It’s difficult to imagine Western Christianity these days without its zealous, almost unshakeable support for Israel. A curious position, one might think, given the historical theological stances and attitudes of most of Christianity. We’ll dive headfirst into the peculiar marriage of Christianity and Zionism, tracing their rather recent historical evolution, spotlighting the figures who made it happen, and dissecting the profound shifts in Christian attitudes that created this phenomenon.

Christian Zionism, in its essence, is a religious and political movement that aggressively champions the return of the Jewish Diaspora to a homeland in Palestine. For many, the reason is that they believe this to be a crucial prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus as the Messiah. In modern Western societies, this fervent backing for Israel often transcends conventional political divides, demonstrating a remarkable capacity for bipartisan support across Europe and America. Its adherents also commonly believe that showering Israel, both the collective Jewish people and the modern state, with financial and military support will, in turn, bring divine blessings right back to them.

Despite historical Christian opposition, contemporary Christian Zionism has become a massive enterprise, driving Western political support for Israel with a messianic zeal. This transformation from theological resistance to fervent advocacy, seems nothing short of a theological and cultural coup.

Theological Foundations

At the very core of contemporary Christian Zionism lies Dispensationalist teaching. This is a theological framework that appeared around 1800. Dispensationalism posits that God interacts with humanity through a series of distinct historical eras, or “dispensations,” with the current one being the last, the “End Time.” A central, tenet of this system is the conviction that the Jewish people’s return to Palestine is a divinely mandated fulfillment of biblical prophecy and absolutely necessary before Jesus Christ can make his grand return, the “Second Coming.”

This theological framework, although advertised as a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, is a recent invention. Academic and theological critics point out its emergence around 1800-1830, noting it was “wholly unknown to Christian scholars for the first eighteen hundred years of the Christianity.” The recent origin of Dispensationalism strongly suggests that its widespread adoption has less to do with unearthing timeless biblical truths and everything to do with its resonance with the specific historical anxieties that plagued the 19th and 20th centuries, as it offers a simple framework for understanding complex world events.

The Genesis of Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism solidified around 1800 with John Nelson Darby who was an influential Anglo-Irish Bible teacher and a key figure in the early Plymouth Brethren movement. Originally an Anglican clergyman, he became disillusioned with the established church, believing it had deviated from biblical principles. His novel reading laid the groundwork for the theological system that would profoundly influence a significant part of Protestant Christianity. The dissemination of Darby’s ideas in the United States was expedited by evangelicals like James Inglis, James Hall Brookes, and Dwight L. Moody. These gentlemen acted as early proponents, dutifully carrying the teachings across the Atlantic.

The institutionalization of Dispensationalism then gained further momentum through events like the Niagara Bible Conferences, held from 1875 to 1897. These conferences which predominantly featured Dispensationalist speakers, provided a crucial platform for solidifying and spreading the doctrine, laying a foundation for its wider, uncritical acceptance. This institutionalization culminated in C. I. Scofield‘s magnum opus: The Scofield Reference Bible. Scofield was a disgraced former District Attorney and Kansas con man, with no theological background and short of cash. His publication has been described as a Trojan horse because it canonized Scofield’s personal interpretations, which were based on Darby’s unorthodox biblical readings. Through this widely distributed Bible, support for Israel became codified, and Christian Zionism began to take its definitive, politically charged shape. As a bonus, the Scofield Bible explicitly declared antisemitism to be a sin.

Scofield’s patron of the publishing of the Reference Bible in 1901 was wealthy Wallstreet lawyer and “philanthropist” Samuel Untermeyer, an ardent and prominent Zionist. Despite his lack of theological credentials, Scofield was ushered into the sophisticated company of ‘New York’s Lotus Club,’ a haven for ‘friends of literature and fine arts’. Untermeyer also introduced Scofield to a veritable who’s who of Zionist and socialist leaders, including Samuel Gompers, Fiorello LaGuardia, and Jacob Schiff (all Jewish). Scofield was rapidly transformed into one of America’s leading theologians.

Untermeyer and his friends had financed Scofield’s pivotal visit to Oxford University, where the plans for his Bible were laid as he met with the publisher for Oxford University Press Henry Frowde. Frowde was himself a member of the ‘Exclusive Brethren,’ a Plymouth Brethren offshoot founded by John Darby. (Fun fact: famous occultist Aleister Crowley’s father was also a member of the Exclusive Brethren). This shared theological background meant Frowde was deeply sympathetic to Scofield’s work, which he recognized as a powerful articulation of Darby’s teachings. His position as a major publisher allowed him to champion the Scofield Bible, ensuring its widespread distribution, thereby expanding the reach of Dispensationalist theology far beyond its initial circles. It is probable that Untermeyer and his friends helped fund these endeavors as a valuable tool to influence public opinion on Zionism. In retrospect, Scofield appears like a slightly more functional version of Jordan Peterson.

A second pioneer of Dispensationalism was the American Christian minister and cult founder Charles Taze Russell, like Scofield embroiled in scandals. He created the Bible Student movement, the precursor to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Russell actively engaged with the concept of Jewish return to Palestine. He not only taught that the imminent restoration of Israel was prophesied in the Bible, but took concrete steps to facilitate it. In 1891, he penned a significant letter to the Rothschild banking family and Maurice von Hirsch, proposing a plan for Jewish settlement in Palestine. This initiative later resurfaced in the widely known manifesto, The Jewish State, by the father of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl.

A third pivotal American figure in early Christian Zionism was William E. Blackstone, an evangelist and author. Blackstone is best known for his “Blackstone Memorial”, a petition presented to U.S. President Benjamin Harrison in 1891, advocating for the return of Jews to Palestine under international protection. This memorial garnered the signatures of 413 prominent Americans, including figures like J.D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and future President William McKinley, showcasing significant support from political and business elites.

Apocalyptic Thinking

The rapid spread of Dispensationalism can be attributed to its clever presentation and its ability to resonate with the societal anxieties of the time. The doctrine’s emphasis on doomsday prophecy and rapture reliant worldview found willing ears in 19th-century America, an era characterized by social and economic change. It offered a convenient form of escapism, both physical and mental, leading some Americans to withdraw from traditional urban, church, school, and government structures to set up their own deviant institutions on the prairies. This phenomenon contributed to a break with mainline Protestantism and fostered the formation of non-denominational churches, reflecting a more fluid and fragmented religious landscape. Most founders of the Dispensationalist doctrine themselves were not members of formal religious institutions. This denominational agnosticism allowed Dispensationalist ideas to bleed over between various church affiliations with uncommon ease.

Dispensationalism profited from the upsurge of millenarian and apocalyptic thought due to the overwhelming social and economic changes during the 19th century. In the United States, the so-called Second Great Awakening in the 18th and early to mid-19th centuries, was a period of fervent religious revival, and significantly revitalized the prevalence of beliefs in an imminent end.

Apocalyptic thinking has ancient roots, however. It often arises in conditions of relative deprivation, where marginalized groups envision the apocalypse as a rather dramatic form of deliverance from their present hardships. The concept of a thousand-year reign of Christ, from which the term “millennialism” derives, is found in Chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation (95 AD). Similar ideas of imminent, collective salvation following catastrophic events can be traced back to the ancient Mediterranean culture, including the Book of Daniel (165 BC) and earlier Egyptian prophecies. The intensity of apocalyptic ideas has fluctuated throughout history, occasionally surfacing in dissenting groups and even inspiring events like the Crusades.

Many American millennialists were ‘postmillennialists,’ holding the optimistic belief that they would help establish God’s kingdom on earth before the return of Christ. However, a significant shift occurred with William Miller, a Baptist preacher who popularized ‘premillennialism’: the belief that Christ would return before a literal millennium. Miller predicted Christ’s second coming in 1843, later adjusting it to October 22, 1844 (because what’s a few months among friends?) His interpretations gained substantial traction, leading to the formation of the Millerite movement, which attracted tens of thousands of followers. When Christ inconveniently did not return as predicted, this event became famously known as the Great Disappointment, causing widespread disillusionment among his followers. Despite this rather public setback, a stubborn segment of Miller’s adherents reinterpreted the events, ultimately forming the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1863. This church maintains the belief in Christ’s imminent return but wisely shifted its focus away from specific date predictions.

Dispensationalism emerged around the same time as Millerism, but achieved far more success, due to its ability to offer a framework for interpreting biblical prophecy that resonated with similar anxieties and desires for clarity, but crucially provided a more flexible and enduring interpretive system. This adaptability allowed it to sustain belief and engagement even when specific predictions did not materialize.

The British Context

The spread of Dispensationalism in Britain was more a covert affair than in America where any idea could run wild, as it had to contend with deeply entrenched Anglican institutions that were much less receptive. However, the Brethren assemblies, which rejected state churches and clerical hierarchies, provided fertile ground for Darby’s ideas to take root.

A significant development in the British context was the rather bizarre merging of Dispensationalism with ‘British Israelism,’ the theory that the Anglo-Saxons were the lost tribes of Israel. Groups like the ‘British-Israel Association’ (founded in 1879) eagerly propagated the belief that Britain had a divinely ordained role in ‘restoring Jews to Palestine.’ This theological framework would later undergird British political support for Zionism.

Several influential figures played a crucial role in this early political alignment:

William Hechler: An Anglican chaplain to the British Embassy in Vienna, Hechler was a fervent advocate for Zionism, lobbying British and German elites using Dispensationalist arguments. He was instrumental in convincing Theodor Herzl that Christian support was absolutely essential for the movement’s success. Hechler’s unique access to European royalty and his persistent efforts were instrumental in arranging several key meetings for Herzl, most notably with the German Emperor Wilhelm II. These high-level diplomatic encounters lent significant legitimacy to Herzl’s Zionist vision on the international stage, and demonstrates the impact of Christian Zionism on the early political trajectory of the movement.

London at the time was a hotbed for Zionist lobbying efforts. Lord Walter de Rothschild, an aristocratic peer and immensely wealthy banker who had helped fund the Suez Canal purchase of 1875, used his political salon on his Tring Park estate as a posh place to plot appointments, ensuring that Zionism was on the agenda of every influential figure in British politics. This environment facilitated the efforts of Chaim Weizmann, who, as head of the British Zionist Federation was the recipient of the so-called Balfour Declaration of 1917, the culmination of Zionist theological conviction and political interest. Authored by the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, this declaration famously stated that “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Balfour, who was raised in evangelical Calvinism, held a personal conviction that Zionism was, quite simply, “God’s will.”

Beyond the theological motivations, the Balfour Declaration also served to secure Jewish support for British interests during World War I. These included, but were not limited to, securing the support of US Jews for the war effort; encouraging Russian Jews to continue fighting after the Bolshevik revolution; and leveraging German Jews to undermine the Kaiser. Furthermore, the declaration aimed to destabilize the Levant for the Ottoman Empire and establish a reliable partner near the Suez Canal, Britain’s vital lifeline to India.

The Balfour Declaration’s ambiguous phrasing (a “national home”, not a “state”) was a calculated move to secure Zionist lobbying power without triggering immediate Arab backlash. Military collaboration was formalized through the “Jewish Legion” which fought under British command, ensuring that postwar occupation forces would “facilitate Jewish immigration while suppressing Arab revolts.”

The reception of the Balfour Declaration was met with extreme religious fervor. Dispensationalist preachers like William Hechler hailed Rothschild as a “modern Nehemiah” rebuilding Israel, and the Declaration itself was celebrated as a “Divine appointment.”

The Dutch Context

The Netherlands developed its own distinctly Calvinist strain of Christian Zionism. The Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), battling against secularization and liberalism’s rising influence in theology, resurrected John Calvin’s “covenantal view of Israel” as a bulwark against Enlightenment rationalism. Although Kuyper scorned Darby’s teachings as ‘American chaotic millennialism’ he himself performed startling hermeneutical contortions in order to graft Zionist aspirations onto traditional covenant theology. By insisting that the Jews remained ‘God’s chosen people’ he positioned Reformed orthodoxy as the true guardian of biblical particularity. If liberal theologians interpreted the Divine promises to Israel in a spiritual rather than a literal sense, they surrendered to secularism, according to Kuyper. So for generations of Calvinists, ‘the Divine necessity of the return of the Jews to Zion’ became the gospel.

Kuyper also engaged the Jews in his battle against the Catholic Church, reframing them as spiritual allies against Rome: Catholic nations had expelled Jews, the Protestant Netherlands had sheltered them. Supporting Jewish restoration ‘proved’ Calvinism’s superiority over Catholicism.

Therefore, Kuyper could write in Het Joodsche Vraagstuk (1905): “The Jewish Question is the thermometer of a nation’s spiritual health.”

At the same time, though, Kuyper did not really love the Jews; he just loved the idea of using them as a rhetorical cudgel against liberals, Catholics, and modernists. For he also wrote of the Jews: “Their economic dominance and rejection of Christ make them a corrosive force… Only in Palestine can they be purified.” [1]

Christian Critiques

Early Christian Opposition to Zionism

In stark contrast to the burgeoning Christian Zionist movement, traditional Christian institutions initially maintained a strong opposition to the idea of Jewish settlement in Palestine. The Catholic Church provides a clear example of this stance. In 1904, Pope Pius X explicitly stated to Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism,

We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it […] The Jews have not recognized our Lord; therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

This position reflected a long-standing theological perspective that viewed the Church as the true Israel (supersessionism), and thus, modern Jewish claims to the Holy Land were simply not recognized.

In 1943, the Vatican communicated its concern that if “the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachments of Catholics to this land.” The fear was that a Jewish majority “would interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.” This opposition persisted even after World War II. After the State of Israel was founded in 1948, the Vatican’s official newspaper reiterated: “Modern Israel is not the true heir of biblical Israel… Therefore, the Holy Land and its sacred sites belong to Christianity, the true Israel.”

The Catholic Church’s official position, however, began to shift significantly with the Second Vatican Counsel and the promulgation of its declaration Nostra Aetate in 1965. It repudiated antisemitism, marking a pivotal change in the Church’s relationship with Judaism. It no longer rejected the political ambitions of the religion and it’s followers. Beyond formal theological changes however, there was a broader cultural and political pressure that diminished the capacity of traditional institutions to oppose the tide of (Christian) Zionism.

Core Teachings of Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism is characterized by several distinctive theological tenets.

A cornerstone of Dispensationalist theology is the dramatic concept of “the Rapture.” This belief posits that Christians will be supernaturally whisked away from the earth before a period of global tribulation. Within Dispensationalism there are internal debates regarding the precise timing of this rapture relative to the “Tribulation,” with “Pretribulationism” being a prominent view that claims Christians will vanish before global chaos, leaving less faithful ones to endure the bad times before getting teleported.

“Prophetic literalism” is another defining characteristic. Dispensationalists interpret biblical prophecies, particularly those from books like Ezekiel and Daniel, in a ‘literal’ manner, often mapping them directly onto contemporary geopolitical events. This literal mapping, predictably, leads to predictions that are indefinitely kicked down the road when events do not materialize as anticipated. During the Cold War, Dispensationalists like Hal Lindsey equated Ezekiel’s Gog and Magog with Russia. American President George W. Bush famously also made a Gog and Magog reference in a call with French President Jacques Chirac, much to the latter’s utter confusion.

The European Union was interpreted as fulfilling Daniel’s 10-nation coalition, with Brexit triggering frantic re-calculations. Dispensationalist “apocalyptic numerology” interprets significant dates according to special calculations to arrive at numerological confirmations or predictions, which keep its followers constantly on edge.

Dispensationalism also employs selective literalism, taking obscure prophecies literally while allegorizing clear passages, such as Jesus’ statement that his “kingdom [is] not of this world” (John 18:36).

The “Temple Rebuilding Obsession” is a belief in the absolute necessity of rebuilding Jerusalem’s temple. This carries the implicit, and politically charged, consequence of requiring the destruction of the Dome of the Rock mosque that presently occupies the future building ground. Groups such as the Temple Institute, which receives 99% of its $28m budget from evangelical donors, lobby enthusiastically for this objective, completely uncaring about the geopolitical fireworks it would ignite.

Some Dispensationalists, notably John Hagee, advocate for Dual-Covenant Theology. This teaching asserts that Jews have a separate covenant with God and therefore do not require faith in Christ for salvation. This position directly contradicts core Christian tenets, such as John 14:6 and Acts 4:12. It denies the unity of God’s covenant, splitting biblical history into disconnected ‘dispensations’ and asserting that Israel and the Church are distinct peoples with separate destinies. It also denies Christ’s supremacy, as it suggests that Jews can commence sacrifices again, and insults Christ’s once-and-for-all atonement. This Dual-Covenant Soteriology claims Jews are saved by Torah obedience apart from Christ, thereby rejecting the Christian belief of solus Christus (salvation only through Christ) and denying the universality of original sin. The “Two Peoples of God Doctrine” divides humanity into “Israel” (with Earthly promises) and “the Church” (with heavenly promises), a division that ruptures the ‘one body’ of Christ (Ephesians 2:14–16) and fuels anti-ecumenical sectarianism.

As Michael Horton puts it:

Dispensationalism isn’t just wrong, it’s another gospel. It replaces Christ’s finished work with a future geopolitical drama centered on Israel, not the Cross.

Critiques Regarding Covenants and Land Promises

Christian Zionism’s theological foundation, particularly its interpretation of biblical covenants and land promises, faces significant criticism for its perceived failure to appreciate the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. Critics argue that Christian Zionism errs most profoundly by not understanding how the New Covenant completes, fulfils, and annuls the Old Covenant. It is fundamental, they contend, for Christians to interpret the Old Covenant through the lens of the New Covenant, not, as Christian Zionists seem to prefer, the other way around. For example, the apostle Paul in his letter to Colossians maintains that Old Covenant elements like food laws, festivals, and Sabbaths were merely “a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17).

This covenantal critique gained institutional traction when the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to divest from companies supporting Israeli occupation (2014), declaring Zionism’s land claims “theologically untenable.” Similarly, the United Church of Christ (2015) condemned Israeli settlements as a “sinful obstruction of peace”, directly challenging Dispensationalism’s literalist land eschatology.

Christian Zionism After World War II

The American Context

Following World War II, Dispensationalism and by extension Christian Zionism experienced a significant expansion and institutionalization, particularly in the United States, driven by mass dissemination methods, the emergence of highly influential figures, and an increasing entanglement with politics. This expansion was significantly facilitated by the advent of mass media and new religious outreach strategies. Traveling mega-churches which later, and rather seamlessly, transitioned to televised ministries, and radio sermons played a crucial role in broadcasting Dispensationalist teachings to a broad audience.

Influential literature further amplified this reach. Books such as Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) became a cultural phenomenon, selling over 35 million copies and becoming the best-selling nonfiction book of the decade. Lindsey’s work mapped Cold War events directly onto biblical revelation, convincing a generation of Americans that contemporary geopolitics was merely the unfolding of prophecy fulfillment. The later Left Behind series (1995) continued this trend, further popularizing Dispensationalist narratives.

Financial muscle became central to institutionalizing influence. Evangelical donors funneled more than 200 million dollars to West Bank settlements (2000–2024). Christians United for Israel (CUFI) mobilized a three million dollar annual lobbying budget to push legislation like the Taylor Force Act (2018), which slashed Palestinian aid over “martyr payments” (compensation to families of suicide bombers). Legislative capture climaxed when Dispensationalist pressure secured the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 which forced embassy relocation to Jerusalem, despite CIA warnings of regional backlash. Trump’s 2017 endorsement was a direct payoff to Falwell’s Moral Majority heirs.

The Dutch Context

In the Netherlands, later Calvinist Zionism’s potency welled up from historical guilt feeling, as the Netherlands failed to protect its Jews during World War 2. This transformed pro-Israel advocacy into a penitential crusade. Postwar Calvinist institutions, who had remained silent during the persecution of the Dutch Jews, championed Israel’s 1948 founding as moral restitution. Prime Minister Willem Drees, himself Reformed, fast-tracked Dutch recognition of the state of Israel as a ‘sacred duty.’ By the 1980s, groups like Christenen voor Israël (Europe’s largest Christian Zionist organization) weaponized this guilt feeling, funneling more than 15 million Euros to the illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank. The Reformed Political Party (SGP) enshrined Zionism as dogma, citing Romans 9:11’s “grafted branches” as divine mandate. Many Dutch farmers, often from the Bible Belt, protesting in 2023, waved Israeli flags.

Key Influential Figures and Their Impact on Western Policy

Dispensationalist-aligned figures consistently emerged at pivotal moments in the post-WWII era, leveraging networks, media amplification, and geopolitical crises to advance their prophetic worldview and, rather brazenly, influence Western policy.

Jerry Falwell: A powerful lobbyist in American evangelicalism, founded the Moral Majority in 1979, effectively mobilizing over 50 million evangelicals into a powerful Republican voting bloc—a rather impressive feat of political engineering. Falwell interpreted Israel’s capture of the whole of Jerusalem in 1967 as ‘God’s sign’ of Christ’s imminent return and lobbied President Reagan to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This advocacy contributed to Reagan’s symbolic move of the Israeli embassy in 1984, establishing pro-Israel policy as a crucial litmus test for future Republican candidates seeking political ascendancy to ‘holy Reagan status.’

Israel’s first Likud prime minister Menachem Begin, recognized Dispensationalism’s political utility early. In 1979, he granted Falwell a state-funded private jet. Falwell reciprocated by mobilizing evangelicals to back Israel’s controversial Lebanon invasion (1982), framing it as ‘Judges 19 reborn.’ Begin famously informed Falwell of his plans to bomb an Iraqi nuclear facility before alerting the Reagan administration, asking Falwell to “explain to the Christian public the reasons for the bombing.” Falwell later received as the first non-Jew Israel’s prestigious Jabotinsky Award, for his unwavering advocacy for Israel and its Likud party policies.

Hal Lindsey: was author of the 1970 bestsellerThe Late Great Planet Earth. This book, which sold tens of millions of copies, popularized Dispensationalist interpretations of biblical prophecy, particularly the idea that modern events, including the establishment of Israel, were direct fulfillments of End-Times predictions. Lindsey’s work not only profoundly impacted popular evangelical thought but also gained significant traction within political circles, where he served as an influential consultant to Ronald Reagan and the Pentagon. His interpretations helped solidify the belief that unwavering support for the modern state of Israel was a divine imperative for American foreign policy.

Billy Graham: Practically invented modern American televangelism and reached millions through his massive arena appearances and later, his televised ministries. He also was an early and avid backer of Israel. His support, he claimed, was rooted in his understanding of Scripture and the conviction that “the Jews are God’s chosen people. We cannot place ourselves in opposition to Israel without detriment to ourselves.” His pivotal 1960 tour of Israel, including a strategic lunch arranged by then-Foreign Minister Golda “How dare you force me to kill your children” Meir, was instrumental in cementing pro-Israel sentiment among American evangelicals, effectively laying the groundwork for a powerful political bloc that persists today. Graham was a trusted ‘counselor to Democratic and Republican presidents and privately urged U.S. political figures to support Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, a stance that was unusual at the time. Yet, the legacy of this “friend of Israel” became rather complicated with the 2002 release of the Nixon tapes, that revealed that Graham in private fretted about a Jewish “stranglehold” on the media that “has got to be broken or this country’s going down the drain.” Graham’s subsequent apology, while accepted by the Southern Baptists, was criticized by Abraham Foxman, the then national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who called his comments “chilling and frightening.” Graham could not quite erase the uncomfortable truth that he was noticing.

John Hagee: As the founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), Hagee leads America’s largest pro-Israel lobby (by membership, not finances), boasting over 10 million members (surpassing the whole U.S. Jewish community). He propagates the belief that defending Israel accelerates the Rapture. Hagee hosts annual Washington-Israel Summits (featuring prominent speakers such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Vice President Mike Pence.) and directly lobbies Congress. Hagee was instrumental in pushing the Trump administration to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018. His ministry has also generously funded West Bank settlements with over $100 million since 2014. Netanyahu has held 14 speeches at John Hagee’s CUFI summits. He praised Hagee’s “love for Zion” while saying privately that Christians were ‘useful fools.’

Pat Robertson: has a widely watched program, The 700 Club with 600,000 daily viewers. Robertson links Middle East conflicts, such as the Gulf War, to Ezekiel’s Gog and Magog prophecy. His influence extended to endorsing candidates based on their pro-Israel stances, including George W. Bush, and he played a significant role in mainstreaming End Times theology into cable news, thereby shaping evangelical foreign policy views.

Mike Pompeo: As Trump’s Secretary of State (2018–2021) and former CIA Director, Pompeo believes that U.S. support for Israel is a “prerequisite to Christ’s return.” He was instrumental in moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in 2018 and brokering the Abraham Accords in 2020, which he framed as an “alignment against Gog” referring to Iran.

Mike Pence: As Trump’s Vice President, Pence served as a key liaison to evangelicals. He publicly declared, “We stand with Israel because we believe in Scripture” during a 2018 Knesset speech. Pence actively pushed for defunding Palestinian aid.

Mark Biltz of the El Shaddai Ministries weaponized social media to rebrand failed prophecies. His Blood Moons theory (2014–2015) garnered more than 50 million views on Youtube with his recasting of astronomical events as signs of the End Times, despite NASA debunkings. This pivot to celestial content ensured doctrinal resilience when geopolitical “fulfillments” stalled.

Global Reach and Contemporary Manifestations

While Christian Zionism has its main base in the United States and the United Kingdom, its influence extends globally, manifesting in diverse forms and through various channels, including a religious tourism industry.

A notable example is the annual celebration of Sukkot (the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles) hosted by the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem (ICEJ). These events started in 1980 and draws Pentecostal Christians from around the globe. In 2001 the event hosted an address by Israeli prime minister and war criminal Ariel Sharon where he linked Israel’s war against Palestinian insurgency to the US-led war on terror: “Just as America fights terrorism, so does Israel. Your presence here is a message to the world.”

It solidified the ICEJ’s role as a major pro-Israel Christian lobby. ICEJ later expanded its aid programs (funding bomb shelters) during the second Intifada.

For many Pentecostal and charismatic Christian Zionists participating in these events, their motivation extends beyond geopolitics or eschatology, however. A growing influence is the prosperity gospel, which interprets Genesis 12:3 (‘I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed’) to mean that by blessing and supporting Israel, they will in turn receive material benefits and prosperity (a form of spiritual gambling).

Conclusion

The transformation of Christian attitudes towards Zionism and Israel has been profound, moving from initial mainstream Christian opposition to a pervasive and politically influential phenomenon. This shift is inextricably linked to the sudden rise and widespread adoption of Dispensationalism.

The profound geopolitical implications of Christian Zionism are evident in its direct influence on US foreign policy and its significant role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The integration of Dispensationalist beliefs into the highest levels of government demonstrates how a specific theological worldview can directly shape international relations and alliances.

Christian Zionism’s stranglehold on power seems to be slackening, however. White evangelicals under 40 now support Palestinian statehood by 40% (Pew 2024). Belief in the Rapture plummeted to 44% among white evangelicals, down from 65% in 2010, signaling theological fatigue (PRRI 2023).

The trajectory of Christian Zionism underscores white evangelicalism’s double-edged legacy. Though still wielding outsized influence, its future hinges on whether younger believers prioritize earthly justice over apocalyptic gambles, or let Dispensationalism remain, as historian Paul Boyer warned, ‘the most powerful force in American popular religion.’

Ultimately, the trajectory of Christian Zionism and Dispensationalism showcases the enduring power of theological narratives to shape political realities. It underscores the critical importance of engaging with such movements, understanding their historical evolution, their often dubious theological underpinnings, and the tangible real-world consequences they generate international relations.

Notes

[1] Abraham Kuyper, Het Joodsche Vraagstuk, Section 2.3 (1905)

https://counter-currents.com/2025/07/the-origins-of-christian-zionism