Christian Zionism

Post Reply New Topic

Nearly 400 people attended the sold-out “Breakfast to Honor Israel” during the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) Convention in Grapevine, Texas, this week, the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) reported.

The NRB is a global network of evangelical communicators. The convention, which took place at the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center, reportedly drew a crowd of almost 6,000 Christian attendees.

CAM, an international network of 850 groups dedicated to combating antisemitism, has been represented at the NRB conventions for the last six years as part of its efforts to foster evangelical Christian support for global antisemitism initiatives.

The global initiative co-sponsored the breakfast alongside the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem and Magen David Adom, Israel’s emergency medical service.

The breakfast was hosted with the purpose of expressing solidarity with Israel and the international Jewish community amid the conflict and global tide of antisemitism that arose in the wake of the October 2023 Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel.

In a recent article (“Birthright for Evangelicals,” January 30), Dov Maimon cited data in his report, co-authored with Dr. Shlomo Fischer for the Jewish People Policy Institute, about a recent drop in young Evangelical support for Israel.

“Some younger Evangelicals, shaped by cultural and academic environments, are increasingly critical of Israel, the JPPI study warns,” he wrote. “This shift is a wake-up call. Israel risks losing a vital ally in its battle for legitimacy and support in the global arena and must respond with resolute creativity.”

Maimon said that as Israel has a “targeted outreach” in the form of Birthright – a program that connects Jews in the Diaspora to Israel – it should do so with Christians.

Maimon is right to call for a Christian Birthright.

However, what he may not know is that there are multiple organizations already at work building one – Christians United for Israel, Passages, and Eagles’ Wings.

Evangelical Christians who voted for US President Donald Trump are pressuring him to allow Israel to gain full control over the West Bank based on the covenant God made with the Jews, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

The Times reported that prominent evangelical allies of Trump are campaigning by making appearances in Israel, petitioning the White House, and building support in Congress.

“I literally feel God is giving Israel a blank check,” said Pastor Mario Bramnick, the president of the Latino Coalition for Israel. He visited Jerusalem on Tuesday with other key conservative Evangelicals to publicly advocate for Israel's seizure of Judea and Samaria.

The group of Christian Zionists believes that Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank would foster other biblical promises, such as an apocalypse that brings about the second coming of Jesus Christ, the Times reported.

“We Christians are calling on our beloved President Trump and his team to aggressively remove all barriers to Israel’s sovereignty over all the land, including Judea and Samaria,” said Terri Copeland Pearsons, a pastor and president of Texas Bible College, last Thursday at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in the Dallas-Fort Worth suburbs.

Preaching the 'biblical truth' about Israel
At the convention, organizers pushed a resolution that condemns “all efforts” to pressure Israel to relinquish West Bank territory. It was sponsored by the American Christian Leaders for Israel, which is self-described as a network of thousands of Christian leaders who preach the “biblical truth” and are steadfast supporters of Israel. Organizers of the event said that they would promptly show the resolution to Trump.

Addditionally, days before American Christian Leaders for Israel announced the resolution, Representative Claudia Tenney (R-NY) sent a letter to the US president with five other members of her congressional "Friends of Judea and Samaria Caucus”. It called on his administration to “recognize Israel’s right” to declare sovereignty over the territory, saying that doing so would be integral to defending “the Judeo-Christian heritage on which our nation was founded

On January 14, 1947, Fraser Wilkins of the State Department’s Near East Division sent a secret memorandum to State Department officials. Wilkins was the desk officer for Palestinian affairs at the time, and he detailed seven “factors” upon which United States policy vis-a-vis the British Mandate entity was based.

Among them, he wrote: “continued uncertainty and uncertainty regarding the Palestine question... is distressing to Christians everywhere because the Christian interest... tends to become submerged in an Arab-Jewish controversy.”

Some 78 years later, the new US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a Baptist pastor, visited the Shiloh archaeological site (rediscovered by American Edward Robinson, the “father of Biblical geography” back in 1838), spoke personal words of spiritual meaning, and met with the leaders of the Yesha (Judea and Samaria Council), representing the over half a million Jews residing in the areas of the former Mandate not yet under full Israeli sovereignty. A new era, following on from the first Donald Trump presidential administration and the ambassadorship of David M. Friedman, is beginning.

US-Israel relationship
Despite cynical views concerning the intentions of Evangelical Christians on the one hand and antisemitic views of Zionist “control” over Washington on the other, the United States has for over 200 years been pro-Zionist, even in the face of State Department animus. This is the basis for the US-Israel relationship.

Writing to Mordechai Manuel Noah in 1819 regarding his proto-Zionist scheme at Niagara River’s Grand Island, president John Adams declared, “I could find it in my heart to wish that you had been at the head of a hundred thousand Israelites... marching with them into Judea and making a conquest of that country and restoring your nation to the dominion of it. For I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.” John Quincy Adams, also writing to Noah, was adamant that he believed in the “rebuilding of Judea as an independent nation.”

Abraham Lincoln in 1863 met Canadian Christian Zionist Henry Wentworth Monk and expressed his identification with the hope that Jews be emancipated “by restoring them to their national home in Palestine.” Lincoln added that this was “a noble dream and one shared by many Americans.”

An official American diplomatic presence began in 1844 when a consulate opened inside Jerusalem’s Jaffa Gate. It relocated in 1912 to the city’s Agron Street, where, during 1966-1967, I frequently visited its library during my participation in the Zionist Youth Movement Leadership Institute. The early consuls-general included several pro-Zionists.

Warder Cresson, who, despite his appointment as the first American consul being rescinded after only eight days, managed to remain in Jerusalem during the years 1844-1848, said that “The day of the return of the Jews is at hand, and the glorification of the restored Jerusalem.” He later converted to Judaism.

An unfortunate incident occurred in 1858 as a result of an attack by Arabs. One man was murdered and two women were raped. Known as the “Outrage at Jaffa,” Arab thieves had set upon an American Christian family who had come to the Holy Land as part of the American Agricultural Mission. Mary Dickson, a rape victim, was John Steinbeck’s great aunt.

Woodrow Wilson fully agreed with Balfour Declaration
Much later, then-US president Woodrow Wilson overcame State Department opposition to Zionism. After meeting with Louis Brandeis and Stephen Wise in May and June 1917, Wilson expressed his full support for Britain’s “protectorate” rule over Palestine en route to its becoming the Jewish national home. On October 16, he gave his full agreement to the text of the proposed Balfour Declaration.

Another foundation of America’s pro-Zionist attitude was the American-British Convention signed with Great Britain on December 3, 1924. How important that treaty was can be gleaned from another State Department memorandum, this one by Mr. J. Rives Childs of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs and sent on March 8, 1939.

Childs reacted to a dispatch of November 25, 1938, from the United States consul general in Jerusalem regarding a conference of American Jews in the country, held to consider the protection of the rights and interests of American citizens in Mandate Palestine under that convention. The winds of a volte-face by England were whirling about, and they eventually produced the May 1939 White Paper in which England reneged on the idea of a Jewish national home.

Childs reported that at the conference, Nathan Kaplan, president of the American-Jewish Association in Palestine, declared: “The Americans in Palestine have a right to expect that the undertaking be honored in full and that the American Government take the appropriate steps in this direction.” Kaplan had immigrated to Mandate Palestine in 1927.

Immediately understanding the situation, Childs conveyed that American Jews residing in Palestine would be stressing that the convention permitted America the right “to withhold its assent to any change in the mandate which may impair the obligations assumed by Great Britain under the Balfour Declaration.”

Childs was of the opinion that “If the mandate is terminated, we have the right to be consulted with respect to the conditions under which the territory is subsequently to be administered.” That legal aspect came into play in 1946 when Jordan requested to become a member of the United Nations.

Dean Acheson, acting US secretary of state, sent a “secret, urgent” note to the president on July 11, 1946, following the suggestion by senator Francis Myers, at the urging of the Hebrew Committee for National Liberation, that the US should take no action recognizing Trans-Jordan as separate or independent state. Furthermore, the US representative at the UN should be instructed to seek postponement of international determination of the status of the Trans-Jordan area until the future status of Palestine as a whole would be determined.

After discussions at the 1947 Pentagon Conference, the US advised Great Britain that it was withholding recognition of Transjordan pending a decision on the Palestine question by the UN. Temporarily, until the Jewish national home came into being, Transjordan’s membership was stymied.

A coalition of Christian organizations launched a campaign this week calling on US President Donald Trump to intensify efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and to support the Iranian opposition.

The initiative, led by the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF), American Christian Leaders for Israel (ACLI), and the Change Iran Coalition, includes former US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback and media group JDA Worldwide. It urges Trump to take “bold steps” to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat and support regime change in the Islamic Republic.

According to the coalition, the campaign is backed by millions of pro-Israel Christians in the United States. It highlights Iran’s record of religious persecution, citing the imprisonment, torture, and execution of Christians and the systemic discrimination against Bahá’ís, Jews, Sunnis, and Zoroastrians.

The organizers accuse the Iranian regime of diverting national wealth to fund terror organizations, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. They also cite Iran’s human rights abuses, lack of democratic freedoms, and its role in regional destabilization.

“Iran’s support for terrorism has brought suffering to millions,” the coalition stated.
The campaign draws parallels to Iran’s pre-1979 revolution era, which it described as a time of “growing religious freedoms and opportunities for women.” Susan Michael, director of ACLI, called on the US not to repeat past mistakes and to show stronger support for popular uprisings within Iran.

“The time has come to act with strength, not hesitation,” said Josh Reinstein, President of the Israel Allies Foundation. “Christians across America—who form the backbone of the Republican Party—are rallying together to call on President Trump to support Israel and join the charge against the Iranian nuclear threat. This could be President Trump’s finest hour—a moment to make history by joining forces with Israel and finally putting an end to the greatest danger facing the free world today.”

As israel continues its assault on Gaza, enables settlers on the West Bank, and launches strikes on Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, American conservatives are taking special note of one form of Israeli belligerence: attacks on Christians in the Holy Land.

An Israeli tank last week shelled the only Catholic church in Gaza, killing three and gravely wounding several. Over in the West Bank, settlers in recent weeks have intensified their attacks on Christian communities, including in the town of Taybeh, where they set cars aflame and erected a sign that read “there is no future for you here,” among other indignities.

Many American Christians, including high-profile MAGA influencers, have had enough—jeopardizing one of Israel’s most vital bases of Western support.

The former congressman Matt Gaetz, host of a popular show on One America News, has used the platform to put Israel on blast. In one segment this week, Gaetz highlighted the harassment of Christians by Israelis, including the desecration of holy sites. The Times of Israel last week noted other criticisms of Israel that Gaetz has leveled, depicting them as “a sign of a change in right-wing public opinion in the US surrounding Israel’s actions against Palestinians.” the West Bank, and launches strikes on Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, American conservatives are taking special note of one form of Israeli belligerence: attacks on Christians in the Holy Land.

The Times was right to see Gaetz’s escalating rhetoric as part of a broader shift. The podcaster Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire said last week that his support for the Jewish state was waning, and he questioned Israel’s claim that the recent church attack in Gaza was an accident. “I’ve been broadly supportive of the state of Israel, not really as an ideological matter, but as a matter of prudence, and you’re losing me, you’re losing me,” said Knowles, a devout Catholic.

Even the U.S. ambassador to Israel and former Baptist minister Mike Huckabee—“as strong a supporter of the state of Israel as there is,” Knowles observed—has lambasted Israeli mistreatment of Christians.

After the settler rampage in Taybeh, Huckabee toured the Christian Palestinian town and spoke with community leaders, who told him of an arson attack two weeks ago that imperiled a historic church in the area. The ambassador seemed to take their message to heart. “Desecrating a church, mosque or synagogue is a crime against humanity & God,” Huckabee wrote on X Saturday.

In another post days earlier, Huckabee reacted to brutal murders outside the West Bank village Sinjil, where settlers beat to death two Palestinians, including an American citizen who had been visiting family and friends in the occupied territory. “There must be accountability for this criminal and terrorist act,” Huckabee wrote.

The ambassador has directed his ire not only against Israeli settlers but also Israeli officials. In a letter to the interior minister, Huckabee warned, citing Israel’s systematic denial of visas for evangelical missions, that he could declare the Jewish state no longer welcomes Christians. He even threatened to order reciprocal measures targeting Israelis travelling to America.

Israel can’t afford to lose the ambassador. Following Huckabee’s pushback, the visa dispute was swiftly resolved, meaning American Christians can resume their Holy Land tours.

And soon, many MAGA influencers will get the chance to see the land where Jesus walked. “The Israeli Foreign Ministry will fund a tour of Israel for U.S. social media influencers affiliated with the Make America Great Again and America First brands of conservatism,” reported Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, on Sunday.

It’s no surprise that the Israeli government sees a growing need to launch a new influence campaign. Pro-Israel voices, including Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League, have expressed alarm about the precipitous decline in support for Israel around the world, including in America. The purpose of the new initiative, Haaretz noted, will be to encourage MAGA influencers “to disseminate messaging that aligns with the Israeli government’s policy.”

The PR strategy isn’t new. Israel has long courted America’s Christian conservatives, hosting tours of cherished Biblical sites. Since at least the premiership of Menachem Begin in the 1970s, the Israeli government has viewed American evangelicals as a strategic asset and sought to keep them onside. America’s pro-Israel lobbying groups have followed suit, cultivating relationships with evangelical leaders.

Historically, Israeli outreach has paid off, helping evangelicals and American conservatives broadly become perhaps the most vocal non-Jewish supporters of Israel in the Western world. But Israel’s “Hasbara”—public diplomacy intended to polish its image abroad—may be losing force.

Scholars at Northeastern University last year found a stark generational gap in Americans’ support for the Jewish state. A Pew Research survey published this April corroborated that research, finding that a slim majority of U.S. adults express an unfavorable opinion of Israel, with Americans under 50 markedly less supportive of the country than Baby Boomers. Both studies noted that the generational divide showed up in both parties.

During the first Trump administration, the Washington Post<was already reporting that younger Republicans, including evangelicals, were more wary of Israel than their older counterparts.

You don’t need to pore over polling crosstabs to detect the change in opinion. Earlier this month, the podcaster and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson delivered a rousing speech to an audience of young, largely Christian conservatives. When Carlson declared that Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender and disgraced financier, had been an Israeli intelligence asset, the crowd applauded.

Some Protestant Gen-Xers and Millennials have continued defending Israel, but they are meeting increasingly fierce pushback. A Twitterstorm erupted over the weekend after Joel Berry, managing editor of the Babylon Bee and a pro-Israel Protestant, seemed to rationalize the church attack in Gaza. “This won’t be easy for people to hear, but there are only about 200 professed Catholics still living in Gaza and they all support Hamas,” Berry wrote. Other Christians pounced, and the post was promptly “ratioed,” receiving more comments than likes.

While the ensuing clash seemed to pit Catholics against Protestants, not all of Berry’s critics were members of the Roman church. “Joel’s takes on this have been horrific but they are his own ideology, please do not attribute his beliefs to evangelicals,” wrote Auron MacIntyre of the Blaze. As an evangelical I don’t think Israel gets a blank check to destroy Catholic churches or kill their parishioners.”

Of course, social media doesn’t always reflect public opinion in meatspace, and right-wingers on X tend to be more Israel-critical than normie conservatives in the suburbs. But harsh criticisms of Israel by both Huckabee and another Mideast envoy, America’s Ambassador to Syria Thomas Barrack, show that the recent backlash hasn’t been the exclusive purview of online influencers.

White House officials who view the region from afar have also lost patience. “Bibi acted like a madman. He bombs everything all the time,” one official told Axios using Netanyahu’s nickname. According to a second White House official, President Donald Trump called Netanyahu after the shelling of Gaza’s only Catholic church to demand an explanation.

As cracks emerge on the American right over Israeli militarism and mistreatment of Christians, the Jewish state faces a harrowing situation, one that is largely of Netanyahu’s making.

Ever since the Barack Obama years, Netanyahu has reacted to America’s intensifying polarization by siding with the red team—a tactic that many Israelis have criticized for alienating Democrats. Throughout the Gaza war, which Netanyahu has treated as a chance to hold onto power, the GOP has remained a vital partner of the Jewish state amid a rapid decline in its popularity worldwide.

But even here, the trend lines don’t look good for Israel.

Over the next few years and decades, as the old Republican guard gives way to younger MAGA leaders, America’s “greatest ally” may find itself friendless on the world stage. If that day comes, Israelis will look back on Netanyahu not as “Mr. Security,” as he now is known, but as the prime minister who led Israel into a perilous geopolitical predicament.

I. BEGINNING AND THE QUESTION

The conflict in Israel and Palestine is well into its eighth decade and shows little sign of ending any time soon. In recent years, it has become evident that the conflict is perpetuated in large measure due to practically unconditional support from the United States for the State of Israel in its policies and practices.

Remarks from a panel discussion, February 2014
Revised, November 2015, June 2018
Given that the Jewish population of the United States is only 2.2% of the total population, Jewish support (even were it universal) for the State of Israel and its policies would not be enough to warrant the current U.S. commitment. Clearly, the Jewish population is the main motivator of unconditional U.S. support for Israel.

That support has instead been based on the fact that, in recent decades, numbers of Christians have flocked to Israel’s cause under the name of Christian Zionism, fully supporting Israel’s policies and partnering with organizations like AIPAC and others to further Israel’s interests in the capital of the United States.

And so, in this essay, I would like to look at a critical question that underlies this situation. The question before us is not whether a Christian as an individual political actor should be pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, both, or neither. The sole question before us—and the sole question I wish to address—is this: does Christianity provide a warrant for political Zionism?

A careful examination of Christian theology, Biblical interpretation, ethics, and the health of the Jewish-Christian interreligious relationship, forces us to conclude that the answer is no.

II. CHRISTIAN GUILT AND MAKING AMENDS
The Jewish people have suffered much over the centuries, particularly at the hands of Christians. Responsible for much of this suffering was a Christian theology known as supersessionism: a belief that the promises given by God to the Children of Israel had been superseded by the promises given to the Church. Supersessionism has some roots in the New Testament, particularly in the Gospels of Matthew and John, where it reflected the bitter estrangement between the First Century rabbinic Jewish and emerging Christian communities.1

The consequences of that theology were, among others, a sidelining of the Jewish people in the narrative of God’s salvation. Israel’s place in the redemption of the world would now be occupied by the Church. From this basic idea, it was not a long or complicated chain of events that led from the theological idea that the Jews were outside God’s plan for salvation to the conclusion that the Jews were outside the human family altogether. Indeed, one of the reasons for the emergence of Zionism in the 19th Century was the pervasive Christian persecution of Jews in Europe as a result of this theology that had assumed that God had turned his back on the Jewish people.

In the wake of the Holocaust, there has been a re-appraisal of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, long overdue and much needed. There has been a re-embracing of the Jewishness of Jesus (for centuries Christianity and Judaism’s shared “dirty little secret”) as part of the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus. Likewise, there has been an attempt to explore the Jewish tradition in order to grow in understanding about the Christian one.

In that light, Christian Zionism appears to be one method of Christian accommodation of and repentance for the centuries of hatred, rejection, and violence—but it is not. For Christian Zionism reflects neither a proper Christian theology nor a respect for the integrity of the Jewish faith.

III. CRITIQUES OF CHRISTIAN ZIONISM

A. Christian Critique of Christian Zionism

1. CONFLATION OF GOD’S REIGN WITH A POLITICAL SYSTEM
Christian faith is at its best when it remains true to its core: a faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ and a trust in that grace to transform the world itself. As Christians, we are called to witness to that world transforming grace through our acts of mercy, justice, and through the building of communities that reflect the reality of the Kingdom of God.

Christian faith is at its worst when it conflates its own message with the messages of the world: when it imagines that some power or other is the Kingdom of God—the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, The Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, the American Empire, even the Church itself—or when it conflates a particular political ideology or societal structure with the radical community of the Kingdom of God. In recent years, various groups of Christians have equated all manner of things with the Christian message: capitalism, socialism, American Exceptionalism, the Prosperity Gospel, and so on. Christian Zionism is one of the latest in a long line of worldly belief systems that attempts to pass itself off as Christian teaching.

The eminent Christian theologian Stanley Hauerwas writes:

The church does not exist to provide an ethos for democracy or any other form of social organization, but stands as a political alternative to every nation, witnessing to the kind of social life possible for those that have been formed by the story of Christ.

—STANLEY HAUERWAS2
Hauerwas makes a strong case for the separation of the church and the world beyond the church. And while there is plenty of reason to think critically about the relationship between the church and the world, the point has been made repeatedly throughout our Christian history that the integrity of Christian faith has suffered whenever the Church allies with a particular political belief system. And while it is frequently thought that the danger in blurring the line between church and state is that the state will be corrupted by the church, history has shown, however, that corruption is far more frequently found in the other direction: the state co-opts and corrupts the church. Further, it is not only established political systems that can corrupt the integrity of religion; political ideologies can be just as corrupting when the boundaries between the political and the religious become blurred.


“We have no king but Caesar”—Christ’s trial before Pilate
It is perfectly acceptable for individuals to embrace all manner of political opinions as a consequence of their faith. One Christian might feel her faith requires her to oppose abortion, another might feel that her faith requires her to ensure that all people have access to medical care, including abortions. And if one likewise wishes to support Zionism, that is one’s right, just as it is to oppose Zionism. But we run into a dangerous area when we act in a way that equates Christian faith with Zionism. Making that kind of theological equivalence, affects the integrity of Christian faith as much as equating it with our Civil Religion, or the Prosperity Gospel, or any other socio-political worldview.

As Christians, we are supposed to proclaim fealty only to Christ, but all too often we find ourselves declaring with the High Priests, “We have no king except Caesar.” (John 19:15) In John’s Gospel, Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world”—a clear declaration that there is no political system that commands our loyalty more than our loyalty to the Gospel.

2. UNIVERSALISM

And that Gospel is universalist; Christianity is a universalist faith. That is, it sees God as God of every nation. As St. Peter says in Acts: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34–35 NRSV)

Christianity inherited that universalism from Judaism, where it is found especially strong in the prophetic tradition:

Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel? says the Lord. Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?

AMOS 9:7 NRSV
The Old Testament is replete with examples that show that Judaism itself considered “Israel” to be a much broader category than the ethno-religious community, descendent from the Patriarch Jacob.

There is also an important distinction to draw that often goes overlooked largely because of a quirk of the English language and of American history: the distinction is between the nation and the nation-state. Perhaps it is a function of the United States as a multi-national state that most Americans do not understand the difference between a nation and a nation-state. Thus, when American Christians read the many references in scripture to nations, it is hard to realize that the text is talking about something other than states.

The scriptures do concern themselves with the welfare of nations, and the welfare of nations is certainly something Christians should be concerned with, as well, but it is important to understand that the scriptural concern for nations is a concern for peoples. It is important to understand that the overwhelming usage of the term “Israel” in the scriptures is not in reference to the unified Kingdom of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon, or to the Northern Kingdom of Israel after the division of Solomon’s kingdom in two, but to the “Children of Israel,” the descendants of Jacob/Israel, the Israelite people.

We should care about the welfare of the Jewish people, and the Palestinian people, and the Syrian, and Ukrainian, and Burmese, and El Salvadoran people. We should care very much about the ability of the Jewish people to live in security and safety, to practice their faith without persecution, to engage fully into all aspects of society. To say that, as Christians, we should support the Jewish people is a very different thing from saying that we should support a particular nation-state.

Never in my life as a Christian have I been asked if I support France, or Spain, or Burundi, or Syria. It would be an exceedingly odd question. Though the question of whether I supported the French, Spanish, Burundi, or Syrian peoples’ rights is a natural concern for the Christian. We ought to be concerned with the welfare of “Israel” by which we mean the same thing that Judaism means by that: “the people of Israel.”

And this brings us back to the point raised earlier: concern for people—which is a high Christian duty, respecting all in whom the image of God dwells—has been conflated with concern for a nation-state, which is a political agenda.

3. COVENANTAL THEOLOGY

Earlier, I discussed the problems of Christian supersessionism, the idea that the Church had replaced Israel as the covenant people of God. Contemporary Christians who reject supersessionism will sometimes speak of the ongoing validity of the Jewish covenant with God, alongside of the Christian covenant through Jesus. But this raises a very important question: Is there one Covenant or two?

Christian Zionism maintains that God has a continuing covenant with Israel separate from the Church. The Jewish covenant is an earthly covenant, including within it the promise of a particular parcel of land. One participates in this covenant by being a part of the Jewish people, possibly by conversion, but generally by birth and bloodlines, and sealed in circumcision. The Christian covenant, by contrast, has to do with eternal life, salvation, and the redemption of the world through Christ. It is entered into by faith, marked with baptism, and is not dependent on birth, status, nation, race, sex, or any other limiting factor. One is material; the other spiritual. One particular; the other universal. Leaving aside for now the critique of any Christian theology that sees itself as primarily spiritual, the greater problem is that there appear to be two covenantal traditions that exist side by side, but on markedly different terms.


St. Paul
Christianity has, since the days of St. Paul, maintained that there is only one people of God without distinction.3 And for Christians, “Israel” means “the people of God” including Jews and Gentiles together. That’s obviously not a Jewish definition, but it is the Christian one.

To maintain that there are two separate side-by-side covenants, one of which is according to the Law of Moses and the other by faith in Christ, is impermissible for the Christian. It is, in effect, to say that the saving work of Christ is not universal or applied to all. It diminishes the importance of what God has done in Christ and merely made it “an option.

4. DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY

Much of Christian Zionism is built on a recent development in Christian doctrine, centered around the concept of “dispensationalism” and not on the most ancient and historic understandings of Christian theology.

Dispensationalism is a type of religious thought that argues that the history of the world is divided into “dispensations” each of which has unique duties and responsibilities. This scheme was articulated first in the 1830’s by John Nelson Darby and popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible. Under this scheme there is a huge distinction between the people of Israel and the Church, one being earthly with earthly promises and the other being heavenly with heavenly promises.


John Nelson Darby, mucking things up
Dispensationalists believe that the nation of Israel is distinct from the Christian Church, and that God has yet to fulfill his promises to national Israel. These promises include the land promises, which in the future world to come results in a millennial kingdom and Third Temple where Christ, upon his return, will rule the world from Jerusalem for a thousand years.

Dispensationalism denies the idea of one people of God without distinction, instead affirming to an extreme degree the distinction between Jew and Christian. Darby himself said “The Jewish nation is never to enter the church.” Ryrie, another dispensationalist, affirmed the statement that “the basic promise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity.”4 However, as John Gerstner writes:

In contrast, Christian theology has always maintained the essential continuity of Israel and the church. The elect of all the ages are seen as one people, with one Savior, one destiny. This continuity can be shown by examining a few Old Testament prophesies with their fulfillment. Dispensationalists admit that if the church can be shown to be fulfilling promises made to Israel their system is doomed. If the church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then [dispensational] premillennialism is condemned.

(a) Hastening the End Times

Much of the current interest in supporting the State of Israel is grounded in the dispensationalist belief that doing so will hasten the End Times. That the in-gathering of the exiles is a necessary precondition to the return of Christ. This idea, which presents serious ethical dilemmas in its treatment of the Jewish people as a means rather than an end (see B.2, below) also creates a theological problem by imagining that the end times can be hastened by anything that we do, as opposed to simply being patient and watchful, as Jesus instructs, because “no one knows when that day or hour will come.” (Mark 13:32)

THE CHURCH

The great command of Jesus to the church is found in John’s gospel:

“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

JOHN 13:34–35 NRSV
“Love” in the Biblical context is not an emotion; it is a way of living in right relationship with another person. In addition, in Semitic languages like Hebrew, “love” and “hate” can mean to “prefer” and “reject.” And so, the command that Jesus gives the church—to love one another, to live in right relationship with one another, to stand in solidarity with one another—is threatened by the adoption of a political ideology that places the interests of a nation-state over the interests of our fellow Christians.

The most appalling thing about Christian Zionism is that it completely overlooks the desires, aspirations, and needs of the indigenous Christian communities of the Holy Land. In the New Testament, the Church in Jerusalem is acknowledged as the authoritative center of Christian life. But Christian Zionism has all but ignored these churches.

The debate about the relationship of the Church to the Biblical people of Israel is a centuries-long and enduring one. But the relationship of the Church to its own churches should be an obvious one: to love them as Christ has loved us. And choosing Zionism—indeed choosing any state loyalty over our brothers and sisters in Christ is fundamentally at odds with this command of Jesus.

B. A Jewish Critique

Jewish colleagues have expressed concern to me about their Christian Zionist allies. It’s important to understand that the religious views presented in the film we watched (With God on Our Side) aren’t expected by or even seen as desirable by most Jews. Most Jewish Zionists are uncomfortable with aspects of premillennial dispensationalism.

And indeed, it seems not a little bit paternalistic or presumptuous to insist on a commitment to Zionism that most Jewish Zionists do not maintain. In Israel itself there is a wide range of opinion including an open embrace of a two-state solution and even those who argue for a bi-national state. (Interestingly, many of the earliest Zionists advocated for a bi-national Jewish and Arab state.) Christian Zionists come dangerously close to speaking for the Jewish Israelis, rather than seeking to honor what they might choose for themselves.

1. MISUSE OF “CHOSEN PEOPLE”

Christian Zionists frequently make use of “Chosen people” ideas in their argument and in so doing misunderstand Judaism and appropriate its concepts for their own aims. However, Jewish understandings of “Chosenness” do not always align with Christian Zionist ones. Take this example from JewFaq (Judaism 101):

Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Moslems worship the same G-d that we do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.

“Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does not maintain that Jews are better than other people. Although we refer to ourselves as G-d’s chosen people, we do not believe that G-d chose the Jews because of any inherent superiority. According to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b), G-d offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it. The story goes on to say that the Jews were offered the Torah last, and accepted it only because G-d held a mountain over their heads! (In Ex. 19:17, the words generally translated as “at the foot of the mountain” literally mean “underneath the mountain”!) Another traditional story suggests that G-d chose the Jewish nation because they were the lowliest of nations, and their success would be attributed to G-d’s might rather than their own ability. Clearly, these are not the ideas of a people who think they are better than other nations.

Because of our acceptance of Torah, Jews have a special status in the eyes of G-d, but we lose that special status when we abandon Torah. Furthermore, the blessings that we received from G-d by accepting the Torah come with a high price: Jews have a greater responsibility than non-Jews. While non-Jews are only obligated to obey the seven commandments given to Noah, Jews are responsible for fulfilling the 613 mitzvot in the Torah, thus G-d will punish Jews for doing things that would not be a sin for non-Jews.”

Or this from the Jewish Virtual Library:

“Does Judaism believe that chosenness endows Jews with special rights in the way racist ideologies endow those born into the “right race”? Not at all. The most famous verse in the Bible on the subject of chosenness says the precise opposite: “You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth. That is why I call you to account for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). Chosenness is so unconnected to any notion of race that Jews believe that the Messiah himself will descend from Ruth, a non­-Jewish woman who converted to Judaism.”

2. USING THE JEWS AS A MEANS NOT AN END

Finally, the role that Jews play in the Christian Zionist narrative is not a favorable one and is ultimately no better than the historic scapegoating of the Jewish people. Christian Zionism makes use of the Jewish people for a cynical end and does not seek the best for them.

That there are Christian groups funding the rebuilding of the Temple on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif (destroying the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa in the process) [i]in order that it can then be desecrated and destroyed[i] to bring back Christ, has little to do with interfaith charity and respect for Jewish ancient religious practice (even if we could ignore the necessary destruction of Islam’s holy sites), and more to do with hastening an End Times agenda that is nowhere close to being universally accepted by most Christians.

That is not how we love the Jews. And it has little to do with respecting the integrity of the Jewish people for their own sake. And has everything to do with making use of the Jewish people for a Christian end. And this is supposed to be the preferable option to the traditional theologies about the Jews, such as the ones where we said that the Jews should be unmolested because their presence demonstrates to the world what the consequences are of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah.

Is it not possible to develop a theology of relationship to our Jewish brothers and sisters that is positive and doesn’t simply see them as something to illustrate a Christian point or a means to a Christian end?

The philosopher Immanuel Kant, in writing of ethics, noted that we ought to “act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means.” The ways that Christian Zionists have appropriated Jewish ideas, made use of Jewish aspirations, and advanced certain interests does not treat Jewish Israelis as an end in themselves, but as a means to a particular Christian end. That is behavior that is simply unethical.

Because Christian Zionism bases its support for the State of Israel on its supposed role in the End Times, it treats Israelis and Palestinians not as fellow human beings deserving of love and respect, but as “pawns in a cosmic drama of divine vengeance and retribution.” This drama involves the death of all non-Christians—including Jews—through apocalyptic warfare or divine judgment. It is hard to argue that this provides a model for proper Jewish-Christian relationships, when one party seeks the other to move to Israel and then “convert or die.”

IV. CONCLUSION

For all of these reasons, then, we must conclude that Christianity cannot, except in a corrupted, inauthentic form, provide any warrant for Christian Zionism. Christians ought better put their energies in justice ministries, peacebuilding, and reconciliation efforts than to forsake the “weightier matters of the law” (Matt. 23:23) in order to support what is essentially a political ideology wrapped up in Christian guise.

[1] See, for example, Matt. 21:43 (“Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom.” NRSV) and John 8:39–47.

[2] J. Philip Wogaman, Christian Perspectives on Politics.

[3] See, generally, Romans 9-11.

[4] John Gerstner, The Dispensational Distinction Between Israel and the Church.

Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist shot dead at Utah Valley University, regularly presented himself as a staunch defender of Israel and the Jewish people, even claiming earlier this year that “no non-Jewish person my age has a longer or clearer record of support for Israel.”

Yet his past statements are laced with contradiction to that image. He used anti-Semitic tropes, from claims of Jewish “control” over cultural life to blaming “Jewish donors” for fuelling social and political ills. The tension between pro-Israel branding and rhetoric echoing well-known antisemitic stereotypes has been noted by Jewish and conservative commentators alike.

Here are his five anti-semitic remarks that drew particular criticism:
1- Jewish philanthropy “subsidising your own demise”
Shortly after Israel began its attack in Gaza in October 2023, Kirk claimed that Jewish philanthropy funding American universities was effectively “subsidising your own demise by supporting institutions that breed anti-Semites and endorse genocidal killers” — a framing that shifted blame onto Jewish donors themselves.

2- “Jews control … the colleges, the nonprofits, the movies, Hollywood, all of it”
In October 2023, Kirk alleged that Jews dominated universities, nonprofits and Hollywood alike, a sweeping claim echoing entrenched conspiracy theories of Jewish institutional control.
He also accused “elite” or “secular” Jewish philanthropies of “pumping money” into universities while turning a blind eye to antisemitism, effectively casting Jewish donors as complicit in the problem. He even labelled “elite Jewish culture” a main funding source for schools that “breed Jew hatred.”

Kirk argued that radical or liberal cultural and political institutions are primarily funded by Jewish donors, thereby reviving the trope of wealthy Jews manipulating politics and culture.
”The number one funding mechanism of radical, open border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits" is “Jewish donors.”

Kirk linked Jewish financial support to the spread of so-called “Cultural Marxist ideas” — a narrative that has long been associated with anti-Semitic portrayals of Jews as the instigators of societal decay.

“Tucker Carlson mentions that Jewish Americans have primarily been financing cultural Marxist ideas. We said this, by the way, last week, and people came after us. We actually said it in a different way. We said, I'm glad that Jewish Americans are reconsidering their financing of cultural Marxism,” Kirk stated

4- Casting Jews as drivers of “anti-white” politics
In November 2023, while defending billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who had endorsed an explicitly anti-Semitic post, Kirk said ”Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them,” and said that “the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”

5- ‘Antisemitism is being misused to justify censorship’
Kirk argued that accusations of anti-Semitism were increasingly being weaponised to restrict debate.

“Once ‘antisemitism’ becomes valid grounds to censor or even imprison somebody, there will be frantic efforts to label all kinds of speech as antisemitic — the same way the left labeled all kinds of statements as ‘racist’ to justify silencing their opposition,” he said. “Not only that, but all of this won’t even work.”

Participants in last week’s tour of Shiloh, part of a mission that brought over 1,000 American Christian leaders and influencers to Israel, spoke with Arutz Sheva-Israel National News about their experience. They toured the ancient site of Shiloh last Friday as part of what organizers described as the flagship event of the largest public-diplomacy mission in Israel’s history.

Participants, brought to Israel through an initiative led by Dr. Mike Evans and the Friends of Zion organization in cooperation with Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Binyamin Regional Council, arrived in dozens of buses and prayed for the State of Israel while expressing deep solidarity.

Many of the pastors described their experience in Shiloh as meaningful and moving. One participant said the gathering brought together “a thousand pastors from all over America” who came “to show support for Israel” with “a heart of love” and compassion. Another expressed simple but emphatic solidarity and appreciation, saying: “We stand with Israel… We love you, and your hospitality has been incredible.”

Visitors spoke about the significance of standing at the site where the Tabernacle once stood, calling the location “amazing” and “beautiful,” and noting the sense of history felt while walking through the area. Several described the opportunity as a blessing, with one pastor saying he felt “honored and blessed” to be part of the mission.

For many, the visit to Shiloh was their first, even among those who had been to Israel numerous times. One participant who has visited the country close to a dozen times said that seeing a new part of the land strengthened his ability to “defend her” when speaking back home. Another described the experience as “life-changing,” praising the welcome they received and the “desire of the Israeli people for peace.”

Others shared that the trip reinforced their personal commitment to support Israel within their communities in the United States. One pastor spoke of the importance of “keeping Israel safe and strong” and said he was committed to ensuring that Americans “stand up for Israel.” Another noted that each visit deepened his understanding of the land, the people, and “the importance of supporting Israel as US citizens.”

Carrie Prejean Boller, a former Miss California and a recent Catholic convert, was removed Wednesday from the White House’s Religious Liberty Commission after she made some controversial remarks about Jews and Israel in a hearing on antisemitism.

“Catholics do not embrace Zionism,” she said. “So are all Catholics antisemites?”

Prejean Boller was responding to the idea, presented by a staunchly pro-Israel set of Jewish witnesses testifying at the hearing, that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

This is a complex debate that has divided the Jewish community over the past several years, even before Oct. 7 shot the issue into the spotlight, with numerous debates over how antisemitism should be defined. But Prejean Boller was not, beyond a few mentions of Palestinian lives in Gaza, engaging with the usual questions that divide Jews on the question of whether anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Her issue was with whether or not Zionism is part of Christian biblical prophecy.

“As a Catholic, I don’t agree that the new, modern state of Israel has any biblical prophecy meaning at all,” she said in the hearing. Later, she doubled down on X. “I’m a proud Catholic. I, in no way will be forced to embrace Zionism as a fulfillment of biblical prophesy,” she wrote.

What she was referring to was the idea of Christian Zionism — the theological belief among some Christians that the Bible supports the existence of the modern state of Israel. Some forms of Christian Zionism support the Jewish state as a necessary, prophesied precursor to Jesus’ return; all Jews must return to Israel before the end of days. Others may simply support Israel because they believe it shares their “Judeo-Christian” biblical foundations. But whatever the reasons, there has historically been widespread political support for Israel among American Christians. And that support has been core to Israel’s relationship with the U.S.

The lobbying group Christians United for Israel boasts a membership of 10 million, not only larger than any Jewish pro-Israel group but larger than the population of Jews in the U.S.; its influence has been key to passing measures such as moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. The power of this support from evangelicals is perhaps why Dani Dayan, Israel’s former consul general in New York, said in 2021 that Israel “invested most of its energy in the relationship with conservatives, Republicans, evangelicals, and a certain type of Jews only.”

Prejean Boller’s comments are representative of a recent shift among American Christians away from Christian Zionism.

“Where does my support for Israel come from? Number one, because biblically we are commanded to support Israel,” said Ted Cruz on Tucker Carlson’s show last year. “Hold on, hold on!” Carlson responded, acting as though he had never heard of this crazy idea that Christians support Israel based on the Bible.

It was a bellwether that Carlson, an influential leader on the right and a devout Christian, would act as though Christian support for Israel was not only unbiblical but absurd.

According to a survey commissioned by the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, support for Israel among young evangelicals, ages 18 to 29, fell from 75% to 34% between 2018 and 2021 — in fact, support for Israel dropped more precipitously among this evangelical group than it did in the general American population. And a 2024 version of the same survey found that Christians were less likely to consider their support for Israel on biblical grounds.

Prejean Boller, who converted to Catholicism from evangelical Christianity in April, called out these evangelical beliefs specifically in a post on X, saying that her conversion to Catholicism was predicated in part on repudiating evangelical Christian Zionism.

“My conversion to the fullness of the Catholic faith exposed what I was taught in American evangelicalism, a version of Christianity that fused Jesus with a political agenda and called it ‘God’s prophecy being fulfilled,’” she wrote. “It isn’t.”

Prejean Boller’s statements join those of Carlson, as well as more openly conspiratorial and antisemitic influencers like Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens — who Prejean Boller defended in the hearing as a Christian leader, saying she listens to Owens regularly and does not believe she is antisemitic.

To be clear, the vast majority of American Christians and particularly American evangelicals continue to support Zionism as part of their religious beliefs. But other forms of Christianity are gaining visibility and political power, shifting the dominant Christian views on Israel. If the current trends continue, support for Christian Zionism may continue to decline, whether or not Prejean Boller is on the Religious Liberty Council.