In Defense of Catholic Zionism

Jake
Nov 8
39 min read

A Solemn Warning

Before we begin, a word of caution grounded in both Scripture and Tradition: hatred of any person is incompatible with Christian discipleship. St. John writes unequivocally, "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that eternal life does not reside in a murderer" (1 John 3:15). Those who persist in hatred of the Jewish people—or any people—while claiming the name of Christ should examine their conscience carefully, for they may be placing their souls in mortal peril. This is not hyperbole but sober theological reality: mortal sin, unrepented, separates us from God's grace. Viciousness, persecution, or hatred towards any group cannot possibly be a part of Sacred Tradition, as it fundamentally violates the Second Great Commandment and the Lex Christi (Law of Christ). Any historical instance of anti-Jewish sentiment by clergy or laypeople represents a failure of discipleship, not a legitimate theological transmission.

Introduction: The New Theological Framework

For centuries, supersessionism—the belief that the Church has replaced Israel in God's covenant—dominated Catholic theology. However, the Second Vatican Council inaugurated a "new theological framework." This framework is not new in the sense that it erases previous Christian dogma, but new in that it marks an expansion and deepening of theological inquiry.

The Church has always asked: What happens to the Old Covenant for the Christian? For this, the answer (rooted in the Epistle to the Hebrews) is that the Old Covenant is perfected and superseded by Christ's final, eternal sacrifice.

The new inquiry that the modern Magisterium courageously undertakes is: What happens to the covenant for the blinded yet faithful Jew? This was previously underexplored because the supersessionist premise had closed off the possibility of an active, unrevoked covenant for the people of Israel themselves. Now, the Church returns to Scripture, specifically Romans 9-11, to affirm what has always been true: God's covenant with Israel has never been revoked (Rom 11:29).

Pope Benedict XVI provides unique guidance on this matter. A theologian of profound insight, whom Pope Francis eulogized as a "great shepherd" and a "master" of faith given his "wisdom, sensitivity, and dedication," Benedict also holds a unique place in history. As the only major papal voice to witness the unprecedented return of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland after two millennia of exile, he wrote with a special, timely vantage point on covenant continuity. His teaching, alongside those of St. John Paul II and Pope Francis, forms the foundation of what can properly be called Catholic Zionism—not a political ideology, but a theological affirmation of God's irrevocable fidelity to His covenant people, rooted in the earliest Pauline and fraternal traditions. The framework is covenant-first, not politics-first.

This essay presents twelve interconnected theses, rooted in the tradition of the twelve tribes of Israel, defending this position from Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

PART I: COVENANT FIDELITY

Thesis I: The Jewish People Remain God's "Firstborn Son"

The Biblical Witness

God establishes Israel's unique filial relationship in the oldest strata of Scripture:

Exodus 4:22 – "Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son.'"
Hosea 11:1 – "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

This is not past-tense language. God says over 80 times in Scripture that He is the Father of Israel. The familial bond is constitutive of the covenant itself.

Covenant as Kinship

As Catholic theologians like Scott Hahn have argued, a covenant is not a mere contract; it is the extension of kinship by oath. To be in a covenant with God is to be brought into His family. The covenants God makes with Israel establish them as His family, His kin. When Gentiles are grafted into this covenant through Christ, we become part of that same family. This is the theological foundation for the "brotherhood" St. John Paul II spoke of. We are, by covenant, one family.

Magisterial Confirmation

Three recent pontiffs have affirmed this continuing relationship:

St. John Paul II (Roman Synagogue, April 13, 1986):

"The Jewish religion is not 'extrinsic' to us, but in a certain way is 'intrinsic' to our own religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers."

Pope Benedict XVI:

"The faith of the Jews testified to in the Bible, found in the Old Testament, is not for Christians another religion but the foundation of their own faith... the Jewish-Christian dialogue can only with reservations be termed 'interreligious dialogue' in the true sense of the expression; one could however speak of a kind of 'intra-religious' or 'intra-familial' dialogue sui generis."

Pope Francis (Evangelii Gaudium §247):

"We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for 'the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable' (Rom 11:29)."

The Joseph Analogy Extended: Family Fidelity

Pope John XXIII dramatically enacted this theology when meeting with Jewish leaders on October 17, 1960, greeting them with the words: "I am Joseph, your brother"—identifying the Church with Joseph, who used his position of power to shelter and provide for his elder brothers.

This analogy, found in Genesis 45-47, is critical to the Christian posture toward the Jewish people today:

Salvation Without Recognition: Joseph provided sustenance, safety, and a homeland (Goshen) for his brothers while they still did not fully recognize his true identity and glory (Gen 45:26). They did not immediately grasp that he was the powerful vizier of Egypt. Similarly, the Jewish people receive God's providential care through Christ even while remaining blind to His messianic identity.
Benjamin and Paul: Joseph's youngest brother, Benjamin, was innocent of the betrayal and remained closest to their father Jacob. Benjamin represents those Jews who accepted Christ from the beginning—the Jewish Christians of the apostolic age. Significantly, St. Paul, the greatest apostle to the Gentiles, identified himself specifically: "I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom 11:1). Paul thus connects himself to the innocent brother, the one who never rejected Joseph.
Covenant-Driven Love: Joseph acted in large part out of love for his father, Jacob. Genesis 45:3 and 45:27 show how Joseph repeatedly asked "Is my father still alive?" and how news of Joseph stirred Jacob's spirit. Similarly, God's current fidelity to the Jewish people is sustained "for the sake of my holy name" (Ezek 36:22) and on account of the patriarchs—their covenant fathers—not because of their merit (Rom 11:28). Just as Joseph asked repeatedly about his father, so God acts toward the blinded Jews of our age out of love for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Practical Support: Joseph did not just weep—he provided material support, safety, and a land for them to live and practice their religion in safety (Goshen, Gen 47:11). He gave them "the best of the land" (Gen 47:6). This is the model for the Christian West's moral obligation to support a safe haven for the Jewish people in their ancestral land, especially after the Holocaust.

Theological Implication: The Logic of Fatherhood

If God is Father and Israel is His firstborn son, then hostility toward the Jewish people is not merely ethnic prejudice—it is an attack on God's own family. This violates the simple, brutal logic of fatherhood.

Imagine a friend who is polite to you, gives you gifts, and praises you publicly. But this "friend" hates your firstborn child. He speaks ill of him, and when your child is attacked or in desperate need, this friend stands by and does nothing. Would you accept his gifts? Would his praise mean anything? No. You would be incensed. His "friendship" would be a repulsive lie because it violates the most basic law of family: you cannot love a father and hate his son.

Many Christians, particularly in the radical traditionalist movement, believe their devotions, their reverence, and their prayers please God. But if they simultaneously harbor hatred for God's firstborn son, the Jewish people—or even stand idly by while they are attacked—they make themselves fools. They stand before God against His child. Their prayers are an offense, as they defy the very logic of the Father they claim to worship. As God warns: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse" (Genesis 12:3). This promise, reiterated to Isaac (Genesis 26:3-4) and Jacob (Genesis 28:14), remains in force.

Thesis II: The Covenant with Israel Has Never Been Revoked

The Pauline Foundation: Present Tense Fidelity

St. Paul's teaching in Romans 9-11 forms the bedrock of Catholic teaching on this matter. Crucially, Paul moves from discussing past events (Jacob and Esau, verses 9:6-13) to describing the present, active possession of covenant gifts by the Jewish people:

Romans 11:29 – "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."
Romans 11:1-2 – "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew."
Romans 11:28 – "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs."
Romans 9:4-5 – "Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah" (Emphasis added).

The shift to present tense in Romans 9:4-5 is decisive. Paul does not say "theirs was"—he says "theirs is" and "theirs are." Writing decades after Christ's resurrection and ascension, Paul affirms that the covenants, promises, and adoption actively belong to Israel in his present moment. This grammatical fact demolishes any claim that Paul viewed the covenant as revoked or transferred exclusively to the Church.

Paul makes clear that even Jewish rejection of the Gospel does not nullify their election. Their status rests not on their merit but on God's faithfulness to the patriarchs, and the gifts remain actively theirs.

The Burden of Proof Is on the Supersessionist

This scriptural fact places an enormous, and frankly insurmountable, burden of proof squarely on the supersessionist. They are the ones who must argue that when Paul, writing under divine inspiration, said "theirs is the covenants," he actually meant "theirs was the covenants." They must argue that "irrevocable" means "revocable." This is a hermeneutic of contradiction. The plain sense of Scripture and the modern Magisterium are aligned; it is the supersessionist who must twist the text to fit a pre-conceived theology of replacement.

Countering the "All Israel" Misinterpretation

Some theologians (like Scott Hahn) argue that "all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26) refers primarily to the inclusion of the Gentiles because Israel was scattered among them. While the inclusion of Gentiles is true and profound, this interpretation cannot be the full meaning:

The Benjaminite Proof: In Romans 11:1, Paul identifies himself as "an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin." Benjamin was one of the two tribes (Judah and Benjamin) that formed the Southern Kingdom and returned from Babylonian exile, retaining their identity.

The Tribal Logic: If Paul were speaking of the ten "lost" northern tribes (Israel in the post-Babylonian sense), his statement would be nonsensical, akin to saying, "I am a New Englander, from the state of Mississippi!" Paul is commenting on Genesis (Jacob/Esau, Rom 9:10-13) and is clearly using the ancient, 12-tribe definition of Israel (Jacob), meaning the full, literal ethnic-covenant people.

The Context: Romans 9-11 is structured around the Jacob-Esau narrative from Genesis. Paul is not using post-Babylonian tribal naming conventions that distinguished between "Judah" and the lost northern "Israel." He means ethnic, covenantal Israel descended from the patriarch Jacob/Israel.

Therefore, Paul means that the ethnic people of Israel will achieve a final, full salvation.

Magisterial Teaching

Pope Francis (Evangelii Gaudium §247):

"We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked... As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word."

Vatican Commission Document (2015, The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable):

"Since God has never revoked his covenant with his people Israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to God's salvation... God entrusted Israel with a unique mission, and He does not bring his mysterious plan of salvation for all peoples (cf. 1 Tim 2:4) to fulfillment without drawing into it his 'first-born son' (Ex 4:22)."

Pope Benedict XVI:

"The promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel... but had been transferred to the Church of Jesus Christ which was now the true 'new Israel'... A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities... is deprived of its foundations."

Definitive Questions

Has God rejected Israel? No (Rom 11:1).
Has the covenant been revoked? No (Rom 11:29; Francis, EG §247).
Do the promises still apply to Israel? Yes (Benedict XVI).
Does God continue to work among the Jewish people? Yes (Francis, EG §247).
Do the covenants and promises currently belong to Israel? Yes (Rom 9:4-5, present tense).

Thesis III: Supersessionism Is Definitively Rejected

The Old Error

For centuries, many Church Fathers taught that the Church had completely replaced Israel in God's plan, and that the promises made to Abraham now applied exclusively to Christians. This "replacement theology" dominated medieval thought.

The Conciliar Correction

Vatican II (Nostra Aetate §4):

"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today... the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures."

Pope Benedict XVI:

"On the part of many of the Church Fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favour until in the Middle Ages it represented the standard theological foundation... With its Declaration 'Nostra aetate' (No.4) the Church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity... A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities... is deprived of its foundations."

Benedict XVI (2015 Vatican Document):

"The Church is called the new people of God (cf. 'Nostra aetate', No.4) but not in the sense that the people of God of Israel has ceased to exist."

The Biblical Corrective: Grafting, Not Replacement

St. Paul's metaphor in Romans 11:17-24 is definitive:

"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches... Remember, you do not support the root, but the root supports you."

Key Points:

Gentiles are grafted into Israel, not vice versa
The root (Israel) supports the branches (the Church), not the reverse
Natural branches can be grafted back in (Rom 11:23-24)
The Church would wither if cut off from Israel's root (Benedict XVI, 2015 Document)

Vatican Commission (2015):

"One could say that Jesus Christ bears in himself the living root of the 'green olive tree', and yet in a deeper meaning that the whole promise has its root in him (cf. Jn 8:58). This image represents for Paul the decisive key to thinking of the relationship between Israel and the Church in the light of faith... the Church draws nourishment and strength from the root of Israel, and the grafted branches would wither or even die if they were cut off from the root of Israel."

The Misuse of Hebrews 8:13

Supersessionists invariably quote Hebrews 8:13: "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." This text, when read in its proper context, does not support supersessionism; it explains the fulfillment of the sacrificial system.

Obsolete for Whom? The Letter to the Hebrews is written to Jewish Christians to warn them against reverting to Judaism (apostasy). The text explains what happens to the Old Covenant for those who have embraced Christ. It answers the question, "What happens for the Christian?" It does not answer the question, "What happens for the blinded Jew?"

Pope Benedict XVI:

"This Epistle, however, is not directed to the Jews but rather to the Christians of Jewish background... At issue in the Epistle to the Hebrews is not the contrast of the Old and New Covenants as we understand them today, nor a contrast between the church and Judaism. Rather, the contrast is between the eternal heavenly priesthood of Christ and the transitory earthly priesthood."

What is "Obsolete"? The entire context of Hebrews 7-9 is the Levitical Priesthood and Temple sacrifices. The author argues that Christ's one-time, perfect sacrifice has made the daily animal sacrifices of the Temple obsolete for Christians.

What "Will Soon Disappear"? This is a prophetic statement. Written before 70 AD, it foretells the imminent destruction of the Temple, which would (and did) make the entire sacrificial "mode of worship" disappear. This text is about the cult, not the covenant people. The Abrahamic covenant was never dependent on the Temple cult.

The Babylonian Precedent: The end of the sacrificial system is not the end of the covenant. This isn't the first time this has happened. During the Babylonian Captivity, the Temple was destroyed and the cult ceased. Did the covenant end? No. The prophets of the exile (Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah) wrote to affirm God's covenant fidelity. The lack of a Temple cult was a sign of judgment, but it did not (and does not) nullify God's eternal promises to His people.

Implication: For a Christian to abandon the New Covenant and return to the Old would be to reject Christ's once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29). This would be a grave sin—not because the Old Covenant is evil, but because denying Christ after knowing Him is apostasy.

Supersessionism Is Not Native to Scripture

The Early Church's Problem: The initial question for the Apostles was not, "Does a Jew need to become a Christian to be part of Israel?" (Supersessionism's premise) but the opposite: "Does a Christian need to become a Jew to be part of Israel?" (Acts 15).

The Question at the Council of Jerusalem: The Council of Jerusalem determined "No." This historical-theological struggle itself demonstrates that the Apostles did not hold a supersessionist view that the Old Covenant was simply dead and replaced. Had supersessionism been native to Scripture, Peter and James would have merely shrugged and declared the old covenant null, rendering the Council unnecessary. The very fact that they had to deliberate proves they understood continuity and grafting, not replacement.

The New Framework's Continuity: The rejection of Replacement Theology is not a modern innovation but a return to the implications of Paul's teaching on the irrevocable gifts (Rom 11:29) and the nature of the grafting metaphor. It is an expansion that insists that the covenant question must be answered for both:

The Christian (where the New Covenant is supreme and the Old is fulfilled)
The non-Christian Jew (where God's calling remains active and irrevocable)

This was previously underexplored because supersessionism had closed off the second inquiry.

Thesis IV: Salvation Comes Through Christ Alone—Yet Israel Participates in This Salvation

The Mystery

This thesis holds two truths in tension that only God can reconcile:

Jesus Christ is the only mediator of salvation – "There is no other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The Jewish people participate in God's salvation – "All Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26); "they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Rom 11:28-29).

Vatican Teaching

Vatican Commission (2015):

"From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God's salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. Such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of Saint Paul... That the Jews are participants in God's salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery."

Theologically Plausible Models

While the mechanism is a mystery, we can propose theologically plausible models that respect both truths:

Model 1: Implicit Desire. The Church has evolved its understanding of salvation, recognizing that those outside her visible bounds (like Protestants) can be saved through an implicit desire for union with Christ and His Church. Why not a similar solution for the Jews? A righteous Jew who, though blind to Christ's identity, faithfully follows God's law and awaits the Messiah, certainly has an implicit desire for union with that Messiah.

Model 2: The Pattern of Abraham's Bosom. Before Christ's resurrection, righteous Israelites (like Abraham, Moses, and David) awaited the Messiah in "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22). Upon His victory, Christ's identity was revealed to them (1 Peter 3:19; 4:6), and they were saved through Him—not despite never having known Him in life, but precisely because they remained faithful to the covenant God had given them. This was not a post-death "conversion" (they loved God all along); it was a post-death recognition of the Jesus they had implicitly loved. This same pattern could apply to righteous Jews today who die in fidelity to the covenant.

We do not need to definitively explain the mechanism. We simply rest in the mystery, faithful to the facts God has revealed in Scripture: Christ is the only Savior, and "all Israel will be saved."

The Joseph Analogy: Salvation Through Blindness

Joseph's brothers were saved from famine while not recognizing his true identity and glory. Their salvation came through Joseph's agency, even through their temporary blindness. Similarly, the salvation of the Jewish people comes through the agency of Christ, the Messiah, even as they remain within the irrevocable covenant.

Christ’s words from the Cross:

We affirm that Christ’s prayers get answered, and therefore they will be forgiven.

Some may say that this was about the Romans; that it is not a prayer for the forgiveness of the Jews. Or else, it is a universal prayer regarding the fact that it was the sin of all that brought him to the cross. Here it is to be noted and underlined that in the first case, you have now dropped the charge that the killing of Jesus is at the feet of the Jews. In the second case, it is now clear that we all killed Christ and the Jews ought not be especially singled out.

Choose your adventure.

The Jews killed Christ, and grant that this is Christ praying for their forgiveness in light of their blindness.
This is about the Romans, and now drop the charge that the Jews are responsible for Christ's death. May I suggest adopting the Creedal language: “Suffered under Pontius Pilate.”
Universalize the guilt and universalize the prayer. Accept the Jews are in the same situation as the rest of us and ought not be treated differently.

Finally, one could recognize the truth in each, shed their antisemitic claims, stay close to the Creedal language, and glory in the fact that God does not forget his people. He has extended that love to us Gentiles who at times persecute Him through blindness.

The 'Hostile Witness' Tradition

While the precise mechanism of Israel’s salvation remains a "divine mystery", a powerful theological case is built by examining the admissions of Church Fathers who were, in other contexts, deeply hostile to the Jewish people.

That these men—whose cultural prejudices and harsh rhetoric we now definitively reject as failures of discipleship —were forced by the clarity of Scripture to affirm Israel's final, corporate salvation, serves as a "hostile witness" to the enduring truth of the covenant. Their admissions are doubly trustworthy precisely because they run contrary to their own prejudices.

St. John Chrysostom

The Hostility: In his Adversus Judaeos homilies, Chrysostom deployed extreme rhetoric, arguing God had permanently abandoned the Jews and that their souls were a "dwelling of demons."
The Admission: Yet, when this same man was forced to comment directly on the text of Romans 11, he could not escape the prophecy. He was forced to admit:
"Elijah... shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being... 'For this is my covenant with them, when I will take away their sins' [Romans 11:27]. If then this hath been promised, but has never yet happened... certainly it will come to pass." Source: St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, Homily 19 (c. 390 AD).

St. Augustine of Hippo

The Hostility: St. Augustine formulated the "witness doctrine" (Contra Faustum), arguing that the Jews must be preserved, but only in a state of perpetual debasement and dispersion as a "witness" to Christians of the consequences of rejecting Christ.
The Admission: But Augustine, the architect of this "perpetual dispersion" doctrine, also had to admit this state was not permanent when he confronted Romans 11. He affirms a future, universal conversion at the second advent:
"In that humble coming [first advent] ‘blindness hath happened in part unto Israel, that the fullness of the Gentiles might enter in’ [Rom. 11:25], in that other [second advent] should happen what follows, ‘and so all Israel should be saved’ [Rom. 11:26]... The time will come... and all Israel shall believe." Source: St. Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, Book 20, Chapter 29 (c. 426 AD).

St. Cyril of Alexandria

The Hostility: St. Cyril's hostility was not merely rhetorical; as bishop of Alexandria, he incited the political-religious violence that led to the expulsion of the city's Jewish community in 415 AD.
The Admission: This same St. Cyril, in his Commentary on Isaiah, is forced by the prophetic tradition to affirm what he rejected in practice—a final reconciliation:
"At the end of time our Lord Jesus Christ will be reconciled with Israel, his ancient persecutor... Israel itself will be converted after the calling of the nations." Source: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah, on Isaiah 5:1-7 (c. 430 AD).
Analysis: St. Cyril’s personal animus is visible in the very sentence ("his ancient persecutor"), which only strengthens the force of the admission. The man who expelled them from his city admits that Christ will, at the end, be "reconciled" with them.

Other Patristic Affirmations

This Patristic consensus on a final, corporate salvation for Israel, even among hostile witnesses, is widespread:

St. Justin Martyr (c. 155 AD): "And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory... they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy way?"
- Source: First Apology, Chapter 52 (c. 155 AD).
St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 385 AD): "[He quotes] 'Blindness in part has happened unto Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved' (Romans 11:25–26)."
- Source: Letters, Epistle 63 (To the Church at Vercelli), Section 58 (c. 385 AD).

This collective Patristic and Scholastic testimony—that "all Israel will be saved" —provides the crucial, traditional link. We simply extend their logic: If God has promised this final, certain reconciliation, it is only because His covenant with them was never truly revoked in the first place.

Thesis V: The Three Categories of "Israel"

This thesis must be clarified by defining its terms. "Israel" in the New Testament can refer to three distinct categories of people. This distinction is crucial.

Category 1: The Unrighteous/Apostate Jew: This is the Jew who is ethnically descended from Abraham but does not abide by the covenant. They are, in Paul's words, "Israel" in name only (Rom 9:6). They are not "true Jews" (Rom 2:28-29). They are not the recipients of the promises and are not saved, just as an unrighteous Christian is not saved.

Category 2: The Blinded but Righteous Jew: This is the Jew who, like Paul before his conversion, is "zealous for God" but blinded to Christ's identity as Messiah (Rom 10:2). They participate in the unrevoked Old Covenant, faithfully awaiting the Messiah. It is this group that Paul refers to in Romans 11:26: "and in this way all Israel will be saved." This "all Israel" cannot mean the Church (it makes no sense in the context of the olive tree) and it cannot mean apostate Israel. It refers to the faithful remnant of covenantal Israel.

Category 3: The Church (Jew & Gentile): This is the fulfilled body of Christ, composed of both Jews and Gentiles who confess Christ. As Paul says, in this body "there is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal 3:28).

For Jews: Romans 9:4-5

But what of those who have never known Christ as Messiah? Paul writes:

"Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah" (Romans 9:4-5).

Note the present tense: "theirs"—not "theirs was." Paul, writing decades after Christ's resurrection, affirms that the covenants, worship, and promises still belong to Israel. This is not past history—it is present reality.

The Paradox

For Jews to leave Judaism for any religion other than Christianity would be to forsake their covenant
For Jews to enter Christianity is to fulfill their covenant
For Jews to remain in Judaism while blind to Christ is to remain in the covenant God has not revoked

Vatican Commission (2015):

"God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word."

Therefore, when we say "the Old Covenant remains active," we are speaking specifically of its role for Category 2. For them, it remains the vehicle of their relationship with God—a relationship God has never revoked.

PART II: THE LAND PROMISE

Thesis VI: The Land Promise Is Irrevocable Content of the Covenant

A. The Land Promise Is Part of the Irrevocable Covenant

God's promise of the land to Abraham's descendants is not incidental—it is central to every major covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant:

Genesis 12:7 – "The LORD appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.'"
Genesis 13:15 – "All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever."-
Genesis 15:18 – "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, 'To your descendants I give this land.'"
Genesis 17:8 – "The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession (olam) to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."
Genesis 24:7 – The promise reiterated to Abraham's servant
Genesis 26:3 – Reiterated to Isaac
Genesis 28:13 – Reiterated to Jacob
Genesis 35:12 – Reiterated to Jacob again
Genesis 48:4 – Jacob passing it on to Joseph

The Mosaic Covenant:

The entire structure of Torah assumes residence in the land (agricultural laws, cities of refuge, tribal inheritance, etc.)
Leviticus 25:23 – "The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers."

The Davidic Covenant:

The kingdom is explicitly tied to Jerusalem and Zion (2 Samuel 7; Psalm 132)

The New Covenant Prophecy:

Jeremiah 31:8-10 – "See, I will bring them from the land of the north and gather them from the ends of the earth... He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over his flock like a shepherd."
Jeremiah 31:23-24 – "When I bring them back from captivity... 'The LORD bless you, you prosperous city, you sacred mountain.' People will live together in Judah and all its towns."
Ezekiel 36:24-28 – "For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land... You will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God."

The Perpetuity Language

The land grant is described with the same Hebrew word (olam, "everlasting/forever") used for the covenant itself:

Genesis 17:7 – "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting (olam) covenant between me and you"
Genesis 17:8 – "The whole land of Canaan... I will give as an everlasting (olam) possession"

A common objection is that "everlasting" just means "a long time." But if we argue that, then we must also argue that the Abrahamic covenant itself is "just for a long time." This is theological dynamite. The only consistent reading is that the land promise is everlasting in the same sense that the covenant is everlasting. If the covenant is irrevocable (Rom 11:29), and the land grant uses identical perpetuity language, then the land grant is equally irrevocable.

B. Paul's "Irrevocable Gifts" Explicitly Include the Land

When Paul declares that "the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29), what does he mean by "gifts"? The most proximate and explicit enumeration appears just two chapters earlier:

The use of the present tense here is non-negotiable proof that Paul is not talking about superseded gifts; he is asserting that the covenants and promises, which include the land, are still active for Israel in his own time, decades after the Resurrection.

"The covenants" – Every major biblical covenant with Israel includes the land as essential content (see above).

"The promises" – The most frequently repeated promise to Abraham is the land (Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3; 28:13; 35:12; 48:4).

Therefore: When Paul says the gifts are irrevocable, he includes the covenant promises of land. This is not speculation—it follows logically from Paul's own enumeration and his deliberate use of present-tense language to describe Israel's current possession of these gifts.

Pope Benedict XVI affirms this principle:

"The promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel... but had been transferred to the Church... [This view] is deprived of its foundations."

If the promises have not been transferred from Israel to the Church exclusively, then the land promise—central to the Abrahamic covenant—has not been transferred either.

C. The Category Error of "Spiritual Fulfillment"

The common supersessionist objection is that the land promise is "spiritualized" in Christ and now refers to the New Jerusalem, or Heaven. This is a classic category error that misses the central theological question.

For Christians (Category 3), the land promise is fulfilled and spiritualized in Christ. Our "land" is the New Heaven and New Earth, the state of grace, the Church Triumphant. This is obvious.

But the question of this essay is: What happens to the covenant for the blinded but righteous Jew (Category 2)? It is a theological mistake to take the Christian fulfillment of a promise and apply it to a people who are not (yet) participating in that fulfillment. For the Jew remaining in the (unrevoked) Old Covenant, the promises of that covenant—including the literal, temporal land—must remain in force. Their covenant was never spiritualized in this way; it remains tied to the literal land of Canaan, and God has not revoked it.

Thesis VII: Exile and Return Form a Biblical Pattern of Covenant Fidelity

The Prophetic Pattern

Throughout salvation history, God uses a consistent pattern:

Exile as covenant judgment for Israel's unfaithfulness
Return to the land as proof of covenant restoration—not based on Israel's merit, but on God's fidelity to His name

Biblical Examples

The Assyrian Captivity (Northern Kingdom, 722 BC)

Exile for idolatry (2 Kings 17:7-23)
Promise of eventual restoration (Hosea 11:10-11)

The Babylonian Captivity (Southern Kingdom, 586 BC)

Exile for covenant unfaithfulness (2 Chronicles 36:15-21)
Return after 70 years (Jeremiah 29:10-14; Ezra 1)
Ezekiel 36:22-24 – "It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name... I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land."

Post-Exilic Promises:

Deuteronomy 30:3-5 – "Then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you... He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it."
Amos 9:14-15 – "I will bring my people Israel back from exile... I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them, says the LORD your God."

The Theological Principle

God's restoration of Israel to the land demonstrates His covenant fidelity, not Israel's righteousness. As Ezekiel repeatedly emphasizes: God acts "for the sake of my holy name" (Ezek 36:22), not because Israel deserves it.

Thesis VIII: The Post-1948 Return Demands Theological Interpretation

The Historical Unprecedented

St. Thomas Aquinas and other medieval theologians correctly observed that the exile of 70 AD was a divine sign. But if exile was a sign, how can the worldwide return and reconstitution of the State of Israel after 2,000 years not also be a sign?

The Challenge: Find a single example in human history of a people scattered across the globe for even 100 years—much less 1,000 or 2,000—who returned and reconstituted as a nation.

There is none. The Jewish return is historically unique. To dismiss this as a "meaningless accident of history" strains credulity, especially given:

The explicit biblical prophecies of return (Ezekiel 36; Jeremiah 31; Amos 9)
The consistent exile-return pattern throughout Scripture
The survival of Jewish identity against all historical odds
The irrevocable nature of God's covenant (Rom 11:29)

Pope Benedict XVI's Privileged Position

Pope Benedict XVI provides unique guidance on this matter. A theologian of profound insight, whom Pope Francis eulogized as a "great shepherd" and a "master" of faith, Benedict holds a unique place in history as the only major papal voice to witness this seismic shift in salvation history. His theological framework for understanding Jewish-Christian relations carries unique weight precisely because he writes with historical perspective unavailable to any Church Father or medieval Doctor.

Benedict XVI:

"God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant."

If God continues to work among the Jewish people, and if the covenant includes the land promise, and if the people have returned to the land in an unprecedented manner, then this return is either providential or meaningless. Given Romans 11:29, the latter option is untenable.

Luke 21:24 and Eschatological Significance

Jesus Himself connects Jerusalem to the end times:

"Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Luke 21:24).

This implies:

Jerusalem has eschatological significance
A time will come when Jerusalem is no longer under Gentile domination
This shift marks a transition in salvation history

We may now be witnessing this prophesied transition.

Thesis IX: Christians Share the Land Promise Through Grafting

The Grafting Metaphor Extended

Romans 11:17 teaches that Gentile Christians are "grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root."

If we share in the root, we share in its promises—including the land.

This means:

The land promise is not exclusively Jewish
But neither is it exclusively Christian
It is covenantally shared between Jews (natural branches) and Christians (grafted branches)

The Land Is Sanctified by Christ

Pope Pius X recognized this truth:

"The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ."

The Incarnation means place matters. Christ sanctified specific locations by His physical presence:

Born in Bethlehem
Raised in Nazareth
Ministered in Galilee
Crucified in Jerusalem
Rose from the tomb in Jerusalem

If the Incarnation is real—if the Word truly became flesh—then the Holy Land retains unique theological dignity. This is not pious sentimentality but incarnational logic.

The Church's Historical Witness

The Church has always treated the Holy Land differently:

Constantine's mother Helena sought relics there
The Church maintains custody of holy sites
Pilgrimage to Jerusalem has been a Christian practice for 2,000 years
Pilgrimage: The entire theological concept of pilgrimage to the Holy Land, practiced for millennia, is based on the belief that this specific geography has a unique role in salvation
The Crusades: Whatever one thinks of them politically, the Crusades are ironclad historical proof that Christendom was willing to expend enormous blood and treasure based on the theological conviction that this land was different and uniquely sanctified by Christ's presence

The Church's behavior reveals her theology: she has always treated the Holy Land as having unique covenantal and sacramental significance.

PART III: MORAL AND ESCHATOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Thesis X: The Covenant Abides with the People, Transcending Political Regimes

The Common Objection

"But modern Israel is secular/flawed/unjust—how can it have covenantal significance?"

The Biblical Response: This Objection Misunderstands How Covenants Work

God's covenant with Israel persisted through:

Apostasy and Idolatry:

The golden calf incident (Exodus 32)
Jeroboam's state-sponsored idolatry with golden calves (1 Kings 12:28-30)
Solomon's worship of Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Molech (1 Kings 11:5-8)
Manasseh sacrificing his own son to Molech (2 Kings 21:6)

Wicked and Incompetent Leadership:

The chaos of the Judges era when "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" (Judges 21:25)
Saul's disobedience and descent into madness
Ahab and Jezebel's persecution of the prophets
The majority of kings described as "evil in the eyes of the LORD"

Foreign Occupation:

Babylonian vassalage
Persian rule
Greek (Seleucid) domination
Roman occupation

The Ultimate Test: Even when Israel rejected and crucified the Messiah (Acts 2:23), Paul still writes that "they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Rom 11:28-29).

At no point did God revoke the covenant based on:

The structure of Israel's government
The righteousness of their rulers
The spiritual state of the people

Why? Because the covenant rests on God's faithfulness, not human merit (Ezekiel 36:22).

The Principle of Governmental Irrelevance

The covenant is with the people, not the regime. The quality, structure, or policies of the government have never been the relevant variable for covenant status.

Contemporary Application

Critiques of the modern Israeli government—whether valid or invalid on their own merits—are categorically irrelevant to the theological question of covenant continuity. The covenant is with the people, not the regime.

Just as:

The covenant remained valid under wicked King Ahab
The covenant remained valid during the Babylonian exile
The covenant remained valid under Roman occupation

So too:

The covenant remains valid regardless of the current Israeli government's policies

The Catholic Analogy

Consider a parallel: Does the Catholic Church's divine institution and teaching authority depend on the personal holiness of each Pope?

No. The office remains valid even through:

Alexander VI (the Borgia Pope)
Julius II (the "Warrior Pope")
Historical periods of corruption and scandal

The office transcends the officeholder. Similarly, the covenant transcends the current government.

Two Distinct Questions

We must distinguish:

Theological Question: Do the Jewish people retain a covenantal connection to the land?
- Answer: Yes, because the gifts and calling are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).
Political Question: Should I support every policy of the current Israeli government?
- Answer: This is a matter of prudential judgment, not theological necessity.

These are different categories of claim that must not be conflated.

Thesis XI: Antisemitism Is Demonic and Invites Divine Curse

The Biblical Warning

Genesis 12:3 – "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse."

This promise, given to Abraham and reiterated to Isaac (Genesis 26:3-4) and Jacob (Genesis 28:14), remains in force. Why? Because the covenant remains in force (Rom 11:29).

The Demonic Pattern

Nostra Aetate (§4), quoted by John Paul II:

"[The Church] deplores the hatred, persecutions, and displays of antisemitism directed against the Jews at any time and by anyone."

Modern antisemitic tropes echo the demonic lies of Pharaoh:

Exodus 1:9-10 – "Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country."

The pattern:

Fear of Jewish power and "dual loyalty"
Conspiracy theories about Jewish control
Marginalization into ghettos
Persecution and violence

This is not new—it is the same ancient demon speaking through new voices.

The Moral Imperative: The Sin of Edom

To stand idly by while the Jewish people are attacked is not merely indifferent; it is a grave moral failing akin to the sin of Edom (Esau's descendants), as prophesied by the prophet Obadiah:

Obadiah 1:10-14 – Edom is denounced for:

Standing aloof on the day of Jacob's (Israel's) distress
Gloating over their ruin
Joining the enemies who sacked Jerusalem
Cutting off the fugitives and handing over survivors

The sin is not merely active persecution but passive complicity—standing by while brothers suffer.

The Theological Connection: Esau and Rome

Jewish tradition symbolically links Edom/Esau (who rejected his birthright, Gen 25:29-34) with the Roman Empire and the subsequent nations who persecuted Israel. The Midrash and medieval Jewish commentaries identify Rome as the spiritual successor to Edom because:

Both were hostile to Jerusalem
Both destroyed or enabled the destruction of the Temple
Both scattered the Jewish people

When Christians stand idly by or participate in the persecution of the Jewish people, they align themselves with the historical spirit of Edom/Esau, thus incurring the divine curse of Genesis 12:3.

The reconciliation between Jacob and Esau (Genesis 33) provides the typological hope—but only when Esau (representing the Gentile nations) actively seeks peace and blessing rather than standing aloof during Jacob's distress.

The Warning of 'Raca' Against a Brother

Christ's law intensifies the moral stakes. The mortal sin of hatred (1 John 3:15) is amplified by Christ's own warning in the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:22 – "But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raca,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna."

If St. John Paul II calls the Jewish people our "elder brothers," then to spew vitriol (Raca, "empty-head," "worthless") against them as a people is to invoke this same judgment upon oneself.

The Theological Stakes

To curse the Jewish people is to:

Resist God's covenant fidelity
Attack God's firstborn son (Exodus 4:22)
Invite the curse of Genesis 12:3
Commit the mortal sin of hatred (1 John 3:15)
Repeat the sin of Edom (Obadiah 1:10-14)
Risk the judgment of Matthew 5:22

Blessing Brings Blessing

Conversely, to bless the Jewish people—to stand with them, defend them, and welcome them as elder brothers—is to align ourselves with God's purposes and receive His blessing.

This is the Joseph posture: active material support, not passive indifference.

Thesis XII: Israel's Recognition of Christ Is Integral to Salvation History's Consummation

The Eschatological Hope

The reconciliation of Israel and the Church is not peripheral to God's plan—it is central to the eschaton.

Romans 11:15 – "For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

Romans 11:25-26 – "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved."

Catechism of the Catholic Church §674:

"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.'"

The Church awaits Israel's recognition of Christ as part of the final consummation.

The Typological Vision: Jacob and Esau Reconciled

After years of estrangement, Jacob reconciles with Esau (Genesis 33). Jacob says to Esau:

"To see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably" (Genesis 33:10).

This prefigures the reconciliation between the Church (younger brother) and Israel (elder brother). Just as Jacob gave gifts to Esau and sought peace, so the Church should seek reconciliation with Israel—not through replacement or absorption, but through mutual recognition as brothers in God's family.

The Joseph Typology

Joseph, rejected by his brothers, rises to power and uses his position to shelter and provide for them (Genesis 45-47). He does not reject them despite their betrayal—he welcomes them and gives them a homeland.

Pope John XXIII made this connection explicit: "I am Joseph, your brother."

The Church, like Joseph, should:

Recognize our shared family bond
Use whatever influence we have to protect our elder brothers
Provide them security and space
Await the day when they recognize us as family in the full sense

PART IV: SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION

The Catholic Zionist Thesis: A Summary

Catholic Zionism is not a political ideology but a theological affirmation grounded in Scripture and Magisterial teaching. It holds:

The covenant with Israel has never been revoked (Rom 11:29; Francis, EG §247).
Supersessionism is false; the Church is grafted into Israel, not replacing her (Rom 11:17-24; Benedict XVI).
The Jewish people remain God's "firstborn son" and our "elder brothers in the faith" (Exodus 4:22; John Paul II).
Jews participate in God's salvation through a divine mystery we do not fully understand (Vatican 2015 Document).
The land promise is part of the irrevocable covenant (Gen 12:7; 13:15; 17:8; Rom 9:4-5).
The post-1948 return demands theological interpretation as a sign of God's covenant fidelity (Ezek 36:24; Amos 9:15; Luke 21:24).
The quality of government is covenantally irrelevant—the covenant is with the people, not the regime.
Christians share in the land promise through grafting (Rom 11:17), and the land is sanctified by Christ's Incarnation.
Antisemitism is mortal sin and invites divine curse (1 John 3:15; Gen 12:3; Nostra Aetate §4). Standing idly by during Jewish suffering is the sin of Edom (Obadiah 1:10-14).
Israel's ultimate recognition of Christ is part of salvation history's consummation (Rom 11:26; CCC §674).

The Path from Covenant to Practical Action: Covenant-First, Not Politics-First

This approach differs fundamentally from Dispensationalist Protestant Zionism. Dispensationalists often begin with a political commitment to the State of Israel based on their eschatological timeline and then work backward to theological justification.

Catholic Zionism moves in the opposite direction:

Start with Covenant Theology: God has an irrevocable covenant with the Jewish people (Rom 11:29).
Recognize Fraternal Duty: They are our elder brothers (St. John Paul II) and God's firstborn son (Ex 4:22). "Am I my brother's keeper?" Yes.
Understand Moral Obligation: As Joseph was obliged to provide safety, sustenance, and a place to live for his family (Gen 45-47), the Christian Church and the West have a moral duty to secure the safety of the Jewish people, especially following the Holocaust.
Derive Political Implications: The political existence of the State of Israel, however flawed its government, fulfills the moral requirement to provide a safe haven in their covenantally promised land.

The framework is covenant-first, not politics-first. We do not begin with "Israel the political entity" and ask "How can I support it?" Rather, we begin with "Israel the covenant people" and ask "What does our fraternal bond demand?" The political implications naturally follow from the theological reality. Politics is downstream from these eternal principles.

The Practical Reality

Given the alternatives:

Should the land be under Islamic governance that historically persecutes both Jews and Christians? No.
Should it be a secular state hostile to both Judaism and Christianity? No.
Should it remain in the hands of those to whom the promise was given, the Jewish people? Yes.

Key Clarifications:

This is not a blank check for any government policy. Just as the covenant remained valid under wicked kings, so too the current Israeli government's policies must be evaluated on their own merits according to justice and Catholic moral teaching.
Palestinian Christians deserve justice and protection. Their rights must be respected, and any injustice against them must be opposed. However, opposing specific injustices is distinct from denying the covenantal reality of Jewish connection to the land.
The Church's early concerns about the formation of Israel (regarding potential exclusion of Christians from holy sites) have not materialized. Christians maintain access to sacred sites.
Until the eschatological reconciliation when Israel comes to recognize Christ and the Church and Israel live in full communion, it is better that the land be in the hands of our elder brothers than in the hands of those hostile to both Judaism and Christianity.

We must simultaneously:

Affirm the Jewish people's covenantal connection to the land
Demand justice for all, including Palestinian Christians, in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching, while opposing specific policies by any government that violate human dignity

Acknowledging the covenantal claims of the Jewish people does not require denying justice to others; these are distinct categories of claims. This essay deals with the eternal theological principles, not the specific, "downstream" political applications, which are for the laity and statesmen to navigate.

The "I Am Joseph, Your Brother" Posture

The proper Christian stance toward the Jewish people and the land is modeled by Pope John XXIII's greeting: "I am Joseph, your brother."

Joseph, having risen to power, did not lord it over his brothers. He did not exact revenge for their betrayal. Instead:

He sheltered them (Genesis 45:10-11)
He provided for them (Genesis 47:11-12)
He gave them land to dwell in safety (Genesis 47:6)
He wept with joy at being reunited with them (Genesis 45:14-15)
He saved them while they did not yet recognize his glory (Genesis 45:26)

This is the posture of Catholic Zionism:

To recognize the Jewish people as family, not enemies
To support their safety after millennia of persecution
To rejoice in God's faithfulness to His covenant
To provide material support and a safe homeland
To invite them, in love and dialogue, to recognize their Messiah
To avoid the sin of Edom—standing idly by during their distress

Addressing Final Objections

Objection 1: "Isn't this just blessing a secular state?"

Response: We are blessing a people, not merely a political entity. The covenant is with the Jewish people, whose return to the land after 2,000 years is unprecedented in human history and demands theological interpretation. Whether the current government is righteous or wicked does not change the covenant reality—just as God's covenant remained valid under Ahab, Manasseh, and during Roman occupation.

Objection 2: "What about Palestinian suffering?"

Response: Injustice against any person, Palestinian or otherwise, must be opposed. Catholic moral teaching on war, proportionality, and the dignity of every human person applies fully. However, acknowledging the covenantal claims of the Jewish people does not require denying justice to Palestinians. These are distinct questions. We can simultaneously:

Affirm the Jewish people's covenant connection to the land
Oppose specific policies that violate human dignity if they exist
Work toward reconciliation and shared flourishing when possible
Oppose injustice if it in fact occurs

Objection 3: "The land promises were conditional on obedience."

Response: Yes, possession of the land has historically been conditional (Deuteronomy 28-30). Israel was exiled for disobedience. But the covenant itself and the promise of eventual restoration were never conditional on Israel's merit. As Ezekiel 36:22 repeatedly emphasizes: "It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name." God restores Israel to demonstrate His own faithfulness, not Israel's righteousness. This is precisely Paul's point in Romans 11:28-29: "they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."

Objection 4: "You're reading modern politics into the Bible."

Response: On the contrary, we are reading the Bible and asking what it demands of us now. When the Jewish people were scattered for 2,000 years, the land promise seemed irrelevant to many theologians. But now that the people have returned—in fulfillment of explicit prophecies (Ezekiel 36:24; Jeremiah 31:10; Amos 9:14-15)—we must grapple with what this means. Benedict XVI, writing with a special, historical vantage point, is the only major papal voice to witness this shift and provides our guide. To ignore this unprecedented historical reality would be to read modern disinterest into Scripture, not to avoid reading politics into it.

Moreover, we are not starting with politics and working backward to theology (the Dispensationalist error). We are starting with covenant theology and working forward to its practical implications.

Conclusion: A Call to Reconciliation

The Theological Stakes

This is not a minor matter of opinion. At stake is our understanding of:

God's faithfulness to His covenant promises
The relationship between the Old and New Covenants
The Church's identity as grafted into Israel
The trajectory of salvation history toward its consummation

To curse the Jewish people is to curse God's firstborn son. To deny the irrevocability of the covenant is to doubt God's faithfulness. To embrace supersessionism is to cut ourselves off from our own roots.

The Moral Imperative

1 John 3:15 – "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that eternal life does not reside in a murderer."

Hatred of the Jewish people—whether expressed as theological supersessionism, ethnic antisemitism, or hostile indifference to their suffering—is incompatible with Christian faith. It places one's soul in mortal danger. Vicious rhetoric against them is subject to Christ's own judgment (Mt 5:22).

Standing idly by is the sin of Edom (Obadiah 1:10-14).

Conversely, Genesis 12:3 promises: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse."

To bless the Jewish people is to align ourselves with God's purposes and receive His blessing.

The Path Forward: Dialogue and Invitation

Pope Francis (Evangelii Gaudium §247):

"Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus' disciples."

Our calling is clear:

Recognize the Jewish people as our elder brothers, not as adversaries or as a "superseded" people
Affirm the irrevocability of God's covenant with them
Support their safety after millennia of persecution—providing material support and a safe homeland as Joseph did
Oppose antisemitism in all its forms as a grave moral evil
Avoid the sin of Edom—standing aloof during their distress
Invite them, through love and dialogue, to recognize Jesus as the Messiah

This is not syncretism. This is not indifferentism. This is not a "two-path" theology. Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. But the mystery of how God brings His covenant people to salvation, while they remain (for now) blind to His identity, is not ours to unravel completely. We trust in God's faithfulness and work toward the day when, as Paul prophesies, "all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:26).

The Eschatological Vision

We look forward to the day described in Romans 11:15:

"For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

When Israel recognizes her Messiah, it will be as resurrection itself—the final reconciliation that ushers in the fullness of God's Kingdom.

Until that day:

Let us stand with our elder brothers
Let us defend them from hatred and violence
Let us honor God's irrevocable promises
Let us provide practical support and safety
Let us invite them to see what we see: that Jesus of Nazareth is the fulfillment of all that God promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

Final Word: "I Am Joseph, Your Brother"

Jacob reconciled with Esau. Joseph sheltered his brothers. The younger son returned to embrace his elder brother.

This is our calling.

Not to replace. Not to supersede. Not to domineer.

But to recognize, to welcome, to bless, and to await the day when—as the Catechism §674 teaches—"the full inclusion of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation" enables "the People of God to achieve the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, in which God may be all in all."

Catholic Zionism is simply this: faithfulness to God's irrevocable promises, love for our elder brothers, and hope for the reconciliation that will be "life from the dead."

Those who bless Abraham's descendants will be blessed. Those who curse them will be cursed.

Choose blessing. Choose life. Choose fidelity to the God who keeps His promises forever.

Appendix: Key Magisterial and Scriptural References

Magisterial Sources

Vatican II, Nostra Aetate §4 (1965)
Pope St. John Paul II, Address at Rome Synagogue (April 13, 1986)
Pope Benedict XVI, Various writings on Jewish-Christian relations
Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable (2015)
Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium §247 (2013)
Pope Francis, Homily for the Funeral of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (Jan. 5, 2023)
Catechism of the Catholic Church §674

Key Scriptural Passages

Genesis 12:1-3, 7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:7-8; 24:7; 26:3; 28:13; 35:12; 48:4 – The Abrahamic Covenant and perpetual land grant
Genesis 25:29-34 – Esau rejects birthright
Genesis 33:10 – Jacob and Esau reconciled
Genesis 45-47 – Joseph shelters his brothers and gives them land
Exodus 1:9-10 – Pharaoh's conspiracy theory
Exodus 4:22 – Israel as God's firstborn son
Deuteronomy 30:3-5 – Promise of return from exile
Obadiah 1:10-14 – Warning against the sin of standing aloof from Israel's distress
Jeremiah 31:8-24 – New Covenant includes return to land
Ezekiel 36:22-28 – Restoration "for my holy name's sake"
Amos 9:14-15 – "Never again to be uprooted"
Hosea 11:1 – "Out of Egypt I called my son"
Matthew 5:22 – Warning against "Raca"
Luke 16:22 – Abraham's bosom
Luke 21:24 – "Until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled"
Acts 2:23 – Crucifixion
Acts 4:12 – No other name
Romans 2:28-29 – "True Jew"
Romans 9:4-6 – Present tense: "Theirs are the covenants... and the promises"; "not all Israel is Israel"
Romans 10:2 – Zeal without knowledge
Romans 11:1-2, 17-29 – Irrevocable gifts, grafting, and the salvation of all Israel
Galatians 3:28 – Neither Jew nor Greek in Christ
Hebrews 6:4-6; 8:13; 10:26-29 – Context of the sacrificial cult and apostasy warning
1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 – Preaching to the dead
1 John 3:15 – Hatred as murder

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

For the Greater Glory of God