Is Christian Zionism Worthy of the Name of Christ?

Christian Zionists do not see the images of skeletal corpses of Palestinian children who have starved to death as a curse but as fulfillment of prophecy. They do not see the slain families gunned down at food hubs as a war crime but as the work of God. They do not look at the savage bombing and shelling that kill or wound dozens of Palestinian civilians, where an average of 28 children die daily, as anything extraordinary but as a step closer to Christ’s return. They do not see the wasteland of Gaza, pulverized by bombs and methodically being torn down by bulldozers and excavators, leaving virtually the entire population of Gaza homeless, as barbaric but necessary. They do not see the destruction of water purification plants, decimation of hospitals and clinics, where doctors and medical staff are often unable to work because they are weak from malnutrition, as savage but as a step closer to the kingdom. They do not blink at the assassinations of doctors as well as journalists, 232 of whom have been murdered for trying to document the horror. Christian Zionists, like the Jewish Zionists they support, have blinded themselves morally and intellectually. They view the genocide through the lens of a bankrupt media, a bankrupt theology and a political class that tells them only what they want to hear and shows them only what they want to see.[1]

There was a time when dispensationalism in the lineage of Cyrus Scofield (and the Scofield Reference Bible), and popularized by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye seemed dismissively silly. Lindsey’s inventiveness, finding in Revelation “supersonic jet aircraft with missiles … advanced attack helicopters … intercontinental ballistic missiles with Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicles tipped with thermonuclear warheads … biological and chemical weapons, aircraft carriers, missile cruisers, nuclear submarines, laser weapons, space stations and satellites” is as creative as any fiction, accounting for book sales in the tens of millions.[2] But Christian Zionism has become the majority voice in American politics and is the enabling force behind Israel’s genocidal slaughter of Palestinians, so what one believes about the millennium is deadly serious.[3] Ironically, Christian Zionism preceded and nurtured development of Jewish Zionism,[4] and from its inception has been more Israel centered than Christ centered as Israel takes precedent and is the means of understanding Christ.[5] The innovators of this method have, from the beginning, taken liberties in interpreting Scripture with no precedent in the New Testament or the early history of the church.

For example, where the New Testament and the early church saw Christ alone as the unifying hermeneutic, Scofield argued his dispensational hermeneutic recovers a harmony, otherwise lacking in Scripture. He “recovers the harmony,” by “distinguishing the ages” creating divisions never before detected in Scripture. Thus, the Jews in the fourth dispensation only needed to “abide in their own land to inherit every blessing” and turn down the law. According to Scofield, “The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Ex. 19:8). Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty and by divine power brought them out of bondage (Ex.19:4); but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law.”[6] “The Dispensation of Promise” ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Ex. 19:8). To make a divide before and after the cross he concludes, “The mission of Jesus was, primarily, to the Jews … The Sermon on the Mount is law, not grace … the doctrines of grace are to be sought in the Epistles not in the Gospels.”[7] Christ and the beginning of the Gospels, clearly set forth Christ as a new beginning (Mark 1:1; John 1:1), yet Scofield ignores this division, placing Jesus’ life and ministry within the dispensation of the Law. In his opinion, the Lord’s Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount are not for Christians and are not applicable to the church.[8] Dispensationalists insist that those who do not divide Scripture according to their divisions are not “rightly dividing the word.” According to Dwight Pentecost, “scripture is unintelligible until one can distinguish clearly between God’s program for his earthly people Israel and that for the Church”[9] and the only way to follow God’s program is to follow dispensationalist divisions. The ethics of Christ, the teaching of Christ, the life of Christ, must be set aside as part of the law. In other words, Scofield’s divisions (as arbitrary as they are), not Christ, make sense of Scripture.

The premillennial dispensationalist hermeneutic presumes Christ failed to establish his kingdom, failed to bind Satan and defeat evil at his first coming, so he must return to complete this unfinished work, but before he can come back, according to variations in the theory, Israel must return to its homeland, may or may not convert to Christianity, and may or may not be aligned with either God or the devil. Either way, the New Testament hope of the immanent return of Christ must await the unfolding of current events surrounding Israel. Ethics, theology, salvation, and world history, are centered on historical events surrounding Israel, while Christ plays a secondary role (permanently or for now, depending on the theory), so that “blessing Israel” is determinant of salvation (in a mangled reading of Genesis 12:3). “A Christian Zionist,” according to Louis Hamada, “is a person who is more interested in helping God fulfill His prophetic plan through the physical and political Israel, rather than helping Him fulfill His evangelistic plan through the Body of Christ.”[10] The work of Christ is made subordinate to the manipulation of political Israel, supposedly fulfilling prophecy enabling the return of Christ. The details of how this may work, have endless variations, and may change week by week, indicating the primary focus is on what God is doing now through Israel, and not on what he has done through Christ.

At an ethical and humanitarian level killing Palestinians for Christ is blasphemous but Christian Zionist theology puts Israel over Christ, not only in its subversion of Christian ethics, but in its twisting of Christian salvation. In the explanation of Dale Crowley, “They have one goal: to facilitate God’s hand to waft them up to heaven free from all the trouble, from where they will watch Armageddon and the destruction of planet earth.”[11] The literal and futurist interpretation, despite Paul’s identification of Christians with the true children of Abraham (e.g., Gal. 3:7), requires a separation between the Church and the Jews (the “chosen people”) and two means of salvation.

The saving focus is not in Christ’s first coming but in his second coming, in which he will rapture believers into heaven, but this cannot happen until Israel is gathered into its homeland and the Temple is rebuilt. In Covenant Premillennialism, there is at least a relation between the church and Israel but in the various versions of Dispensationalism God has an eternal plan for Israel and an eternal plan for the church, and the twain need not meet.[12] This blatant misteaching revolves around a single chapter in Revelation (chapter 20) and devolves to the meaning of a single word: millennium.

Millennium or a thousand years appears only three times outside of Revelation 20,[13] but it is only in Revelation 20 that there is mention of a thousand-year reign: “they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years” (20:6). The premillennial and dispensationalist reading is a “literal” future reading, taken from this most figurative and allegorical of books. However, this “literal” reading is highly selective, with few believing horses will be the main transportation in heaven, and Jesus will return on a horse with a sword clenched between his teeth, and he will be accompanied by a posse of horse mounted angels, and they will carry a massive chain so as to lock up Satan in a deep hole. That is “literal” is a misnomer, except in regard to the length of the thousand years. But what all premillennialists agree upon is that this thousand year period, in which Satan is bound and Christ’s kingdom is inaugurated, has not yet happened. They argue Satan is not bound and the death of Christ has not impacted his reign, in spite of the fact that the New Testament directly connects the death and resurrection of Christ with the defeat of Satan and the kingship and kingdom of Christ. That is the millennium is a reference to the age ushered in by Christ and the church in which the work of evil is delimited, and it is a “thousand years” as this is symbolic of completeness.[14]

Paul describes sin as a fearful slavery from which Christ defeats and frees us (Ro. 8:15). As Hebrews puts it, he freed “those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives” (Heb 2:15). The manner that this was accomplished was through Christ’s death: “that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). It was on the cross that “he gave himself” (Gal. 1:4, 1 Tim. 2:6; Tt. 2:14), that he might rescue, ransom, and redeem from the power to which men have been given up. The power that killed Christ is exposed, and the death-dealing of the world and the ruler of this world are defeated in Christ: “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:31-32). John puts it succinctly, “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work” (I John 3:8). At the opening of Revelation Jesus holds “the keys of death and Hades” (Rev. 1:18). Presumably the one who holds the keys to death has taken control of what was formerly under Satan’s power. As Paul says in Ephesians, “He put all things in subjection under His feet” (Eph. 1:22). Christian Zionists would nullify this reality.

Jesus, in his healing ministry, says he has bound Satan. He casts out demons, and this is the sign that Satan is bound: “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house” (Matt. 12:29). It is in this context, failing to recognize Christ’s defeat of Satan, that Jesus introduces blasphemy of the Holy Spirit: “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven” (Matt. 12:31). They suppose he does these things by the power of the Beelzebub, but Jesus asks, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!” (Mark 3:23-26). Here in Mark, he also equates missing this with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28–29). Jesus declares he has bound Satan. He has “put the finger of God upon him,” and this means the kingdom of God has come upon you (Luke 11:20). With the sending out of the seventy Jesus declares, “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning” (Luke 10:18). Jesus came to “proclaim release to the captives” as he reads from the scroll of Isaiah, and says, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). Jesus clearly teaches Satan has been bound by his ministry. Revelation speaks of a loosing of Satan (or a lengthening of the chain that binds him); could it be that this occurs where Christians blasphemy the Holy Spirit and void the work of Christ, by dividing the kingdom (between the church and Israel) focusing on events surrounding Israel?

Revelation portrays the slain Lamb (Jesus Christ raised from the dead), as having defeated evil and reigning over the world: “And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth” (Rev. 5:6). Through Jesus’ death and resurrection the reign of God on the earth is established (in Rev. 4:1–8:1). The point of Revelation is how to endure devastation without being defeated by Satan: “And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death” (Rev. 12:11). By means of His death and resurrection and then in their witness, Christians are made a kingdom of priests who reign upon the earth (Rev. 5:10). “Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night” (Rev. 12:10). The dragon, that serpent of old has already been cast down in defeat, due to the testimony and blood of the martyrs and the “blood of the Lamb” but where the power of the cross is obscured the chain binding Satan is loosed. The implication is that where the message of Christ is perverted Satan continues to reign.

The genocide in Gaza is the clearest of signals that Christian Zionism is not only a bankrupt form of the faith, but spawned by the worst form of evil. This is not the Christianity of Christ or the New Testament, but is anti-Christ in its opposition to the ethics of Christ and the salvation Christ offers in His defeat and reign over evil. To answer the question of the title: Christian Zionism is not worthy of the name of Christ, but identifies the enemy Christ came to defeat.


[1] Referencing Chris Hedges report on Israel and Gaza, but substituting “Israelis” with “Christian Zionists,” brings home the evil being perpetrated in the name of Christ by premillennial, dispensationalist, and Zionist Christians. Chris Hedges, “The Gaza Riviera,” The Chris Hedges Report, July 26th, 2025. Thank you Jonathan for opening this to me.

[2] Hal Lindsey, The Apocalypse Code, (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front, 1997) 36. Cited in Stephen R. Sizer, The Promised Land: A Critical Investigation of Evangelical Christian Zionism in Britain and the United States of America since 1800 (PhD Dissertation at Middlesex University, 2002) 128.

[3] The list of prominent Christian Zionists is now beyond enumerating, but include most every prominent Republican politician and such prominent Christians as Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, John Hagee (the founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI)), and Mike Huckabee.

[4] See Donald M. Lewis, A Short History of Christian Nationalism: From the Reformation to the Twenty-First Century (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2021). Robert O. Smith, More Desired than Our Owne Salvation: The Roots of Christian Zionism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

[5] As made clear by Robert Smith (even in the title of his book).

[6] The New Scofield Study Bible, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984), fn. 1, p. 20. Cited in Sizer, 120.

[7] Scofield Bible, 989. Cited in Sizer, 120.

[8] Sizer, 120-121.

[9]Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, (Findlay, Ohio, Dunham, 1958), 529. Cited in Sizer, 126.

[10] Louis Bahjat Hamada, Understanding the Arab World, (Nashville, Nelson, 1990), 189. Cited in Sizer, 15.

[11] Dale Crowley, ‘Errors and Deceptions of Dispensational Teachings.’ Capital Hill Voice, (1996-1997), Cited in Sizer, 18.

[12] Apocalyptic Dispensationalism, Messianic Dispensationalism, and Political Dispensationalism offer variant interpretations but are agreed on the key facts surrounding Israel.

[13] In Psalm 90:4 and twice in II Peter 3:8. See Russell Boatman, What the Bible Says About the End Times (Joplin: College Press, 1980) 74-84. I am utilizing Boatman throughout this section.

[14] “As seven mystically implies universality, so a thousand implies perfection, whether in good or evil [AQUINAS on ch. 11]. Thousand symbolizes that the world is perfectly leavened and pervaded by the divine; since thousand is ten, the number of the world, raised to the third power, three being the number of God [AUBERLEN].” Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 598). Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Jesus’ Challenge to Christian Zionism

“Prominent Israeli officials have called not simply for the defeat of Hamas but for the annihilation of Gaza, the starving of its population, and the removal of Palestinians from some or all of its territory. The Israeli president suggested that civilians in the Hamas-controlled territory are not ‘innocent.’”[1] Washington Post

“We are the mother who is not willing to rip her child to shreds. We are the true mothers of Jerusalem.”[2] The Master of Ceremonies at an Israeli rally comprised of a quarter-million people in Jerusalem

The first quote comes from yesterday’s Washington Post and the second from an article in the same paper in 2001, when Bill Clinton proposed sovereignty over east Jerusalem be divided between Israel and a Palestinian state. For some Jews, the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem cannot be shared (it would be the equivalent of Solomon slicing the child brought to him in half in 1 Kings 3:16–28), as it is their land by divine fiat. Jewish identity is, for many, tied to the land, which in the world’s religions is not unusual. Sacred shrines, sacred groves, sacred mountains, and sacred land, are thematic in the world’s religions, and most particularly Judaism, but my concern is what role Christianity plays in the notion of a sacred land.

Cleanliness and the Temple

Ethnic cleansing is not far removed from notions of purity that are tied to sacred land. In the Hebrew Bible, Gentiles, along with blood, dead bodies, the sick, women in their menstrual cycle, certain foods, and certain religions (e.g., idolatrous and Samaritan) are a pollution to the land. In fact, God seems to condone genocide in order to cleanse the land of its original inhabitants, and thus create a sacred land and people.

When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. (Dt. 7:1–2)

First century Jews could agree that the problem is pollution and the answer cleansing, but what they could not agree on was how to cleanse the land. The priests would have focused on the sacrificial cleanliness of the temple, while the Pharisees considered themselves an alternative to the priests with an alternative mode of cleanliness. Many Jews, such as the Qumran community, considered Herod’s temple and its hierarchy and priesthood corrupt, and so they looked forward to the establishment of the real temple, and true purification. As Karen Wennell describes, “The Qumran community separate themselves from the Jerusalem temple and can therefore view themselves as a temple community in opposition to the institution in Jerusalem, the problem being that the temple is no longer the seat of the law, but that Israel has not followed the correct law because it was rooted in the wrong temple.”[3]

The temple was the center for cleansing, sending out concentric circles of holiness from the holy of holies to the holy place, with God’s holiness flowing through the temple, to all of Israel (Ex. 25:8-9). It is not entirely clear how literally or symbolically this may have been conceived. Isaiah or God declares, that God obviously does not dwell in temples made by man (Is. 66:1-2), and it was to be understood the temple, priests and sacrifices, were a symbolic order pointing to a reality they did not contain. Both Stephen and Paul reference Isaiah, Stephen to Jews and Paul to Gentiles, to make the case they may have all instinctively understood, that temples or any place do not literally contain God.

The temple as symbolic is accentuated with the controversies surrounding the second temple. It was clear the temple represented, not so much the power of God, but bestowed a more material power, thus it was considered by many to be corrupt at its root. The closer one could position themselves to the temple, the greater power one exercised, but this was not spiritual power (at least in the estimate of the Pharisees, the Samaritans, and the Qumran community). Priestly power flowed from proximity to Roman and Herodian power, along with the wealth afforded those receiving the tithes of Israel. The wealthiest priests lived, with their families close to the temple. “There were bridges from the western wall of the enclosure leading to Jerusalem’s upper city. Here, the prominent ruling and priestly families had homes connecting them directly to the temple building.”[4] Josephus in Antiquities (18.90-95) indicates Herod and then Rome kept direct control over the high priest’s vestments, loaning them out only as needed. In addition, Rome maintained a fortress located next to the temple, fortified by extra troops during temple festivals giving them direct control over its activities (War 2.224; Ant. 20.106-107).[5] While there may have been a more unanimous understanding surrounding Solomon’s Temple, there was a great deal of contention as to whether the second temple was accomplishing or corrupting its purpose.  

Jesus, Cleanliness and the Temple

Jesus’ kingdom, ushering in the rule and sovereignty of God, was clearly not tied to a particular land or temple, but was a message to be preached to the ends of the earth. This kingdom is cosmic and universal, and it never occurred to anyone to localize it, but each new group of believers was its own temple, living stones spreading God’s presence. As Paul describes, Christ’s rule is cosmic and all inclusive: “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven” (Col 1:19–20).

Jesus not only did not concern himself with observing the boundaries between Israel and Samaria, he did not concern himself with ritual boundaries, such as food laws, sabbath keeping, laws of cleanliness, or the special role assigned to priests, scribes and Pharisees. Among his followers, we find both zealots and those who consorted with Rome. With Paul, and many of the early Christians, the Pharisees are widely represented among his followers. We also find the Sanhedrin represented by Nicodemus. All of this to say, Jesus was not concerned with the various arguments among the Jews about what place is holy or which modes of ritual cleanliness are correct. Jesus had come to unite them all, not by litigating their arguments, but by setting the discussion in a different register. “But the Lord said to him, ‘Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness’” (Lk 11:39). The Pharisees were concerned the land and the people were polluted due to a ritual uncleanness, but Jesus dismissed their concerns, and focused on human interiority rather than spatial and ritual pollution.

The mode to purity, in Jesus’ system, is not through a sacred place, sacred rituals, or a sacred building, but through himself. At the beginning of John (as I have described it here), Jesus disrupts the Passover sacrifice in the temple with a sign which, in his explanation, points to himself as true temple: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). The temple incident is not about cleaning up Herod’s temple nor is it about getting rid of coin exchange (it was necessary that the coins bearing Caesars image be exchanged for those with “no graven images”) or animals being sold. As Mary Coloe points out, such trade was not itself wrong; rather, “his words and actions must be seen as a prophetic critique of the entire sacrificial system.”[6] The Jewish response indicates as much, as they do not question why he did it but ask what sign he could give that he had the authority to do such a thing. They did not take his action as some sort of violent assault on the temple, but presumed it called for a legitimating sign of authority, as with Moses’ “signs and wonders” (Deut. 34:11). They knew the prophecies concerning the end of sacrifice and the limitation of the efficacy of animal sacrifice, and indeed, Jesus is declaring the end of the sacrificial system, as he is true temple and true sacrifice. As Jacob Neusner describes Jesus’ action in the temple, it “represents an act of the rejection of the most important rite of the Israelite cult and therefore, a statement that there is a means of atonement other than the daily whole-offering, which now is null.”[7]

The particular pollution that Jesus cleanses from, which temple cult, sacrifice, and law, all pointed toward but which they could not accomplish, was cleansing from death and the grave. In brief, John is identifying the life God provides in Christ (the work of the Lamb in Egypt celebrated in Passover) as the means of “taking away the sin of the world.” The life of God as the rescue from sin and death is the means by which sins are taken away.

It is precisely assignment of the sacred to a place that Jesus challenges, in that he himself now occupies and opens up life to all everywhere. The Hebrew Bible certainly places a (the?) primary importance on the “holy land” and many Jews today retain focus on the land of Israel as an essential part of Jewish identity, but the radical difference Jesus introduces is a challenge to this understanding.  Jesus and Christianity broke from Jewish attachment to sacred places, such as the temple and the land. Christ and Christianity are universalized, and so are not attached to a particular place, a particular space, a particular building or a particular land. As Jesus explains to the woman of Samaria, “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:23–24). Those attached to a holy building or a holy land are not the true spiritual worshipers Jesus describes.

The creation of the modern state of Israel, and the ongoing displacement of Palestinians, supported by Christian Zionists, raises once again the question of the role of Christianity in colonialism. Does Jesus challenge or confirm the fusion of the sacred with particular places or a sacred land? The clear and obvious teaching of the New Testament does not accord with the history of “Christian colonialism” in which lands have been conquered and peoples removed in the name of Christ, nor does it accord with widespread support of Israel and its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians among modern Christians. God’s purposes are not localized in a chosen land, but they are realized through the gift of his Son to all everywhere.


[1] Ishaan Tharoor, “Israel’s war in Gaza and the specter of ‘genocide’”, Washington Post, (November 7, 2023).

[2] Keith B. Richberg with Eetta Prince-Gibson, “Jerusalem Protesters Decry U. S. Proposals: Crowd Insists City Remain Undivided as Israeli Capital, ” The Washington Post; Tuesday, January 9,2001: A17.

[3] Wenell, Karen J. Jesus and land: constructions of sacred and social space in Second Temple Judaism. (PhD thesis, University of Glasgow, 2004), 92-93.

[4] Wenell, 84.

[5] Wenell, 80-81.

[6] Mary Coloe, “Temple Imagery in John,” Interpretation (2009, 368-381)

[7] Jacob Neusner, “Money Changers in the Temple: The Mishna Explanation,” NTS 35 (1989) 290. Quoted in Coloe, ibid.