Do Christians Have a Duty to Support the State of Israel?

Supporting Israel: The Christian Duty Born in 1830

With the Middle East wars as a backdrop, the question of whether a Christian is obligated to back the State of Israel has re-entered theological discourse. The answer offered by a video attributed to Father Spyridon is a resounding no, and its central argument is not political but historical: the doctrine asserting this duty—dispensationalism—is not found in the Bible or the Church Fathers, but in the 1830s. The discussion soon veered into more uncomfortable territory: distinguishing between the State and the people.

What is Dispensationalism and Why is it Called a Modern Heresy

The video places its origin in the 1830s and stresses its absence from early ecclesiastical tradition. Its thesis: the Church is the true Israel and the authentic people of God, as the Fathers—Justin Martyr among them—and scripture already maintained. The letter to the Galatians settles that in Christ there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, and Matthew closes the door on inherited tribal privileges: rejecting Christ excludes one from salvation regardless of ethnic origin. The risk pointed out by the video is not just blind support for Israel; it is that the believer might come to believe that Christ's commandments, starting with the Sermon on the Mount, do not apply to them.

Israel and the Church: Two Realities Walking Together

Against this interpretation, another current holds that Israel has not been absorbed by the Church nor does it walk separately from it. It is asserted that the Vatican has recently ratified the differentiation of promises between Israel and the Church, in line with the catechism of Paul VI and Nostra Aetate. From this side, the resurgence of covenant theology—the thesis that the Church has replaced Israel—among traditionalist and reformed sectors is viewed with suspicion. The dispute, therefore, is not just between Christians and Jews: it is an internal fight between schools that mutually accuse each other of heresy.

The State is Not the People: The Distinction That Brings the Issue Back to Ground

Here the most frequent fracture appears. Some sharply separate the State from the people: the State of Israel, it is argued, deserves no backing; the Jewish people, however, are heirs to divine promises and, at the end of time, will accept Jesus Christ and be saved. That is, one can reject a government's policy without renouncing a religious promise. This balance is what most troubles both extremes.

From Pius X to Herzl: The Rejection of 1904

A specific episode is frequently recalled: on January 26, 1904, Saint Pius X received Theodor Herzl. His response was blunt: "We cannot favor your movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we can never favor it." He added that the Jewish faith was the foundation of Christianity but was superseded by Christ's teachings. The passage is used as proof that rejection of political Zionism is no novelty.

From Creed to Map: Israel as a Catalyst for the Sarracinic Bloc

Another line abandons theology and looks at the geopolitical chessboard. It is argued that Israel functions as the greatest catalyst for common hatred among Sarracinic nations, a shared enemy that amalgamates a very diverse conglomerate, and that this effect projects onto Spain. The country is also described as an entity the size of Belgium sustained from abroad. The discussion, in several segments, devolved into personal attacks devoid of any analytical value.

With these elements, the issue remains where it started: the border between the State of Israel and the Jewish people has not been precisely drawn by anyone. The historical milestones are on the table—1830 for dispensationalism, 1904 for the rejection by Pius X—but the question of whether that obligation exists remains without a shared answer. When the argument gets stuck on defining who Israel is, any subsequent conclusion collapses on its own.