In 2018, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI addressed in an essay how the Vatican historically came to accept the idea of a modern State of Israel. It was only on the grounds of it being a modern constitutional State and operating according to international law. He emphasized the decision was not done without a “theological doctrine” and explained:

[at the core of this Christian doctrine] is the conviction that a theologically-understood state—a Jewish faith-state [Glaubenstaat] that would view itself as the theological and political fulfillment of the promises [given to Abraham]—is unthinkable within history according to Christian faith and contrary to the Christian understanding of the promises [given to Abraham about the Land].¹

For orthodox Christians, in no way can the establishment of a modern State of Israel be confused with the fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham because Jesus is the true fulfillment of those promises. To say otherwise would be akin to heresy, the denial of a doctrine. It would deny Jesus fulfilled the Law [Torah] and the Prophets. As fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, we speak of Israel being reconstituted and not of Israel being replaced in supersessionism. Essays of a Catholic Belloc Best Price: $11.00 Buy New $10.94 (as of 10:06 UTC - Details)

The original form of Zionism, which the Vatican informally accepted, was one founded on a secular movement of Jewish ethnicity. In the early 20th century, the secularism and agnosticism of its leaders seemingly posed little threat of becoming a “faith-state.” Since the Ottoman Empire was in collapse since WWI and left a power vacuum in the Levant, and since World War II ended the Jewish Holocaust with many displaced Jews, the Vatican was willing to accept Jews forming a modern constitutional state within certain territories of the also diminishing British protectorate.² Ancient Jewish ties to Palestine and sympathies for their terrible persecutions made sense for the Vatican to accept what the British inaugurated and left behind.

In the middle of the 20th century, the Vatican certainly never believed or supported that later generations of Jews would advocate violating international law with illegal settlements. They did not foresee appeals to herem—as found under Moses and Joshua—becoming mainstream in modern Israel or that the United States’ fundamentalist communities would encourage Israel behaving like an Old Testament “faith-state.” It would have never supported such a state if it believed serious political powers and religious movements would advocate for restoring a third temple and animal sacrifice. “But religious forces were also always at work in Zionism, and to the surprise of agnostic fathers [of the original Zionism], a devotion to religion has often arisen in the new generation.”³ Now supported by misled evangelicals of a fundamentalist bent, today’s Zionism is no longer your grandfather’s Zionism.

Sixty years after Vatican II, Benedict XVI’s essay called for phase two of dialogue between Jews and Christians. He agreed that Romans 11:29—“the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable”—was the right place to start the first phase of dialogue since Vatican II. However, acknowledging changes in Zionism since then, he suggested a new phase of dialogue was now necessary:

The formula of the “never-revoked covenant” may have been helpful in a first phase of the new dialogue between Jews and Christians. But it is not suited in the long run to express in an adequate way the magnitude of the reality.⁴

The earthly Jewish Second Temple was destroyed irrevocably two thousand years ago, and God clearly never wanted an earthly Third Temple built. Christianity had become the fulfillment of the Sinai Covenant (cf. 1 Peter 2:9) through the blood of the Messiah, and His resurrected body became the reconstituted and mystical Temple (cf. Revelation 21:22). The promise of the Land was always inseparable from the Temple (cf. Deuteronomy 12:5). Since an earthly Temple is no longer wanted by God, then religious grounds for claims of a physical Land are also obsolete since the Messiah became the Temple and sign of the Land.

For phase two of dialogue, Benedict felt the need to emphasize that the second phase of dialogue must center on an additional quote from the New Testament, found in Second Timothy: “if we deny [Jesus], he also will deny us” (2 Timothy 2:12).⁵ This is part of the magnitude of the reality which authentic dialogue must include. There is not one covenant for the Jews and another for Christians. Jesus brought the Old Law, civil and ceremonial, to God’s true goal.

It would be a rejection of Christ to sponsor a return to the Old Law which God brought to an end physically in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple [commemorated as Tisha B’Av]. Christians are not required and should not support any form of Zionism which ignores two thousand years of advancement in law and worship or supplants Christian morals. We don’t accept Sharia law where it disagrees with Christian morals, and we don’t support Old Law where it ignores how Jesus fulfilled it. We certainly don’t return to animal sacrifice. Christianity was God’s original intention, and that is why it was last in God’s plan. What is first in intention is last in execution.

Too many Christians, especially evangelical fundamentalists, falsely pretend that the return of Jews to their ancestral homeland is part of a messianic fulfillment. Such false prophecy and false doctrine uses God’s name in vain for illegal settlements and activity. This essay explains why much of today’s Zionism misunderstands God’s promises of the Land to Abraham. It wishes to show the magnitude of the situation.

Interpreting God’s Promises and Plans with St. Paul and St. John of the Cross

Along with the great Doctor of the Church John of the Cross, it will be demonstrated that the geographical territory of the Amorites, Canaanites, and Philistines (Palestine) promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were only an initial pledge of God’s faithfulness and plan for all of humanity. The geographical territory was never the ultimate Land that God meant by His promises. Even Abraham at times misunderstood God. The physical fulfillment of obtaining the geographical Land was always only meant to be for the sake of a greater spiritual purpose. If we are to understand what St. Paul meant in Romans 11 that “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29), then we need to first grasp principles which St. Paul established in his First Letter to Corinthians. They are the same principles St. John of the Cross draws upon to explain God’s promises.

In First Corinthians, the greatest student of Rabbi Gamaliel explains: “it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual” (1 Corinthians 15:46). In other words, what is first in intention is last in execution. If God’s ultimate and primary intention is to get humans to “point C,” then, knowing how humans work, God knows he has to take them first through “point A” and then “point B.” However, God’s main concern is not “point A” or “point B,” but rather “point C.” Upon arrival at “point C,” humans need to stop thinking “point A” and “point B” remain as relevant. “Point C,” the end or telos or goal is where the fulfillment is that must be cherished. Sadly, many humans miss the point and, in their sensuality and bondage to the senses, will cling instead to points A and B. How the Catholic Churc... Thomas E. Woods Best Price: $8.00 Buy New $9.06 (as of 05:30 UTC - Details)

God accomplishes His spiritual purposes by teaching us with physical and sensual (sense) representations. A physical Land for a specific people was never the ultimate end or goal [telos] of God’s promises but only the beginning of a plan for a future and ultimate Israel. Just as St. Paul taught that Adam (something earthly) was only a start in order to reach the ultimate Adam (something heavenly)—cf. 1 Corinthians 15:45-50—so the racially and ceremonially defined Israel of Moses was only a start in order to reach the ultimate spiritual Israel, the Mystical Body of the Messiah. And so, St. Paul taught: “‘The first man Adam became a living soul’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” The goal is to enter the “last Adam” and not remain in the “first Adam.” The goal of Israel was always to become a member of the Jerusalem above not simply the one below.

The promise of the Land and Nation to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-2, realized with Moses) was for the sake of giving and identifying the Messiah from a Name/Dynasty (Genesis 12:2, realized with David) who would bring God’s blessings to Abraham for all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:3, realized in Jesus Christ). The Messiah was the end and goal of the Torah as will be demonstrated in Romans 10:4. The first two promises of Land/Nation and Name/Dynasty are points on the road and inseparable for arriving at the promised Messiah. They were just points A and B on the road to the final destination of “point C.”  Upon arriving at “point C,” the Land and Dynasty are no longer essential and have served their purpose.

Read the Whole Article