Christian Zionist
Christian Zionism is a political and religious ideology that supports the Jewish people's right to return to Israel. Christian Zionists believe that the establishment of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and a clear sign of the impending End of Days and Final Judgement. The present Jewish people are descendants of the biblical Israelites and heirs to the covenant between God and Abraham. They believe that the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine anticipates the Second Coming of Jesus Christ in Glory. The movement grew with the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. Christian Zionism is a millennial movement that draws adherents from different Christian denominations, but in particular socially conservative evangelicals. The term "Christian Zionist" was first used by Theodor Herzl at the First Zionist Congress in 1897.
Neither political interests nor cultural commonalities alone can explain the absolute support that Israel enjoys in Western circles, which sometimes trample on the interests of their homelands and on laws and values to please Israel. Due to their predominantly English origins, the American people were influenced by the millenarian faith that the English invented or revived in the 18th century and brought to their colony, America. Polls estimate the number of evangelicals at more than 50 million Americans. Many Westerners believe that Switzerland survived the two world wars because it hosted the first Zionist Congress, that if the United States abandons Israel , God will cancel its status, and that the reason for Hurricane Katrina was the withdrawal of the occupying state from the Gaza Strip in 2005. These are perceptions and predictions fueled by a doctrine that many Christians today follow called “millennialism,” which is the primary lever for that great Western passion for Israel.
Some scholars of Christian history state that millenarianism or belief in the millennium appeared in the fifth century, but the Church opposed it and considered it a heresy that consecrated an excessively earthly, materialistic concept of Christian texts. However, this doctrine was not obliterated and remained present to grow further among the evangelical sects in England during the 18th century, before being exported to the United States to become the dominant Christian doctrine there.
In a study published in 1998 under the title “How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend,” American church historian Dr. Timothy B. Weber believes that the millennial doctrine developed and took root within a complex theory for interpreting the so-called Bible known as dispensationalism, developed in the 19th century by the Englishman John Nelson Darby, according to which the Bible and human history are divided into periods or “dispensations.”
The theory of premillennialism is based on the claim that when the Jews rejected Jesus, God stopped the prophetic clock for a time, and therefore the entire history of the church falls into a prophetic vacuum that dispensationalists call the “great arc,” according to Weber. But according to them, God will once again care for the Jews, so that Jesus will return to the church and the prophetic hour will begin again and Jesus will establish his rule to last a thousand years, and hence the concept of the millennium came. According to this theory, the Jewish nation will convert to Christianity and this will be accompanied by what is called Levitical worship with its sacrifices in the temple that will be rebuilt. Weber believes that millennial dispensationalism also encountered widespread opposition in the Christian community at the beginning, but through conferences and media support it spread, especially in less educated circles, and its predictions regarding the end of time became widespread.
Another study, “Why do Evangelicals Support Israel?” — which involved professors from several universities and was published by Cambridge University in 2020 — reveals other aspects of the millenarian doctrine that evangelicals follow, claiming that the second coming of Christ is imminent but will occur in several stages. In the first stage, Christ will appear in heaven and will not descend to earth. In heaven, he will meet - according to their claim - the true believers, those who were "born again" through their belief in Christ as their savior, referring to the Jews. This act is known in millennialist claims as the “rapture,” whereby these believers are miraculously drawn to Jesus from the earth, while true believers who died before Christ appeared will rise from the dead and join Jesus.
But the Cambridge study points out that millennialism is at odds with the beliefs of both the Catholic and Protestant churches. Millenarians base their belief on the Jews being God's chosen people, which is in opposition to the long-established "replacement theology" of Christian doctrine, which holds that the Jews lost their goodness after their rejection of Christ, and therefore God has finished with the Jewish people, and all his promises of goodness to Israel have been transferred to the church, according to what is called replacement theology.
In a study published in 2013 under the title “Israel: State of Divine Law or Another Nation Among Nations?”, Swiss historian Jean-François Meyer considers that Protestant minorities , especially the Anglo-Saxon Millenarians, played a major role in the propaganda, preparation and implementation of the British decision known as the Balfour Declaration, which was announced in 1917 and related to the establishment of a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine. These organizations also played a greater role in the adoption of this resolution by the United States of America and its subsequent absolute support for Israel.
In England, in the 18th and 19th centuries, memoirs and pamphlets were spread suggesting the settlement of Jews in Palestine, and these suggestions received great support due to the spread of the millenarian faith in the English sphere at that time. Meyer believes that the rapid development of Zionism and the establishment of Israel itself cannot be understood except by taking into account the existence of this powerful, dominant current within Anglo-Saxon Christianity in particular.
In 1839 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland sent memoranda to the kings of Europe regarding the return of the Jews to Palestine, stating, “We are certain of the truth of the divine promise that heavenly blessing will come upon those who come to the aid of God’s people.” In the same year, the English press began a major campaign, supported by the Foreign Office, to encourage the idea of Jewish settlement in Palestine.
In 1840, the English priest Joseph Smith sent letters to the Jews of Europe and the Mediterranean basin, in which he wrote, “In our opinion, the time has come for the beginning of the return of the Jews to the Holy Land.” He also sent Orson Hyde as his emissary to Jerusalem on October 24, 1841, and from there he announced in his name, “Here the remnant of the scattered Judah will be gathered according to the prophecies of the saints.” In August 1866, George Adams, the leader of an American millennialist sect called Mormonism, visited Palestine with more than 150 of his followers with the aim of establishing a settlement near Jaffa. This experiment received the attention of some Jewish circles.
Henry Dunant , founder of the Red Cross, encouraged the establishment of Jewish colonies in Palestine to establish a Hebrew state. William Hechler, chaplain of the British embassy in Vienna, played a pivotal role in the immigration of Jews to Palestine, providing great support to the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl , and facilitating the convening of the founding conference of Zionism in Basel in 1897.
The annual Albury Park Conferences (1826-1830) were a meeting point for many British millenarians, and the aim of these conferences was to theorize and plan for the immigration of Jews to Palestine. In America, an organization called the “Jerusalem Temple Foundation” was formed to collect donations to help the Jews build their alleged temple, and it has already collected millions of dollars for this purpose.
Swiss historian Meyer believes that there is a continuing ambiguity in the relations between Israel and its Christian supporters. The eschatological scenario believed by millennialists includes a comprehensive conversion of the Israelites to Christianity, while the Jews see their salvation in continuing their Judaism. According to the researchers, the distinctive links between millennial evangelicals and Israel seem contradictory, as the former show unconditional support for it even though they consider the Jews to be “deficient in faith,” because they have not accepted Christ and will face destruction if they do not convert to Christianity.
For their part, the Jews accept the support of Christians and even flatter their leaders - especially the Americans - but they do their utmost to fight Christianity and limit missionary activities in Israel. According to Weber, the millenarian dispensationalists interpreted all recent events in favor of their predictions. Even Hitler and the Nazis were for them a “dispensation” from God to increase the Jewish aspiration for a homeland of their own in Palestine, while the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948 was a “sign of signs.”
The Six-Day War of 1967 and the expansion of the Israeli occupation came , and the claims of the dispensationalists that their predictions were about to come true became more entrenched, and writings supporting this spread.
In his 1970 bestseller The Old Doom of Our Planet, which sold more than 10 million copies, American evangelical preacher Hal Lindsey claimed that the second coming of Jesus Christ would occur within 40 years of the founding of the State of Israel. He was certain that it was a false prophecy, just as the Alevists before him had predicted that the Crusades of the 11th century were a prelude to the fulfillment of their prophecies. Lindsay published another book in the early 1980s, entitled "Countdown to Armageddon," in which he presented a right-wing vision linking the leadership role of the United States with assistance to Israel.
The best-selling series of 16 religious novels, “Left Behind,” was a covert propaganda for Israel and its connection to the fulfillment of Christian prophecies. According to the Cambridge study, these works promoted a pivotal role for Jews and the entity in the events of the end of the world, contributed to strengthening evangelical support for Israel, and produced a new generation of believers in the so-called millennial doctrine.
Scholars agree that evangelical politicians consider their support for Israel to be an implementation of God’s command, and they have texts through which they claim that “God said to Israel, ‘I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you,’” so they support its occupation and massacres out of fear of God’s wrath and in search of its blessings. Western elites play a major role in establishing these beliefs, despite their superstitious nature. The evangelical writer Clark wrote a book entitled “Allies for Armageddon” in which he considered that: “If America abandons Israel, God will cancel America’s status as a divinely favored nation.”
The American journalist William R. Koenig's book "Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel" explores the correlation between US policies that pressured Israel to divide its land and major disasters that followed. The book's central argument is that the US, the UN, and the EU do not have the authority to divide Israel's land, and that the biblical heartland of Israel is not to be part of an Arab State. Koenig also conducted an investigation in which he claimed that there is a link between American pressure on Israel to make territorial concessions and natural disasters in the United States. He claimed that within every 24 hours of any American president pressuring Israel, a natural disaster occurs, whether floods, hurricanes, forest fires, earthquakes or a terrorist attack in the United States. He refers to this as the 'perfect storm' phenomenon, where the timing of these calamities aligns with pivotal discussions or actions regarding Israel.
The Cambridge study reports that this thinking has led some evangelicals to say that Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 and the evacuation of the Gush Katif settlement brought Hurricane Katrina to America and the resulting devastation. The evangelicals' claims do not stop there. Some of them believe that Switzerland survived the two world wars because it hosted the first Zionist Congress, which was the nucleus for the formation of Israel.
In the same context, the Swiss historian Meyer talks about what he calls the exciting and unsolvable puzzle of Israel. Whoever stands against Israel stands against God, as the Reverend Jerry Falwell, one of the leaders of Christian fundamentalists in America, stated to the Times newspaper in 1985. In contrast, the rabbi, spokesman for the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews, told the Tribune Le Matin in 1975 that “even if the Arabs eventually accept the existence of the State of Israel, we will remain opposed to this heretical state.”
There are Jewish movements, some of which have turned into parties, such as Agudat Israel and Neturei Karta, which still oppose the establishment of the State of Israel and consider it a blasphemy against Jewish beliefs. They believe that Zionism wears the trappings of Judaism but is not that, rather it is a false Christianity that represents a rebellion against God. Thus, Meyer believes that the existence of Christians who are more Zionist than the Israelis themselves and the existence of Jews who are more anti-Zionist than the Palestinians is enough to confuse the issue, but it reveals the complexity of the problem imposed by the existence of Israel, and the strong intertwining between politics and religion in this issue, and places us once again before the perplexing and insoluble “Israel’s puzzle.”
During one visit to the United States, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed the deep alliance between Israel and the evangelical Christian community. "We have no better friends than you, and I say this from the heart knowing how deeply committed and strong you are to defending Israel," he said during a meeting with prominent evangelical leaders, including the Rev. John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, in Washington.
The depth of this relationship is evident in the fact that the speech Netanyahu delivered during his visit to Congress amidst an aura of continuous applause was his fourth of its kind, a precedent in the history of Congress that reflects the strength of religious beliefs that support absolute American support for Israel, which sometimes takes priority over the interests of the United States itself, and does not pay attention to considerations of international law or the rights of millions of Palestinians.
Weber argues that evangelicals' reading of the complex situation in the Middle East through millenarian prophecies has made them unable to analyze events objectively and morally, and so they are reluctant to condemn Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. He concludes that these evangelicals need to reconsider their positions, asking: “Does their belief in these prophecies allow them to leave aside issues of good and evil and forget the idea of justice?”
Despite the strength and effectiveness of Christian Zionism in the United States, this does not mean that the field is clear for it to operate without opposition. There are many Christian churches that take positions rejecting this trend and warning of its danger, inside and outside the United States. The Evangelical Church rejected Christian Zionism, and the National Council of the Churches of Christ was strengthened by the liberal evangelicals who rejected this trend.
The Evangelical Church in the United States has rejected Christian Zionism, and has entrusted the transformation of the rejection into practical methods to the National Council of Churches of Christ, which includes 34 denominations representing about 40 million members. This council based its strategy for dealing with Christian Zionism on attracting liberal evangelicals who reject the literal interpretation of the Bible and reject theological Zionism in the church.
The Council was able to communicate with a large number of them through its magazines “The Christian Century,” “Christianity and Crises,” “The Guardians,” and “The Reformer.” This Council did not neglect the importance of coordinating its positions rejecting Christian Zionism with other churches that are similar to it in this matter, albeit to different degrees and proportions, such as the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, and the Episcopal Church.
The Catholic Church in the United States was not far from the growing fronts of rejection against Christian Zionism. Rather, it was quick to announce its position of rejection more than 100 years ago. In May 1897, this church noticed that the intended trend ultimately aimed to control Palestine with Christian religious justifications. It issued a statement in which it said, "The rebuilding of Jerusalem to become the center of a reconstituted Israeli state contradicts the prophecies of Christ himself, who told us that Jerusalem would be trampled upon by the masses until the end of the world, that is, until the end of time."
The position of the Vatican in Rome was no different from that of the Catholic Church in the United States. Just as it rejected the ideas of Christian Zionism, it also rejected their political efforts and alliances with Jewish Zionism to establish a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine. It justified its rejection with several reasons, including that the claims of Christian Zionism were contrary to the Holy Book and the spirit of Christianity and that they would harm Eastern Christians, especially if they succeeded in establishing a state in Palestine.
In 1917, Pope Benedict XV commented on the Balfour Declaration, saying, “No to Jewish sovereignty over the Holy Land.” On May 15, 1922, the Vatican sent an official memorandum to the League of Nations criticizing the establishment of a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine, saying that "the Supreme Pontiff cannot agree to granting the Jews privileges over other inhabitants." The position was not much different for Pope Pius XII, who succeeded Benedict XV.
This rejection continued until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, after which a theological change occurred in the position of the Catholic Church after the Israelis/Jews were able to convince the senior clergy in the Catholic Church that their presence in the Middle East was important to combat “atheistic” communism and stop its spread.
This position became more cohesive during the presidency of John Kennedy, the first Catholic American president to enter the White House. He was accompanied by Bishop Cushing, who was imbued with anti-communism and found that Israel/the Jews, not Islam, was the natural ally of the United States against communism. After this ecclesiastical breakthrough, many Catholic organizations demanded a change in the Vatican’s theological positions on the principle of establishing a Jewish state and the principle of the return of the Jews to Palestine. There were also other Catholic organizations that did not reject the establishment of a Jewish state, but called for it to be accompanied by granting the Palestinians their rights.
The Orthodox Church in the United States based its opposition to Christian Zionism on doctrinal grounds, as it considered that this movement insists on implanting a theological vision alien to Christianity and that its goals are political, not religious, and that in its final outcome it serves the interests of a particular state. The Middle East Council of Churches considered Christian Zionism a distortion of the Holy Bible and a manipulation of the feelings of Christians, and that its goal is to establish the State of Israel and fuel the clash of civilizations. As for the position of the Middle Eastern churches on this trend, it was represented by rejection based on religious, political and humanitarian reasons. The Middle East Council of Churches considered Christian Zionism, as stated in its statement issued in April 1986, “a misuse of the Holy Bible and a manipulation of the feelings of Christians in an attempt to sanctify the establishment of a state and justify the policies of its governments.”
The Secretary-General of the Council, Father Riad Gregor, summed up the reasons for the rejection in the following: "Christian Zionism has nothing to do with Christianity because it is a suspicious distortion of some of what is stated in the books of the Holy Scriptures. It is a conspiracy hatched against Christians in general and Arab Christians in particular, to undermine the dialogue project between Christianity and Islam, and to justify the theses of the clash of civilizations and religions, especially between Christianity and Islam, and it aims to undermine Islamic-Christian coexistence in the Arab world."
The Greek Orthodox Church did not deviate from this trend, as it rejected Christian Zionism and objected to the name itself, and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Father Atallah Hanna, insisted on calling it “Zionist groups that claim to be Christian.” He based this rejection on his belief that there is a great contradiction between what Christianity teaches and calls for in terms of peace, harmony and love, and what Zionism calls for in terms of consecrating racist thought, ethnic discrimination and practicing malicious, satanic methods to pass suspicious projects. It is closer to Jewish Zionism than to anything else.
What increased the fears of the Orthodox Greeks about Christian Zionism is what they indicate that the goals of this movement are to attract Eastern Christians and work to separate them from their identity, Eastern roots, and national issues under the banner of preaching Christianity. The Greek Orthodox also confirm that what makes them so strict in their rejection is their belief that the Zionist interpretations and analyses of the Holy Book are political and non-spiritual interpretations and analyses whose goal is to justify the occupation and aggression and to promote the idea that the Palestinian land belongs to them and no one else.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
