A.B. Simpson, Ilan Pappé, and the Lost Heirs of Torat Edom
My Perspective - “Either we ascend to the Heavenly Jerusalem through covenantal faithfulness, or we descend into Gehenna by clinging to idols—whether land, race, or religion.”
IntroductionTen Myths About Israel (2017) is perhaps Ilan Pappé’s most accessible and polemical work, distilling his critiques into ten widely held but, in his view, deeply flawed beliefs about Israel’s past and present. Pappé—a leading figure among Israel’s “New Historians” and author of works like The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and A History of Modern Palestine—has become a touchstone for those reexamining the political and ideological narratives surrounding Zionism. His revisionist approach does not simply provoke—it uncovers the scaffolding upon which modern theological confusion rests.
What makes Ten Myths so important is not just its historical claims, but the theological silence it reveals. It exposes the dissonance between covenant and conquest—precisely the tension that Torat Edom identifies as the theological crisis of our time. Where Zionism rebrands inheritance into entitlement, Torat Edom insists on a return to the wounded covenant: not one written in geopolitical borders or genealogies, but in the pierced body of the Son of David.
This raises an unavoidable question: how would someone like A.B. Simpson—the founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance and a passionate advocate of Christ’s imminent return—respond to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis today?
Likely with a sincere heart, a yearning for Zion, and a burning hope for the Lord’s appearing. Yet, like many in his era, Simpson remained partially captive to colonial and certain dispensationalist assumptions. His heart was open, but the categories he inherited were limited.
And still, that openness offers a path forward. Simpson longed for a holy Zion—not a nationalist one. What if the true Zion is not a nation-state, but a covenantal wound? What if the real question isn’t about territory, but about testimony?
For a deeper dive: try this perspective on Simpson’s eschatology.
⸻
Points of Resonance with Torat Edom
1. Exile and Displacement as Theological Lenses
Pappé’s account of the Nakba and Palestinian displacement resonates with Torat Edom’s core conviction: unjust inheritance is a theological problem. Where Pappé sees settler-colonialism, Torat Edom sees Edom’s logic at work—Esau reclaiming what he forfeited, not by grace, but by force. Evangelical support for Zionism, especially through dispensationalist lenses like the Scofield Bible, has reinforced this error. But Genesis 27 and Obadiah are clear: to seize by deceit or domination is not covenantal inheritance—it is judgment waiting to happen.
Pappé’s account of the Nakba and Palestinian displacement resonates with Torat Edom’s core conviction: unjust inheritance is a theological problem. Where Pappé sees settler-colonialism, Torat Edom sees Edom’s logic at work—Esau reclaiming what he forfeited, not by grace, but by force. Evangelical support for Zionism, especially through dispensationalist lenses like the Scofield Bible, has reinforced this error. But Genesis 27 and Obadiah are clear: to seize by deceit or domination is not covenantal inheritance—it is judgment waiting to happen.
2. Zionism vs. Biblical Inheritance
Pappé critiques the conflation of Zionism with Judaism. Torat Edom affirms this—and deepens it. True Judaism has always preserved the memory of covenant as a holy calling, not a political claim. Litvak Charedi voices like Rashi, Jacob Emden, and Harvey Falk maintain a shalshelet—a chain of reverent tradition. Zionism, in this reading, is not the heir—it is Esau wearing Jacob’s skin, manipulating the birthright while forgetting the blessing.
Pappé critiques the conflation of Zionism with Judaism. Torat Edom affirms this—and deepens it. True Judaism has always preserved the memory of covenant as a holy calling, not a political claim. Litvak Charedi voices like Rashi, Jacob Emden, and Harvey Falk maintain a shalshelet—a chain of reverent tradition. Zionism, in this reading, is not the heir—it is Esau wearing Jacob’s skin, manipulating the birthright while forgetting the blessing.
3. Myth of the ‘Empty Land’ and Covenant Memory
Pappé dismantles the colonial myth of an uninhabited Palestine. Torat Edom takes it further: whose covenant was already active in the land? The Noahide and Abrahamic covenants were present—moral, global, welcoming. The land remembers Ishmaelites, Edomites, Nabateans, Hagarians. Paul’s vision in Romans 9–11 reveals that these are not forgotten—they are branches waiting to be grafted back into the cultivated olive tree.
4. Critique of the Two-State Solution
Pappé shows that the two-state framework is a false solution—a mirage that preserves domination. Torat Edom critiques not only its politics, but its cosmology. Isaiah 19 proclaims a different future: Assyria, Egypt, and Israel united not by military accord, but through priestly reconciliation. Not walls, but highways of holiness. Not two states—but one covenantal kingdom.
⸻
Tensions or Divergences
1. Secular Materialism vs. Covenant Theology
Pappé’s secular lens limits his reach. His deconstruction lacks a redemptive telos. Torat Edom restores the covenantal core: history is the story of faithfulness and betrayal. Israel’s chosenness is not erased—it is purified in exile, not vindicated through the sword.
Pappé’s secular lens limits his reach. His deconstruction lacks a redemptive telos. Torat Edom restores the covenantal core: history is the story of faithfulness and betrayal. Israel’s chosenness is not erased—it is purified in exile, not vindicated through the sword.
2. Absence of Eschatological Vision
Pappé ends with critique. Torat Edom begins there—but ends in hope. The healing of Edom, the return of the true Zion from above (Micah 4), and the reconstitution of a faithful priesthood among the nations—this is not religious nostalgia. It is covenantal eschatology grounded in the fidelity of God.
Pappé ends with critique. Torat Edom begins there—but ends in hope. The healing of Edom, the return of the true Zion from above (Micah 4), and the reconstitution of a faithful priesthood among the nations—this is not religious nostalgia. It is covenantal eschatology grounded in the fidelity of God.
3. No Account of Jesus as Sar haPanim
Pappé’s silence on Jesus is understandable but decisive. Torat Edom centers on the one rejected by both Church and Synagogue: the Sar haPanim, the Prince of the Presence, like Hagar in the desert with “the G-d who sees.” He is the true heir, the one who restores the covenant not by violence but by obedience unto death. His wound is the world’s healing.
⸻
Pappé’s silence on Jesus is understandable but decisive. Torat Edom centers on the one rejected by both Church and Synagogue: the Sar haPanim, the Prince of the Presence, like Hagar in the desert with “the G-d who sees.” He is the true heir, the one who restores the covenant not by violence but by obedience unto death. His wound is the world’s healing.
⸻
Additional Critique: Where Modern Zionist Theology Fails
1. Selective Use of the Church Fathers
The early church’s chiliasm (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) was not proto-Zionism. It was often symbolic, spiritual, and shaped more by Greek metaphysics than by Hebraic covenantal thinking.
The early church’s chiliasm (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) was not proto-Zionism. It was often symbolic, spiritual, and shaped more by Greek metaphysics than by Hebraic covenantal thinking.
2. Blaming Origen (Again)
Critiques of Origen as the father of “Greek allegorism” ignore the fact that Jewish thinkers like Philo preceded him. Allegory was not anti-Zionism—it was part of a broader hermeneutic tradition that wrestled with Scripture’s depth, not its denial of Israel.
3. Romanticizing the Puritans
Many Puritans hoped for Jewish salvation—but only through conversion. Their “restorationism” was supersessionist at heart, not covenantally faithful to ongoing Jewish identity or destiny.
Many Puritans hoped for Jewish salvation—but only through conversion. Their “restorationism” was supersessionist at heart, not covenantally faithful to ongoing Jewish identity or destiny.
4. British Imperial Theology
Shaftesbury, Bicheno, and others cloaked political motives in prophetic language. Their advocacy was often more imperial than theological, rooted in eschatological utility rather than covenantal love.
Shaftesbury, Bicheno, and others cloaked political motives in prophetic language. Their advocacy was often more imperial than theological, rooted in eschatological utility rather than covenantal love.
5. Misusing Karl Barth
Invoking Barth to support Zionism misrepresents him. Barth’s vision of Israel was Christocentric, not geopolitical. He upheld Israel’s role in redemptive history, but never endorsed a modern nation-state as a theological necessity.
Invoking Barth to support Zionism misrepresents him. Barth’s vision of Israel was Christocentric, not geopolitical. He upheld Israel’s role in redemptive history, but never endorsed a modern nation-state as a theological necessity.
6. Collapsing Categories: Israel, Church, State
Many Christian Zionist frameworks fail to distinguish between biblical Israel, the Church, and the modern state of Israel—resulting in hermeneutical confusion and ethical compromise.
Many Christian Zionist frameworks fail to distinguish between biblical Israel, the Church, and the modern state of Israel—resulting in hermeneutical confusion and ethical compromise.
7. Ignoring Rabbinic and Halakic Jewish Voices
A theology that claims to honor Israel must listen to Israel’s sages—not merely through Christian reinterpretation , but on their own terms. Without rabbinic engagement, Christian Zionism remains an echo chamber.
⸻
A theology that claims to honor Israel must listen to Israel’s sages—not merely through Christian reinterpretation , but on their own terms. Without rabbinic engagement, Christian Zionism remains an echo chamber.
⸻
Conclusion: Simpson’s Open Heart and the Call Beyond
A.B. Simpson longed for Zion. His spiritual Zionism was sincere—yearning, even naïve—but not without value. He stood at the edge of something he could sense but not yet name: a Zion not rooted in borders, but in blessing. Not in empire, but in the Eved Adonai, the servant who suffers.
In a time when Christian missions were entangled in colonial maps and prophetic charts, Simpson still saw a greater horizon: Christ returning not merely to rule from Jerusalem, but to restore all things.
He was open to covenant—even if he didn’t yet know Torat Edom by name.
Pappé’s Ten Myths unmasks political distortions. Torat Edom reveals their spiritual roots—and their remedy. Not nationalism.
Not ecclesiastical opportunism. Not statehood sealed by blood.
But Zion above.
The Son of David.
And the covenant still whispering from Edom’s hills—
wounded, yes,
but alive.
