The term “Christian Zionism” appears, at first glance, as a strange theological paradox. Christian theology, as formulated by Paul in the first century CE, was built on transforming Christianity from a Jewish reform movement into a universal religion. This was achieved by opening it to non Jews, emphasising the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as the path to salvation, a claim later rejected by the Quran, and by centring concepts of grace, faith, and the New Covenant. This transformation constituted a radical rupture and a decisive break with Judaism.
By contrast, the rabbinic Jewish current that crystallised after the death of Jesus remained firmly committed to rejecting his messianic status, dismissing the concept of a New Covenant, affirming the supremacy of the Torah law over faith, and opposing the reconciliatory attempt undertaken by Paul and others between law and belief.
From this perspective, Christianity in its essence represents a negation, transcendence, and interpretive and theological rupture with Talmudic Judaism, as well as with any later deployment of Hebrew scriptures in modern ideological projects, foremost among them Zionism. Accordingly, any talk of “Christian Zionism” does not merely involve a deep philosophical and theological contradiction, but also exposes a stark historical anomaly.
What, then, is this “Christian Zionism” embraced by many, particularly in the United States? At its core, it is a theological belief premised on the conviction that the Second Coming of Christ will occur on the land of Israel. One of the central tenets of Christian Zionism is that the establishment of the modern State of Israel and the return of Jews to what is termed the “Promised Land” constitute a direct fulfilment of biblical prophecies, and that this reality sets the theological stage for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
On this basis, supporting Israel becomes a religious duty viewed as a divine obligation. However, the essence of this support is not tied to Israel in and of itself, but rather to its symbolic role as a prerequisite for the return of Christ within a millenarian eschatological framework. Consequently, this support remains constant and unconditional, regardless of the crimes of genocide or systematic discriminatory policies committed by Israel against the Palestinian people.
The Catholic and Orthodox churches reject “Christian Zionism” from a theological standpoint, albeit to varying degrees. The Catholic Church does not officially classify it as heresy, yet it explicitly rejects it because it is based on a theology of “two covenants” rather than the single covenant fulfilled and completed in Christ, and because it links biblical prophecies to modern political entities. The Catholic Church affirms, based on its foundational doctrinal documents, particularly the resolutions of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), that there are no sacred political entities. Christ is the fulfilment and completion of the covenant, and the Church is the community of the New Covenant, not an alternative state nor a sacred geographical entity.
As for the Orthodox churches, they generally regard Christian Zionism as a grave theological error that may at times rise to the level of heresy. This is because Orthodoxy rejects literalist readings of prophecy and refuses any return to concepts of ethnic or geographic “chosenness” after Christ, that is, after the realisation of his message with its comprehensive universal dimension, as understood within traditional Christian theology.
In the United States, Christian Zionism constitutes a widely influential religious political current, particularly within evangelical Protestant circles. This current is grounded in the belief that the establishment of the State of Israel forms part of a “divine plan” that requires strengthening Israel in preparation for the return of Christ. Within this eschatological framework, ethical and political considerations are marginalised. Settlement expansion, the apartheid system in the West Bank, and the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip are not treated as morally significant issues. Palestinian suffering is reduced to secondary details in the face of the “greater plan”, namely ensuring Israel’s strength and security as a prerequisite for Christ’s return.
Many in Israel are fully aware of these theological backgrounds, which in essence go beyond the mere notion of “Israel’s security”. According to this vision, Israel itself becomes a transitional entity that loses its significance once the return of Christ is realised. Nevertheless, a pragmatic alliance emerges between the two sides. The settler right supports this current and invests in it politically because it serves its expansionist and racist objectives on the ground.
In conclusion, “Christian Zionism” is not an expression of Christian faith so much as it reveals a dangerous eschatological deviation, in which the spiritual message is reduced to a political function, and the sacred is reproduced as a tool to justify power, violence, and killing. When the logic of salvation is replaced by the logic of geography, and ethical universality is substituted with the anticipation of an end time conditioned on oppression and displacement, theology is transformed from a horizon of liberation into a mechanism for erasing the human being.
The most dangerous aspect of this current lies not only in its theological contradictions, but in its capacity to paralyse the moral conscience in the name of prophecy and to legitimise genocide in the name of salvation. At this point, silence is no longer a neutral stance, but becomes complicity. The debate ceases to be a mere doctrinal disagreement and becomes a moral test for humanity itself: either a faith that saves the human being, or a theology that justifies killing and extermination.
