Issues with Zionist Interpretation of the Old Testament

In the book, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, author Graeme Goldsworthy points out the problems with the literalist interpretation of the Old Testament as embraced by Zionist Evangelicals and how this method is not found in the New Testament. Note that emphasis has been added by us:

Literalism: evangelical Zionism

“For evangelicals, one of the areas of greatest concern is in the interpretation of prophesy in the Old Testament. Thus literalists claim to take to promises concerning the restoration of Israel, Jerusalem and the temple at their literal face value. What can be wrong with that? Well, for a start, determining what the literal meaning is can be problematic. The prophets of Israel has a preference for the use of non-literal language, for poetic imagery, symbolism and metaphor, and it can sometimes be difficult to establish the literal meaning. When we add to this the fact that different prophetic texts may describe the same future event with extremely different and sometimes incompatible imagery, the problem is compounded. Although only a small number of examples occur in the Bible, apocalyptic symbolism presents even greater challenges.
It could be argued that, though the details may be hard to pin down because of the prophetic preference for poetic imagery and metaphor, the big picture is abundantly clear. On this basis the literalist asserts that God reveals through the prophets that his kingdom comes with the return of the Jews to Palestine, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the restoration of the temple along with all its Old Testament ministries. Evangelical Christians who take this approach share some significant convictions with modern Jewish Zionists regarding the restoration of Jerusalem as the centre of the messianic kingdom. Of course, they differ radically over the identity of the Messiah.

The New Testament clearly does not support such a simplistic hermeneutic as literal fulfillment of prophesy. In this kind of Zionism we face the problem with the New Testament seems to be completely indifferent to the restorations referred to. In fact, one great hermeneutic divide that separated Jesus from the unbelieving Jews concerned this very issue of prophetic fulfillment. The Jews of Jesus’ day entertained a certain kind of literalism. They also claimed their pedigree through Abraham and Moses, but Jesus refuted this claim because they did not believe in Him. That the Old Testament Scriptures are, as He says, about him (John 5:39-47; 8:39-47, 56-58) must seriously qualify literalism, since Jesus (as Jesus) is not literally in the Old Testament. The disciples of Jesus also needed a lesson in the application of the Old Testament to Christ (Luke 24:25-27, 44-45; Acts 1:6-8). When the message got through under the power of the Holy Spirit, the apostolic preachers never varied from the new conviction that the hermeneutical principle was the gospel, not literalism. This means that the terminology of the Old Testament could only be understood Christologically. How can John the Baptist be literally Elijah (Matt 17:12-13)? If the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 is fulfilled according to any normal use of the word ‘literal’. If, as Paul says, the resurrection of Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises of God to Israel (Acts 13:29-32) then literalism cannot be sustained. If, according to Hebrews 12:18-24, the Jewish Christians have already come to ‘Mount Zion and to the city of the living God’ through faith in Jesus Christ, this is the only Zion that matters. Because Jesus is an historical figure, an Israelite who has come in the flesh, he indeed fulfils some prophesies in a rather literal way. Thus the Messiah is born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and is born of a virgin (Isa 7:14, Matt 1:22-23). But this does not establish literalism as the basic hermeneutic. The gospel requires that we allow Christ to be the hermeneutic principle.

Evangelical prophetic literalism is an exercise in interpreting the New Testament by the application of supposed literal meaning of the Old Testament. If the gospel is our hermeneutic norm, then while it is true that the interpretation of the New needs an understanding of the Old, the principal emphasis is on the way the gospel and the New Testament as a whole interpret everything, including the Old Testament. The literalist must become a futurist, since a literalistic fulfillment of all Old Testament prophesy has not yet taken place. Christian Zionism not only reshapes the New Testament view of the future, but also affects the present period in which such a future is anticipated. It affects the way many Christians view the respective rights of Palestinians and Israelis to live in ‘the promised land’. Yet one does not have to be a Zionist to appreciate Paul’s emphasis on God’s method of salvation, in that the gospel is ‘to the Jew first’. That perspective is maintained in the New Testament, while the notion of the restoration of the temple and Jerusalem in Palestine is uniformly absent. – Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, page 169

We see how the literalist interpretation of the Old Testament by Zionist does not work in various prophecies. Ezekiel 47:21- 23 is one such prophecy:

21 So ye shall DIVIDE THIS LAND TO THEM, [even] to the tribes of Israel.
22 Ye shall cast the lot upon it, for yourselves and the STRANGERS that sojourn in the midst of you, who have BEGOTTEN children in the midst of you: and they shall be to you AS NATIVES among the children of Israel; they shall HAVE INHERITANCE WITH YOU among the tribes of Israel.
23 And they shall be in the tribe of proselytes among the proselytes that are with them: there shall ye GIVE them an inheritance, saith the Lord God.

Ministers before the invention of Zionism stated that this prophecy was fulfilled:

47:23 His inheritance – This certainly looks at gospel times, when the partition – wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and both put on a level before God, both made one in Christ Jesus. – John Wesley

the strangers are to have an inheritance; intimating the calling of the Gentiles into the Church of Christ, to an inheritance that is incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away. Glory be to God for his unspeakable gift! Amen. Amen. – Adam Clarke

this respects Gospel times, and the coalition of Jews and Gentiles in the same church state; where there is no difference, but Christ is all in all; where they are admitted to the same ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper; partake of the same blessings of grace, and promises of the word, and have an equal right to the heavenly inheritance: Ephesians 3:6, is the best commentary on this passage; which contains the same mystery the Apostle Paul was acquainted with, – John Gill, Baptist Reformer.

The interpretation of Ezekiel 47 was rooted in Christ. As Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics author Graeme Goldsworthy stated,  “The gospel requires that we allow Christ to be the hermeneutic principle”.  If we were to take Ezekiel 47 literally and apply it to the Zionist agenda this would present a huge problem, because the land MUST be divided, but Zionist believe the Israelis should own and rule the land at the and turn a blind eye away from oppression of the Palestinians, many of whom are Christians.

Interpretation of Scripture should always be kept with Jesus in mind, that it pointed to Him, and that our duty now is to spread the Gospel. Zionist often leaves Jesus out and turns prophecy towards Israel as opposed to Christ.