Exploring Christian Zionism
In recent years, criticism of U.S. support for Israel has grown among American Christians. My friends, Pastors Zach Garris and Chase Davis, have contributed thoughtful arguments to this conversation in prominent conservative outlets, contending that American Christians have a primary duty to their own country before Israel. They also rightly point to popular dispensational theology as a key reason why some Christians desire unwavering U.S. support of Israel.
While I largely agree with their assessments, I have also observed a troubling trend where many of the more aggressive anti-Israel voices within the Christian Right seem to lack a clear understanding of how we arrived at this point or what the key issues lie beneath the surface. Dispensationalists believe that Christ will return after a seven-year tribulation to fulfill His Kingdom promises, including granting the Promised Land to ethnic Israel. And yet, both historically and today, many of the most fervent Christian Zionists have not been dispensationalists. An honest evaluation reveals that dismantling dispensationalism will not end Christian support for Israel. Both historically and today, many of the most fervent Christian Zionists have not been dispensationalists.
Furthermore, the continued support for Israel by increasingly secular Western nations, including the United States, has less to do with adherence to Christian theology and more to do with preserving a liberal international order. Similarly, rising critiques of Jewish identity or culture are not synonymous with critiques of Zionism. Historically, some of Zionism’s most vocal opponents were Jewish themselves, and today, a growing number of younger Jews do not support the policies of the Israeli government.
What, then, lies at the heart of America’s enduring interest in the State of Israel—and why do American Christians, in particular, support Israel in such large numbers? To answer that, we need to take a closer look at some history.
Theological Underpinnings
Historical events often occur through converging forces, and the present level of support for Israel among Western nations is no exception. At the time of the First Zionist Congress, held in Basel in 1897, there was a growing alignment between English Christian interest in the return of Jews across Europe to Palestine and the aims of certain influential secular Jews. A second convergence took place after the Six-Day War in 1967, when a growing consensus of both secular and religious Jews, along with American Christians, supported Israel in light of its remarkable performance against more powerful forces. Yet before either of these events, it is important to recognize a lesser-known convergence between Anglo-Protestant interest in Jewish restoration and German Pietist investment in Jewish evangelism.
After the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, which restricted the status of religious Jews, and their subsequent expulsion from England in 1290, the Reformation prompted a reexamination of views toward the Jewish people, particularly in England. With theologians now free to study Scripture independently, many traditional interpretations were reassessed—including the Roman Catholic reading of Romans 11. Both Martin Bucer and Theodore Beza taught that the “Israel” of Romans 11 referred to the Jews rather than the Church. The Geneva Bible (1557) reinforced this interpretation. Soon, major religious figures in England such as Thomas Brightman, Sir Henry Finch, William Gouge, and John Milton came to believe in the future restoration of Jews in the diaspora to the land of Canaan. In 1655, Oliver Cromwell convened the Whitehall Conference, which readmitted Jews to England and positioned the nation as a divine instrument for Israel’s restoration.
Meanwhile, German Pietists such as Philipp Jakob Spener and August Hermann Francke took an active role in evangelizing Jews. Although some 16th-century German scholars—like Martin Borrhaus and Wolfgang Capito—promoted the idea of a physical return of the Jews to Palestine, this concept never gained traction in Germany as it did in England. Instead, Pietists emphasized Jewish evangelism as a means of ushering in postmillennial renewal. The London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, founded by German Pietists in 1809, embodied this focus on Jewish conversion. This combined interest in evangelizing Jews from Pietists and anticipating their return to the Holy Land as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy from Restorationists helped lay the groundwork for what would eventually become Zionism.
Zionism Forms
As Restorationist views increased in England, so did the reach of mass communication, allowing English Christians already interested in a Jewish return to Palestine to learn of Jewish persecution elsewhere—particularly the Russian pogroms. This stirred humanitarian concern and increased pressure to support the creation of a Jewish homeland.
Bishop Edward Bickersteth believed that aiding a Jewish return would lead to Jewish conversion, hasten Christ’s return, and bring divine blessing to England. He influenced Lord Shaftesbury, a key figure in Parliament who appointed a British vice-consul in Jerusalem in 1838 and helped establish Christ Church there a decade later. As Jewish suffering intensified through events like the Blood Libel Affair (1840), the Edgardo Mortara case (1857), and pogroms after the 1881 assassination of Tsar Alexander II, British interest in a Jewish homeland grew.
Non-governmental responses included organizations like the Syrian Colonisation Fund and the Committee on the Persecution of the Jews in Russia, and figures like Anglican chaplain William Hechler—considered the first Christian Zionist—who attempted Jewish resettlement in places like Cyprus. Meanwhile, secular Jewish leaders such as Leon Pinsker and Theodor Herzl promoted a Jewish state whether it was in Argentina, Uganda, or Palestine. This culminated in the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897.
Herzl—who called the Congress—was an Austro-Hungarian Jew with strong political ties in Central Europe. He pushed for a Jewish state to shield Jews from antisemitism. But his dream was to build a modern, pluralistic society with democracy, free education, low unemployment, and religious tolerance. He called it “the new Moses of the Jews.”
Initially, most Anglo-American Protestants and both secular and religious Jews rejected Zionism. The Congress had to move from Munich to Basel due to rabbinic opposition, driven by fears that Zionism would stir more antisemitism by hindering Jewish assimilation in countries where they already lived. Historian Donald Lewis noted that “the great majority of British Jews were unsympathetic to Zionism,” with only 8,000 of 300,000 belonging to Zionist organizations. A British ambassador reported in 1920 that most American Jews opposed Zionist leaders, and even wealthy Jews were divided. Many rabbis believed restoration would only come through the Messiah, not human effort.
Christian critics included William Miller, John Nelson Darby, and James H. Brooks, who rejected Restorationism for not aligning with their prophetic timelines or for promoting activism. Arno Gaebelein, who assisted C.I. Scofield, claimed, “Zionism… is not the divinely promised restoration of Israel.” Yet around the time of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Dispensationalism was growing to eventually became the dominant American Christian eschatology while versions of it simultaneously adapted to suite a Zionist agenda.
Dispensationalists Adapt
There is little doubt that the modern State of Israel would have emerged with Western support regardless of how American Fundamentalist Christians felt. However, what might have been a cultural sideshow a century earlier grew to dominate an enthusiastic segment of U.S. support for Israel by the 1980s. This group—conservative evangelical Christians—became prominent backers of Zionism. Their influence and their pro-Israel stance did not appear overnight.
Two key developments in early 20th-century American Fundamentalism helped reshape geopolitical alignments. First, Dispensationalist eschatology increasingly came to define Christian orthodoxy—largely due to its opposition. R.A. Torrey presented Dispensationalism in The Fundamentals (1909) as a stand against modernism through a literal approach to Scripture. Social Gospel advocates attacked premillennialists as pro-German during World War I and pro-business in the 1920s. As Fundamentalism grew, especially through its expanding Bible college network, so did the reach of Dispensationalism.
The second development was how Dispensationalists benefited from geopolitical shifts, especially after World War I. Prophetic speculation was not new. Postmillennialist William Gouge predicted mass Jewish conversions beginning in 1650, ending in a climactic battle with the Turks in 1695. The Society for the Investigation of Prophecy, founded in 1826 by historicist premillennialists, linked Jewish restoration to the French Revolution. But failed date-setters often faded away with their predictions. Dispensational premillennialists, however, made broader claims that appeared increasingly credible.
William E. Blackstone, though also a failed date-setter (he predicted Jewish return by 1897 and later 1933), was not far off in spirit. He adapted Darby’s teachings by promoting activism to bring Jews back to Palestine before the rapture. His support for Zionism, framed in humanitarian terms, influenced figures like John D. Rockefeller and President William McKinley, who backed the Blackstone Memorial in 1891 in response to Russian pogroms.
After World War I, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Russian withdrawal from European affairs, German land concessions, and Irish independence all seemed to open the door for both a Jewish homeland and a ten-nation European confederacy which is exactly what Dispensationalists predicted would happen. This is one reason they remained skeptical of globalism and opposed the League of Nations, unlike Mainline denominations who endorsed it. Later 20th-century developments—like the formation of the European Union and the State of Israel—only reinforced Dispensationalists confidence in their prophetic framework.
Balfour to the Modern State of Israel
The existence and continued survival of a Jewish-controlled state in Palestine can seem almost miraculous, given the unlikely chain of events that led to its creation and endurance. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 is a prime example. For it to happen, the British government had to view offering Palestine to the Jews as a practical wartime strategy, win World War I, and then pursue a path to implement their promise—even when doing so did not serve their long-term interests.
Two Jewish lobbyists competed for representing Jewish interests before the British Government. Lucien Wolfe, a British-born Jew, was opposed to Zionism while Chaim Weizmann, a Russian-born Jewish chemist was in favor. Ultimately, Weizmann won and convinced the British that influential Jews needed the concession of Palestine in order to support the War effort. This was likely not the case, but Prime Minister Lloyd George approved of the measure even as he dangled the prospect of control over Palestine to the Arabs, French, and Ottomans. Ironically, the only Jewish member of his cabinet, Edwin Montagu, opposed the Declaration which promised a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
From 1919 to 1939, Jews in Palestine increased from 10% of the population to 30%. Escalating tensions with Arabs gradually led to a Civil War in Palestine that continued through 1948 when Israel became a recognized State by the United Nations. During this period Britain tried in vain to promote peace in the region which included issuing white papers and investing military resources until the UN Special Committee finally recommended a partition plan in 1947 which granted 56% of the mostly arid land to the Jews and 42% to the Arabs.
As soon as Israel achieved independence it was immediately invaded by Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq causing 4,000 Jewish deaths but creating around 700,000 Arab refugees which surrounding Muslim nations did not want in their countries. This vacuum was in turn filled by an equal number of Jews fleeing Muslim countries who took the place of these refugees and assumed their houses and infrastructure. This is the original root of the problem that still exists in the Gaza Strip.
This incredible feat was accomplished without help from the United States. In fact, during the early years of the Israeli State, U.S. foreign policy was not always in Israel’s favor. In 1953, the U.S. withheld aid over Israel’s Jordan River water diversion project. The Qibya Operation in October 1953 drew U.S. criticism for its civilian toll. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, President Eisenhower opposed Israel’s invasion of Egypt, pressuring withdrawal by 1957.
Even though in 1947, 65% of Americans supported the U.N. Partition plan, there were some conservative Christian voices of caution from various theological perspectives in the proceeding decades. For example, Pastor Donald Grey Barnhouse of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia warned in 1949 that “Jacob is to rule [the Promised Land] one day in righteousness and not in cruelty.” In 1969, Charles Ryrie, a famous Dispensationalist who compiled the popular Ryrie Study Bible, said that while the Modern State of Israel could be leading a future fulfilment of prophecy, the present situation was a “political and/or racial and/or religious phenomenon, not a spiritual one.” The popular Presbyterian Pastor and radio host, J. Vernan McGee, who was also a Dispensationalist, claimed that Israel had “never returned to the land” because they had not returned to God.
Still a general support for Israel was growing among conservative evangelicals as the new country regularly seemed to prove themselves the recipients of divine intervention against all odds.
The Evangelical Israel Block
Several factors contributed to the growing evangelical support for Israel, including newly established ties to the region, enthusiasm for biblical prophecy, effective lobbying, Cold War-era commitments to democracy, the perception of Israel as a bulwark against Islamic terrorism, and a deep sympathy for a people who had endured the horrors of the Holocaust—a scenario that undeniably helped pave the way for the creation of the Israeli state.
Until the 1970s, liberal Protestants were the primary drivers of American Zionism, largely due to their enduring influence and the absence of a cohesive evangelical Right. However, things were changing. Israel already benefitted from organizations like AIPAC, which successfully lobbied Congress for military aid in the 1960s, but they also started making friends with religious leaders such as Billy Graham, who lobbied Richard Nixon for support during the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Another friend of Israel was Jerry Falwell, a Fundamentalist Baptist and a Dispensationalist, who became very active on political issues including support for Israel. He even formed alliances with Israeli leaders like Menachem Begin, Israel’s Prime Minister who gifted Falwell a $4 million dollar jet in 1979.
Falwell, like other famous pastors such as Billy Graham and Oral Roberts before him, took numerous trips to Israel which further linked conservative evangelical ties to the region. In 1957, the American Institute of Holy Land Studies helped give Christian colleges and universities unprecedented access to Holy Land sites. The Israeli government even published Christian News from Israel to update Western Christians on events in the region. As archeologists were making new discoveries that made the Bible come alive, right-leaning politicians talked about “Judeo-Christian” values to represent their broad anti-Communist coalition. American support for Israel was on an upward trajectory.
In 1984, Jerry Falwell reported that evangelicals rapidly became pro-Israel over a 20-year period as they adopted the belief that modern Israel was indeed a fulfillment of prophecy. If there is one event that sparked this development, it is likely Israel’s stunning victory in the 1967 Six-Day War. Facing formidable opposition from Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, Israel’s triumph was widely interpreted by evangelicals as a sign of divine favor and a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. For many, this reinforced the belief that modern Israel represented the prophesied return of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland.
The war also strengthened the connection between secular Jewish identity and the land of Israel, while inspiring religious leaders—such as Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum—to regard the modern state as a legitimate embodiment of prophetic destiny. This convergence of interests among secular and religious Jews, liberal Protestants, and emerging conservative evangelicals laid the groundwork for the modern American Zionist lobby.
Throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s being part of the Christian Right meant supporting Israel. Dispensationalists, because of their insistence that the Promised Land rightfully belonged to ethnic Israelites, are often seen by members of rival eschatologies as the reason for the success of the Israeli lobby in Congress. John Hagee’s influential Christians United for Israel, started in 1975, and Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, formed in 1989, are prime examples. However, as alluded to already, many of the most ardent Christian Zionists are not Dispensationalists and not all Dispensationalists are Christian Zionists. Eschatology does not singularly account for Christian Zionism.
Tony Maalouf, a Dispensationalist who taught at Southwestern Seminary, criticized Zionists for “ignoring the Palestinians.” The late John MacArthur—a Dispensational pastor and Bible teacher—supported the restoration of the Jewish people and even viewed the 20th-century ingathering as evidence that this restoration was underway. However, like many Classical Dispensationalists, he distanced himself from political activism and made a clear distinction between the Jewish people and the Israeli government, stating: “It’s not the governmental entity of Israel that we support. It’s the Jewish people.”
On the other hand, Christian Renewalists—most notably David Pawson and Derek Prince, the latter of whom may be the most influential advocate of Christian Zionism in recent memory—were critical of Dispensationalism while remaining strongly supportive of Israel. Their theology significantly influenced the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, an organization that advocates politically for Israel on behalf of Christians and aligns with the New Apostolic Reformation, a movement that has adopted Renewalist principles.
The Lobbying Game
During the 12-Day War, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose father is a pastor connected with New Apostolic Reformation teachings, spoke with Tucker Carlson about the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Cruz mentioned that he came to Congress with the clear intention of being “the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate.” This comment stirred controversy among conservatives, many of whom saw it as out of sync with the America-First or Texas-First sentiments. It also further reinforced questions about the extent to which Israeli interests influence the government.
While China spent nearly $457 million (not including dark money) lobbying U.S. politicians from 2016 to 2024—making it the top foreign spender— foreign entities like China must register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). In contrast, Israel spent around $192 million over the same period but had the added advantage of benefitting from Pro-Israel PACs in the U.S., which are not bound by FARA regulations. Through organizations like AIPAC, the United Democracy Project, and other Pro-Israel PACs, nearly $279 million was spent on lobbying and campaigns, supporting members of both parties, though skewed toward Democrats.
The only other Middle Eastern countries with similar influence are Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of which also oppose Iranian dominance in the region. From 2016 to 2024, Saudi Arabia spent $310 million, while Qatar spent $256 million. Qatar also made headlines recently when the Sheikh gifted President Donald Trump a $400 million Boeing 747 jet. While other Middle Eastern nations and non-FARA foreign organizations, like the National Council of Resistance of Iran, do have some influence in the U.S., there is no doubt that America holds a particularly strong connection with Israel.
The Bottom Line
In a 1992 interview with Ted Koppel, former President Richard Nixon explained this relationship when he said that even though Israel was of little strategic value to the United States “no American president [would] let Israel go down the tubes.” When asked to clarify, Nixon stated, “The United States is concerned by more than strategic values . . . we have a bond to Israel that is much stronger. It’s a moral commitment . . . a moral commitment because of what happened during the Holocaust and a moral commitment because it is a democracy—the only democracy in that region.” In a sense, this is the short answer to the question of why Western nations like Germany and France also support Israel.
In 2023, now former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz responded to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s statement questioning Israel’s legitimacy, by stating “Israel is a democracy . . . And we will emphasize in every conversation and at every opportunity that this is our view.” The next year, Oliver Dowden, the now former Deputy Prime Minister of the UK stated that “Israel is a democratic country. It’s a rules-based country. It’s a part of our broader Western family of nations.” The president of France, Emmanuel Macron, likewise referred to his country and Israel as “two democracies attached to the rule of law and respect for an independent and professional judiciary.”
The tendency to justify support for Israel based on its liberal democracy often serves as a substitute for Christian cultural affinity. Instead of supporting Christians against Muslims, as Europe did in the Middle Ages, since the 20th century, Western nations have increasingly viewed themselves as obligated to promote democracy and bolster democratic states. This rationale also, at least ostensibly, underpins support for Ukraine against Russia. In the Middle East, however, this justification carries religious undertones, not only for Western countries but also for Muslim nations, whose historical memory typically extends further than that of most Americans. From an Islamic perspective, the modern state of Israel is seen as a product of European Christian colonial ambitions, akin to the Crusader states or the British Empire, obstructing Muslim control over their land.
Dr. Mohamed Emara, a Sunni Islamic scholar at the Al-Azhar Al-Sharif Islamic Research Academy in Cairo, who would have been involved in the team tasked with re-writing Egypt’s constitution had the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded, wrote that, “From an Islamic perspective, the state of Israel is not a religious embodiment of Judaism, but rather part of a broader Western agenda to occupy the land and weaken resolve. The true nature of the conflict is not rooted in religion, but in the usurpation of Islamic land and the establishment of a base to advance Western domination over the Islamic world.” The Ayatollah Khomeini, a Shiite leader who led the Iranian Revolution in 1979, said something similar: “Israel was originated through the conspiracy and collaboration of the imperialist countries of the East and the West. It was created to suppress and colonize the Muslim nations.” It should be readily apparent that these views remarkably close to the Marxist publications that inspire university students to push to “free Palestine.”
The Question for Christians
The question for Western Christians, and Americans in particular, is whether their political views are driven by eschatology, external moral commitments, or self-interest. If anything is clear it is that eschatological trends seem to adapt to political situations more than other theological convictions, though it is also worth noting that dispensationalism itself has undergone heavy critiques from voices on both the political Left and Right for the past several decades. External moral commitments are also tethered to perception and circumstance. As the final members of the WWII generation pass away, Holocaust remembrance is waning, and the plight of the Palestinian Arabs has gained considerable press even in Christian circles.
Is it worth the treasure and sacrifice of American Christians to support a modern state in the Middle East solely because it reflects certain Western liberal values? Israel’s population is approximately 73.5% Jewish and 21% Arab, with Arab parties historically holding 8 to 12 seats in the Knesset. The country maintains a secular legal system and supports a range of educational institutions, including Jewish, Arab, and secular schools. At the same time, Israel is known for its progressive policies, including extensive LGBTQ protections and liberal abortion laws which clearly do not fit the profile of a country obeying God.
If a true restoration is to occur, it has not yet been fully realized, which is an important consideration for Christians reflecting on the issue. It is also worth evaluating whether it remains in the United States’ best interest to continue supporting Israel at the level it has for the past five decades. Shared threats, such as Iran—whose hostility toward the U.S. exists independently of Israel—may justify ongoing cooperation. So may civilizational interests justify continued alignment or support. On the other hand, with the U.S. running a significant deficit, it is reasonable to question whether the country can continue funding the defense of a country that has repeatedly demonstrated its own ability to protect itself. One thing is certain: Christians should resist the temptation to view the Middle East conflict in stark black-and-white terms. If anything, the situation is deeply complex and diplomacy in the region demands the wisdom of Solomon.
Image: Mike Pence speaks at the 2019 Christians United for Israel Summit. Wikimedia Commons.
