Stephen E. Jones — Soteriology
b7 — Christian Zionism: How Deceived Can You Get?
Heart Circumcision and True Conversion
Jones draws a sharp distinction between fleshly and heart circumcision as a soteriological criterion. In chapter 1, he analyzes the forced conversion of the Edomites into Judaism (126 B.C.):
“the Edomites received fleshly circumcision, but not heart circumcision. Heart circumcision is the only type of circumcision that has any value to God (Rom. 2:28, 29), and it raises people to a relationship that supersedes genealogy.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 1)
Interpretation: Jones uses the fleshly/spiritual circumcision antithesis as a key distinction in his soteriology. Forced conversion creates no genuine salvific relationship: “forcible conversion only incarcerates people in a religion.” Heart circumcision is the only soteriologically valid basis for covenant membership, regardless of ethnic origin.
Jones draws a universal soteriological principle from this:
“any Jew or Edomite who receives heart circumcision is no longer a Jew or an Edomite but is part of the ‘one new man’ (Eph. 2:15) that God is creating in the earth”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 1)
Election by Faith, Not Genealogy
Jones explicitly formulates his doctrine of election in chapter 2, based on the Jacob/Esau twin prophecy (Gen. 25:23; Rom. 9:11):
“Genealogy was never the issue. Their faith was the determining factor, and the same is true with other ethnicities. It is faith – not biology – that is counted as righteousness. This is true for all peoples.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 2)
Interpretation: Jones explicitly rejects genealogical election in favor of faith election, for Israel and all nations alike. This is consistent with his previously documented birthright theology (b6), but here developed in direct polemic against Christian Zionism.
On Paul’s explanation of the remnant in Israel:
“The Apostle Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans 11 that in the days of Elijah, the only ‘chosen’ ones in Israel were a remnant of 7,000 men (Rom. 11:4, 7). He says that the nation of Israel sought to obtain the promise of God, but only a small remnant obtained it.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 2)
Jones ties the very name Israel to soteriological completion, not birth:
“God chose not to give him the birthright name Israel until his faith was perfected and he lost all confidence in the flesh (Phil. 3:3). Israel is a title/name given to those whose faith is perfected in the same manner.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 2)
Jones cites John 1:47 as confirmation of this higher Israel-criterion:
“Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, ‘Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!‘”
Jones’ comment: “Jesus Himself made this distinction and thereby suggested a deeper truth about who is really an Israelite and who is not.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 2; John 1:47)
Equality Under the Law and the ‘One New Man’
Jones argues that God’s Kingdom is founded on equality before the law, not ethnic privilege. He appeals to Old Testament law on resident aliens:
“As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the Lord.” (Num. 15:15-16)
Jones’ application (chap. 1):
“The idea of a ‘chosen people’ based on their genealogy is not Scriptural, for it creates two unequal classes of citizens and gives the flesh dominance over faith. God is working with ‘one new man’ – not with two men who are unequal.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 1)
Jones sees the breaking down of the dividing wall (Eph. 2:14) as the restoration of this Old Testament equality:
“King Jesus ‘broke down the barrier of the dividing wall’ (Eph. 2:14) to re-establish unity and equal justice in the Kingdom.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 1)
Covenant Theology: Conditions for Restoration
Jones treats the covenant stipulations of Lev. 26 in chapter 2 as the structural framework for Israel’s judgment and restoration. Return to the land is legally conditional:
“If they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their forefathers, in their unfaithfulness which they committed against me, and also in their acting with hostility against Me… then I will remember My covenant with Jacob…” (Lev. 26:40-42)
Jones’ soteriological conclusion (chap. 4):
“The prophets record the words of the Lord often saying, ‘Return to Me.’ It is always an appeal to repent, not to change one’s address.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 4)
Jones argues that ‘true Zionism’ is thus a soteriological — not geographic — concept:
“True Zionism however is a return to God and to a state of righteousness. This is certainly not evident in the state of ‘Israel.‘”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 4)
He appeals to John 4:21-24 to show that worship is no longer place-bound:
“…an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father… God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:21, 24)
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 4)
Justice for Esau — Juridical-Soteriological Order
Jones develops in chapter 4 a juridical-soteriological interpretation of Zionism as God’s justice toward Esau, not fulfillment of promises to Israel:
“God allowed Zionism to succeed initially so that justice could be given to Esau, who had been deprived of the birthright through Jacob’s deception in Genesis 27. God did not allow them to return on account of any ancient Jewish claim to the land. They returned only because of Edom’s pursuit of justice.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 4)
Isaac’s prophecy to Esau (Gen. 27:40, KJV) is interpreted by Jones as a juridical model:
“And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass, when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.”
Jones’ interpretation: “Esau was to remain under Jacob’s ‘yoke’ for an unspecified amount of time. But this condition was to be reversed ‘when thou shalt have the dominion.‘” The founding of the Israeli state in 1948 is the temporary fulfillment of this prophecy.
Jones cites Heb. 12:16-17 to underscore the irrevocability of Esau’s forfeiture of the birthright:
“See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 4; Heb. 12:16-17)
Interpretation: Jones sees the temporary dominance of modern Israel as a divinely ordained juridical restoration period for Esau. This makes Zionism soteriologically neutral — it is Esau’s legal moment, not Israel’s redemption. Esau’s failure to use this period for genuine repentance leads to definitive disinheritance on the basis of covenant law.
Dispensationalism Rejected; Covenant Theology as Alternative
Jones rejects dispensationalist thinking about Jewish restoration implicitly but consistently by applying the covenant-theological framework of Lev. 26 (chaps. 2 and 4). In this framework, return to the land is conditional on repentance, not ethnic claim. He explicitly names early dispensationalist expectation patterns (1948-1955) and their failure:
“Prior to 1948, most Christians supporting Zionism believed that the Jews would repent and turn to Christ before they could ‘return’ to the old land. When this did not happen, they thought their repentance would occur after 3½ years (i.e., about 1952)… By 1953, it was clear that this belief was incorrect.”
(Jones, Christian Zionism, chap. 4)
Jones’ covenant-theological alternative holds that the land is never a soteriological end in itself, but part of a juridical-covenantal system of judgment and restoration.