Michael Knowles vs Christian Zionism

Michael Knowles is one of the big personalities at the Daily Wire and is a devout Roman Catholic. As such, Knowles responded to the Patriarchs and heads of the churches in Jerusalem who published a joint statement condemning Christian Zionism for sowing division and having a negative effect on local and broader Middle Eastern churches.

Michael Knowles lauded the statement as keeping within tradition.

The Vatican in 1985 says, the history of Israel did not end in 70 AD, it continued especially in a numerous diaspora, which allowed Israel to carry to the whole world a witness, often heroic of its fidelity to the one God and to exalt him in the presence of all the living, citing Tobit, while preserving the memory of the land of their forefathers at the heart of their hope, and the reference is the Passover Seder. So here, the Vatican is writing not about the church as the new Israel, which is what Christians have always held, but is writing specifically about the terrestrial and figurative Israel of the Jews. He’s saying, you know, the Jews went all about this world. They didn’t just end in 70 AD and they’ve carried this witness, which is often very heroic and they do have some connection to the land.

The Catholic tradition is rather weak on this position, in that it gives credence to the notion that Talmudic Jews are in any way, shape, or form acting in “heroic” faithfulness to the Triune God. Nevertheless, Knowles is operating within this framework to push back on Zionism.

However, here’s the key. Christians are invited to understand this religious attachment, which finds its roots in biblical tradition without however, making their own any particular religious interpretation of this relationship. And then just to underscore the point, the existence of the state of Israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law.

Bingo, love this. This is exactly what the patriarchs are reaffirming from Jerusalem, and it’s totally right. And this is why I would not call myself a Zionist or a Christian Zionist or any other kind of Zionist. ah It’s not because I don’t like the Jews and it’s not because I don’t even support the state of Israel. As I think I’ve made clear, I am broadly supportive of the nation state of Israel, but I am broadly supportive of it not because I believe in the principles of Zionism, which makes certain historical claims and religious claims that I just don’t think are true. I don’t think that the Jews are entitled to the Holy Land because of some religious premise. I don’t think that’s true. In fact, being Christian, I believe that the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament.

Christ is the new covenant, the fulfillment, everything that was typified in the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ and the church as the new and spiritual Israel. So I don’t buy those religious premises. And I don’t believe just because a people was on a plot of dirt 2000 years ago, that that means they’re entitled to it today. If that were the case, we’d have to turn the Black Hills of, we’d have to turn Mount Rushmore over to the Lakota Sioux. I don’t believe any of that. And yet I am broadly supportive of the nation state of Israel because I don’t like the alternatives. I don’t like the idea of giving Iran more power in the Holy Land. I don’t think the Muslims have been particularly protective of the holy sites. Sometimes they’ve been better than others, but the Ottoman Empire doesn’t exist anymore. The uh current options in the Holy Land are not great, and we’re probably not reestablishing Baldwin’s kingdom anytime soon. So as a practical political matter, then also on the point of international law, the Jews were bequeathed some of this territory by the British empire, which had control of it after the Ottoman empire. They then had a declaration from the United Nations purporting to advance international law and they fought a war of conquest. So any way you slice it, seems to me that according to the current nation state system, they basically have a right to it. But crucially that is not Zionism and it doesn’t imply anything as a matter of biblical prophecy for the modern nation state of Israel… You don’t have to support the nation state of Israel, but if you do, you can do so without adhering to the relatively novel theology of Christian Zionism…You can be philosemitic and not adhere to the relatively novel ideology of Christian Zionism. That’s clearly what the patriarchs of Jerusalem are saying. Anyone suggesting that this is a, I don’t know, a break with tradition or antisemitic or anything like that, I think is just totally insane.

Michael Knowles argues that people can support Israel without adopting Zionist ideology, pointing ultimately to a lesser of two evils conclusion.

Despite Michael Knowles threading the needle between working at the Daily Wire and being in touch with the discourse, his moderate approach was not well received by avowed Zionists, like Mark Levin.

Analysis

Unless Michael Knowles is naive, he has to be aware that anything less than deep throat Zionist is considered antisemitic by the Mark Levins, Josh Hammers, and Mike Huckabees. And so, their seething was predictable. However, it must be commended that Michael Knowles demonstrated testicular fortitude giving this take while working for the Daily Wire.

Michael Knowles is likely aware that he could do well going independent, and that the Daily Wire needs him more than the reverse. So don’t anticipate any employment changes.

Moreover, Knowles is successfully, in my opinion, threading the needle between the rational people on the America First and Israel First sides of the Republican discourse.