A persistent question in Christianity is how to understand God’s promises to Israel in the Hebrew Bible. Did the Church replace (or “supersede”) Israel, thus voiding the Sinaitic covenant? Or do the Jews remain God’s chosen people? And if the latter, must Christians believe that His promise to give the land of Israel to the descendants of Jacob remains in effect? The answers given to these questions affect Christian attitudes not just toward Jews but also toward Zionism. Reflecting on last week’s centenary of the Balfour Declaration, an Anglican theologian writing under the pseudonym Archbishop Cranmer addresses them through the lens of the Church of England’s theology:

Are God’s promises to Christians somehow of a different theological order from those He made to Jews? Many Christians would say yes, of course: the New Testament superseded the Old. But why should Christians believe God’s eternal promises to them if His promises to the Jews were provisional and reneged upon? Where does the confidence come from? It seems that if God makes a promise to Jews, it’s a metaphor; if He makes a promise to Christians, it’s literal except where it refers to the Jews and Israel. Is God so confusingly capricious?

Israel is central to Jewish religious and national identity: it is both a theological community and a political community. It is the one piece of land historically promised to the Jewish people as recorded in Genesis. . . . Archaeological discoveries continue to confirm the biblical record of a land promised to the Jews, who spoke and wrote Hebrew, and worshiped the God called YHWH in what is now called Israel at least 1,000 years before Jesus was born. . . .

Modern Israel just wants to be like other free nations of the world (cf. 1Samuel 8:7-20), combining the best ideals of the Western world—democracy, liberty, openness to debate and criticism, as well as advances in technology and the pursuit of the arts. Such ideals are much needed in the region, for at times it feels as though plucky little Israel is a candle surrounded by a sea of darkness—especially that which emanates from the jurisdiction of the United Nations. But only Israel seems to understand itself from the wilderness and its destination out of that wilderness, and the British government continues to take pride in the part we played in ending the exile.

God told Abraham to “Go,” and he responded “I will.” God promised Abraham that his descendants would have a land—a geographic entity—and would be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. Israel is a fulfilment of that promise, or the covenant of blessing is as fragile and ephemeral as the desert covenant. Christians and Jews together can thank the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob . . . for the restoration of the Jewish people to their homeland, because it was an eschatological promise that He would so. And if that was not a promise, then Jesus may not in fact be the long-promised messiah, and our promised salvation is nullified in a plethora of meaningless metaphors.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.