The Supercessionist Case Against Zionism

Buried in a long, angry Jerusalem Post column about a proposed Church of Scotland policy statement on Israel and Palestine is this fascinating argument from the document in question:

“Promises about the land of Israel were never intended to be taken literally… [God’s] promise to Abraham about land is fulfilled through the impact of Jesus, not by restoration of land to the Jewish people.”

Huh. I can’t recall hearing a supercessionist argument (i.e., one based on the claim that New Covenant of Jesus voided and replaced the Old Covenant between God and the Jewish people) argument against Zionism. But then the Kirk (the Church of Scotland) has often been associated with odd mixtures of old and new, back to the days when it represented the most “modern” version of the Reformation, even as it carried out some of Europe’s most savage witch-hunts.

UPDATE: Just this afternoon, the Church of Scotland agreed to revise the draft policy statement to take out the arguments about Abraham. Good idea.

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation

Ed Kilgore

Ed Kilgore is a political columnist for New York and managing editor at the Democratic Strategist website. He was a contributing writer at the Washington Monthly from January 2012 until November 2015, and was the principal contributor to the Political Animal blog.