Israel, Gaza, and the Bible

First off, I want to say clearly that I am not a Zionist.

That being said, I do support a Jewish homeland for historical, ethical, and security reasons. I oppose antisemitism and support Jewish safety. I affirm Israel’s right to exist as a modern state.

I am also not okay with what is happening in Gaza. The suffering and starvation of civilians is wrong, and no covenant, government, or security claim excuses it.

What I do not believe is that modern Israel is the kingdom of God. I do not excuse injustice through covenant language. I do not treat Zionism as a divine mandate, and I do not believe that opposing Zionism means opposing God.

Conversations about Israel and Gaza are often framed as if Christians must choose between faithfulness and compassion but scripture does not force that choice.

A Christian can love the Jewish people, honor Jewish history, oppose antisemitism, and still speak clearly against injustice, starvation, and the destruction of civilian life in Gaza. Scripture never grants moral immunity to a state. It demands justice, mercy, and truth from all people and all nations. Much of the modern conversation blends biblical language, political ideology, and prophecy in ways Scripture itself does not support.

What follows is a careful walk through history, Scripture, theology, and moral responsibility, without collapsing them into slogans.

1. The land in Scripture: ownership, promise, and purpose

The Bible begins with a clear claim:

“The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it.”

Psalm 24:1

No land belongs absolutely to any people group. All land belongs to God, and human possession is always stewardship.

Before Israel exists as a people, Scripture calls the land, Canaan. Multiple peoples live there, including the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites (Levantine), Jebusites, Hivites, Perizzites, and Girgashites. These groups are present in Genesis long before Israel enters the land.

God’s covenant with Abraham occurs around 2000 BCE. In Genesis 15, God promises land to Abraham’s descendants and names broad boundaries, from the “river of Egypt” to the Euphrates. This statement defines the scope of the promise, not a perpetual military command.

Genesis 15 also includes restraint. God explicitly delays Israel’s return to the land, saying the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. Israel does not enter the land for generations.

Biblically, this undermines the idea that the land promise authorizes reckless or immediate seizure. The narrative itself emphasizes timing, moral accountability, and God’s sovereignty, not human entitlement.

2. When Israel actually enters the land...

According to the biblical timeline:

• Promise to Abraham: approximately 2000 BCE

• Israel in Egypt: several centuries

• Exodus under Moses

• Entry into the land under Joshua

Historically and archaeologically, Israel emerges as a distinct people in the land around 1200 BCE. There is scholarly debate over the process, but there is broad agreement on the timeframe. Israel does not appear out of nowhere. Israel emerges within the broader Canaanite cultural world and gradually develops a distinct identity centered on covenant worship of YHWH.

3. Do the ancient inhabitants still exist today?

No. The Canaanites and the other named groups do not exist today as continuous, distinct people groups. Over thousands of years, populations migrated, intermarried, assimilated, and disappeared as identifiable nations. Modern claims of direct Canaanite identity are rhetorical, not historical. Modern Jews and modern Palestinians are not ancient Canaanites revived. Both identities are layered, developed over time, and historically real without being ancient replicas.

4. Arabs, Palestinians, and historical sequence

Israelite identity emerges around 1200 BCE.

Arab Muslim expansion into the Levant begins around 630 AD. Over time, Arabic language, culture, and identity spread across the region.

Palestinians are an Arab people, linguistically and culturally. Palestinian national identity develops much later, particularly in the 20th century, alongside other modern national movements.

So in historical sequence:

• Israelite identity predates Arabization of the region

• Arab presence and Palestinian identity develop later

• This timeline does not decide modern moral rights

• It does clarify history

History explains how peoples came to be. It does not grant moral license to harm civilians.

5. The promise expands beyond land

The New Testament does something deliberate with the Abrahamic promise.

Paul writes:

“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would inherit the world did not come through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.” Romans 4:13

This is not a denial of the land promise. It is an expansion of it.

The land was real and meaningful but it was never the final ceiling of God’s plan. From the beginning, Abraham’s calling included blessing for all nations. Jesus fulfills this promise.

In Christ:

• belonging is no longer defined by geography

• inheritance is no longer limited to borders

• God’s people are formed through faith, not territory

This is why the New Testament never commands Christians or any modern state to expand borders in God’s name.

6. Zion after Christ

Zion in the Old Testament refers to Jerusalem and God’s dwelling with His people. In the New Testament, Zion’s meaning deepens. Hebrews speaks of believers coming to Mount Zion spiritually. Revelation describes the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.

“I saw the holy city, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.” Revelation 21:2

The final fulfillment of God’s promise is not achieved by human governments, armies, or borders. It is God’s act of restoration. Christian hope points forward, not outward by conquest.

7. Zionism and Christian Zionism

Zionism is a modern political movement that emerges in the late 1800s, especially in response to European antisemitism and Jewish vulnerability. It centers on Jewish self-determination and safety in the historic land connected to Jewish peoplehood.

Christian Zionism is a theological movement within Christianity, most prominent in modern American evangelicalism. It often interprets the modern State of Israel as direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy and sometimes treats political support for Israel as a Christian obligation.

Christian Zionism develops largely from dispensational theology popularized in the 19th and early 20th centuries, not from the early Church.

This distinction matters because:

• Political Zionism is about nationhood

• Christian Zionism is about prophecy interpretation

• Neither automatically equals biblical authority

8. How Christian traditions differ...

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions do not teach Christian Zionism. They read land promises as fulfilled in Christ and see modern Israel as a political state, not a prophetic necessity.

Protestant traditions vary widely. Some evangelical streams embrace Christian Zionism. Many mainline Protestants reject it.

Messianic Judaism is diverse. Some affirm modern Israel strongly. Others explicitly reject Christian Zionist theology and resist political absolutism.

There is no single Christian position that equates faithfulness with uncritical support of any modern state.

9. Gaza, aid, and moral responsibility

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not theoretical. Credible international monitors report severe food insecurity, malnutrition, and civilian death. Restrictions on aid and access have played a significant role in the crisis. Under international humanitarian law, starving civilians is prohibited. Biblically, the moral case is even clearer.

Scripture consistently condemns:

• withholding bread from the hungry

• crushing the vulnerable

• excusing injustice through power

Israel in the Old Testament is judged by God when it abuses power. Covenant never cancels moral accountability.

Condemning Hamas for terror does not require excusing the starvation of civilians. Defending Jewish safety does not require silence about Palestinian suffering. There is no biblical category in which children starving is acceptable.

10. Antisemitism, critique, and integrity:

Opposing antisemitism is non-negotiable.

Critiquing a government’s actions is not hatred of a people.

Opposition becomes antisemitic when it denies Jewish peoplehood, erases Jewish history, or applies standards to Jews that are not applied to anyone else.

Moral critique remains legitimate when it is consistent, fact-based, and grounded in concern for human life.

Scripture demands honesty, not tribal loyalty.

11. Where Romans 9–11 fits...

Romans 9–11 holds tension intentionally. God’s promises to Israel matter. Salvation is through Christ alone. Gentiles are grafted in by grace. Boasting is forbidden. God’s purposes are larger than human certainty.

Paul refuses both erasure and triumphalism, that posture matters now.

12. The conviction that keeps this grounded

Scripture never asks for loyalty to a state. It demands loyalty to God’s character: justice, mercy, truth, and the protection of the vulnerable.

That conviction allows a Christian to:

• love Jews and oppose antisemitism

• honor Jewish history and connection to the land

• desire peace and security for Israelis

• speak clearly against starvation, mass suffering, and injustice in Gaza

• refuse to baptize any government’s actions as automatically righteous

This is not confusion, this is faithfulness.

Any theology that requires silence in the face of civilian suffering has stopped reflecting the God of Scripture.