Bibliography and Endnotes at the bottom of the manuscript.

If you have an addiction to the news, as I do, you may have heard the term ‘Christian Zionism’ being thrown around. Now, it’s a term that can mean A LOT, and comes in many flavors, so I figured I would break it down for you. So, what is Christian Zionism? Well, it’s complicated yet simple at the same time.

Christian Zionism is the belief among some Christian groups and sects that the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, as well as the establishment and support of the modern state of Israel in 1948, fulfills specific biblical prophecy and is a part of the God of the Christians’ divine plan, and Jesus of Nazareth’s 2nd coming (cf. Genesis 12:3; Ezekiel 37:21–22; Romans 11:26; etc). To reduce Christian Zionism to just that, however, is a serious mistake and does not tell the full story of modern Christian practice, its relationship to modern Jews, and the current state of geopolitics. So, let’s expand on it in a way.

First, it is important to understand that Christian Zionism is not a single, unified belief system but rather a range of theological interpretations and political commitments that all relate to many modern and historical developments, each in different ways. However, much of modern evangelical Christian Zionist thought is built on a framework called: Dispensationalism. This is a Christian method of interpreting prophecy, scripture, and eschatology (i.e., the study of end times) that was developed in the nineteenth century by John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), an Irish lawyer-turned-Anglican clergyman who, after leaving the Church of Ireland in the late 1820s, became a leading figure in the Plymouth Brethren movement.

While early church fathers such as Augustine of Hippo had loosely used the term “dispensation” to describe God’s different ways of working throughout history,^[1] it was Darby who formalized these ‘hints’ into a coherent system, with his theology fully formed by 1833. However, it cannot be said that dispensationalism was a common belief among the early or even medieval periods of the Church; it became popular only in the 19th century and onward.

The framework Darby created divided history into distinct periods, or yes, “dispensations,” through which God interacts with humanity in different ways. Rather than seeing history as a single continuous unfolding, Darby tried to better understand the Bible as a history book with ‘chapters,’ or structured stages that reveal God’s purposes progressively. Like a play unfolding in multiple acts. At the core of this framework is the idea that while God’s character does not change, the way He governs, or tests humanity, does. Which, to many modern readers of the Bible, can sound very appealing when trying to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with that of the New Testament. Further, each dispensation represents a kind of strange, or even conventional, arrangement: God gives specific responsibilities or revelations to humanity, we then fail to uphold them (of course!), and this failure leads to judgment (of course again!) followed by the introduction of a new dispensation.

Darby’s system is typically summarized in seven key dispensations, but it ranges from three to eight, depending on denomination or view (etc.). For this article, I will explain it in the following seven points, which is the broader view in American Evangelical circles:

1. Innocence – Beginning with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, where humans lived in a state of purity and direct fellowship with God. This period ends with the Fall.
2. Conscience – After the Fall, humans are guided by moral awareness. This era culminates in widespread corruption and the Flood.
3. Human Government – Following the Flood, God authorizes human authority to maintain order. This period includes the rise of nations and ends in rebellion (e.g., Babel).
4. Promise – Beginning with Abraham, God establishes a covenant centered on faith and divine promise to a chosen people.
5. Law – Initiated through Moses, this dispensation is governed by the Mosaic Law, emphasizing obedience to divine commandments.
6. Grace (Church Age) – Beginning with Christ, particularly emphasized in the teachings of Paul the Apostle, this period focuses on salvation by grace through faith rather than law.
7. Kingdom (Millennial Kingdom) – A future era in which Christ will reign on earth, fulfilling divine promises and restoring order

Biblical Chp.	Step(s)	Alternative Names	4-Step Scheme	3-Step (Minimalist)
Genesis 1–3	Innocence	Edenic	Patriarchal (early)	Law
Genesis 3–8	Conscience	Antediluvian	Patriarchal	Law
Genesis 9–11	Civil Government	Post-Flood	Patriarchal	Law
Genesis 12 – Exodus 19	Patriarchal	Promise	Patriarchal	Law
Exodus 20 – Gospels / Birth of Church	Mosaic	Law	Mosaic	Law
Church Age – Rapture	Grace	Church	Ecclesial	Grace
Revelation 20:4–6	Millennial Kingdom	Kingdom	Zionic	Kingdom
Revelation 20–22	Eternal State	Final State	Zionic (extended)	Kingdom

A key element of John Nelson Darby’s theology is his doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture. Now, this is often something you hear about in non-denominational and evangelical Christian circles, and this idea of a ‘rapture’ teaches that Jesus of Nazareth will return suddenly and invisibly, and then remove true believers from the earth before a future period of judgment known as the Tribulation. The movie(s) Left Behind (both the 2000 and 2014 versions) are entirely about this. However, this coming of Jesus of Nazareth is not the same as the Second Coming; rather, it is a prior event in which believers are “caught up” (1 Thessalonians 4:17) to meet Christ in the air and taken to heaven. This moment marks the end of the Church Age (Figure 1) and functions as a kind of divine transition point in history, like the crucifixion or the flood. This is important for its theological significance: the church (i.e., believers in Jesus; however defined in each circle) is removed from the earth before God begins a new phase dealing with humanity, thereby presenting a clear distinction between the church (cf. the core message of the New Testament) and what comes next in God the Father’s plan.

Following this rapture, Darby argued that God resumes His specific, unfulfilled promises to Israel—meaning the Jewish people, not the ‘church’ or anything else—which he saw as entirely separate from the Church. Therefore, Israel refers to the ethnic and national descendants of Abraham, whose identity is linked to tangible covenant promises, particularly a) land, b) nationhood, and c) a future kingdom (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:18; Jeremiah 31:31-34). Since Darby came from an era at the start of biblical fundamentalism, he insisted these promises must be fulfilled literally, not symbolically or spiritually, rather than being understood mainly in symbolic or spiritual terms, as is more common in Catholic and Orthodox (i.e., apostolic) interpretive traditions.

This leads to a sharp theological separation: God has two parallel but distinct programs. One for Israel (i.e., the Jewish people) and one for the Church. The rapture, therefore, is what allows God to shift from His present work with the Church back to His prophetic plan for Israel during the end times. The Church, in this framework, is seen as a ‘parenthesis’ in God’s overall plan, His spiritual program of grace for all believers, that is distinct from the national promises He made to Israel. This distinction becomes especially important in how Darby and later dispensationalists interpret biblical prophecy.

For example, when reading biblical texts, the interpreter must ask whether a passage is addressing Israel or the Church, because the meaning changes depending on the audience. For example, prophetic timelines and judgments described in apocalyptic literature are often understood as applying specifically to Israel and the nations, not the Church, which has already been removed in Paul’s writing in 1^st Thessalonians. In this view, apocalyptic books such as Daniel or Revelation are instead related to Israel and the Jewish people, instead of the Church. Yes, it’s confusing, but once you understand this, it can come full circle.

In Daniel, for example, prophecies such as the “seventy weeks” are understood as a literal timeline for Israel’s history, with a future segment still awaiting fulfillment (Daniel 9:24-27). In Revelation, chapters depicting global catastrophe, divine judgment, and the rise of oppressive world powers are viewed as a literal future Tribulation period that occurs after the rapture.

These ideas did not remain confined to Darby’s own writings. They were widely popularized in the United States by Cyrus Scofield through the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible. In my own thoughts, I despise this bible, but that’s a story for another time. Scofield’s notes presented dispensationalist interpretations alongside the biblical text itself, making the framework accessible and persuasive to a broad evangelical audience. As a result, Darby’s system became deeply embedded in 20th-century evangelical thought, shaping how many Christians understood not only prophecy but the entire structure of biblical history.

When taken together, these doctrines create a highly organized versoin of biblical history and the future story of it: the present Church Age will end suddenly with the rapture; this will be followed by a period of Tribulation in which God’s prophetic plan for Israel unfolds; and this period will culminate in the visible return of Christ and the establishment of a millennial kingdom. Thus, Darby’s theology offers a detailed, step-by-step reading of Scripture in which the rapture, the distinction between Israel and the Church, and the interpretation of prophecy all work together as parts of a single, coherent system. Cool right?

It is from this dispensational framework that modern Christian Zionism mainly develops. Because Darby and his followers viewed God’s promises to Israel as literal and still unfulfilled, many Christians began to see the modern return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel—culminating in the 1948 founding of the state of Israel—as a divine fulfillment of prophecy and a sign of the approaching end times.

Thus, for the Christian Zionists, supporting Israel is therefore both a religious obligation and a prophetic imperative. Encouraging Israel’s political, financial, or any aspect of its well-being is seen as cooperating with God’s plan, aligning earthly actions with the God of the Christians’ divine prophecy, all while participating in the fulfillment of biblical promises. Many adherents view this support as a means of preparing the world for the Second Coming of Christ, which they see as tied to the restoration of Israel. While this theological viewpoint is deeply significant within Christian Zionism, it can understandably raise questions in interfaith contexts, particularly among Jews, Muslims, or others, since it frames the destiny of another religion or people group in terms of a Christian eschatological hope. On a personal note, it always bugs me when I see Christian Zionism in the news; it just feels like Christians are cheering for the Second Coming in a way that treats Jewish people and their faith as a stepping stone for the Christians’ own prophecy, but it seems no one talks about that. I think this is because I’m approaching it from a very secular viewpoint, anyway, I digress.

Since the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948, Christian Zionism has evolved from a primarily theological and prophetic hope into a significant social, cultural, political, and, yes, financial movement with influence on both domestic (United States) and international affairs. However, when we go back to the early 20th‑century, Christian Zionists focused almost exclusively on biblical prophecy. They thus interpret the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland as a fulfillment of Scripture and an essential precursor to Christ’s Second Coming. Their activities were largely devotional and missionary in character: promoting prayer and supporting Jewish settlement in Palestine. This period coincided with the displacement of roughly 700,000 Palestinian Arabs during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. After this, the political dimension then intensified to kind of what we see today in the decades following 1948, particularly after the 1967 Six‑Day War, when Israel’s decisive military victory captured the imagination of American evangelical leaders. 

Figures such as Jerry Falwell (televangelist), Pat Robertson (televangelist), and John Hagee (televangelist) framed support for Israel not merely as a moral or humanitarian duty but as a divine mandate, as I mentioned above. Which, you know, brings me back to my point about how it’s kinda rude, just plotting on another man’s religion for the sake of your own through a happy-go-lucky phase? Yuck. Furthermore, they maintained that Israel’s security and prosperity were connected to God’s unfolding plan for humanity, framing political advocacy for the State of Israel as a natural part of spiritual devotion in one’s own personal life. For many a man who saw this framework as their version of truth, ‘hearing God’ meant receiving a clear sense that praying for or supporting Israel in some way was their calling, either at the moment they felt God’s message or when they came to be ‘saved.’

Over time, tens of millions of American evangelicals began to see supporting Israel as both a theological duty and a civic responsibility, applying this commitment to voter mobilization, fundraising, and lobbying efforts that had a major impact on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. This can explain why many Baby Boomers strongly support Israel, because their formative years coincided with the 1960s surge of Christian Zionism, while younger generations like Gen Z are often more skeptical, seeing U.S.-Israel ties as rooted in Cold War-era politics and Middle East conflicts.

Christian Zionists today embody a spectrum of engagement. On the one hand, adherents remain focused on prayer, the study of biblical prophecy, and spiritual support for Israel, celebrating the nation as signs of divine providence. On the other hand, the movement actively participates in geopolitics: advocating for policies that secure Israel’s territorial integrity, opposing diplomatic compromises viewed as weakening the state or the surrounding areas that could serve as its protectors, and cultivating networks that link U.S. political elites with Israeli governmental and civic institutions. This is a dual approach that encompasses the many different flavors I mentioned at the beginning; the combination of devotion and activism has allowed Christian Zionism to wield considerable influence, both culturally and politically, in the United States. 

So you might be asking: Why does this matter so much in the U.S. and not in other countries? Well, it’s even more relevant here than in other countries because the U.S. has historically been a Protestant nation rather than Catholic, which made it easier for these more extreme or, in some cases, violent ideas to be disseminated among believers. Additionally, because Protestantism lacks a centralized, cathoilc or universal authority, believers have greater freedom to develop and promote differing interpretations of Scripture, which obviously includes those that emphasize prophetic or apocalyptic readings.

His fusion of theology and politics has become particularly visible in what we are currently seeing on the news today, April 1^st, 2026. As the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran further escalated, Christian Zionist leaders and politicians (i.e., Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, etc) and media figures interpreted military developments, such as the bombing of Iran or the killing of its supreme leader, through a prophetic lens, framing combat operations as part of a divine timeline leading toward the end times. 

When you look at Christian Zionism in the media, something I enjoy doing, you can find sermons and online commentary that often describe events happening in Iran, or Southern Lebanon now, as fulfilling biblical narratives; urging followers to pray for Israel’s victory while simultaneously viewing it as approaching apocalypse. This theological-political blend has tangible effects on U.S. and Israeli policy and broader global discourse. At events such as the 2026 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which just happened, older evangelical leaders reaffirmed unwavering support for Israel, emphasizing both strategic and eschatological reasons for backing the state in its confrontations. Meanwhile, younger conservatives and some evangelical subsets increasingly question the wisdom of entanglement in complex Middle Eastern conflicts.

This leads me to my next point: interfaith implications are equally important. While many Jewish communities value material and political support for Israel, the underlying theological assumptions of Christian Zionism, such as the idea that Israel’s struggles signal Christ’s return, can complicate dialogue. Some senior Christian leaders, such as Cardinal Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church in Jerusalem, and other faith leaders in the Middle East, have warned that these often highly politicized interpretations of Scripture risk deepening religious and cultural divisions. In a January 17 statement, the Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in the Holy Land described Christian Zionism as a “damaging ideology.”

Ultimately, Christian Zionism today is more than a set of doctrinal beliefs: it is a socio-political force and a theological lens through which millions of Americans, and Christians worldwide, interpret contemporary geopolitics. Its influence is felt not only in the corridors of power in Washington and Jerusalem but also in media and religious life… something we have all felt recently.

I hope all is well.

– Colin

Selected Bibliography

Ariel, Y. (2013). An unusual relationship: Evangelical Christians and Jews. New York University Press.

Blaising, C. A., & Bock, D. L. (1993). Progressive dispensationalism. Baker Academic.

Burge, G. M. (2003). Whose land? Whose promise? What Christians are not being told about Israel and the Palestinians. Pilgrim Press.

Clark, V. (2007). Allies for Armageddon: The rise of Christian Zionism. Yale University Press.

Darby, J. N. (n.d.). Synopsis of the books of the Bible. Various editions.

Ice, T. D. (2009). Lovers of Zion: A history of Christian Zionism. Liberty University Digital Commons.

Khalidi, R. (2020). The hundred years’ war on Palestine: A history of settler colonialism and resistance, 1917–2017. Metropolitan Books.

Lewis, D. M. (Ed.). (2010). The origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury and evangelical support for a Jewish homeland. Cambridge University Press.

Merkley, P. C. (2001). Christian attitudes toward the state of Israel. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Morris, B. (2008). 1948: A history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press.

Pappé, I. (2006). The ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications.

Ryrie, C. C. (1995). Dispensationalism. Moody Press.

Scofield, C. I. (1909). The Scofield reference Bible. Oxford University Press.

Sizer, S. (2004). Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? Inter-Varsity Press.

Weber, T. P. (2004). On the road to Armageddon: How evangelicals became Israel’s best friend. Baker Academic.

---

^[1] In De Civitate Dei (The City of God) Augustine speaks of God’s “dispensation” toward humanity: “divina dispensation.”