Strange Theology – Part II

Christian Zionism, Dispensationalism,

and the Fragmentation of the People of God:

In Part I of this three-part series, I examined pretribulational premillennialism and the futurist interpretive framework commonly employed to defend it. The focus of that discussion was historical and theological: Where did this theory originate, and what assumptions are required to sustain it? In this second instalment, I turn to a closely related—and increasingly influential—component of dispensational theology: Christian Zionism.

Zionism and Its Origins:

Zionism is defined by Encyclopaedia Britannica as a Jewish nationalist movement advocating for the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, understood as the ancient homeland of the Jewish people (Eretz Yisra’el).¹ As a political movement, Zionism emerged primarily in Central and Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth century, largely in response to persistent antisemitism and influenced by currents associated with the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah). It is generally agreed that modern political Zionism was formally organized under the leadership of Theodor Herzl in 1897.

At first glance, this definition appears straightforward: a secular Jewish movement seeking national self-determination. One might reasonably assume that Christian Zionism developed only after Herzl’s political Zionism and simply reflects Christian support for Jewish self-governance in a particular territory. Such assumptions, however, are historically and theologically mistaken.

Christian Zionism: Definition and Theological Claims:

Christian Zionism long predates modern political Zionism. Its roots extend back several centuries, particularly within Protestant circles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Far from being a mere political sympathy, Christian Zionism is best understood as a theo-political system—one that fuses biblical interpretation, eschatological expectation, and contemporary political advocacy.

At its core, Christian Zionism maintains that the Jewish people possess a divine and irrevocable right to the land of Palestine, promised eternally to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to this view, the Jewish return to this specific territory—after nearly two millennia of dispersion—is not only legitimate but biblically mandated. Moreover, this restoration is said to function as a necessary precondition for the fulfillment of end-time prophecy, including the Great Tribulation, the revelation of Antichrist, and the Second Coming of Christ.

Christian Zionists frequently appeal to Genesis 12:3 to argue that individuals and nations are obligated to “bless” the modern state of Israel—politically, financially, and militarily—in order to receive divine favour, while opposition invites judgment. In this framework, Jerusalem becomes the geopolitical axis upon which redemptive history turns, and Gentile Christians are cast as divinely appointed facilitators of Israel’s restoration.

Britannica further observes that early Christian Zionists from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries supported Jewish restoration primarily for eschatological reasons, whereas contemporary American evangelical adherents have combined theological convictions with overt political activism since the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.¹

Puritan Roots and Early Protestant Zionism:

Historical evidence indicates that the Puritans were among the earliest Protestant groups to articulate pro-Zionist ideas. Emerging from the apocalyptic ferment of post-Reformation England, Puritan theology was deeply shaped by eschatological urgency. However, it is important to note that Puritan Zionism was not dispensational. While Puritans anticipated a future role for the Jews, they generally believed this would involve their conversion to Christianity rather than the perpetuation of a separate covenantal identity.⁴

Key Puritan convictions included the belief that:

• The end of history was imminent;
• New England could serve as a locus for the New Jerusalem;
• They themselves constituted a “New Israel” in covenant with God;
• Their societal project represented a renewal of biblical theocracy.

These ideas were so deeply embedded that Hebrew symbols and terminology—such as Urim v’tumim (“Light and Truth”)—were incorporated into institutions like Yale College.²³⁴

Contemporary historians, including Anita Shapira, have suggested that evangelical Protestant Zionist ideas circulating in England during the early nineteenth century were later transmitted into Jewish nationalist thought, particularly during the 1840s—a period when Jewish nationalism initially encountered resistance within Jewish communities themselves.³

From Puritan Hope to Dispensational Zionism:

While Puritan Zionism laid conceptual groundwork, modern Christian Zionism is largely inseparable from dispensational theology, particularly as systematized by John Nelson Darby in the nineteenth century and later popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible.

Darby explicitly distinguished between the destinies of Israel and the Church, arguing that each occupies a separate dispensation within God’s redemptive plan. His lectures, first delivered in Geneva in 1840 and rapidly disseminated in multiple languages, became foundational for the global spread of dispensational thought.²

This framework transformed earlier Protestant expectations into a rigid theological system in which:

• Israel and the Church are ontologically distinct peoples;
• Old Testament land promises remain unfulfilled and await literal realization;
• A future millennial kingdom functions as the venue for these promises.

Christian Zionism, in this sense, is not merely an ethical posture toward Jews or Israel, but a theological necessity required to sustain the dispensational schema.

Jewish Millennialism and the Background of Revelation 20:

To understand the millennial assumptions embedded within Christian Zionism and dispensationalism, it is necessary to recognize that millennial concepts long predate Christianity itself. Chiliasm—the expectation of a thousand-year reign preceding final judgment—appears in Persian religion and is well attested in Second Temple Jewish literature.⁷

Jewish messianic expectations were often nationalistic and occasionally millenarian, particularly in post-exilic prophetic literature. These traditions formed part of the symbolic and conceptual world inhabited by the original audience of the Book of Revelation.⁹

This historical context raises an important hermeneutical question: When John describes the “thousand years” in Revelation 20, is he introducing a novel chronological scheme, or is he employing symbolic language already familiar to Jewish apocalyptic thought? It is neither necessary nor methodologically sound to force this passage into an elaborate chronological chart—especially when such charts rely on eisegesis rather than exegesis.

Dispensational Theology and Its Structural Commitments:

The interdependence of several doctrines (Christian Zionism, unfulfilled promises to Israel, the doctrine of two peoples of God, and a literal millennium) becomes evident upon closer examination. According to classic dispensational theology, three elements are indispensable:¹⁰

• A strict distinction between Israel and the Church;
• A consistently literal (historical-grammatical) hermeneutic;
• A future millennial dispensation in which Abrahamic promises are finally fulfilled.

However, this system struggles to account for several features it insists upon—most notably a seven-year Great Tribulation and a pretribulational rapture. Neither concept is explicitly taught in Scripture; both are inferred through the reconfiguration of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy (Dan. 9:24–27).

Dispensationalism posits a “parenthesis” between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks—an interruption allegedly caused by Israel’s rejection of Christ. Yet Scripture nowhere indicates such a pause. This construction raises serious theological questions about divine foreknowledge, covenant continuity, and the coherence of redemptive history.

Biblical Testimony Concerning Fulfillment and Unity:

Claims that God’s promises to Israel remain unfulfilled stand in tension with explicit biblical affirmations to the contrary. Joshua 21:43–45 and 1 Kings 4:20–21 state unambiguously that God fulfilled all His promises regarding land, rest, and national blessing.

Moreover, the New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the unity of God’s people in Christ:

• “There is neither Jew nor Gentile … for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28);
• “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed” (Gal. 3:29);
• “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Rom. 9:6–8).

While dispensationalists attempt to preserve distinctions between physical and spiritual seed, Scripture consistently locates covenant identity in Christ rather than ethnicity.¹¹

Political and Ethical Controversies:

Christian Zionism has not remained a purely theological position. Scholars such as Yaakov Ariel and institutions such as the Religion Media Centre have documented its substantial political influence, particularly in the United States.¹² This includes lobbying efforts related to Israeli settlement expansion, opposition to peace processes, and the instrumentalization of Jewish identity within apocalyptic narratives.

In 2006, Christian leaders in Jerusalem formally denounced Christian Zionism as a “false teaching,” warning that its alliance with political power perpetuates cycles of violence and instability.¹²

Conclusion:

From a biblical and historical standpoint, the doctrine of two peoples of God represents a significant theological departure. Scripture presents a unified redemptive narrative in which God’s purposes—initiated in creation, unfolded through Israel, and fulfilled in Christ—culminate in a single redeemed people.

God’s ultimate aim has always been the restoration of creation and the defeat of evil through His Son (1 John 3:8). When Christ’s kingdom is fully realized, it will not consist of divided peoples or deferred promises, but of one reconciled humanity dwelling in the renewed creation—exactly as God intended from the beginning.

Endnotes:

1.        Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “Zionism,” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zionism.

2.        Jonathan Kuttab, “Palestinian Evangelicals and Christian Zionism,” Jerusalem Quarterly 76 (2018): 70–78.

3.        Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, trans. Anthony Berris (Lebanon, NH: Brandeis University Press, 2014), 15.

4.        Paul Boyer, “What Did the Puritans Think About God’s Ancient Promises to Israel, and How They Fit into That?” interview excerpt, quoted in discussions of Puritan apocalypticism; Boyer is Merle Curti Professor of History, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

5.        Jim Sleeper, “Israel and the Puritans: A Dangerous Historical Romance (Part I),” Commonweal, April 11, 2024.

6.        International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ), “Christian Zionism 101: Biblical Teachings,”  https://www.icej.org/understand-israel/biblical-teachings/christian-zionism-101/.

7.        Kaufmann Kohler et al., “Millennium,” Jewish Encyclopedia, https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10840-millennium.

8.        Norman Cohn, discussion summarized in “Ancient Judaism and Millenarianism,” Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right, https://www.cdamm.org/articles/ancient-judaism.

9.        Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), 43–47.

10.     Renald E. Showers, “An Examination of Dispensational Theology (Part 3),” theological position paper.

11.     “What Does It Mean That Christians Are the Seed of Abraham?” GotQuestions.org, https://www.gotquestions.org/seed-of-Abraham.html.

12.     Religion Media Centre, “Factsheet: Christian Zionism,” https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/factsheet-christian-zionism/.