The possibility exists that there are people of Jewish descent who are Christians. Jews largely rejected Christ in favor of the old law. The old law's purpose was to bring us to Christ, it was nailed to the cross. Without the blood of Jesus one is lost. I do not regard Israel in a religious context except they are a group of people in need of salvation. They are a very important ally militarily.
Thank you Jack for addressing the elephant in the room. Every church will have this issue among their members. We do, we are very small older group. On some levels it clearly is a Biblical issue -- with the dispensational influence. Many within our churches have read Left Behind books. Thank you for analyzing this more thoroughly with your 5 camps. This issue has real potential to divide us again! We need to address it as Biblically as possible. But we will be labeled as antisemitic from all the hype in the media. Good thoughts Jack!
I'm glad you mentioned Left Behind - it's crazy how influential those books were. And you're exactly right, we have to grow a thick skin to get over the "antisemitism" barbs and stick to what the Bible says.
This is a topic that certainly has come to the forefront these past few months. I never thought of myself as someone who fits into any of the groups you defined. I firmly believe in the right of the country of Israel to exist and defend itself, and I think it is important to make a stand against those who would fight to eradicate the country, especially since those who oppose it, are Antichrist and twist the knowledge of the God of Abraham. Perhaps after all the destruction and elimination of christian communities over the past thousand years or so, by Islamists, we need to hold onto (ensure people have freedom to explore) the historical ground where Christ walked where people can touch history. If, however, there is any truth to Israel committing genocide, then by all means we cannot stand with evil, but I believe war is extremely difficult, especially when one side uses terror and civilians as shields. I think propaganda vice the truth is playing out here.
I agree, war is difficult. In many cases there isn't really a "good guy," and sometimes there might not even be a "less bad guy."
To your point about the Islamists being antiChrist and twisting the God of Abraham (which is true), I would add that modern Judaism does just the same. Neither side likes us.
Appreciate your point. They are both definitely Antichrist, but there are differences in my opinion. One is blind to the truth, the other twist the truth to a lie, and has wiped out many christian communities (Islamist as a whole).
Where would Christians, holding to Reformed Covenant Theology, who believe that the Church is the true expression of God's Israel and reject the assertion that modern national Israel bears any relation to Biblical Israel fall amongst your categories? How about those Christians who believe that national Israel has a right to exist and defend themselves and should be free from, and defended against aggression from other national or organizational actors?
Thank you. It felt unclear since the only nominally Christian category was the "Dispensational".
I do agree that a swath of 1-4 can be found in various Christian churches on any given Sunday, although I would argue that 5 is a decidedly un-Christian position.
As a Christian, with Jewish heritage, I feel like this is a great commentary and viewpoint. You nailed it well with the one through five points. One could say they are five different religions. To Me also, you could add two more religions to this. You could add secular Jews, and Zionists. All seven of these religions very much make this situation even more murky.
My position is that Israel is constantly facing the threat of genocide, so I am rooting for them to avoid it. All the neo-con talking points about them being our greatest ally are irrelevant, and I am not even sure that such claims are true. I just don't want Israel, or Taiwan, or South Korea, or NATO Europe, conquered by enemies. Out of that list, only one such conquest would lead to genocide, so I especially oppose it.
No neocon talking points or dispensationalism or anything else is required for this amillennialist.
The moral confusion about Israel’s current war in Gaza is fomented by atheists who hate God and want anything with the strength to resist their satanic rebellion crushed. Today Israel is the focus of their attacks. But they will attack anyone who resists their objective. And sadly, they make allies of Muslims, not realizing that the Muslims always subjugate the atheists.
The reputational attacks against Israel are simply God-haters prototyping the tools to destroy the image of God on earth. I will never side with them - their daggers are aimed straight at my heart.
Jack, thanks for mapping out the spectrum of Christian views on Israel. You’ve rightly identified that the real theological fault line runs between those who see modern Israel as God’s covenant people (Group 1) and those who believe the New Testament redefines “Israel” around Christ and His church.
As an amillennialist, I reject the dispensational claim that God has two covenant peoples—national Israel and the church—running on parallel tracks. That system forces a division Scripture does not make, and in practice, it demands an unconditional political loyalty to a modern nation-state as if it were a divine mandate. The New Testament clearly teaches that the promises given to Abraham have always been aimed at Christ and fulfilled in Him (Galatians 3:16). Those united to Christ—whether Jew or Gentile—are Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:29).
In other words, the “true Israel” is not defined by ethnicity or a geopolitical border, but by union with the Messiah. Paul calls the church “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16, and he explicitly says in Romans 2:28–29 that being a Jew is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the flesh. That is why I cannot join Group 1’s theological Zionism. It assigns eternal covenant status to unbelieving Israel, making them a second bride alongside the church—a view that Scripture never endorses.
This also means that my political position does not require me to defend every action of the Israeli government or to see their conflicts as our own. I tend to align with elements of Groups 3 and 4—not because I harbor animosity toward the Jewish people, but because I reject the idea that American Christians are obligated to support military involvement in their wars. George Washington’s warning about “entangling alliances” is sound wisdom, but even more, the church’s mission is gospel proclamation, not geopolitical management.
However, unlike many in Group 4, I refuse to allow critique of Israel’s policies to slide into ethnic prejudice or conspiracy thinking. Antisemitism is sin—rooted in hatred, not truth—and must be rejected with the same force that we reject any racism. Paul’s longing for his kinsmen according to the flesh (Romans 9:1–3) should be our model: compassion, evangelism, and prayer for their salvation in Christ.
So, here’s my bottom line:
1. Theologically – God’s covenant people are one: all who are in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike. Christ has one bride, not two.
2. Politically – Israel has the same right to exist and defend itself as any nation, but that is a matter of justice and prudence, not biblical covenant obligation.
3. Missionally – Our highest concern for Israel, as with every nation, is not their borders or military alliances, but their reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ.
That is why I reject the extremes of both Group 1 and Group 5, and why I believe the church’s voice should be marked more by the Great Commission than by the call to war. Our allegiance is to the kingdom of God, not to any earthly state.
It would probably be more accurate to say that we shouldn’t lump ALL 4s with the 5s. It’s been my experience that the “noticers” are trending towards fringe conspiracy theory and antisemitism. Some, like Candace Owens (someone I used to have a lot of respect for), have lost all credibility or sense of logic and have become obsessed with “the Jooos”. Perhaps they would qualify as 4.5s. Check out how it is on X these days. There is a tide of some seriously nasty antisemitism building.
The possibility exists that there are people of Jewish descent who are Christians. Jews largely rejected Christ in favor of the old law. The old law's purpose was to bring us to Christ, it was nailed to the cross. Without the blood of Jesus one is lost. I do not regard Israel in a religious context except they are a group of people in need of salvation. They are a very important ally militarily.
Thank you Jack for addressing the elephant in the room. Every church will have this issue among their members. We do, we are very small older group. On some levels it clearly is a Biblical issue -- with the dispensational influence. Many within our churches have read Left Behind books. Thank you for analyzing this more thoroughly with your 5 camps. This issue has real potential to divide us again! We need to address it as Biblically as possible. But we will be labeled as antisemitic from all the hype in the media. Good thoughts Jack!
I'm glad you mentioned Left Behind - it's crazy how influential those books were. And you're exactly right, we have to grow a thick skin to get over the "antisemitism" barbs and stick to what the Bible says.
This is a topic that certainly has come to the forefront these past few months. I never thought of myself as someone who fits into any of the groups you defined. I firmly believe in the right of the country of Israel to exist and defend itself, and I think it is important to make a stand against those who would fight to eradicate the country, especially since those who oppose it, are Antichrist and twist the knowledge of the God of Abraham. Perhaps after all the destruction and elimination of christian communities over the past thousand years or so, by Islamists, we need to hold onto (ensure people have freedom to explore) the historical ground where Christ walked where people can touch history. If, however, there is any truth to Israel committing genocide, then by all means we cannot stand with evil, but I believe war is extremely difficult, especially when one side uses terror and civilians as shields. I think propaganda vice the truth is playing out here.
I agree, war is difficult. In many cases there isn't really a "good guy," and sometimes there might not even be a "less bad guy."
To your point about the Islamists being antiChrist and twisting the God of Abraham (which is true), I would add that modern Judaism does just the same. Neither side likes us.
Appreciate your point. They are both definitely Antichrist, but there are differences in my opinion. One is blind to the truth, the other twist the truth to a lie, and has wiped out many christian communities (Islamist as a whole).
Where would Christians, holding to Reformed Covenant Theology, who believe that the Church is the true expression of God's Israel and reject the assertion that modern national Israel bears any relation to Biblical Israel fall amongst your categories? How about those Christians who believe that national Israel has a right to exist and defend themselves and should be free from, and defended against aggression from other national or organizational actors?
That's a 2
Thank you. It felt unclear since the only nominally Christian category was the "Dispensational".
I do agree that a swath of 1-4 can be found in various Christian churches on any given Sunday, although I would argue that 5 is a decidedly un-Christian position.
As a Christian, with Jewish heritage, I feel like this is a great commentary and viewpoint. You nailed it well with the one through five points. One could say they are five different religions. To Me also, you could add two more religions to this. You could add secular Jews, and Zionists. All seven of these religions very much make this situation even more murky.
My position is that Israel is constantly facing the threat of genocide, so I am rooting for them to avoid it. All the neo-con talking points about them being our greatest ally are irrelevant, and I am not even sure that such claims are true. I just don't want Israel, or Taiwan, or South Korea, or NATO Europe, conquered by enemies. Out of that list, only one such conquest would lead to genocide, so I especially oppose it.
No neocon talking points or dispensationalism or anything else is required for this amillennialist.
The moral confusion about Israel’s current war in Gaza is fomented by atheists who hate God and want anything with the strength to resist their satanic rebellion crushed. Today Israel is the focus of their attacks. But they will attack anyone who resists their objective. And sadly, they make allies of Muslims, not realizing that the Muslims always subjugate the atheists.
The reputational attacks against Israel are simply God-haters prototyping the tools to destroy the image of God on earth. I will never side with them - their daggers are aimed straight at my heart.
Jack, thanks for mapping out the spectrum of Christian views on Israel. You’ve rightly identified that the real theological fault line runs between those who see modern Israel as God’s covenant people (Group 1) and those who believe the New Testament redefines “Israel” around Christ and His church.
As an amillennialist, I reject the dispensational claim that God has two covenant peoples—national Israel and the church—running on parallel tracks. That system forces a division Scripture does not make, and in practice, it demands an unconditional political loyalty to a modern nation-state as if it were a divine mandate. The New Testament clearly teaches that the promises given to Abraham have always been aimed at Christ and fulfilled in Him (Galatians 3:16). Those united to Christ—whether Jew or Gentile—are Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:29).
In other words, the “true Israel” is not defined by ethnicity or a geopolitical border, but by union with the Messiah. Paul calls the church “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16, and he explicitly says in Romans 2:28–29 that being a Jew is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the flesh. That is why I cannot join Group 1’s theological Zionism. It assigns eternal covenant status to unbelieving Israel, making them a second bride alongside the church—a view that Scripture never endorses.
This also means that my political position does not require me to defend every action of the Israeli government or to see their conflicts as our own. I tend to align with elements of Groups 3 and 4—not because I harbor animosity toward the Jewish people, but because I reject the idea that American Christians are obligated to support military involvement in their wars. George Washington’s warning about “entangling alliances” is sound wisdom, but even more, the church’s mission is gospel proclamation, not geopolitical management.
However, unlike many in Group 4, I refuse to allow critique of Israel’s policies to slide into ethnic prejudice or conspiracy thinking. Antisemitism is sin—rooted in hatred, not truth—and must be rejected with the same force that we reject any racism. Paul’s longing for his kinsmen according to the flesh (Romans 9:1–3) should be our model: compassion, evangelism, and prayer for their salvation in Christ.
So, here’s my bottom line:
1. Theologically – God’s covenant people are one: all who are in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike. Christ has one bride, not two.
2. Politically – Israel has the same right to exist and defend itself as any nation, but that is a matter of justice and prudence, not biblical covenant obligation.
3. Missionally – Our highest concern for Israel, as with every nation, is not their borders or military alliances, but their reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ.
That is why I reject the extremes of both Group 1 and Group 5, and why I believe the church’s voice should be marked more by the Great Commission than by the call to war. Our allegiance is to the kingdom of God, not to any earthly state.
It would probably be more accurate to say that we shouldn’t lump ALL 4s with the 5s. It’s been my experience that the “noticers” are trending towards fringe conspiracy theory and antisemitism. Some, like Candace Owens (someone I used to have a lot of respect for), have lost all credibility or sense of logic and have become obsessed with “the Jooos”. Perhaps they would qualify as 4.5s. Check out how it is on X these days. There is a tide of some seriously nasty antisemitism building.
There is variance between each group, and there are definitely some 4.5s