The Messiah Already Came, and His Name Is Zionism

Peloni: Is Zionism the Messiah?

By Allen Gindler

I decided to write an article that will probably not be accepted positively by both religious Jews and many secular ones. There were two triggers that prompted me to write this piece.

The first is the ongoing war of Israel for its very right to exist, along with the strange reality that some religious Jews, including some inside Israel itself, continue to express anti-Israel views. The second was more personal and almost symbolic. On the eve of Passover, members of Chabad came through my neighborhood. One of them, a teenage boy, handed us matzah and cheerfully announced that Moshiach is coming soon. I could not help thinking that I had heard precisely the same message many decades ago, long before this boy was even born. It made me wonder: how many more generations are supposed to wait?

That question led me to reconsider the traditional Messianic expectation itself.

The main features religious Jews usually associate with the coming of Moshiach are well known. Moshiach is expected to be a descendant of King David and a real human ruler. He will gather the Jewish exiles back to the Land of Israel. He will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. He will bring peace, justice, and proper order to the world. Many also connect the Messianic age with other end of days events, especially resurrection of the dead.

Of course, not all Jewish groups understand these expectations in exactly the same way. Orthodox Judaism tends to interpret them more literally, while non-Orthodox movements often interpret at least some of them symbolically or historically. My argument is simple: if we adopt a less literal approach, we arrive at a startling conclusion.

Let us begin with the first feature. Moshiach is supposed to be a human ruler from the line of David. But what could such a claim even mean in the twenty-first century? Suppose some man appeared tomorrow and declared that he is a carrier of Davidic blood. Who would believe him? He would be met with immediate skepticism, and rightly so. Such a claim would require evidence, not vague family legends. In the twenty-first century, we expect proof in the form of historical records or genetic evidence. Genetics has had some success in identifying what is called the Cohen Modal Haplotype, associated with some paternal lines claiming descent from Aaron. But the line of David remains genetically untraceable. This does not mean David was fictional. There is extra-biblical evidence supporting his historicity. It means only that the direct identification of his modern descendants is beyond our reach.

If that is so, perhaps we are looking at the matter too narrowly. Why focus on one claimant? Why not focus instead on the Jewish people as a whole? Among the many Jewish males who returned to the Land of Israel from all corners of the world, there is certainly a non-zero probability that some are descendants of David, even if neither they nor anyone else knows it. The larger the ingathering of Jews to the Land, the greater the likelihood that Davidic blood has returned as well. In that sense, the return itself matters more than the identification of a single person. Zionism becomes not a rebellion against Messianic hope, but its practical historical realization. It is a philosophy and a process that reconciles national aspirations with religious expectations.

This leads directly to the second feature: the gathering of exiles. Here, the evidence is obvious. Jews returned to the Land from Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Ethiopia, the former Soviet Union, the Americas, and elsewhere. What for centuries has been only a liturgical phrase is becoming a living national reality. The alia has been happening, not in one single moment, but through a prolonged and difficult historical movement. If this is not at least one of the central marks of redemption, then what is?

The third point is the rebuilding of the Temple. Here, religious literalism again creates a problem that symbolic interpretation solves more elegantly. The Temple in Jerusalem has not been rebuilt. But should it be? The Temple was not merely a house of prayer. It stood at the center of religious, political, and economic life, especially in the Second Temple period. In many respects, it performed functions that in modern society belong to the state. To restore the Temple literally would mean far more than erecting a building. It would imply the restoration of centralized religious authority, a priestly caste, sacrificial rites, and a social order that most modern Jews, including many religious ones, would find alien.

I am quite sure that the overwhelming majority of Jews would choose a democratic Jewish state over a theocratic Temple order. Ironically, I suspect that many ultra-religious authorities, who most insist on the literal reading of messianic prophecy, would themselves be among the first to resist the full implications of an actual Temple restoration, because such a restoration would render many contemporary religious power structures obsolete. The Temple would again centralize what is now dispersed. It would not simply confirm present Rabbinic authority but might replace much of it.

So perhaps the true Temple of the Jewish people in our age is not a future stone structure but the State of Israel itself. For Jews in the diaspora, Israel is the central institution of collective Jewish life. It is our refuge, our symbol of continuity, our public expression of sovereignty, and our center of gravity. In that sense, the State has assumed many of the functions once concentrated in the Temple.

Now consider the next messianic feature: peace, justice, and proper order. Critics may object that Israel is surrounded by war, terror, and hostility, and therefore cannot possibly represent a messianic condition. But this objection confuses the process with the final state. The Jewish state was not created in a world already redeemed. It was created in a world still dominated by aggression and fanaticism. Its task is therefore not to preside over a ready-made peace but to fight for the conditions of peace.

Indeed, one of the central functions of the State of Israel is defense. It protects Jews. It also protects non-Jews within its borders who wish to live in a free society under law rather than under the rule of armed zealots. More broadly, Israel stands on the frontline against some of the most destructive forces in the region. A state that upholds law, order, liberty, and national survival in the face of existential enemies already performs a task closely aligned with the messianic hope for justice and proper order.

The same applies to the final point: the resurrection of the dead. Taken literally, this remains the most difficult of all Messianic expectations. But metaphorically, the miracle has already happened.

There was indeed something virtually dead for much of the Jewish people, and that thing has been resurrected before our eyes. It is the Hebrew language. For many centuries, Hebrew existed largely in liturgy, scholarship, and sacred memory. It lived, but only in dormant form. It was not the normal language of daily speech for most Jews. Then, in one of the most astonishing cultural revivals in history, Hebrew returned to life. Jews from vastly different lands came to Israel and began speaking, reading, arguing, loving, governing, and creating in a common language. The dead language rose and became alive again.

That is not a small matter, but rather a unique civilizational resurrection, which extends beyond Israel itself. Hebrew learning has spread among Jewish communities abroad and even among many non-Jews who wish to engage the Bible in a language closer to its original form. If one seeks a real-world example of resurrection, here it is.

As we can see, the main signs associated with the Messianic era have either already occurred or are occurring now. The exiles have returned. Jewish sovereignty has been restored. Hebrew has been revived. Jewish collective existence has been reconstituted in its ancestral land. Defense, justice, and public order are being pursued through statehood rather than passively awaited from heaven. Even the Davidic element may well be present in the collective body of the returned Jewish people, though not identifiable in one person.

This suggests a conclusion many will find offensive, but I see no reason to avoid it. Moshiach did come already, in the form of the Zionist movement.

To religious readers, this may sound like blasphemy. I understand that reaction. But I would ask them to consider whether endless delay is truly more pious than historical recognition. How many generations must continue to hear that redemption is just around the corner, while refusing to see the astonishing reality already unfolding before them? At what point does fidelity to prophecy become blindness to its fulfillment?

And to secular Jews who dislike religious language altogether, I would say this: one need not accept divine intervention to appreciate that the old messianic hopes were, in secularized historical form, fulfilled by Zionism. What religion described in sacred language, history accomplished through human courage, sacrifice, and revival.