained Jewish Religious Tradition

Kinzer argues that an expectation that Jews should be faithful to the covenant through observance of Torah is evident in the New Testament generally and the Gospel of Luke as well as Acts of the Apostles specifically:

Luke and Acts focus their attention upon the faithful Torah practice of Jesus and his disciples.  At the same time, the fact that Jesus and his disciples treat the Torah as authoritative implies that the Torah retains its role as the constitution of the Jewish people as a whole.  If the death and resurrection of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit have not ushered the ekklēsia into a Torah-free eschatological zone, then the same is true for all Jews.  Moreover, Acts of the Apostles portrays the Pharisees in a positive light, and hints that they will replace the priestly Sadducean party as the guiding force in the post-70 Jewish world.  But the authority of the Pharisees is based on their strict adherence to “our ancestral law” (see Acts 22:3; 26:5).  The future role of the Pharisees and its connection to Torah point to the enduring covenantal status of the Jewish people as a whole.[19]

The fact that the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles believes Torah continues to be authoritative, describes Pharisees in a positive light while writing after the destruction of the Second Temple when the author was aware of post-70 CE developments among the wider Jewish community, and seems to affirm a belief that religious movements that continue to exist are providentially ordained to continue, which the author has Gamaliel articulate (“[I[f this is of G[-]d[,] you cannot stop it” (Acts 5:39)), leads Kinzer to argue that believers in Jesus should similarly affirm that essential elements of the prophetic gospel have been providentially preserved by Jews who do not believe in Jesus:

[T]he destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE ends the reign of the priestly aristocrats whom Luke and Acts portray as responsible for the execution of Jesus and the persecution of his early disciples, and prepares the way for the dominance of the Pharisees under the overall leadership of Gamaliel’s descendants.  The Jewish tradition develops providentially under the unrecognized authority of the risen Messiah, who, like Joseph the son of Jacob, acts for the welfare of his family while keeping his true identity hidden.  In its mature talmudic form, that tradition derives its power from the hope of a messianic future—a hope that is animated and sustained by the veiled Messiah whose resurrection provides the irrevocable pledge that he will one day “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6).[20]

Kinzer contends that the ekklēsia (church) of the fourth century played a providential role in the development of this “mature talmudic form” of the Jewish tradition by prompting the rabbinic movement to “rediscover the prophetic inheritance it had hitherto neglected” as a result of its focus on sanctification in “reject[ing] apocalyptic enthusiasm” following two failed Jewish revolts against Rome:

Paradoxically, it was the political triumph of the ekklēsia in the fourth century that provoked the rabbinic movement to rediscover the prophetic inheritance it had hitherto neglected.  That, at least, was the conclusion reached by Jacob Neusner in comparing the earlier Mishnaic emphasis on sanctification with the later Talmudic stress on national and historical salvation: “In the Yerushalmi [i.e., the Jerusalem Talmud][,] we witness, among the Mishnah’s heirs, a striking reversion to biblical convictions about the centrality of history in the definition of Israel’s reality.  The heavy weight of prophecy, apocalyptic, and biblical historiography, with their emphasis upon salvation and on history as the indicator of Israel’s salvation, stood against the Mishnah’s quite separate thesis of what truly mattered.”[21]

Kinzer observes a similar providential development in how Jews would come to resolve a paradox at the heart of diaspora Jewish existence described by the scholar Emanuele Ottolenghi as follows:

For centuries, the idea of return to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition coexisted with a passive acceptance of exile.  Longing for Zion was central to Judaism, yet no collective action was undertaken to actively pursue it.  A Jewish community—albeit small—had always existed in the Holy Land.  Individual Jews moved there.  And the bond with the land remained paramount in Jewish self-image.  Jews understood themselves not only as a minority, but as a minority in exile.  Their intimate bond with the land, rather than merely distinct beliefs and practices, prevented their shift to being simply a religious community.  Yet, despite the longing for Zion and the sense of estrangement from host countries…few moved to Zion.[22]

Contrary to those who claim that a belief in the collective return of Jews to the land of Israel prior to the messiah’s arrival only emerged among Jews with the rise of secular Zionism at the end of the nineteenth century, Kinzer identifies beliefs about collective and activist behavior that emerged among Jews centuries before the rise of modern Zionism that complicate this simplistic narrative.

· Jewish Return to the Land of Israel as a Condition for Messiah’s Arrival: Kinzer points out that in the thirteenth century, an idea develops among French Jews that the Messiah’s appearance is conditional on collective Jewish action.  This idea finds literary expression in a text believed to have been authored by a student of the prominent French scholar Rabbi Yitzhak ben Abraham, “Homilies of King Messiah and Gog and Magog.”  This text articulates the belief that the Messiah’s appearance and subsequent gathering of the dispersed Jewish exiles would only happen once a large community of pious students of Torah developed in the land of Israel.  As Kinzer explains, this position holds that “Jews should not wait for the Messiah to come before ‘going up’ to the land, for his manifestation depends on the ‘collective action’ of their return to their ancestral home.”[23]  Many scholars of the Talmud would heed this call to immigrate to the land of Israel by moving there in what the sources call the immigration “of the Three Hundred Rabbis.”[24]

· Jewish Return to the Land of Israel as an Obligation Incumbent on Each Jew: Kinzer argues that Nahmanides “displays the new orientation to Jewish life in the land” in his decision to designate “as a distinct commandment” living in the land of Israel and “establish it as a duty which each Jew must reckon with.”[25]  Nahmanides himself immigrates to the land of Israel in 1267 and restores a Jewish communal presence in Jerusalem.

· Lurianic Mysticism Develops Conceptual Framework for Active Eschatology: Kinzer argues that “[t]he role of individual and collective action in facilitating the arrival of the messianic era takes on new significance” with the development of Lurianic mysticism in the land of Israel following the Spanish expulsion of Jews at the end of the fifteenth century.[26]  As Kinzer points out, Isaac Luria “taught that the redemption of the divine and created order depends upon Jews undertaking the fulfillment of the commandments with proper intentionality.”[27]  Lurianic mysticism would influence others, like Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto, to immigrate to the land of Israel.

· Hasidism is Oriented to Land of Israel and Its Followers Move There: Kinzer points out that the Hasidic movement that emerged in the eighteenth century was inspired by Lurianic mysticism.  He also notes that the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber maintained that “this movement was oriented to ‘the land’  from its inception.”[28]  Kinzer suggests this orientation to the land of Israel is evidenced by the fact that an important early Hasidic leader, Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Vitebsk, moved to the land of Israel in 1777 with three hundred of his disciples, effectively “replicat[ing]” the thirteenth-century immigration of three hundred rabbis to the land, “impl[ying] a similar eschatological” motivation.[29]

· Opponents of Hasidism Move to the Land of Israel to Build Institutions: Kinzer points out that approximately three decades after the aforementioned immigration of adherents of Hasidism to the land of Israel, Rabbi Elijah ben Solomon Zalman (the Vilna Gaon), who opposed the Hasidic movement while nevertheless sharing with its followers a belief in Lurianic mystical ideas, sought to immigrate to the land of Israel in “a more ambitious and consequential project” than that of the earlier Hasidic adherents.[30]  Although the Gaon only made it to Germany, “more than five hundred of his disciples” successfully made it there, becoming “the guiding force in the Jewish community of the land (the “Old Yishuv”)” with the aim of “building institutions” there.[31]

· Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai and Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalisher Lay Zionist Groundwork: Kinzer points out that “the writings and practical efforts” of two rabbis, Yehuda Alkalai and Zvi Hirsch Kalisher, contributed to “[t]he implicit vision of the disciples of the Gaon assum[ing] a more programmatic character.”[32]  In doing so, these rabbis effectively bridged Jewish religious tradition and secular Zionism.  As Ottolenghi states,

Both…called on the Jewish people to initiate redemption by returning to their ancestral land.  Neither saw any contradiction between messianic expectations and active human endeavors.  Both believed redemption would be achieved gradually through a process of collective return and revival of Jewish observance which would prepare the ground….Both thinkers still thought in traditional, redemptive and messianic terms.  But their authoritative work, which inspired the first efforts of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel by the Hibbat Zion movement in the latter half of the nineteenth century, was instrumental in bridging the gap between tradition and secular Zionism.[33]

· Cultural Zionists Build on Foundation Laid by Jewish Religious Tradition: Kinzer points out that both cultural Zionists who “discarded the theistic premises” of Jewish religious tradition (e.g., Ahad Ha’am) and cultural Zionists who “reincorporated the theistic component in their cultural Zionist vision” (e.g., Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem) insisted on “respectful engagement with the Jewish religious culture of the past.”[34]  Kinzer contends that both cultural Zionists and political Zionists constituted “two currents [that] were bound together as integral components of the Zionist movement” with both contributing in their own ways to “the eventual establishment and flourishing of the Jewish State.”[35]

By identifying collective and activist ideas in Jewish religious tradition prior to the emergence of the Zionist movement and discerning a trajectory in their development leading to the emergence of Zionism, Kinzer shows readers that although “political Zionism took shape as a secular project,” the Zionist movement has roots “in the central themes of traditional Jewish religious life” that Kinzer contends “constituted the portion of the euangelion carried through history by the Jewish people.”[36]

Establishment of Jewish State Occurred Three Years After Conclusion of World War II

Kinzer observes that the experience of Jews during the Shoah (Holocaust), “the most devastating catastrophe in their long history of persecution and martyrdom,” prompted Christians to start “to revise their views of the theological significance of the Jewish people,” a number of whom concluded that the suffering of the Jewish people was in some mysterious way a participation in the suffering of Jesus.[37]  If Kinzer discerns a connection between the suffering and death of Jews during the Shoah on the one hand and the suffering and death of Jesus on the other, he also discerns a similar correspondence between the national revival of the Jewish people manifested in the establishment of the State of Israel and the resurrection of Jesus: “If the Shoah reveals the bond between the Jewish people and the death of Jesus, then the establishment of the Jewish State three years later likewise reveals the bond between Jewish national life and the resurrection of Israel’s Messiah on the third day.”[38]  Similarly, Kinzer states: “Just as we cannot consider the ovens of Auschwitz apart from the cross of the Messiah, so we cannot consider the life of this nation apart from his resurrection.”[39]

Addressing Critics of Zionism

Kinzer’s reflections on the Zionist movement and its continuing positive theological significance effectively address objections leveled by critics of the Zionist movement.

Is Zionism a Purely Secular Movement Unworthy of Christian Support?

To religious detractors of Israel who charge that the State of Israel is insufficiently religious to warrant Christian support, Kinzer points out that while many of the founders of the modern Zionist movement could be considered “secular Jews,”[40] the Zionist movement has roots in Jewish religious tradition.  Moreover, Kinzer points out that most Israeli Jews do not identify as “secular” today and structure their private and public lives around Jewish religious holidays.  Data collected after the publication of Kinzer’s book indicate a majority of Israeli Jews believes in G[-]d, believes in an afterlife, and plans to fast on Yom Kippur, while Israeli Jews have increasingly adopted “prayer as an individual spiritual practice.”[41] Kinzer also notes that even Israeli Jews who identify as “secular” often express interest in Jewish religious texts, including rabbinic as well as kabbalistic ones, and the Hasidic movement.  Israeli Jews write and speak in the language of classical Jewish literature, and streets in Israel have names of Jewish religious authorities, like Rashi, Maimonides, and Judah Halevi.  Israel’s “ties to traditional Jewish life” are, thus, multiply attested.[42]

Divine Endorsement of All State Activity?

To those who fear that positing a divine role in the renewal of Jewish national life in the land of Israel could lead to an uncritical belief in a divine endorsement of whatever the State of Israel does, Kinzer makes clear that belief in the former need not lead to the latter.  As Kinzer states,

the rebirth of Jewish national life in the land of Israel is a divine work with profound eschatological implications[,] […] [T]his does not mean that the state should be regarded in exactly the same way.  Considered as a particular political arrangement for the ordering of Jewish national life, the state serves the nation but is not identical to it.  It is an instrument, not an end in itself, and could take a variety of forms and still fulfill its purpose.[43]

Kinzer, here, helpfully explains how the land of Israel, the people of Israel, and the state of Israel relate to one another.  In this regard, Kinzer agrees with Jewish theologian and scholar David Novak, who has stated:

[T]he land of Israel exists for the sake of the people Israel; the people Israel do not exist for the sake of the land of Israel….In the same way, the State of Israel is for the sake of the people Israel in the land of Israel;  the people Israel in the land of Israel is not for the sake of the State of Israel.  And, most importantly, the people, then the land, then the state all exist for the sake of G[-]d.[44]

Dispensationalist Dependence?

Kinzer’s argument for ecclesial Zionism does not depend on dispensationalist frameworks or complex calculations about the eschaton.  As the author notes, “I have never been a dispensationalist, and even hold an agnostic position regarding the millennium.”[45]  In this regard, Kinzer distances himself from “a dispensationalist theology” with attendant “Zionist political convictions [that] accordingly correspond to well-defined expectations regarding the tribulation, rapture, second coming, and millennium.”[46]  This lack of dependence on complicated eschatological timetables might render Kinzer’s argument especially compelling to the growing number of young evangelicals who have eschewed belief in this theological system[47] that some scholars have argued has experienced a scholastic decline.[48]

Jews as Mythic Players in a Cosmic Drama?

By taking Jewish religious tradition seriously and showing how Zionism is both “a distinctively modern movement” and “an expression of values, longings, and utopian dreams cherished by Jews for millennia,”[49] Kinzer effectively avoids a charge frequently leveled against dispensationalist frameworks: namely, such theological frameworks cast Jews as mythic players in a cosmic drama rather than evincing a genuine attempt to understand Jewish people.[50]  In  Kinzer’s approach, Jews retain their humanity while Jewish religious tradition is recognized as having its own integrity.  This approach is further underscored by how Kinzer wisely seeks to provide a theological framework for understanding Zionism that maximizes the degree to which judgments about Israeli policies can be made on ethical and prudential grounds.  In Kinzer’s words,

Within the broad framework of this ecclesial Zionism, there is ample room for vigorous debate and disagreement concerning the practical details of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  I am attempting to provide a set of theological parameters within which advocates of the right, left, and center can all take their stand.  In other words, the approach presented here does not dictate a particular political stance in dealing with the issues at hand.  In fact, the purpose is to limit the impact of theology to those essentials that draw the outer boundaries of discourse.  I seek to free those in the debate from the heavy burden of theological imperatives in order to focus on the prudential and ethical considerations whose content should be decisive in shaping the argument.  The theological framework is indispensable, but every attempt to draw detailed practical conclusions from this framework imprisons us in a dogmatic box from whose unyielding judgments we cannot escape, regardless of urgent ethical and prudential considerations.[51]

By attempting to accurately represent Jews as well as Jewish religious tradition and by attempting to maximize the extent to which ethical and prudential judgments can be made regarding Israeli policies, Kinzer helpfully avoids pitfalls commonly associated with extreme theologizing about the conflict.[52]

Conclusion

Kinzer’s book provides readers with important theological scaffolding for an ethical and prudential Zionism grounded in biblical exegesis informed by scholarship.  By carefully building a cumulative case for ecclesial Zionism, Kinzer performs a valuable service for both Jews and Christians.  For those Jews who think of Zionism in strictly political terms, Kinzer offers a more expansive view of the movement showing how many of its central themes are deeply rooted in the Jewish religious tradition.  For Christians who think that the New Testament has nothing positive to say about the continuing theological significance of the land of Israel or who believe that the apostolic message should incline believers in Jesus to oppose Zionism and the State of Israel, Kinzer not only shows how the land of Israel and the people of Israel are of central importance to the good news, but also explains why historical developments, like the emergence of the Zionist movement and the establishment of the State of Israel, have been instrumental in facilitating and preserving the miraculous rebirth of Jewish national life in the land of Israel.   In a post-October 7^th environment where many Zionists are grappling with the question, “Why are the People of the Book Struggling to Tell a Story?” Kinzer’s masterful retelling of “the Greatest Story Ever Told” offers readers a hopeful vision of Jews and Christians partnering together to heal the fractured people of G-d.  Achieving this vision would be very good news, indeed.

[1] Mark S. Kinzer, Jerusalem Crucified, Jerusalem Risen: The Resurrected Messiah, the Jewish People, and the Land of Promise (Cascade Books, 2018), p. 252.

[2] Ibid. p. 39.

[3] Ibid. p. 240.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid. pp. 240-241.

[6] Ibid. p. 241.

[7] Ibid. p. 251.

[8] Ibid. p. 37.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid. p. 45.

[11] Ibid. pp. 46-48.

[12] Ibid. p. 50.

[13] Ibid. p. 53.

[14] Ibid. p. 250.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid. p. 251.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid. p. 223.

[20] Ibid. p. 238.

[21] Ibid. pp. 237-238.

[22] Ibid. p. 242.

[23] Ibid. p. 244.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid. p. 245.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid. p. 246.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid. p. 247.

[34] Ibid. p. 247.

[35] Ibid. p. 248.

[36] Ibid. p. 18.

[37] Ibid. p. 252.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid. p. 263.

[40] Ibid. p. 248.

[41] Rossella Tercatin, “Have Israeli Jews Grown More Religious in Recent Years?  Data Suggests Not,” The Times of Israel, 9 May 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/have-israeli-jews-grown-more-religious-in-recent-years-data-suggests-not/.

[42] Ibid. p. 249.

[43] Ibid. p. 255.

[44] Ibid. p. 256.

[45] Ibid. p. 19.

[46] Ibid.

[47] See Motti Inbari and Kirill Bumin, Christian Zionism in the Twenty-First Century: American Evangelical Opinion on Israel (Oxford University Press, 2024).

[48] See Daniel G. Hummel, The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle over the End Times Shaped a Nation (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2023).

[49] Kinzer, Jerusalem Crucified, Jerusalem Risen, p. 249.

[50] See Stephen Spector, Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 112-113.

[51] Kinzer, Jerusalem Crucified, Jerusalem Risen, p. 264.

[52] For example, see Dr. Yehuda Kurtzer: “When it comes to Jews […] Christians bear the responsibility to exhibit the humility of not casting as protagonists and antagonists the real human beings between the river and the sea.  It is for the benefit of our bodies, as well as our beliefs” (Yehuda Kurtzer, “Jewish-Christian Relations Are Suffering,” Tablet Magazine, 14 April 2022, https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/jewish-christian-relations-suffering).