CUFI – Christans United for Israel

AN ANALYSIS OF CUFI

AND A DISPENSATIONAL CRITIQUE OF CHRISTIAN ZIONISM           

Mark M. Hanna, Ph.D.,

Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and World Religions, Talbot School of Theology and California Polytechnic State University

In February of this year, Pastor John Hagee inaugurated a new lobby, Christians United for Israel.   He claims that over 400 pastors have joined his new organization and that they expect to act on behalf of more than 40 million evangelical Christians in the United States who support the State of Israel. 
CUFI is inviting Christians to come from all 50 states to its first major gathering in Washington, D.C., July 18-19, for the express purpose of influencing the American government and its policies.  It is urgent for Christians to become aware of its true nature and its actual agenda so they do not become misled into supporting a movement that is antithetical to biblical truth.  It is not easy to write about the issues involved in this development, because very sensitive matters cannot be avoided.  This also makes it likely that people who are locked into hardened positions will tend to misunderstand what I write and the spirit behind it.  My deepest intention is to “speak the truth in love,” and I want to emphasize that it is not my intention to cast aspersions on people, whether ethnic groups or individuals.
An important part of the history of World War II was the action of the small French village, Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, whose population of three thousand people saved the lives of five thousand Jews by hiding them in their community.  I mention this as an example of the fact that non-dispensational Christians can be as concerned about Jews as Christian Zionist dispensationalists.  The non-dispensational Huguenot villagers risked their lives because they believed that the Bible made the lives of all human beings valuable since they are made in the image of God.  Although virtually all Christian Zionists are dispensationalists, there are many non-dispensationalist Christians who care deeply about the Jewish people and, like the residents of Le Chambon, would not shrink from risking their lives to protect them.  They rightly feel that way about all innocent people who are threatened with genocide.
No morally conscientious person who has knowledge of the suffering of Jews, from the time of the Egyptian bondage recounted in the Bible, to the horrendous series of persecutions in Europe, to the Russian pogroms, and to the Nazi Holocaust, can fail to understand how desperate they became to find a place of security and rest from their fear-laden sojourn in gentile lands.  If there were no other reason than compassion alone, it would suffice as a basis for concern and commitment to their security today. 
Tragically, since the 1940s there have been two desperate peoples at the center of a vortex that could now erupt into a cataclysm of global proportions.  The same moral conscientiousness that elicits heartfelt sympathy for Jews should evoke similar compassion for the indigenous peoples in Palestine who were dispossessed and displaced by the tortuous circumstances of the twentieth-century.  Instead of focusing on questions of blame—of which there is plenty to go around—we need a frequent reminder of the fact that both the Jewish and Palestinian masses—in contrast to their leaders–have been victims of circumstances largely beyond their control. 
If I were a Jew who had survived the holocaust, I would urgently yearn for a country of my own, defended by a powerful army, so that I would not have to live with constant fear.  If I were a Palestinian who had lost my home and freedom as a result of the Zionist actions that created an Israeli state where I once lived, I would urgently yearn for its recovery.  Does Christian love dictate that we should put ourselves in the shoes of only one or both?
In a surprising and candid admission, David Ben Gurion, reflecting on the plight of the Palestinians, said, “If my land had been taken away from me, I would become a terrorist, too” (reported in the 2006 article, The Israel Lobby, by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt).  In that extraordinary expression of empathy, Ben Gurion showed more understanding of the Palestinians than most Christian Zionists have ever demonstrated.  Both inside and outside of the State of Israel to this day, however, there are a some noble and courageous Jews who share a similar empathy and give tangible expression to it in their writings and actions on behalf of Palestinians. 
Jews have memorialized “righteous gentiles” in the “Garden of the Righteous Among Nations” at Yad Vashem, near Jerusalem.  It honors gentiles who saved Jews from the Holocaust at the risk of their own lives.  There are also, in this sense, “righteous Jews” who show unexpected compassion and courage in reaching out to Palestinian Arabs, if not at the risk of their own lives, certainly at the risk of their reputation and social ostracism in the State of Israel.
I want to state in the strongest possible terms that I am intensely opposed to anti-Semitism.  I am equally opposed to every effort to harm innocent Israelis or to dismantle the State of Israel.  Let there be no mistake about my deepest sincerity in this regard.  I am opposed to every effort to harm any innocent people, whether Jews, Arabs, or others. I also want to be very sensitive to the feelings and suspicions of both Jews and Arabs. I realize that due to their millennia of mistreatment, Jews are especially sensitive to anything that smacks of anti-Semitism.  So whatever I have to say, I do not intend for it to bear even the slightest tincture of anti-Semitism. 
Nevertheless, I believe that CUFI is unwarranted, both biblically and pragmatically.
I realize it is a bold claim to assert that CUFI is unbiblical, but I hope that anyone who seeks to be fair-minded and objective will at least consider the scriptural support I adduce for my thesis.  That is why I am writing this paper and disseminating it far and wide to as many Christians as possible.  Christians need to know the truth about CUFI.  I have no axe to grind but faithfulness to the Bible, for conformity to the word of God is the way to bring glory to God.
THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
Especially since the time of W.E. Blackstone and his book, Jesus is Coming,(1878), many Christians have uncritically accepted “Christian Zionism,” a perspective that has been widely propagated among dispensationalists for the last century-and-a-half.  Many other Christians, however, have continued to cling to “replacement theology,” a view that holds that the church has “replaced” Israel, leaving ethnic Israel with no special role in God’s future program for the world.      
The tendency for close-mindedness is endemic in both groups.  Since my focus in this paper is on CUFI as an expression of Christian Zionism, I plead with my fellow dispensationalists to be open-minded enough to sincerely and carefully consider all the relevant biblical evidence against both.  If the reader wants a quick overview of my salient points, he can turn to the fifteen summary statements toward the end of this paper.  However, the justification for the concluding summary can only be gained by a careful reading of the full text of this paper.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am for the existence and security of the State of Israel on the basis of compassion, shared values, and historical circumstances.  But I am not for it unconditionally or at the price of depriving others of their dignity and civil rights. For over fifty years I have been profoundly opposed to all forms of anti-Semitism, and I still am.  Nevertheless, the extreme position known as “Christian Zionism,” which is widely held by dispensationalists, is a perspective that I oppose on biblical grounds—even though I am a dispensationalist (which term refers to a theological position that maintains a fundamental discontinuity between Israel and the church and which contends that a redeemed, ethnic Israel will have a future kingdom in the land of promise [Gen. 15:18-21] under the rule of Christ in fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants granted by God in the Old Testament).
Christian Zionists believe that the State of Israel, which was founded in 1948, is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and, therefore, they believe that Christians should not only give Israel overriding favoritism but that they should actively promote the growth of its Jewish population and its retention of every square inch of land that she has occupied.  There are solid biblical grounds, however, for maintaining that the State of Israel is not the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.  
One of the leading, early dispensationalists, Arno C. Gaebelein, stated categorically, in 1905, “Zionism is not the divinely promised restoration of Israel.”   Nevertheless, I believe that the State of Israel, whose establishment during the church age was not prophetically necessary, is a preparatory, stage-setting factor for the future fulfillment of end-time prophecy.  This is not why I am for its existence and security, however.  For even if it had no future, prophetic role, there are viable extra-biblical reasons for supporting it.  To consider this distinction between prophetic fulfillment and preparatory stage-setting to be merely terminological is to fail to understand the biblical basis for it and the practical consequences that ensue from it.   
Even if the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 had been the fulfillment of biblical prophecy—which, I should emphasize, I categorically dispute–mere fulfillment does not entail divine approval. 
There are scores of biblical prophecies, both those that have been fulfilled during the centuries up until A.D. 70 and those that are yet to be fulfilled in the future, that foretell the actions of evil men and nations.  For example, the future world ruler (the “beast” of Revelation 13) is consummately evil, and believers in Christ during the Tribulation period are not to succumb to his attempts to impose his self-worship and tyrannical control on mankind.  No case can be made for supporting the Antichrist on the basis that his rise is foretold in Scripture.
The fundamental question in my disagreement with Christian Zionism is not whether the State of Israel has a right to exist—for we both maintain that it does—but it is whether its existence is the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and whether it entails the approval of God.  In other words, is the State of Israel the realization of the directive will of God or merely the permissive will of God?   The answer to this question has far-reaching, practical consequences. 
I recognize Pastor Hagee and the members of CUFI as fellow Christians and fellow dispensationalists.  Nevertheless, as I will seek to demonstrate, they are inconsistent dispensationalists, for their thinking and actions are more appropriate to an Old Testament dispensation than to the New Testament dispensation of the church age.  I am convinced that the New Testament does not support the pro-Israel bias of Christian Zionism, which CUFI holds and promotes.  Nor do I believe that the contemporary State of Israel is the fulfillment or inauguration of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants.  Biblical teaching compels me to view it, rather, as a divinely permitted but divinely unauthorized precursor of a future inauguration and fulfillment which will take place at the return of Christ to the earth.
Christian Zionism’s mistaken assumption that the State of Israel is the realization of the directive will of God is at the root of its misguided extremism.  On that assumption
Christian Zionists have no qualms about promoting Israel’s political and military hardliners. CUFI is a Christian Zionist organization that intends to galvanize Christians to engage in vigorous political activism on behalf of the State of Israel.  Inevitably, this entails indifference or antipathy to the Palestinians.  It also subordinates the righteous standards of God Himself to the de facto idolization of the State of Israel—even though this would be vehemently denied by Christian Zionists.
In contradistinction to the foregoing assumptions and actions of CUFI, I find that the Bible opposes the extremism of Christian Zionism and, instead, teaches us that we should be impartial advocates of peace, freedom, justice, and love for all peoples, including Israelis and Palestinians.  This is not optional for Christians, as the New Testament clearly teaches in many passages like Galatians 6:10.
I do not doubt the sincerity of John Hagee and the pastors who have joined him in founding CUFI.  Nevertheless, I believe that their sincerity and zeal are misguided.  I want to explain why.  I also want to explain why CUFI is inimical to the mission of the church and a dangerous diversion from the biblical priorities that devolve upon every Christian. 
THE PURPOSE AND GOALS OF CUFI
According to CUFI’s website, the purpose of Christians United for Israel is to become a powerful lobby in Washington, D.C. in order “to provide a national association through which every pro-Israel church, para-church organization, ministry or individual in American can speak and act with one voice in support of Israel in matters related to biblical issues.”  
Its short-term goals are: (1) “To develop a national rapid-response e-mail and fax communication to CUFI members in every state and congressional district for the imperative purpose of responding immediately with broad national support in defense of Israel on biblically based issues.”
(2) “To host a gathering of members of CUFI on July 18-19, 2006 in our nation’s capital for the purpose of introducing the association to senators and Congressmen, expressing our concerns for Israel’s security and our support of Israel’s right to the land by biblical mandate.”
(3) “To host an annual gathering every fall in San Antonio at Cornerstone Church during the Feast of Tabernacles celebration.”
(4) “To conduct a Night to Honor Israel during the Feast of Tabernacles Celebration.”
CUFI’s long-term goals are: (1) “To conduct a Night to Honor Israel in as many cities in America, Canada, and the nations of the world as possible.”  (2) “To continue to increase our basis of support of Israel and the Jewish people around the world through the education of the Christian community concerning the Jewish contribution to Christianity and Israel’s biblical mandate to the land through Bible teachings and pilgrimages to Israel.”
In the analysis that follows I seek to explain why CUFI has no justification for its existence.  My deep concern is that some readers might misunderstand my position.  Some might think that I downplay the terrorism of radical Palestinians and other Muslims.  I do not make any such concession whatever.  Radical Muslims have engaged in atrocious terrorism and virulent anti-Israeli and anti-Christian actions.  Unfortunately, the cycle of violence and reprisals will continue in the world until Christ returns to earth and brings everlasting peace.  He alone is the hope of the world, for no one but Christ has the power and the goodness to permanently and completely solve mankind’s problems. 
I. CUFI IS BASED ON A SERIOUS MISINTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLICAL HIERARCHY OF VALUES
A.  THE ERROR OF UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE STATE OF       ISRAEL
This misinterpretation is demonstrated by Hagee’s categorical assertion, “Our support for Israel is without condition.  We have a Bible mandate by St. Paul, by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, to be supportive of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, period” ( italics mine, The Jerusalem Post, interview with John Hagee at the recent AIPAC national convention in Washington; www.jpost.com ).
It grieves me deeply to see my fellow dispensationalists wittingly or unwittingly embrace a distorted view of biblical priorities.  It could not be clearer that from Genesis to Revelation the character and glory of God always tower over and judges Jews, Gentiles, and the church (I Cor.10:32).  This means that God’s attributes of righteousness, justice, love, and compassion constitute the touchstone for assessing mankind corporately and individually. 
B. GOD’S UNIVERSAL JUDGMENT DEMONSTRATES THE BIBLICAL      HIERARCHY OF VALUES
From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible makes it clear that mankind falls under the judgment of God for rebellion against Him and His spiritual-ethical standards (e.g., the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve, the flood that destroyed everyone but Noah and his family, the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel, and the future horrendous judgment on mankind described in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation).  We also find that God’s judgment falls on specific nations that are named in the Bible (e.g., the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians, the Medes and Persians, et al). 
Furthermore, we cannot deny that Christians, individually and corporately (churches) come under divine judgment (I Peter 4:17; I Cor. 11; Rev. 2-3).  In all these cases, it is clear that neither mankind nor the church is exempt from divine judgment.  Why, then, do Christian Zionists elevate the State of Israel over the spiritual and ethical requirements of a holy God?  
The Bible is replete with instances of God’s judgment on Israel in both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Israel’s forty-year wilderness wandering, her defeat at Ai, the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, her subjugation by the Roman Empire which eventually destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, slaughtering millions and creating another Jewish Diaspora, judicial blindness in part on Israel, and yet to come, a time of “Jacob’s trouble” in the Great Tribulation).  
Christian Zionists typically assume that, since the time of Abraham, God’s primary point of reference for judging peoples is their treatment of the Hebrew people.  That this is not taught in the Bible can be seen from such passages as Leviticus 18:24-28 which indicates that it was the gross sin of the Canaanites that brought divine judgment on them.  The Israelites who were brought out of Egypt had had no direct dealings with them previously. 
When mistreatment of Israelites was a factor in bringing divine retribution on other peoples, it was essentially a manifestation of the latter’s spiritual and moral corruption.  
It is this same spiritual and moral debasement that has brought down nations that had no direct dealing with the Jewish people.  This is the lot of “all the nations that forget God” (Ps. 9:17).  Romans 1:18-32 specifically refers to the wrath of God being meted out on mankind, and it says nothing about the gentiles’ treatment of Israel.  This clearly shows what is the most fundamental cause of God’s judgment on nations.  A nation’s enmity toward God is the root; mistreatment of Jews and others is a fruit.   
The significance of this is that it is not a people’s treatment of Israel but God’s character and holy standards that are the supreme touchstone.  Christian Zionists have frequently maintained that every major calamity to befall the United States, especially since World War II, is due to some presumed American failure to give the State of Israel the specific support that is stipulated by Christian Zionists.  Several Christian Zionists have written entire books with this misguided thesis (e.g., Israel: America’s Key to Survival,1983, by Mike Evans).    
A very important entailment of the biblical hierarchy of values is that not only the gentile nations but Israel itself falls under the scrutiny and judgment of God.  This means that Christian Zionism, with its unqualified support for the State of Israel, is anti-biblical.  
C. CHRISTIAN ZIONISM’S IMPLICIT IDOLIZATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
To hold that one should support the State of Israel “without condition” is an idolatrous elevation of the nation above the glory and character of God.  Although the prerogative to mete out judgment on Israel is not ours but God’s alone, we are required to align ourselves with the ultimacy of God’s glory and character by resisting the temptation to exalt anyone or anything above Him.
Herzl and his fellow Zionists, secularists devoid of any spiritual motivation, made the establishment of an Israeli state a veritable idol.  This was demonstrated in their recourse to various unethical means which they considered to be justified by the achievement of that end.  Unfortunately few Christians have studied the history of Zionism, and, therefore, they find it hard to believe that an idealized Zionist Israel would have such a sordid past.  It is precisely that past which turned most Jews in the world—especially Orthodox Jews–against Zionism during its initial phase.  Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews believe that the Tanach (the Old Testament) disallows the establishment of a Jewish state prior to the coming of the Messiah.
“The spiritual man makes judgments about all things” (I Cor. 2:15), including Israel.  The context in I Corinthians 2 makes it clear that the standard by which spiritual judgment is made is the Spirit-inspired and Spirit-taught word of God: “We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us…, in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words” (2:12, 13).
It is nothing less than idolatrous to accept or approve any created thing, whether oneself or family or leader or ethnic group or nation or church or denomination or the State of Israel without condition.  CUFI is inviting the judgment of God on itself by inordinately exalting the State of Israel.  Christians should support Israel, but our support must be qualified—in the sense that we must discriminate between the rightness and wrongness of what it does and does not do as determined by the spiritual-ethical principles that derive from the glory and character of God as set forth in the Bible.  We must approve that which it does in accordance with that touchstone and disapprove of that which deviates from it.
Christian Zionists who advocate unconditional support of the State of Israel are less ethical than some non-Orthodox Jews, inside and outside of the State of Israel, who condemn various decisions and actions of the Israeli government because they are morally wrong.  They refuse to give it support without condition.  What an irony!  Their moral sense appears to be loftier than that of Christians who subscribe to Christian Zionism.
II. CUFI IS BASED ON A SKEWED INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 12:3, THE KEY RATIONALE FOR CHRISTIAN ZIONISM 
A.  ABRAHAM’S SEED
Contrary to the assumptions of Christian Zionism, there is nothing in Genesis 12:3 that entails unquestioning support of the State of Israel.  Notice, first, that the passage in Genesis 12:3 says nothing about a political entity.  It refers to Abraham and, by extension, to his seed.  First and foremost the seed is Christ (Gal.3:16), and the collective seed consists, first of all, of all Jews and gentiles who are savingly related to him (Romans 4:9-18), and, secondarily it consists of Abraham’s physical progeny through the line of Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs.  His physical seed consists of the Hebrew people, not a national state. 
We are to bless people, not an ideology (Zionism) or a nation-state.   The few times that Israel is referred to as a “nation” in the Bible, the Hebrew and Greek words that are used signify a community, a group, a tribe, or an ethnic collectivity.   The primary Hebrew word that is used to refer to Israel as a “nation” is the same term that is used to refer to the different ethnic groups that inhabited Canaan (Lev. 20:23).  The same is the case with the New Testament, where the primary Greek word for “nation” refers to a “community” of people—e.g., in I Peter 2:9, the word “nation” has nothing to do with a political state. The phenomenon that we know as a nation-state is essentially a nineteenth-century development, as every scholar of political history knows.  Historical-grammatical exegesis is designed to keep us from reading subjective and anachronistic meanings into Scripture. 
B. THE JEWISH PEOPLE (HEBREWS) AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL MUST  BE DISTINGUISHED
The Jewish people, therefore, are to be distinguished from the State of Israel which was established on the Zionist ideology in 1948.  Genesis 12:3 does not mandate blessing a State, for a political structure is not equivalent to the collective seed of Abraham in either sense of the term.  For two thousand years there have been more Jews outside of Palestine than in it, and that is still the case today.  Furthermore, the apostle Paul says that “a man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly” (Rom. 2:28) and “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Rom. 9:6).   That is, a Jew in the full biblical sense is one who has trusted in Christ as Messiah, Savior, and Lord.
Fulfilling the mandate implicit in Genesis 12:3 does not entail the acceptance or approval of Zionist ideology or that which is based on it.  Zionism is a secular position whose tenets are anti-biblical. To encourage it and its fruits are to curse the Jews instead of blessing them.  The essential and greatest blessing for Jews, as for Gentiles, is the Gospel of Christ (Eph. 1:3). 
Most Christians know nothing about the Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionist groups that oppose the State of Israel.  A list of nineteen of them can be found on the website, www.jewsnotzionists.org/groups.htm .  Especially active are Satmar and the Neturei Karta (“Guardians of the City”).  They all distinguish between Jews and the Zionist State of Israel, and they maintain that supporting the godless State of Israel invites a curse, not a blessing, from God.  I do not agree with their contention that the State of Israel should be dismantled, but Christians should try to understand why they assert that “the Zionist conspiracy against Jewish tradition and law makes Zionism and all its activities and entities the greatest enemy of the Jewish people” (www.jewsnotzionists.org/nyt/nyt051893.html ).
These Orthodox Jewish groups present an impressive exegetical case from the Old Testament (the Tanach) for their claim that a good Jew cannot be a Zionist and a Zionist cannot be a good Jew.  They have a passion for ethical virtues and they are opposed to the violence and oppression that Zionists have used to establish and maintain the State of Israel.  They contend that the Messiah alone has the right to establish an Israeli state, which must be a theocratic nation based on wholehearted repentance. 
David Brog’s very recent book, Standing with Israel (2006), is touted by some Christian Zionists as the most definitive and up-to-date book that presents the case for their chauvinistic support of Israel.  Yet it does not include any reference to Orthodox Jews who historically and contemporaneously oppose the State of Israel.  Brog seems to be oblivious of their position and arguments.  Of course, he could say that since the book’s subtitle is “Why Christians Support the Jewish State,” it was not necessary to refer to such Orthodox Jews.  But the omission is a glaring one, particularly in view of his attempt to expound relevant Old Testament passages, which he does exclusively from the standpoint of Christian Zionism. 
Any book that purports to present a case for unconditional support of the State of Israel is significantly deficient if it does not address the position of anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews.  In the future, such a book, if it is to do justice to the issue, will also have to address the dispensational case against the errors of Christian Zionism that I and others advocate—a position unknown to Brog because it has not had the press enjoyed by Christian Zionism.
Evangelicals have been led down the wrong path by choosing to identify with the secular, political Zionism of Herzl rather than aligning their sentiments with anti-Zionist Orthodox Judaism which saw Herzl as a false messiah. What is so ironic about their ill-conceived decision is that on the most fundamental level evangelicals had nothing in common with the political Zionists but they shared both a profound adherence to the authority of the Old Testament and the priority of spiritual-ethical concerns with the anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews.   
Despite the claim by Christian Zionists that they are not motivated by a desire to accelerate the fulfillment of prophecy since they recognize that the time of Christ’s return is fixed by God’s sovereignty, it is difficult to account for the formation and rapid increase of the Christian Zionist movement without this crucial interest.  Brog denies the motive (pp. 80-81), but a more thorough investigation into the history of dispensationalism demonstrates the vital significance of their eschatological engrossment and its role in shaping the attitudes and actions of Christian Zionists from Blackstone to contemporaries like Lindsey, Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee.  Of course, this is not to deny that there are other concerns and motives impelling them as well. 
Although it is the case that Christian Zionists recognize that the time of Christ’s return is in God’s hands and cannot be determined by human actions, his second advent is always in the back of their minds.  Prophetic fervor was catalyzed by the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, and Christian Zionists operate under a powerful sense of involvement in what they view as the most significant, climactic events of history.  Without their specific prophetic scenario, Christian Zionists would hardly have the same zeal for carrying out their agenda in regard to the State of Israel.
The fallout from dispensationalist evangelicalism’s decision to support political Zionism has led to the muddling of both the meaning of the Gospel and to its perception by billions of people, especially 1.3 billion Muslims.  This is unwittingly revealed by Brody’s use of the expression, “the Christian Zionist gospel” (p. 143).  One looks in vain in the New Testament for such a notion or combination of terms qualifying the Gospel.  Many proponents of Christian Zionism have clouded the simplicity of the true Gospel with another “gospel” which they are spreading “to an ever-expanding following” (p. 143). 
Christ never commissioned us to propagate a “political gospel,” which is, unfortunately, the nature of the message that leaders in the Christian Zionist movement vigorously promote.  This distorted gospel focuses on political Israel and its importance and glories.  The true Gospel focuses on Christ and His importance and glories.  Christian Zionists would like to claim that they have both, but no one can serve two masters.  In spite of their

claims, Christian Zionists proclaim a message that confuses the true Gospel with chauvinistic <FO< body>loyalty to the political state of Israel.  Many are given the mistaken message that to believe in Christ requires one to be committed to the prejudice that unjustly favors the State of Israel in contravention of the spiritual and moral standards inherent in the true Gospel and to the detriment of other peoples.

1. THE BIBLE ESTABLISHES PRIORITIES

The Bible teaches that the spiritual seed of Abraham always takes precedence over his physical seed.  If one truly grasps the significance of Christ being the seed of Abraham, he will understand why priority always belongs to the collective spiritual seed.  The doctrine of the redeemed remnant of Jews in contrast to the whole nation is crucial in both Testaments (Isa. 1:4-9; 6:13; 66:5; John 1:11; Rom. 11:5; Gal. 6:16).  From Acts 2 until the rapture of the church (I Thess. 4:13-18), the redeemed Jewish remnant is incorporated into the Body of Christ, in which there is “neither Jew nor gentile” (Gal. 3:28).  Since in the era of the church all regenerate Jews and gentiles are in Christ, the Seed, they are collectively the spiritual seed of Abraham: “it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (Rom. 9:8).

Therefore, if we want to fulfill the mandate implicit in Genesis 12:3, we must give precedence to those to whom God gives priority.  We must first and foremost bless the spiritual seed of Abraham, namely members of the Body of Christ.  Christian Zionism  reverses God’s order by giving precedence to the physical seed of Abraham—despite the fact that the vast majority of ethnic Jews are not true Jews (Rom. 2:28), for they have not received the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and Messiah (Jn. 10:25-28).

The apostle Paul wrote, ‘For no matter how many promises God made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (II Cor. 1:20).  All of God’s promises, including those integral to the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants, are inextricably centered in Christ. Therefore, it is not our relationship to the State of Israel but our relationship to Christ that constitutes the supreme touchstone for obtaining the divine blessing promised in Genesis 12:3.  Of course, ethnic Jews, who are Abraham’s physical seed, are not to be ignored or mistreated.  Christians should do good to them as they should “to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10).  And they should stand with them to preclude another Holocaust.  We should do no less, however, for any other ethnic group that is facing the scourge of genocide.

III. CUFI IS BASED ON AN ANACHRONISTIC TWISTING OF SCRIPTURE

1. CHRISTIAN ZIONISM IS UNBALANCED IN ITS APPEAL TO THE BIBLE

CUFI’s perspective is shaped more by the Old Testament than the New Testament.  That is why the Zionism in “Christian Zionism” overwhelms the “Christian” in it.  It is also why “Christian Zionism” is an oxymoron.  If one understands the biblical hierarchy of values—Christ the Seed over the spiritual seed over the physical seed—one could not embrace Christian Zionism, for, despite what it professes, it elevates Abraham’s physical seed over his spiritual seed and even over Christ.  The priority of the spiritual seed is contained in the overriding priority of Christ.  

Of course, Christian Zionists would deny that they subordinate Christ to Abraham’s physical seed.  They undoubtedly believe that they are putting Christ first, for they are convinced that their perspective is authorized by the Lord Himself.  Nevertheless, their inversion of the biblical hierarchy of values is undeniable.  This is borne out by their avowed purpose, namely, to support the State of Israel unconditionally.  It is also demonstrated in their attitudes and actions, many of which go contrary to the character and teaching of Christ about impartial justice and universal compassion. 

Christian Zionists typically give the Old Testament controlling priority over the New Testament.  Almost all of the biblical passages invoked by CUFI to justify its existence and agenda are from the Old Testament.  My theological perspective does not dismiss or minimize any of the Old Testament.  I believe that its promises and prophecies pertaining to end-times will all be fulfilled.  But a careful exegesis of the Old Testament passages cited by Christian Zionists shows that they refer either to the Abrahamic and Mosaic era or to the future Tribulation period or Millennial kingdom.  None of them refer to the Body of Christ in which believing Jews and believing gentiles would be equal and in which ethnic distinctions would be completely irrelevant.  The church age was a mystery unforeseen prior to its New Testament revelation (Eph. 3:2-5).  

1. ISRAEL’S SPECIAL ROLE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

From Genesis 12 to the end of Malachi, the Hebrew people were a divinely chosen nation on whom a special calling devolved.  They were to be God’s witnesses, the recipients of His special presence and His prophetic and inscripturated word, and the unique channel through whom the incarnate Lord, Messiah, and Savior would come into the world.  They had a special role among the nations, not due to anything inherent in them but due solely to the election of grace (Rom. 9:4, 5).   

During the Old Testament period, Gentiles who desired to know God were compelled to convert to Judaism and conform to it as much as possible.  They were strangers and aliens to the commonwealth of Israel and to its divinely granted covenants.  Therefore, they had to acknowledge that God had given Israel the primacy of servant leadership among the nations of the world: “Now if you obey Me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations, you will be My treasured possession.  Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:5, 6).

1. ISRAEL IS TEMPORARILY SET ASIDE

That was then.  It is not the case today.  During the church age, which has lasted for almost two thousand years so far, Israel has been temporarily set aside.  “A veil covers their hearts” (II Cor. 3:15) and Israel has been “rejected” (Rom. 11:15) “until the full number of the Gentiles has come in” to the olive tree from which the Israelite “branches have been broken off” (Rom. 11:17, 25).   The Body of Christ, which consists of regenerated gentiles and Jews, now occupies the special position and role as God’s unique vehicle on earth. 

Christian Zionists fail to adequately understand and appreciate this change.  They often play fast and loose with Scripture, disregarding contexts as they indulge in special pleading to find supposed support for their agenda.  Despite the New Testament reference to Old Testament prophecies about the salvation of multitudes of gentiles and despite its use of the Old Testament in terms of typology and analogy, the Old Testament does not specifically refer to the unique creation of this age, namely the Body of Christ (Eph. 2:14-22).

1. THE NEED TO CAREFULLY STUDY CONTEXTS

Nevertheless, Christian Zionists persist in taking myriads of passages out of context.  Especially gratuitous is their wresting of verses from contexts that refer to the future Millennial reinstatement of Israel to a special status and role like that which she had in the Old Testament. 

Careful dispensational exegetes, like the authors of The Bible Knowledge Commentary, which was written by dispensationalist scholars at Dallas Theological Seminary, have largely repudiated the excesses of Christian Zionism and the sensationalism of popular prophecy preachers and writers. All of the main biblical passages used by Christian Zionists to support their notions are shown to be misinterpreted by them.  In every  instance it refutes the anachronistic construals made by Christian Zionists. 

For example, Christian Zionists unwarrantably interpret Ezekiel 36-37 as a passage that refers to the present age.  The aforementioned Commentary maintains that the passage refers to the Millennium.  Christian Zionists are fond of exploiting passages from Isaiah for the present although they refer to the return of Jews to Palestine during the Millennium as any careful reading of their context reveals (e.g., Isaiah 2:1-5; 66:20).  They adduce and emphasize many other skewed interpretations of Old Testament texts because they cannot find anything in the New Testament to justify the extremism of Christian Zionism and its rationale for the existence of CUFI.

1. CUFI IS BASED ON A RADICAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

First mentioned in Genesis 12:1-3, it is elaborated upon in Genesis 13, 15, 22, 26, 28, 35.  It included God’s promise that Abraham would have “a great name,” that he would have descendants who will become “a great nation,” that there will be great blessing on Abraham and his seed, that there will be blessing on those who bless him and cursing on those who curse him, that he and his seed will have a specific geographical territory, and that through Abraham all the peoples on earth will receive a blessing.  

1. THE “LAND PROMISE”

The primary element of the covenant that is a matter of dispute between Christian Zionists and those who oppose their view is the land promise.  Nondispensatonalists generally view the land promise as obsolete, for their theological framework makes no allowance for a future for ethnic Jews in which they will occupy the land of promise.  Dispensationalists like me, however, maintain that redeemed, ethnic Jews have a national future in God’s plan at the second coming of Christ and they will occupy the land of promise whose boundaries are specified in Genesis 15:18.  

The Abrahamic covenant is clearly unilateral and unconditional.  The land was a gracious gift that God provided for Abraham and his seed.  Although the gift of the land was unconditional, its occupation was not.  One of the most fundamental errors of Christian Zionism is the failure to make this distinction.  They are so obsessed with the unconditional nature of the gift of the land to Abraham and his seed that they totally miss the conditional nature of their enjoyment of the gift (Deut. 28-30).  They are so focused on the unconditionality of Romans 11:29, which says that “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable,” that they fail to see the conditionality stated in the immediate context: “If they (Israelites) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again” (Romans 11:23, italics mine for emphasis).

1. THE CONDITIONAL ASPECT OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

Christian Zionists are given to special pleading, for in their biased, selective citation of biblical verses they invariably ignore the scores of passages that state the conditional requirements imposed by God if the Israelites will be entitled to occupy the land and remain in it.  God gave them an explicit warning as they were on their way to Canaan:

”If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before  you” (Leviticus 18:28).  God did not want them to become corrupt and complacent, resting on the Abrahamic covenant with a false sense of security.  Despite this warning, in Jeremiah’s time, that very complacency had overtaken the people of Judah who mistakenly believed that their right to possess and live in the land was unconditional and inviolable.      

Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!”   If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever (Jer. 7:4-7; italics added for emphasis).

Unfortunately, the people of Judah did not heed the divine warning, and they were expelled from the land by the Babylonians, who were God’s instrument in bringing judgment on them (Habakkuk 1:6).  Christian Zionists today, like the people of Judah then, are deceived by a serious misunderstanding of the Abrahamic covenant.  The people of Judah mistakenly assumed that it gave them an unconditional right to occupy and live in the land.  They ignored the frequent admonitions that God gave them through Moses and the long line of prophets God raised up to warn them that expulsion and exile would come if they continued to rebel against Him. 

A lack of biblical knowledge led Senator James Inhofe to adopt and promote the extremism of Christian Zionism.  “In a March 2002 speech on the Senate floor, Senator Inhofe detailed seven reasons why Israel is entitled to the land currently under its control, including the West Bank” (Standing With Israel, David Brog, p. 156).  Inhofe stated his final reason in the following words:

This is the most important reason: Because God said so…In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: “The Lord said to Abram, ‘Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you I will give it, and to your seed forever….Arise, walk through the length of it and the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.’”

That is God talking.  The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is Hebron, and built there an altar  before the Lord.  Hebron is in the West Bank.  It is this place where God appeared to Abram and said, “I am giving you this land”—the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all.  It is a contest over whether or not the Word of God is true (Italics added for emphasis).

I suppose that to expect Senators to be careful students of the Bible is asking too much, especially when they are ill-equipped to evaluate unscholarly interpretations dogmatically propounded day after day by television preachers who are also lacking in hermeneutical expertise and intellectual rigor.  Senator Inhofe was obviously unaware of many other biblical passages that enunciated essential conditions for Jews to be entitled to occupy  the land. 

It is not surprising that he and many others who echo the truncated interpretations of Christian Zionist preachers would selectively cite only those texts that state the unconditional promise made to Abraham by God.  Such preachers rarely if ever make any reference to the biblical texts that state the conditions Israel must meet in order to occupy the land.  Without meeting those conditions, Israel’s occupation of the land is entirely bereft of God’s authorization. 

The endless repetition of the Bible verses that indicate the unconditional nature of God’s gift of the land is what the public daily hears on the radio and television, and reads in countless popular books and articles.  The conditional side of the coin is never heard from such preachers, either because they are unaware of it or because their Christian Zionist bias blinds them to their presence in the Bible.  Besides, it is likely that if rabid Christian Zionists become aware of them, they will not publicly read or proclaim them.  To do so would pull the rug out from under their Christian Zionism. 

I fear that they are more committed to Christian Zionism than to the word of God.  To maintain their unbiblical perspective with some degree of equanimity requires that when they come upon such biblical texts that serve to nullify their Christian Zionism, they find it so painful that they either suppress them or reinterpret them in order to preclude them from having any bearing whatever on their cherished doctrine.  Such a selective, doctrinaire approach to Scripture is not unlike the heretical cults that incorrectly handle the word of truth (II Tim. 2:15) in the interest of their own bias.

Senator Inhofe could not have been more mistaken than when he said that “it is a contest over whether or not the Word of God is true.”  Rather, it is a contest over whether the Christian Zionist interpretation of the word of God is true.  Since the word of God is true, the Christian Zionist interpretation is not.  One cannot have it both ways.  Either the Bible is true or Christian Zionism is true.  Since Christian Zionists select only what seems to support their position and wittingly or unwittingly suppress that which is antithetical to it, it is obvious what a Christian ought to align himself with—of course, the Bible, the whole Bible, and never an “ism” that is based on only part of it or that is a distortion of what the Bible actually teaches.

1. ISRAEL’S EXPULSION FROM THE LAND

The prophet Daniel understood this clearly, as his prayer of confession indicates: “You have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you” (Dan. 9:7).  Furthermore, unlike Christian Zionism’s “unconditional support” for Israel that inverts the biblical hierarchy of values, Daniel says, “The Lord did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for the Lord our God is righteous in everything he does, yet we have not obeyed him” (Dan. 9:14; italics added for emphasis).

Strikingly relevant to Israel in the New Testament is Daniel’s statement that “all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to Your truth” (Dan. 9:13).  When He who is the Truth (Jn. 14:6) came to Israel, the nation refused to repent and receive Him (Mt. 4:17; 11:20-24; 13:15; Lk. 19:14; Jn. 1:11).

Repeating the hardheartedness and rebellion of their ancestors in Old Testament times, the Israelites once again incurred the judgment of God–which entailed the destruction of Jerusalem and the expulsion and scattering of the Jewish people.  Christ not only foretold the judgment that would take place in A.D. 70 (Lk. 21:20-24) but he also said, “your house is left to you desolate.  For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Mt. 23:38, 39; italics added for emphasis).  Their expulsion from the land and their consequent Diaspora were due to their rejection of the Messiah.  Their divine restoration will come only when they turn in faith to receive the Messiah that Israel rejected in the first century. 

The Gospel of Matthew was written especially for a Jewish readership.  More than any other New Testament writer, Matthew cites the Old Testament, especially its prophetic passages.  The Jewish people of his day were virtually unanimous in their expectation of a coming kingdom that would be established on earth by the Messiah. In that kingdom, according to Old Testament prophecies, Israel would be the head and not the tail among the nations of the world.  Jews were looking for spectacular signs (I Cor. 1:22; Mt. 12:38ff.) as indices of the conquering Messiah who would appear in dramatic judgment on the gentile nations, thus bringing national liberation, political hegemony, and material prosperity to Israel. 

There was nothing wrong with this expectation of the Jewish people, for it was clearly spelled out in the Tanach, especially in the prophetic books from Isaiah to Malachi.  But they had overlooked the one crucial factor needed to bring this expectation to fruition.  They had forgotten that it was their apostasy and sin that had brought divine judgment upon them, especially in the form of the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities.  Their subjugation by the Roman Empire, under which they were chafing in the first century, was also a continuation of divine chastisement. 

Their great error was their presumption that deliverance would come to them in fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants simply because they were God’s chosen people who had unbreakable divine promises.  They did not reckon with the uncompromising holiness of God that requires repentance.  Before they could enjoy the realization of God’s gracious promises, they had to become rightly related to Him in their hearts.  That is why John the Baptist was sent as Christ’s forerunner—to proclaim the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ before God would bring in the promised kingdom.  The necessity of repentance is why Christ stressed purity of heart before God (Mt. 5-7). 

At the beginning of his three-year ministry, he said that only “the pure in heart…will see God” (Mt. 5:8).  He also indicted the nation of Israel for substituting external rituals and tradition for true worship from the heart: “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ’These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me’” (Mt. 15:8).  That is why he began his ministry with this message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (Mt. 4:17).

With their inconsistent dispensationalism, Christian Zionists have failed to grasp the profound significance of this.  From Matthew 4:17 to 12:50, Christ emphasized God’s holy standards and the necessity for the Jewish people to repent if the kingdom prophecies of the Old Testament were to be fulfilled.  In Matthew 13, he made it clear that the kingdom would not be inaugurated at that time, because that “wicked and adulterous generation” (Mt. 12:39-45) had refused to repent.  Since they had rejected him, the true Messiah and Son of God, he began to prepare his disciples for the period of time between his first and second coming.  In Matthew 13 he expounded the nature of the inter-advent period which would be characterized by a mixture of good and evil, believers and unbelievers.  These inter-advent “mysteries of the kingdom” were not foreseen by the Old Testament prophets. The promised Messianic kingdom would not be nullified; rather, it would await the repentance of a future generation concomitant with the second advent of Christ (Mt. 21:43). 

Christ turned the spotlight on the two great events of the intercalation prophesied by Daniel (9:26).  First, he spoke of his crucifixion: “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life” (Mt. 16:21).  Notice that it was the leaders, who represented an unrepentant Israel, who would be the primary instigators of his crucifixion. 

“The Messiah would be cut off and have nothing” (Dan. 9:26).  He would not have the kingdom at his first advent, and because Israel rejected him, it would not have the kingdom either. That was the first crucial event Daniel placed in the period between the sixty-ninth heptad and the seventieth heptad of years.  Israel forfeited the peace that King Messiah would have brought them.  The chronology of Daniel 9 specified the precise time that the Messiah would present himself to the nation, namely, “the triumphal entry” on Palm Sunday (Lk. 19:41, 42; Zech. 9:9; Mt. 21:4, 5).  Instead of repenting and acknowledging his messianic kingship, Israel rejected him and conspired with the Romans to have him crucified. 

Second, Daniel foretold the destruction of Jerusalem (which occurred in A.D. 70) consequent upon the nation’s rejection of its Messiah (Daniel 9:26).  In the midst of all the joyous clamor of his “triumphal entry” to Jerusalem, Jesus was filled with sorrow and began to weep over the city, repeating Daniel’s prophecy in his warning that the Romans “will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you” (Lk. 19:44).  

In their spiritual dullness, the people did not understand that an impenitent and unbelieving nation of Israel meant that the kingdom would not be inaugurated in their generation.  In fact, this misunderstanding of theirs was the reason that Jesus told the parable in Luke 19 before his “triumphal entry,” for he knew what they did not.  He knew that despite their exclamation, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord” (Lk. 19:38) and the auspicious celebration that would accompany his impending entry into Jerusalem, the nation would not accept him.  He told them “a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once” (Lk. 19:11).

In the parable, he indicated that Israel’s refusal of his kingship would preclude the kingdom from appearing at that time: “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king’” (Lk. 19:14).  Nevertheless, God will do what He wants at the time He determines: “He was made king, however, and returned home” (Lk. 19:15).  King Messiah will have his kingdom at his return to earth, which would occur “at the end of the age” (Mt. 13:40-43; 24:30).  And it will only be inaugurated with a generation that will repent and acknowledge the Lord Jesus as Messiah and Savior—in striking contrast to first-century Israel (Mt. 21:43; 23:39).

The foregoing exposition relating to the messianic kingdom is essential to an adequate understanding of the conditional aspect of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants. 

For all their good intentions, Christian Zionists today are making the same mistake that Israel made in the first century, namely, ignoring the necessity of repentance for the fulfillment of these biblical prophecies.  Notice the precise sequence in God’s message through the apostle Peter to Israel.

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.  He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets (Acts 3:19-21).

Without the requisite repentance on the part of Israel, there is no biblical basis for claiming that the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was according to the directive will of God.  All of the Old Testament passages that Christian Zionists are fond of citing in reference to the State of Israel today are misused.  Even those passages that are taken to refer to Israel returning in unbelief have no unequivocal reference to the church age. 

First, a consistent dispensationalist recognizes that no such prophecies explicitly refer to the church age.  Second, the biblical prophecies about unbelieving Israel in the promised land refer to the Tribulation period, as their context invariably indicates.  Third, prophecies about Israel being in the land in a state of unbelief do not entail God’s approval of the nation.  God never approves unbelief toward Him and Christ.

When Christian Zionists, such as the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, take as their watchword, Isaiah 40:1, “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God,” in reference to the contemporary State of Israel, their compassionate motivation is commendable, but their interpretation of Scripture is wrong.  When one reads the entire context of Isaiah 40-66, there is no comfort to be given to the unrepentant in Judah and Israel (e.g., Isa. 48:18, 22).  Isaiah was to comfort God’s people, the remnant who believed the prophet’s message about the Messiah (Isa. 53) and would thereby be justified by Him (Isa. 53:11; 66:2-5).  Throughout Isaiah 40-66 a line of demarcation is drawn between the majority of the Jewish people and the believing remnant.  To comfort the former in their sin is to work against God, even as He condemned the false prophets in Jeremiah’s day who were constantly giving the people false comfort: “They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious.  ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace” (Jer. 8:11).

In their tunnel vision, Christian Zionists ignore the full teaching of Scripture.  They like to quote Isaiah 40:1, but they ignore Isaiah 58:1 in which God says, “Raise your voice like a trumpet. Declare to my people their rebellion and to the house of Jacob their sins.”     In fact, it is only on that basis that they can be brought to repentance so they can know the comfort of God.  Furthermore, apart from faith in Christ, real comfort can never be known, as he unequivocally states in Matthew 11:28-30:

Come to me all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. 

Oswald Chambers, in My Utmost For His Highest, acutely observed that if I comfort others with my own sympathy rather than pointing them to Christ and his comfort, I have betrayed my Lord.  Does this mean that we should not show compassion and give practical help to needy Jews?  Of course not, for we are to extend our love to all suffering people, beginning with fellow-members of the Body of Christ.  However, when we withhold the eternal, ultimate comfort that is found in Christ alone, we betray 

both him and the unbelievers whom we leave in their sins with a false sense of security.       

All Christians should be lovingly and humbly witnessing to Jews and they should be strengthening the witness of Messianic Jews as they seek to communicate the Gospel of Christ to other Jews.  Messianic Jews are generally in a much better position to carry on this witness than gentile Christians who are largely viewed with resentment and suspicion because of the long history of gentile mistreatment of Jews.  Nevertheless, Christian Zionists, who de facto make the temporal security of Jews more important than their eternal security, should consider the sobering words of the Lord in Jeremiah 23:16-22:

Do not listen to what the (false) prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes.  They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord.  They keep saying to those who despise Me, “The Lord says, ‘You will have peace’….In days to come you will understand it clearly.  I did not send these prophets, yet they have run with their message; yet they have prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, they would have proclaimed My words to my people and would have turned them from their evil ways and from their evil deeds (Italics added).

Carrying out the will of God in this respect will not make one popular—even as Jeremiah was despised and persecuted by the majority of his countrymen.  But God does not want us to give false comfort to people because faithfully communicating the discomforting, whole counsel of God will evoke their resentment and antipathy.  Political correctness and ethno-cultural hypersensitivity may lead us to give human consolation, but that can never replace the transcendent, eternal comfort that only “the God of all comfort” (II Cor. 1:3) can give to those who turn from sin to Christ.

1. THE TWO PRIMARY JUDGMENTS ON ISRAEL

Two great judgments ensued for Israel after she rejected its Messiah: (1) Israel lost its divine right to occupy the promised land—although she did not lose the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant which would find fulfillment only in the Millennium concomitant with her repentance and acceptance of the Lord Jesus as Messiah and Savior (see Zech.12:10, which corresponds with Mt. 23:39), and (2) spiritual “hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25; cf. Jn. 12:37-41). 

Neither one of these judgments has been lifted yet, for Israel has not turned to Christ in repentance and faith nor has the full number of the Gentiles come in—for upon completion of God’s program of “taking from the Gentiles a people for himself” (Acts 15:14) the Body of Christ will be taken to be with the Lord (I Thess. 4:13-17).  

Understanding the conditional aspect of the Abrahamic covenant has great significance for an accurate assessment of the State of Israel today.  The Zionists, from Herzl on, had neither a divine command to occupy the land of Palestine, as Moses and Joshua had, nor  biblical justification for occupying the land, displacing the local inhabitants, and establishing a political state on it.  In fact, the Zionists were mostly atheists who sought to occupy the land for pragmatic reasons. 

Zionists and the state they built was not predicated on “turning from our sins and giving attention to Your truth” (Dan. 9:13).  The first advent of Christ, who is truth and grace incarnate (Jn. 1:14, 17) forever focused the question of Israel’s relationship to God on their attitude toward the Lord Jesus.  Apart from Him, there is no forgiveness, no turning from sins, and no embracing of God’s truth. 

1. ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION OF THE LAND DURING THE CHURCH AGE IS WITHOUT BIBLICAL WARRANT

The upshot of the foregoing is that no one can justifiably claim that the State of Israel, which was established in 1948, has a biblical right to occupy the land prior to the Millennium.  Israel today is not the Israel of Joshua’s day.  From this it follows that CUFI and other Christian Zionists are wrong to give the contemporary State of Israel unconditional support. 

Is Hagee correct when he says, “Fundamentalist/evangelical support for Israel…is a bedrock religious belief” (quoted in an interview referred to on the website, www.haaretz.com)?  It is obviously a bedrock religious belief of Christian Zionists, but unconditional support for secular, Zionist Israel today is not biblical teaching.  Besides, there are many “Fundamentalist/Evangelicals” who are nondispensationalists; they see no future for ethnic Israel in the plan of God.  Although I disagree with their amillennialism, postmillennialism, and nondispensational premillennialism, they are no less Christian because they do not agree with dispensationalism. 

It also follows that CUFI and other Christian Zionists are terribly mistaken in their claim that the Abrahamic land promise justifies their opposition to Israel’s relinquishment of any portion of the land that they now occupy. Israel has no biblical right to occupy any of the land during the church age, for their lack of repentance and faith in Christ means that they are not there by the directive will of God but only by the permissive will of God. 

If pro-Israel advocates want to argue for Israel’s right to occupy the land on some basis other than the Bible, that is another matter.  But if they do so by appealing to Scripture, they are mishandling the word of God.  I think that we ought to accord the State of Israel qualified support on the basis of shared values and for historical-political reasons, but not at the expense of justice and compassion for the Palestinians who have been displaced and continue to be oppressed in various ways by the State of Israel. To their credit, some courageous Israeli academicians and journalists have admitted and opposed that oppression, as reported in various Jewish newspapers in Israel.  

1. CUFI IS BASED ON A MISTAKEN VIEW OF THE CHURCH’S ROLE

CUFI errs in three main respects: (1) it politicizes the church by illicitly involving it in activities that it has not been commissioned or authorized to engage in, (2) it implicitly, if not explicitly, embraces a “dual covenant theory,” which teaches that Jews can be saved apart from conscious faith in Christ, and (3) it deflects the church from giving primary support to fellow members of the Body of Christ, especially those who are poor, suffering, and victimized by persecution and oppression.

1. THE CHURCH’S MISSION IS SPIRITUAL, NOT POLITICAL

In regard to the first error, Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36).  By organizing a lobby, Hagee and his supporters are contravening the spiritual nature of the church’s mission.  So-called para-church organizations should also carry out their tasks in the world by the power of the Holy Spirit and according to the word of God.

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.  On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds (II Cor. 10:4; italics added for emphasis).

A lobby, whether or not it is called “Christian,” is a “weapon of the world.”  The apostle Paul did not form any kind of political entity to carry out the work of the church.  He categorically denounced recourse to such carnal means. 

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12; italics added for emphasis).

Notice that in all the weapons we are to employ in fulfilling the calling of the church, Ephesians 6 does not mention a “lobby” or any other worldly entity.  To get God’s work done in a way that fulfills His will and brings glory to Him, we are to “put on the whole armor of God…the belt of truth…the breastplate of righteousness…the gospel of peace…the shield of faith…the helmet of salvation…the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God…and pray in the Spirit” (Eph. 6:13-18).  The apostle Paul would have bristled at the suggestion that we should add anything like a “lobby” to the list, our democratic republic in contrast to imperial Rome notwithstanding.

Circumstances change, of course, so our world today is different in various respects from the situation in Paul’s day.  But biblically specified means for furthering the work of Christ on earth have not changed.  They are spiritual, and no concession should be made to worldly means.  If Christians are concerned about the State of Israel, let them use spiritual weapons and trust God to answer prayer on its behalf.  Forming a lobby is conforming to the world, for lobbies seek to manipulate, pressure, and sometimes even bribe politicians in oblique and subtle ways to do their bidding. 

All lobbies go beyond the mere presentation of information.  They are designed to bring social and monetary pressures on law-makers and political leaders. In addition to its thoroughly unspiritual nature and methods, the entire lobbying system is fraught with temptations to corruption, as has been demonstrated time and again by numerous investigations.  The lobbying system was never envisioned by our Constitution.  At present there are over 12,000 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.  Annually, they spend more than $3 million dollars on each member of Congress, and they exercise undue influence on the decisions that are made at the highest levels.  To a shocking extent, we have a government by lobbyists and their special interests, not by the American people.  With the combination of this “lobbyocracy” with “mediacracy” (the power of the media) and “judiciacracy” (the tyranny of rogue judges), we have come a long way from Lincoln’s glowing description of our government as one that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

If we take seriously the statement of our Lord that his kingdom is not of this world and Paul’s injunction to resist conformity to this world, using only spiritual means for the work of the church, we will see CUFI for what it really is—an anti-biblical (not merely an unbiblical) lobby on behalf of a foreign country.  By its very nature, a lobby that purports to be Christian while its agenda is to advance the interests of a foreign government is biblically unwarranted.  That is why the locution, “Christian lobby,” is an oxymoron.  Like “grace” and “works” (Rom. 11:6), the terms are mutually exclusive.  If an entity is such a lobby, it cannot be Christian.  When one examines CUFI’s goals and procedures, it conforms to the distinctive practices of various conventional lobbies that function on behalf of foreign interests.

My hope is that the 400 pastors who have joined in the ill-conceived organization called CUFI will re-study the Scriptures carefully and see that they should terminate their affiliation with it summarily if they want to please the Lord and carry out His work in His way.  God’s way is not CUFI’s way. 

CUFI is like a contemporary Uzzah, a man who thought that God needed help to accomplish His purposes: “Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act” (II Sam. 6:6, 7).  Hagee thinks that the oxen are stumbling, i.e., he believes that Israel’s growth and security are not moving ahead as quickly and smoothly as he would like.  Like Uzzah, he is reaching out an arm of flesh in the form of CUFI to give God assistance in bringing His purposes with Israel to consummation.  It may be that Hagee is as sincere in his endeavor to support the State of Israel as Uzzah was in his attempt to support the ark of the covenant.  But both entail the violation of the Lord’s clear instructions for carrying out His work in His way.

There are myriads of ways that the church can be politicized, and they are all contrary to the word and will of God.  When Christians have recourse to worldly structures and follow worldly procedures to carry out the work of the church, they are led astray.  CUFI is one more example of anti-biblical politicization that misleads churches into thinking that it is a legitimate way of doing the will of God.  The New Testament unequivocally stands against it and denounces it by its censure of all worldly expedients. 

1. THE ERROR OF A “DUAL COVENANT” THEORY

John Hagee promotes the unbiblical position known as the “dual covenant” theory, i.e., that Jews have a covenant that provides a way of salvation apart from the Gospel of Christ.  I have personally heard him state his espousal of it in one of his televised sermons.  Furthermore, he has advocated it in his writings.  At times he has denied that he holds the theory, but his disavowal seems to be no more than a terminological difference.  Without using the term, he propounds a position that is essentially that of the theory.

In fact, a New York Jewish rabbi who submitted a brief response on Amazon.com to Hagee’s book, Jerusalem Countdown, wrote the following on April 14, 2006.

Why would a NY rabbi like this book?  A happy NY rabbi….

The rabbi likes the book because after reading it he realizes what Mr. Hagee believes and then states–a TV Pastor has proven from the Christian Bible that Jews do not need to be converted.

On page 192: “Not all Jews are lost at this present time since some have been chosen by a sovereign God according to the election of grace.”

On page 193: “The doctrine of election applies to nations and not to individuals.”

On page 191: “Romans 9-11 is in fact a theological codicil, a stand-alone document respecting God’s position on the Jewish people after the cross; (it) is written exclusively for the Jews…God has chosen a remnant of surviving Jews according to the election of grace.”

On page 176: “Some organizations who target Jewish people for conversion use the phrase from Romans 1:16…to say God prefers the salvation of Jews over gentiles is to say God is a respecter of persons which the Bible plainly denies.”

On page 175: “Gentiles come to Christ by the propagation of the gospel…this is not true of the Jewish people who have been judicially blinded to the identity of Messiah.”

On page 82: “It’s time for all Christians to stop praising the dead Jews of the past…Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while resenting the Jews across the street.  They are our brothers and sisters who worship the God of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob just as we do.”

If the first five of these quotes from Hagee are somewhat vague in intent, the last one, on page 82, is unambiguous.  It clearly entails the denial of the necessity of personal faith in Christ as Savior, Lord, and Messiah.

Gentiles and Jews are not only on equal footing in the Body of Christ, in which ethnic differences have no relevance whatever, unregenerate gentiles and Jews are also on equal footing in their lostness (Romans 3:23; 10:1) and in the necessity for them to turn to Christ for salvation: “For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:12, 13).

To a very sincere, devoutly religious Jew who was “Israel’s teacher” (Jn. 3:10), Christ said “You must be born again” (Jn. 3:7).  If any Jew could have been fit for heaven without trusting in Christ, it would have been Nicodemus.  Yet in a Jewish context Jesus told him, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again” (Jn. 3:3).  “No one” means no Jew as well as no gentile.

In the book of Acts, Jews are continually presented with the Gospel of Christ as the only way of salvation: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).  The apostle Paul who wrote Romans 9-11is the same person who wrote, in Phil. 3:5-9 that he was “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.  But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ…I consider them rubbish that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ.“  

Paul, a “Hebrew of Hebrews” who had advanced “in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers” (Gal. 1:14), acknowledged that he could not be saved without believing in Christ Jesus (Gal. 2:15, 16).  Neither biological lineage that connects Israelites to Abraham nor a covenant relation to the Hebrew Patriarchs nor scrupulous adherence to the Mosaic Law nor the observance of Levitical sacrifices could provide salvation to a Hebrew (Romans 9:2-4; 31-33; 10:1-4).    

In contrast to the salvific inefficacy of all that Judaism had to offer, Jews and gentiles are only made holy “through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb.10:10).

Not only does the dual-covenant theory give Jews a false sense of security pertaining to their relationship with God and to their eternal destiny but it also leads them to believe that what matters most to Christians is the mundane condition of Israel and Jews prior to the fulfillment of the prophetic scenario of Christian Zionists.  CUFI obscures the most important message that Jews (and all other people) need to hear and believe (Rom. 1:16; I Cor. 15:3,4).  What ultimate good does CUFI do by raising funds and fostering political support for Israel when their real need is eclipsed?  “For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (II Cor. 4:18).

1. CUFI IMPLICITLY EMBRACES ANOTHER FORM OF “REPLACEMENT    THEOLOGY”

My opposition to CUFI and Christian Zionism has nothing to do with any concession I make to the “replacement theology” that typically characterizes nondispensational views, for I categorically and completely reject the assumption that the church replaces Israel.

The glorious future of a redeemed Israel in the land, with Christ reigning in Jerusalem and ruling over Israel and gentile nations, is foretold in the Old Testament.  Those prophecies are neither pointless nor allegorical, supposedly referring to the church or to heaven in the eternal state. Various passages in the New Testament support this assessment.  Matthew 19:28 and Acts 1:3, 6, 7; 3:19-21, among other passages, bear this out unless one wrests them from their Jewish context and gratuitously allegorizes them, as “replacement theology” invariably does.  Such prophecies will only be fulfilled when Christ returns to earth (Rev. 19, 20).  

Christian Zionists frequently denounce the “replacement theology” of nondispensationalists, but they seem unaware of their own form of “replacement theology.”  In fact, it is now institutionalized in CUFI and similar pro-Israel organizations.  What is the nature of this replacement error? 

Contrary to the unambiguous teaching of the New Testament, CUFI replaces the priority of the Body of Christ with the priority of the State of Israel—not even with the Jewish people, which would be less fallacious but still wrong.  Its basis for making this illicit substitution is not only its misconstrual of Old Testament passages like Genesis 12:3 and its anachronistic appeal to Old Testament passages like Zechariah 2:8 but also its misunderstanding and misuse of selected New Testament passages, most notably, Romans 15:27 and Matthew 25:31-46.

Hagee cites the foregoing biblical texts as supposed justification for contributing large sums of money to Israel and for spending millions of dollars to bring Jews from the Diaspora, especially Russia, to the State of Israel.  He also believes that such biblical passages warrant the formation of CUFI and its political activities on behalf of the State of Israel.

1. Christian Zionists’ misunderstanding of Romans 15

In Romans 15:27 the apostle Paul is explaining why he is taking a contribution from gentile Christians with him to Jerusalem: “For if the gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.”

However, what the passage teaches is quite different from what Hagee claims it teaches.  He thinks that it validates collecting money for the benefit of the State of Israel and non-Christian Jews.  In fact, the passage is not only devoid of such validation, it is antithetical to it. In his book, Standing With Israel, David Brog succinctly states the view that is universally held by Christian Zionists on the basis of Romans 15:27: “Christians…are obligated to give charity to Jews” (p. 167). 

To see that the passage says no such thing, observe the context carefully: “I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there.  For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Romans 15:25, 26; italics added for emphasis).  Paul was taking financial support to fellow members of the Body of Christ, not to the Sanhedrin and not to the Christ-rejecting Jews in Jerusalem.  In fact, there is no record of Paul ever taking up a collection for Jews qua Jews in Jerusalem or anywhere else.  He never received funds from fellow Christians to pay for repatriation of Jews from the Diaspora to Israel.  He would have been appalled at any suggestion for him to do such a thing.  He had his priorities straight—it was not unbelievers, whether Jews or Gentiles, that should be given precedence, but fellow Christians. 

The record is clear: Paul never took money from churches or even individual Christians in order to give it to unbelievers.   When Christians were in need of the necessities of life, he would have found it appalling to hand contributions from fellow believers to unbelievers.  We need not doubt this, for he made his priorities explicit: “As we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Gal. 6:10; italics added for emphasis).  That “especially” in this passage denotes priority is corroborated by “especially” in I Timothy 5:8.   Galatians 6:10 clearly establishes a principle of priority. 

The unmistakable implication of the foregoing is that it is not the will of God for CUFI or any other group to allocate and distribute money to unbelievers when there are urgent needs on the part of believers anywhere in the world where we can reach them with material aid.  It is abundantly evident that there are large numbers of Christian believers in many parts of the world who are impoverished, unemployed, disabled, oppressed, and persecuted.  Many Christians are suffering and needy.  It is manifestly wrong for Christian resources, which are always limited, to be siphoned off to unbelievers and to projects that support political ends, whether for Jews or for the State of Israel or any other non-Christian or political entities.  One of Hagee’s stated goals is to enlist the support of 40 million American Christians from whom he hopes to collect millions of dollars to carry out activities that not only have no biblical legitimacy but are actually antithetical to biblical teaching.

I have no doubt that the apostle Paul would not establish nor approve an organization like CUFI.  In fact, I am convinced that he would oppose it, for if he did not, he would contradict what he laid down as divinely inspired priorities.  There is no record of him taking up a collection for anything other than succor for poor saints.  I Corinthians 16:1-4 speaks of the collection for the indigent believers in Jerusalem who were impoverished by persecution (Acts 8:1) and famine (Acts 11:28): “Now about the collection for God’s people…I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem” (italics added for emphasis). 

The two great chapters on giving, II Corinthians 8-9, cite the extraordinary example of the sacrificial giving by the Macedonian believers in order to spur the Corinthian Christians to give generously to supply “the needs of God’s people” (II Cor. 9:12), i.e., the very poor, suffering believers in Jerusalem.  This was also the concern of the believers in Antioch when they learned of the famine that hit Judea especially hard: “The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea.  This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:29, 30; italics added for emphasis).

I have laid great stress on the issue of New Testament giving, because CUFI is seeking to divert Christian funds from that which is mandated in Scripture to that which is devoid of divine authorization—and even contradictory to biblical priorities.  Unlike the frequently unworthy use of money received from the Lord’s people today, church collections and Christian giving in the New Testament focused on only two needs: (1) believers who were poor and suffering because of adverse circumstances such as famine or persecution or their inability to work due to serious disabilities or the feebleness of old age or other overwhelming limitations when they did not have family members who could support them in their destitution (Gal. 2:10; James 1:27; I Tim. 5:3-8; I Jn. 3:16-18), and

(2) self-denying servants of the Lord, such as those who were divinely called to fulfill the vocations of apostles, evangelists, elders (pastors and teachers in the church), and deacons (I Cor. 9:7-14; Phil. 4:14-19; I Tim. 5:17). 

Kindness to unbelievers was not excluded, but the rule was to give priority to needy members of the Body of Christ.  If gifts of kindness were given to unbelievers, it seems that it was to be done occasionally by individuals and families and rarely, if ever, by the church.  Giving was not to be a means for people to amass wealth, and it was carried out scrupulously by trusted, proven men who went together to make sure that gifts were conveyed to truly needy recipients among believers.

Today, especially in the wealthier western world, Christian giving is all too often misdirected to unworthy projects, organizations, and not infrequently to self-aggrandizing preachers and TV evangelists.  The contrast between New Testament standards and patterns of giving, on the one hand, and the undiscerning squandering of material resources by contemporary Christians in the west, especially in America, is scandalous. 

The apostle Paul enunciated the principles that should guide our giving, and he demonstrated them in his own sacrificial living and in his consistent compassion for poor believers.  We are to follow his example as he enjoined all Christians to do: “Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice.  And the God of peace will be with you” (Phil. 4:9). 

If CUFI wants to appeal to Romans 15:27, it will not be focusing on support for the State of Israel or for unbelieving Jews but for “Messianic Jews,” whose number in the State of Israel is an estimated 6-7,000, and for Palestinian believers among the 145,000 professing Christians in Israel and the occupied territories (for these estimates see On the Road to Armageddon, Timothy P. Weber, Baker Academic, 2004, pp. 245-246). In view of the apostle Paul’s example and instructions, only a biblically uninformed Christian will support CUFI, for it is not only a worldly weapon that is counterproductive in spiritual warfare but it also inverts biblical priorities in its stated goals.

2. Christian Zionists’ misunderstanding of Matthew 25

In addition to misusing Romans 15:27, the second major New Testament passage that  Christian Zionists misuse for supposed justification of their perspective is Matthew 25.  My rebuttal of their claims is presented within a dispensational framework; therefore, I am not concerned here with nondispensational interpretations of the chapter. 

Matthew 25:40 is a key verse used by Christian Zionists: “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’”  Christian Zionists generally identify Christ’s “brothers” as Jews without the qualifier “Christian” or “Messianic” or “Redeemed.”  Hagee’s skewed interpretation of Matthew 25 is found in an interview the Jerusalem Post conducted with him recently: “Every Bible-believing Christian knows that when Jesus Christ returns to earth, the first thing that’s going to happen is the Judgment of the Nations.  The basis of that judgment is how did the gentile people treat Israel and how did they treat the Jewish people” (Online edition).

A careful analysis of the passage in the light of its larger context refutes his interpretation and undermines his claim that the term “brothers” refers to the State of Israel or to ethnic Jews.

Christian Zionists typically view the “sheep” referred to in the passage as righteous Gentiles who fulfill the mandate implicit in Genesis 12:3.  They say that when the King (Christ) separates the “sheep” from the “goats,” the judgment is based on their treatment of Jews, especially during the Tribulation period when Jews will be a major target of the persecution instigated by the demonically inspired world ruler (the “beast” of Rev. 12:1-6; 13:1ff.). 

There are two major problems that call this interpretation into question.  First, nowhere in the New Testament are ethnic Jews or Israelites referred to as Christ’s “brothers.”   The fact that Jesus was a Jew as to his human nature (Rom. 1:3) means, of course, that he shared that ethnic commonality with all Israelites.  But in the New Testament that is never made the basis for referring to Israelites as his “brothers.”  Studying every occurrence of the terms “brother,” “brothers,” and “brethren” in an exhaustive concordance of the New Testament demonstrates this unequivocally.  Apart from several references to Jesus’ “brothers” (actually half-brothers) on the basis that both had the same mother, there is no biblical reference to any physical relationship with him that qualified others as his “brothers” (Jn. 7:3-5).        

A passage that might be used by Christian Zionists to justify their interpretation of “brothers” in Matthew 25:40 as ethnic Jews is Hebrews 2:11-18.  However, a careful reading of the latter passage shows that those whom Jesus calls “brothers” are regenerate believers: “Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family.  So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers” (Heb. 2:11). 

Romans 8:29 says that God predestined believers “to be conformed to the likeness of his Son that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.”  This, too, unequivocally refers to believers over whom Christ will be the Head, holding the highest honor in this new family of God.  There is also no question that Matthew 28:10 and John 20:17 use “brothers” in the spiritual sense of those who are related to Christ by saving faith. 

In John 8:33-44 Christ made it clear that physical descent from Abraham did not make one a child of God.  The Jews with whom he was speaking claimed that God was their Father (Jn. 8:41), but Jesus told them that despite their physical link to Abraham, “You belong to your father, the devil” (Jn. 8:44).  Ethnicity makes no one, not even Jews, Christ’s brothers.  Ethnicity is completely irrelevant to acceptance with God.  Gentiles are no better off than Jews, for all unregenerate people are “the children of the devil” (I Jn. 3:10).  By God’s grace “we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ” (I Jn. 5:20), and therefore “We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one” (I Jn. 5:19).

Since the biblical data contravene the interpretation of Christ’s “brothers” as ethnic Jews, how should the term be understood?   I believe that Matthew 12:46-50 provides the answer.  Jesus’ mother and half-siblings came to the place where he was speaking to a crowd.  They wanted to talk with him, and it was apparently assumed that their physical, familial relationship gave them precedence.  However, Jesus made it clear that spiritual criteria override any physical relationship: “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Mt. 12:50).  This incident is found in all three of the synoptic gospels (cf. Mk 31-35; Lk. 8:19-21), underscoring the inauguration of a new spiritual family.

The “brothers” of Matthew 25:40 can only be genuine believers.  But are they only Jewish believers in Christ?  Two considerations lead to a negative answer.  First, Jesus used the general term “whoever” in Matthew 12:50.  Even though he was speaking in a Jewish context, the term is a universal one, transcending all ethnic and physical distinctions among human beings.  Second, Romans 8:29 unequivocally includes gentile believers as well as Jewish believers in Christ.  Both are called his “brothers.”

If the “brothers” of Matthew 25:40 are both Jewish and gentile believers in Christ, how are they differentiated from the “sheep,” who are also believers in Christ?  In some way the “brothers” are a distinct category of believers, not in a salvific sense but in a functional sense.  The immediate context indicates that the “brothers” were in desperate need of the basic requirements of life (“I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink…I needed clothes and you clothed me,” 25:35, 36).  It also implies that they were traveling and without their own shelter (“I was a stranger and you invited me in,…I was sick and you looked after me,” 25:35, 36).  It also indicates that they were persecuted and unjustly imprisoned (“I was in prison and you came to visit me,” v. 36). 

These descriptions of the “brothers” fit the role of those who itinerate to proclaim the Gospel in an extremely dangerous world that targets them for persecution and death.  Christ foretold that during the future period of the Great Tribulation, which will be “unequaled from the beginning of the world” (Mt. 24:21, 22), the “gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations” (Mt. 24:14).  The preaching will be done by people: “And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?  And how can they preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10:14). 

One thing that is indisputable is that in every age it is only a minority of believers who openly witness and boldly proclaim the Lord’s message.  For example, God told a discouraged prophet, Elijah, that He had reserved “seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal” (I Kings 19:18).  However, where were they when Elijah was risking his life on Mt. Carmel as he stood alone against 850 false prophets and a largely apostate nation of Israel? 

There was a marked difference between Elijah who was on the front line in representing God and the seven thousand who were difficult to find.  One of the seven thousand was the widow of Zarephath who supplied Elijah with food and shelter (I Kings 17:7ff.).  She manifested her faith in God by sacrificially taking care of God’s spokesman in a turbulent time when “Jezebel was killing off the Lord’s prophets” (I Kings 18:4). Another one of the seven thousand was “Obadiah who had taken a hundred prophets and hidden them in two caves, fifty in each, and had supplied them with food and water” (I Kings 18:4).  In a time of severe tribulation in Israel, Elijah was like the “brothers” of Matthew 25:40 who will be putting their lives on the line as they proclaim the message of the Lord (cf. Rev. 11:7; 12:11).

The apostle Paul and other apostles and evangelists who traveled across the Roman Empire are another example of the functional distinction.  What was not true of the Christians who resided in Corinth and other cities was the daily lot of the itinerating preachers of the Gospel: “For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena….To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless”

I Cor. 4:9-11; cf. II Cor. 11:23-27).  The “brothers” of Matthew 25:40 are the future counterpart of the apostles.  The “sheep,” who are described as “righteous” (Mt. 25:37) are the future counterpart of the local Christians who provided shelter and other  necessities to the apostles as they traveled and suffered persecution in one place after another.

Perhaps the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel will constitute the nucleus of the “brothers” who could make up a considerably larger army of gentile and Jewish witnesses during the Tribulation period.  Even so, if the 144,000 are equivalent to the “brothers” of Matthew 25:40, they are not unbelieving Jews, for they have “his (Christ’s) name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads….[and] had been redeemed from the earth….They follow the Lamb wherever he goes” (Rev. 14:1-4).  These believers are distinguished from the rest of the believers during that period, as Revelation 7:9-17 makes clear.  So the issue at the judgment of Matthew 25 is not how people treated ethnic Jews, but how they treated this special group of believing Jews and perhaps believing gentiles as well—both of whom will be engaged in courageous witnessing during that perilous time. 

In summary, taking all of the relevant biblical passages into account, it is more credible to understand the term “brothers” in Matthew 25:40 to refer to both Jewish and gentile believers who will boldly proclaim the Gospel as they itinerate in a world gone mad with hatred toward Christ and his people during the future tribulation period prior to the return of Christ to the earth.  The term “sheep” in Matthew 25 refers to all the rest of the righteous in Christ, both Jewish and Gentile believers, who manifest their faith in their works, especially as they provide material support and encouragement to his self-sacrificing witnesses engaged in world evangelism. 

Thus, when properly understood, Matthew 25 provides no justification whatever for CUFI or the agenda of Christian Zionists.  Christ’s brothers are not ethnic Jews, and it is gratuitous for anyone to invoke Matthew 25 as justification for the agenda of Christian Zionism. A proper contemporary application of the import of the passage is that Christians should give primary support to sacrificial servants of Christ who are propagating the Gospel and to fellow members of the Body of Christ who are in need of the basic necessities of life and who are suffering for their faith wherever they may be on earth.

1. CUFI’S TWISTED LOGIC AND FALSE CHARGES AGAINST OTHERS
2. CHRISTIAN ZIONISM’S FALSE BIFURCATION

Now I turn to some brief comments on the practical implications of the foregoing theological conclusions.  First, CUFI is a form of unbiblical extremism that holds a false bifurcation, which is the claim that one must either subscribe to Christian Zionism or he is anti-Semitic.  This is an unworthy ploy that will tend to hoodwink a theologically untutored Christian community.  It is not unlike pro-Israel chauvinism which insists that if anyone does not unconditionally support the State of Israel, he is anti-Semitic; or if one opposes Zionism, he is anti-Semitic. 

There are great numbers of Jews (encompassing Orthodox Jewish groups at one end of the spectrum all the way to secular Jews like Alfred Lilienthal and Noam Chomsky at the other end) and Christians (including amillennialists, postmillennialists, historic premillennialists, and dispensational premillennialists like myself) who are not chauvinists for the Israeli State nor supporters of Zionism, which is a secular, political movement.  Jewish Zionists typically denounce anti-Zionist gentiles as “anti-Semitic” and anti-Zionist Jews as “self-hating Jews.”  Instead of thoughtfully reflecting on the rationale for their anti-Zionism, Zionist supporters mindlessly dismiss any rational dialogue by labeling dissenters with these two epithets.

It is high time for Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists to stop using the ad hominem club of “anti-Semitism” in an attempt to silence their critics.  Another tactic that many use is “guilt by association,” i.e., linking critics of both Zionism and the State of Israel to Hitler and the Nazis.  These propaganda stratagems may fool the naïve, but in the long run they are self-defeating because they are slanderously untrue.

Hagee views “replacement theology” as anti-Semitic.  This is unacceptable, for many adherents of Covenant Theology are persuaded by their sincere understanding of Scripture that the church has forever replaced ethnic Israel.  I am convinced that they are wrong, but their doctrinal position, in and of itself, does not make them “anti-Semitic.”   Without an attitudinal component of disdain or antipathy toward Jews in general, one is not anti-Semitic.  Even a few dispensationalists in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century were anti-Semitic despite their adherence to dispensationalism (Weber, ibid, pp. 129-153). 

As a historical fact, “replacement theology” was misused by professing Christians to justify their persecution of Jews for hundreds of years.  There is no question that it can be a particularly convenient excuse for antipathy toward Jews.  However, as a theological doctrine it does not in itself advocate or justify anti-Semitism.  It is sinful human nature that misapplies the doctrine as a pretext for its own pride and cruelty.  It is not unlike the historical fact that dispensationalism has been misused by Christian Zionists to justify their chauvinist extremism toward Israel and antipathy toward Arabs.  The theological perspective of dispensationalism does not itself entail or advocate such attitudes. 

Neither “replacement theology” nor “dispensationalism” warrants the rejection or subordination of the clear biblical standards of righteousness, love, and justice that ought to be applied equally to all ethnic groups.  When advocates of either theological position violate these standards, it is due either to ignorance of the word of God or disobedience to it.  Although these two theological views in themselves do not necessarily entail the unspiritual attitudes and actions that some of their adherents have practiced, it cannot be denied that they have often been misused by Christians.

Hagee’s “definition” of anti-Semitism is not only unfair to our fellow Christians who are nondispensationalists but it is also both unbiblical and unhistorical.  Anti-Semitism is a form of ethnic prejudice, and all ethnic prejudice is sin—no matter which ethnic group is the object of such prejudice.  Prejudice can be manifested in both commission and omission.  Prejudice may lead people to actively inflict pain and death on people; that is sin as commission.  Prejudice may lead people to withhold food and clothing and other  benefits from people; that is sin as omission.  Refusal to share the Gospel of Christ with Jews can rightly be viewed as an oblique form of anti-Semitism, for it is a conscious decision to leave them under the curse of sin by withholding the one message that can give them the greatest of all blessings for time and eternity (Eph. 1:3; II Cor. 9:15). 

1. CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS TEND TO BE PREJUDICED AGAINST PALESTINIANS AND ARABS

It is impossible to escape the impression that Christian Zionists are guilty of ethnic prejudice toward Arabs, which is just as wrong as the ethnic prejudice directed at Jews.  Although there are Semitic peoples other than the Hebrews, the term “anti-Semitism” has been co-opted to refer to “Jews,” which itself is a term that has developed from a restricted reference to people of the tribe of Judah into a general term for all Hebrews or Israelites.  Christian Zionism’s inherent extremism invariably fosters ethnic prejudice toward Arabs (who are as Semitic as Jews)—especially toward Palestinian Arabs. 

Timothy Weber states it bluntly: “For the most part they ignored the ethical issues involved in Israeli statehood and showed little interest in the claims of the Palestinians, whom they saw as the enemies of God’s purposes” (p. 17, On the Road to Armageddon,

italics added).  Not only do most Christian Zionists see Palestinians—and Arabs, in general—as enemies of God’s purposes but also as enemies of “God’s people.”   For them, the end of establishing and enhancing a Jewish state justified the means, namely, the displacement of Arabs from their land. 

When the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917, only 7 percent of Palestine was Jewish.  Almost all Christian Zionists, enamored with the prospect of prophecy being fulfilled, were exhilarated by it and gave no thought to the injustice that it would inflict on the Arab majority.  They disregarded the biblical emphasis on God’s ethical standards and simplistically assumed that since God promised the land to the Jews, the civil rights of the Palestinian Arabs did not matter.  They did not care that “just as the British had made promises to the Jews about a national homeland, they had promised Palestine to the Arabs before issuing the Balfour Declaration” (p. 170, Weber, ibid, italics added).

Not only were Christian Zionists indifferent to the injustice of the British reneging on their promise to the Arabs but also they had no qualms about subsequently ignoring the promise of self-determination that was an official democratic commitment of the League of Nations and of the United Nations.  Their ecstatic reaction to the first part of the Balfour Declaration, which supported “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” blinded them to the second part, which clearly stated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”   

The non-Jewish communities have been of no concern to almost all Christian Zionists, for “they believed that all nations except Israel would suffer the consequences of being at cross-purposes with the divine plan” (p. 171, Weber, ibid).  This is the unfortunate assumption that underlies the central motif of Christian Zionism, which is their “unconditional support for the State of Israel.”    Tragically, Christian Zionists still tend to dehumanize Palestinians and Arabs—and sometimes they demonize them.  In their irrational exuberance for Israel, they seem to be oblivious of their sins of prejudice, depersonalization, and injustice toward Palestinians.  

Christian Zionism’s blatant partiality leads its adherents to put the worst interpretation on virtually every decision and action taken by Arabs even as they whitewash virtually every Zionist decision and action.  For example, Hagee puts a positive spin on events like the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel by Menachem Begin’s militant Zionist group, the Irgun, by calling it an act of war rather than an act of terrorism—thereby seeking to justify it.  It was ordered by David Ben Gurion, resulting in the deaths of 91 people, most of them civilians, and injuring 45 more.  Both British and Jewish leadership condemned it as a heinous terrorist attack on helpless people.  On July 22, 1946, the Jewish Agency itself expressed their “feelings of horror at the base and unparalleled act  perpetrated today by a gang of criminals” (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing ).      

Literally millions of Christians have visited Israel since 1948.  Typically, they have no interest in meeting the tens of thousands of Arab Christians in the land.  Tour guides take them to the main biblical sites and act as though the Palestinians do not exist.  Palestinians are made to feel that they do not matter to Christians.  Christian Zionists go there to praise Israeli leaders and to marvel at the agricultural and technological advances made in the land.  Very little thought, if any, is given to the plight of the Palestinians.  They are primarily considered as the chief obstacle to the realization of God’s plan for Israel. 

How different was Christ, for he cared deeply about the underdog, the disenfranchised, the weak, the despised, the outcast, and the poor.  He gave us an unforgettable example of compassion when he purposely went to find a Samaritan woman who was despised by the Jews, and then he spent two days with the Samaritans (John 4:40).  The Palestinian Arabs today are like the Samaritans of old.  The Jews and Palestinians distrust and detest each other, but Christ is equally concerned about both of them.

Can anyone doubt that Jesus would reach out to Palestinians as he compassionately sought out the Samaritans?  Would he ignore them and circumvent their villages?  Would he depersonalize them?   Would he act as though they did not exist?  Did he share one iota of the prejudice that Jews harbored toward the Samaritans?   Or did he share one iota of the prejudice that Samaritans harbored toward Jews?  In his impartial and universal love, Christ told his disciples to begin in Jerusalem and from there to go to Samaritans, and then to all gentiles, even to the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 1:8).   Christian Zionists—and all of us—should measure ourselves against his example and his commission.

1. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE BIBLICAL WRITERS AND THE BIAS OF CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS

The Israelite biblical writers, inspired by God, were completely truthful about the sins and failures of themselves and their own people.  They refused to gloss over their misdeeds, no matter how heinous they were.  Christian Zionists seem to have a hard time following their example, and as a result of their bias they tend to put a positive spin on the atrocities committed by radical Zionists.  Of course, militant Muslims and Palestinians have done no less, and often more, than radical Jews and Zionists.  The truth is that unregenerate human nature is capable of unbelievable cruelty irrespective of ethnicity and location (Titus 3:3).

Both radical Zionists and radical Muslims have committed deplorable acts of terrorism. Contrary to all the mutual recrimination and retaliation, it must not be forgotten that one wrong does not justify another wrong.  All terrorism is evil no matter who commits it, and it should never be excused, minimized, or glossed over.  I believe that the New Testament teaches that we should be impartial and even-handed in showing compassion and justice to all peoples. Although I am for equal justice and love toward Israelis and Palestinians, I do not condone any of their sinful attitudes or actions.  A sincere commitment to impartial justice and proactive compassion ought to be the stance of every Christian, for that alone conforms to the New Testament and pleases God: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31).  

There is not one scintilla of New Testament instruction or even one example of a Christian congregation giving financial support to a state or political entity. Of course individuals had to pay a mandatory tax to the Roman Empire (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”), but that had nothing to do with the fact that Christian churches never gave voluntary gifts to a state or political entity.  If Hagee were to conform to New Testament teaching instead of Zionist propaganda, he would dissolve CUFI and focus on galvanizing Christians into charitable action on behalf of suffering and needy members of the Body of Christ worldwide.  That is the New Testament paradigm that ought to be followed in every generation until Christ returns.

1. HOW CUFI SIDE-TRACKS CHRISTIANS

A truly biblical perspective would focus on giving aid and support to Messianic (i.e., Christian) Jews and other Christians in the Israeli state and all over the world where they are being discriminated against and persecuted.  CUFI’s goals contradict the apostle Paul’s goals, as I have already indicated, for he focused exclusively on providing support for the needy Christian believers in Israel.    

Under divine inspiration, Paul told us to follow his example, but CUFI is trying to get Christians to follow the dictates of anti-biblical Christian Zionism.  No one should give a penny to CUFI, for any money sent to that political lobby will be money misused.  Christians who want to please the Lord will make sure that any money they give will go for the two biblical purposes indicated above, i.e., for evangelizing and discipling the nations and for aiding needy, suffering Christians around the world.

One of CUFI’s primary goals is to muster a broad, rapid response from Christians in order to have them contact congressmen for the “defense of Israel.”  The purpose of its gathering in Washington in July, 2006 is to elicit the support of congressmen for “Israel’s security…and Israel’s right to the land.”  Its annual meeting will feature “Israel’s leadership who will apprise CUFI members of the conditions in Israel and the Middle East.”  CUFI’s Night to Honor Israel is for the purpose of focusing admiration and encouragement on Israel’s secular state and to support their claim to the land.  CUFI opposes the Roadmap to Peace and it urges the Israeli government to refrain from giving one square inch of occupied land back to the Palestinians. 

One looks in vain to find the slightest hint of any involvement of New Testament churches in the kind of activity that characterizes CUFI.  The energy, time, and material resources of Christians are limited, and we should not be ignorant of Satan’s devices in seducing us from our calling and primary responsibilities.  How radically different from CUFI was the apostle Paul, for his passion for Israel was thoroughly spiritual: “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved” (Romans 10:1; cf. 9:1-3). 

CUFI wants to honor and help Israel, but at the same time the belief of most Christian Zionists that the Tribulation period will likely begin in the next few years creates a problem for them.  The focal point of the Great Tribulation will be the State of Israel, and Zechariah 13:8 says that two-thirds of the Jews living in the land at that time will be killed.  Yet CUFI intends to provide resources and encouragement for Diaspora Jews to immigrate to Israel, the very spot where they will meet with indescribable suffering and death.  This contrasts sharply with Christ’s admonition about the future desolation that would come upon Israel: “Then let those who are in Judea flee…let those in the city get out” (Lk. 21:20; Mt.24:16-22).  CUFI is unintentionally working at cross-purposes to Christ’s compassionate warning.

1. CUFI WILL ADD TO THE ALIENATION OF MUSLIMS ANDTHE PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS IN MUSLIM LANDS
2. CUFI WILL INCREASE MUSLIMS’ RESISTANCE TO THE GOSPEL

Whatever we set out to do as Christians, we should always consider what impact it will have on world evangelism.  Will it advance the cause of the Gospel or hinder it?  Scripture is clear, as the apostle Paul wrote, “Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks, or the church of God—even as I try to please everybody in every way.  For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.  Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” ( I Cor. 10:32-11:1).

CUFI’s existence and agenda will profoundly deepen the estrangement of 1.3 billion Muslims and multitudes of other peoples who are already convinced that Christians are unjustly biased in favor of the State of Israel.  They are lost souls in need of the Gospel of Christ, but they find it difficult to believe the message of God’s impartial, universal love when they daily hear and read the arrantly lopsided pronouncements of Christians (especially radio and TV evangelists and pastors) in favor of Israel, no matter what the Israeli state does. 

Most American Christians have no real understanding of the extent to which Muslims, Arabs, and many other people have been alienated from the Christian faith by the incessant denunciations of the Palestinians and other Arabs in Christian broadcasts and writings.  Not a few non-Christians feel much like Mahatma Gandhi felt when he said, “I have great respect for Christ, but not for Christians.”

By giving Christian Zionism political institutionalization in the form of a lobby in Washington, D.C., CUFI is further evidence to Muslims that their suspicion of a covert alliance between the Christian church and the American government is undeniable.  Islam does not demarcate religious authority from political authority, and it tends to see western nations in a similar way.  Depending on how much press and visibility CUFI acquires, it will make it increasingly difficult for them to make the distinction. 

This means that all the American government’s imprudent decisions and exploitative actions that harm Muslim countries will be viewed even more as the deeds of Christians.  Even now the American incursion into Iraq is viewed by suspicious Muslims as one more “Christian Crusade” into their sacred land.  No one should have the slightest doubt that CUFI will significantly worsen this perception.

1. CUFI WILL JEOPARDIZE THE WELFARE AND LIVES OF CHRISTIANSIN MUSLIM COUNTRIES

No less serious is the negative impact that CUFI’s activities will have on the beleaguered Christian minorities in Muslim lands.  Whatever the reality is, CUFI appears to consist of uninformed and uncaring Christians in the west who disregard the added suffering that will be heaped upon fellow members of the Body of Christ.  My heart grieves for these valiant Christians whom I have personally visited in Muslim countries from Indonesia to Morocco.  I spent four years living in the Middle East and preaching from one end of the Muslim world to the other end.  Some of the most dedicated Christians I have ever met live there in constant jeopardy, discrimination, and often severe physical persecution that flares up at the slightest provocation.

If we are going to be faithful to the New Testament, we will be far more concerned about them than about the State of Israel, for they are part of the Body of Christ and the State of Israel is not.  There are already too many egregiously biased Christians in the west who are promoting chauvinistic devotion to the State of Israel coupled with derisive contempt toward Palestinians and Muslims. 

Wittingly or unwittingly, CUFI embodies this sinful prejudice and it will lead 40 million American Christians further down the path of biblical ignorance and spiritual aberration.  This lamentable wrong-headedness is exhibited on the CUFI website that assures its members that they “are in the perfect will of God.”   Only someone who is thoroughly indoctrinated in Christian Zionism’s errors and thus reads the Bible through its distorted lens would make such an outlandish claim. 

CUFI and Christian Zionism represent a mind-set that simplistically indulges in false bifurcations.  They assume that if one is not unconditionally for the State of Israel, he must be for Palestinian terrorists.  They assume that if one is not unqualifiedly for the State of Israel, he must be compromising with “replacement theology.”  They assume that if one is not chauvinistic for the State of Israel, he must be anti-Semitic.  I could add other fallacious either-or assumptions to this list.  They seem to have no clue that a Christian can and should take a balanced, biblical position.  If one is not a Christian Zionist, it does not mean that he is opposed to the State of Israel or that he supports Muslim terrorism.  And it surely does not mean that he cannot be a dispensationalist. 

I take my stand with consistent dispensationalism, but Christian Zionists, by their violation of biblical teaching, as I have sought to demonstrate, are inconsistent dispensationalists.  Obedience to the word of God means that we should sincerely seek equal justice and show impartial love to Jews and Arabs and to all peoples.  I wholeheartedly stand with Jews and with Arabs in contradistinction to David Brog’s recent book in which he contends that “Standing with Israel” can only be done by Christians if they subscribe to the one-sidedness of Christian Zionism.  

VII. CUFI’S INNER CONTRADICTIONS ARE THE SEEDS OF ITS OWN DOWNFALL

1. CUFI’S CLAIM TO BE NON-POLITICAL IS CONTRAVENED BY ITS  PRACTICE

In view of the stated goals and projected activities of CUFI, it appears that Hagee is disingenuous when he says that he “does not seek to influence the Israeli government or to support political candidates in Israel or America” (Online edition of the Jerusalem Post).  Hagee reportedly meets with leaders of the Israeli state both here and abroad.  He urges them not to concede any land to the Palestinians.  He encourages Israeli hardliners like Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party.  He repeatedly tells Israelis, “The Bible says that God gave the Jewish people this sacred land. It’s yours. Don’t give it away” (Online edition of the Jerusalem Post). 

He has organized CUFI for the primary purpose of influencing American politicians.  That is what a lobby does; it is the reason for its existence.  Hagee envisions CUFI becoming a more powerful lobby than AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which is known to be one of the most powerful lobbies in the United States.  It has over 100,000 members across 50 states. It regularly meets with members of Congress and it has been extremely effective in getting them to back their agenda for the support of Israel. 

It has been reported that the FBI has caught AIPAC engaging in espionage, stealing American classified information and passing it on to Israel.  Through some of its affiliates AIPAC contributes substantial sums of money to political candidates who favor Israel.  Some members of AIPAC have boasted of making and breaking American politicians and even of getting major policies enacted on behalf of Israel.  Its aim is to affect legislation so that American policies will favor Israel.

1. WHY CUFI IS REDUNDANT

The truth is that AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies in our nation’s capital are so effective that CUFI is unnecessary.  It will only give the State of Israel even more influence over our government—an influence that is already excessive.  Condoleezza Rice said, “We have an Israel-centric foreign policy.”  The United States has given far more financial aid to Israel than to any other country in its history—over 140 billion  dollars (in the value of 2006 dollars) since 1948. 

In March 2006, Harvard Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published an article, The Israel Lobby, detailing many of the adverse effects of “the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby.”  It evoked a storm of controversy, forcing Dr. Walt, the academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government, to resign amid charges of anti-Semitism. 

They ask, “Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state (Israel)?”  They note that “especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel.”  The US gives Israel about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, which is one-fifth of our foreign aid budget, as well as in myriads of other ways, including unprecedented diplomatic support and the latest intelligence, which is not even given to NATO.  The US has also looked the other way as Israel has developed a large stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Since the US already has Israel as its number one foreign beneficiary and since it has every intention of consistently maintaining its relationship with Israel, it must be asked why CUFI is needed. For those who know the facts, the irony cannot be missed.  Even apart from biblical considerations which militate against CUFI’s legitimacy, there is no justification for its creation.  Given the fact that the US is already doing all it can for Israel and given the fact that there are no more effective lobbies in Washington than pro-Israel lobbies, what is the rationale for such a superfluous organization?

No less significant than the foregoing aid for Israel is the support that comes from more organizations and lobbies than any other foreign country has in the United States.  Here is a list of some that are already engaged in activism on behalf of the State of Israel.

Aglow International, Friends of Israel, Marty Goetz, Ahavat Israel, Galilee of the Nations                    

Messianic Jewish top 100 Sites

Americans for a Safe Israel                   Good News for Israel                     Messianic Literary Corner

Bridges for Peace                                  Harry Sandrouni Ceramics             Minsky Ministries

Bringing Israel to You                           Hatikva Ministries                          MJAA

Cal Thomas                                           Hay’Did Learning Center                Mount of Olives Treasures

Chosen People Ministries                      Heart for Israel                                Mayim Hayim Ministries

Christenen Voor Israel                          Hebraic Heritage Ministries            Paul Wilbur Ministries

Christian Broadcasting Network           Inspired faith Broadcasting             Potter’s Clay Ministries

Christian Action for Israel                     Intercessors for Israel                      Precept Ministries Int’l

Christian Coalition                                 Int’l Christian Embassy                  Remnant of Israel Ministries

Christians for Israel                                Int’l Fellowship of Chr.& Jews      Restoration Israel

Christian Friends of Israel                      Int’l Fellowship of Intercessors      Saltshakers Messianic

Chr. Friends of Israel Committee           Int’l Wall of Prayer                         Settel Int’l Ministries

Come to Zion Ministries                         Israel Affairs Int’l                           Shouts of Joy

Congregation K. Yam Israel                   Israel Hasbara Committee               Sid Roth’s Messianic Vision

David Allen Lewis Ministries                 Israel My Beloved                           Sound of the Trumpet

David Dolan                                            Israel My Glory                               Stand With Us

David Reagan                                          istandwithIsrael.com                       Standing with Israel

David’s Tent                                            Jack Hayford                                   Trinity Broadcasting Network

Derek Prince Ministries                           Jerusalem Gates                              Texans for Israel

Eagles Wings Ministries                          Jewish Jewels                                  The Galilee Experience

End-Time Handmaidens                          Jewish Voice Ministries                  The Shofar Man

Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary               Jews for Jesus                                 The Watchman Int’l

Family Bible/Etz Echad Ministries          John Hagee Ministries                     The Wild Olive Branch

Firstfruits of Zion                                     Kehilot HaCarmel Congregation     USA4ISRAEL

For Zion’s Sake                                        King of Kings Assembly                 Vision for Israel

Jerry Falwell                                             Lance Lambert                                 Women in Green

AIPAC                                                      Light of Zion                                    Zola Levitt

National Unity Coalition for Israel           Christian Friends of Israeli Communities

The foregoing list is not exhaustive.  There are many churches and para-church organizations that are supportive of the State of Israel in various ways, because they propagate a Christian Zionist perspective. 

In view of the large number of organizations that are actively pro-Israel, the question must be pressed: What is the justification for CUFI?   A number of the organizations on the list are already doing virtually everything that CUFI proposes to do—especially AIPAC, the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel, Christians for Israel, Bridges for Peace, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, and the National Unity Coalition for Israel (see pp. 220-230, On the Road to Armageddon, Timothy P. Weber). 

Lobbies for the State of Israel have immense clout and vast sums of money at their disposal.  The U.S. government is already giving far more foreign aid to Israel than to any other country.  Congress has a substantial number of its members who are solidly committed to the support of Israel.  Israel has a  better equipped and trained military than most countries.  Some of richest people in the world are Jews and Christians who support the State of Israel.

Of all the needs in the world that Christians should focus on, the State of Israel is not anywhere near the top of the list.  CUFI could hardly be more superfluous.  CUFI’s projected largesse for the Israeli State and for non-Christian Jews is patently unnecessary compared to the deep and urgent need of persecuted and destitute Christians whose numbers are greater today than ever before in the history of the church.  The enormity of such tragic deflection of resources can hardly be overstated.    

The “wheel (i.e., lobbies for Israel) has already been invented,” so why is CUFI seeking to reinvent it?  Are the U.S. government and populace really in need of even more political action on behalf of the State of Israel?  Will Christian Zionists never be satisfied until America becomes little more than an arm of the Israeli State?  No foreign state has even one percent of the vast number of American organizations and churches that support the State of Israel. 

Does CUFI want the United States to give even more than 3 billion dollars a year to Israel?  When will enough be enough?   At present the U.S. national debt is over 8 trillion dollars, and our deficit is growing at almost 2 billion dollars a day!  This is unprecedented in our history.  In 1791 the national debt was 75 million dollars.  In 1976 it was 540 billion dollars.  According to many economists, we are facing horrendous “stagflation” (the combination of recession and high inflation) and even the collapse of the American dollar.  It was estimated by our government that the war in Iraq would cost 40 billion dollars; now an estimate of 400 billion dollars is considered to be too low.  Added to this dangerous scenario is the drain on U.S. resources by the retirement of “baby-boomers” in the next several years.  Most people are ignorant of the amount of our national debt and growing deficit and their consequences.  With such a tenuous economic condition, it will only take one major calamity to bring about an economic collapse of the United States—and this disaster will ripple throughout the world.  Our fiscal imprudence and wastefulness will leave an indescribably tragic world for our children and grandchildren (see www.time-bomb.org) . 

If Christian Zionists insist on unconditionally supporting the State of Israel, contrary to biblical teaching, they should do so as individuals rather than forming a political lobby to further burden the economy of the United States.  Perhaps they have less concern for the United States than for the State of Israel.  If the economy of the United States suffers extreme adversity, however, no foreign country will be more damaged than the State of Israel. 

Tragically, too many Christian Zionists share the sentiment of Kay Arthur, an American citizen and founder of Precept Ministries, when she publicly stated that if she had to choose between giving her loyalty to the United States or to Israel, she would choose the State of Israel.   She did not frame the choice as one between the United States and Christ.  She did not describe the choice as one between the United States and the Body of Christ.  Her injudicious statement not only expresses a treasonous stance toward her own country, the United States, but also a categorically unbiblical aberration.

God tells us, in the Scriptures, that our ultimate loyalty should be to Him (Ex. 20:3), and this entails obedience to his word, which tells us that we ought to lay down our lives for Christ (Phil. 1:20) and for our brothers [i.e., fellow members of the Body of Christ] (I Jn. 3:16).  The Bible nowhere says that we ought to lay down our lives for the State of Israel or for unbelievers of any ethnicity.  When are Christian Zionists going to own up to biblical priorities and allow Scripture to judge their “ism” rather than twisting the Bible in an effort to make it conform to their fallacious presuppositions?

SUMMARY

By way of summary, here are the biblical reasons why CUFI should be dismantled as soon as possible. 

1. CUFI violates the biblical hierarchy of values that always and everywhere makes the character and glory of God preeminent as the touchstone for spiritually evaluating every person, group, church, nation, and ideology. This categorically precludes unconditional support of the State of Israel.
2. CUFI is based on a skewed interpretation of Genesis 12:3, for the verse has noreference to an ideology (e.g., Zionism) or a political entity (the Zionist State    of Israel) but only to people—priority being given to the spiritual seed of Abraham, which consists of both believing Jews and gentiles. 
3. CUFI misappropriates biblical passages that refer to Israel’s status as it was in the Old Testament and as it will be in the Millennium, and it misappliessuch scriptural texts to the church age. 
4. CUFI errs profoundly by subordinating the Body of Christ to the State of Israel and to ethnic Jews.
5. CUFI misunderstands the Abrahamic covenant by failing to distinguish between the unconditionality of the gift of the land and the conditionality of the occupation of the land.
6. CUFI is based on a fundamental distortion of the biblically mandated missionand methods of the church. 
7. CUFI does a great disservice to suffering members of the Body of Christ by diverting material resources from their desperate need to the secular State of Israel and to unbelieving Jews.
8. CUFI has been founded on the errors and prejudices of “Christian Zionism,” and it will perpetuate them, instilling and congealing these falsehoods ever more deeply in the minds and hearts of Christians.
9. CUFI will increase the polarization of Christians by its promulgation of the false charge of “anti-Semitism” which it levels at everyone who does not support its cause.
10. CUFI will hurt the very people it professes to help. Since Christian Zionists typically believe that Christ will return in the next few years, they are supporting the immigration of Jews to the focal point of the greatest suffering and death during the Great Tribulation
11. CUFI will damage Jews eternally as well as temporally. Not only does its implicit “dual covenant” theory give Jews a false sense of security pertaining to their relationship with God and to their eternal destiny but it also leads them to believe that what matters most to Christians is the temporal condition of Israel and Jews as instrumental to the eschatological scenario of Christian Zionists.
12. CUFI is unnecessary. No foreign country has more effective lobbies in the United States than the State of Israel. 
13. CUFI’s existence and agenda will profoundly deepen the alienation of 1.3 billion Muslims and multitudes of other peoples who are already convinced that Christians are intensely biased in favor of Zionist Israel.
14. CUFI’S activities will provoke more and more persecution of already beleaguered Christian minorities in Muslim lands. If we are going to be faithful to the New Testament, we will be far more concerned about them than about the State of Israel, for they are part of the Body of Christ and the State of Israel is not.
15. CUFI’s claim that its members and activities are “in the perfect will of God”(a statement found on CUFI’s website, www.cufi.org ) is a gratuitous  assertion that stems from Christian Zionism’s lamentably distorted reading of the Bible which actually teaches the very opposite. 

A FINAL PLEA

It is disturbingly ironic that CUFI has been established in 2006—at a time when there are more Christians being persecuted and martyred worldwide than at any time in history.  There are countless millions of Christian families who desperately need our material and spiritual support.  Yet CUFI is proposing to divert substantial funds provided by a projected 40 million American Christians from these suffering members of the Body of Christ to a secular, political, non-Christian (and often anti-Christian) state.  The irony boggles my mind!

In spite of the fact that CUFI is not needed, Hagee seems to be resolutely committed to carrying out CUFI’s cherished agenda.  Like religious devotees who have embarked on an all-consuming quest which they believe God has especially granted to them, he and CUFI’s members are convinced that they are doing God service—nay, more, for they seem to believe that they have a unique and virtually indispensable role in fulfilling the ultimate requirement prior to the return of Christ.  That is a heady notion—and a very dangerous one at that: dangerous for the U.S., dangerous for the peoples of the Middle East, and dangerous for the church’s mission in the world.

It is my earnest hope and prayer that many of the 400-500 pastors who have reportedly joined CUFI will reconsider their decision on the basis of its incompatibility with God’s word.  I also hope and pray that the broader Christian community will be enlightened about biblical strictures against such unspiritual expedients as CUFI.  No one should give one iota of encouragement or support, monetarily or otherwise, to CUFI, for the facts demonstrate that it falls outside of the positive New Testament parameters.  Christians urgently need to study relevant biblical teaching in depth in order to arrive at a discerning, God-honoring assessment of CUFI and similar projects.

At first glance, CUFI looks noble, compassionate, and even “biblical.”  But things are not always what they appear to be.  Our Lord enunciated this important principle: “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment” (John 7:24).  That is what I have sought to do.  I do not take pleasure in finding fault in the activities of Christians.  But some things are so important and so far-reaching in their consequences that someone needs to raise a prophetic voice—even at the risk of being misunderstood and maligned with irrelevant epithets like “anti-Semitic.” 

Let us pray for Israel, for the peace of Jerusalem, but let us equally pray for the Palestinians and others.  “For God so loved the world…, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (Jn. 3:16; II Pet. 3:9).  As Christians, we are to love all human beings, even those who hate us.  “Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you.  Bless those who curse you; pray for those who mistreat you” (Lk. 6:27, 28).  It is especially the lack of impartiality among many western Christians that undermines the credibility of our message.

I plead with all the members of CUFI, please re-examine it in the light of God’s truth.  I know that it is very difficult for anyone who has a vested interest in a movement or organization to give it up—especially when it endows one with a sense of purpose and power.  Each one will have to determine whether he is going God’s way or man’s way.  The Bible has already made that determination for me. 

“Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9:60).  Let AIPAC and others carry on lobbying for Israel, but never let the Christian church be turned aside from its unique and lofty calling to proclaim the Gospel of Christ and to make disciples in all nations.  Although CUFI is not itself a church, it is misleading churches into focusing their energy, resources, and message on that which the New Testament nowhere makes part of its calling.

My opposition to CUFI does not entail opposition to Israel nor does it mean that I am opposed to my fellow Christians who are part of CUFI.  It is because I am for them as fellow-Christians that I have sought to expose the errors of CUFI.  “Love rejoices with the truth” (I Cor. 13:6). 

My earnest prayer is that every reader of this paper will diligently and scrupulously examine CUFI in the light of biblical truth.  As we seek to have the right attitude toward Jews and Arabs, we all need to heed Micah 6:8: “He has showed you, O man, what is good.  And what does the Lord require of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

See the EXCURSUS below, starting on the next page, for my response to John Hagee’s seven reasons “Why Christians Should Support Israel,” found on his website www.jhm.org/support-israel.asp .

June 1, 2006

mmhanna7@hotmail.com

                               EXCURSUS

Hagee’s Inconsistent Dispensationalism is the Basis for his  Seven Untenable Reasons for Chauvinistic Support of the State of Israel

Before I address Hagee’s seven reasons, I want to re-emphasize that I am not opposed to the State of Israel.  No Christian should be opposed to its existence or security.  I believe that the United States should continue its support and defense of the State of Israel.  I  also do not question Pastor Hagee’s sincerity.

My disagreement with Christian Zionism in general and with CUFI in particular is twofold.  First, I do not believe that one should be a chauvinist for Israel, for such an attitude disregards God’s holy standards and the demonstration of justice and compassion that should be shown to Palestinians and non-Zionist Jews.  However, this is precisely the error that Christian Zionism and CUFI embrace by their avowal of unconditional support for the State of Israel.  It is important to distinguish between the Israeli State and the Jewish people, not a few of whom are indifferent or opposed to the State.

Second, I do not believe that support for the State of Israel’s occupation of any portion of “the promised land” prior to the Millennium is justifiable on the basis of the Bible.   Nevertheless, I do believe that qualified support for the State of Israel is justifiable—without jeopardizing its security–on the basis of shared values (including democracy and freedom), political and historical circumstances (including the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations, the United Nations, and recognition of its statehood by other nations), and her victories in wars with  neighboring countries. 

I will now indicate why all of the seven reasons that Hagee presents are not biblically sound.  Clearly, he thinks they are, but they are actually based on a misinterpretation of the Bible.  He introduces his seven reasons with the statement, “Everything Christians do should be based upon the biblical text.”  He then proceeds to refer to them as “seven solid Bible reasons” for supporting Israel.

The Bible is inerrant in the autographs, but interpretations of the Bible must always be rigorously scrutinized.  I Thessalonians 5:21 commands us to “Test everything.”  Let us now examine Hagee’s interpretations to see if they pass the test of sound biblical interpretation.

1. Hagee’s First Reason: Genesis 12:3

The first reason advanced by Hagee is found in the watchword of Christian Zionism, namely, Genesis 12:3.  The first problem with his appeal to the verse is that he confuses the Jewish people with the State of Israel. In the paragraph in which he elaborates on his appeal to it, he uses the following terms: “the Chosen People” and “the Jewish people.”   Hagee unwarrantably infers from the verse that Christians must “bless” (i.e., in his view, “unconditionally support”) the State of Israel in fulfillment of the implied directive in Genesis 12:3.  He does not even see the possibility of a Christian blessing the Jewish people without blessing the State of Israel. 

Nevertheless, there are non-Zionist Christians who, like non-Zionist Orthodox Jewish groups, understand the Bible to be diametrically opposed to political Zionism.  They see no biblical justification for a State of Israel until the Messiah comes.  Non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews care deeply about their fellow Jews and want to see them blessed.  They are grieved by political Zionism’s secularism and its forcible displacement of the indigenous population of Palestine.  They encourage the blessing of the Jewish people even as they repudiate support of the State of Israel.  Christian Zionists appear to be oblivious of the distinction between the two, and this blind-spot leads them to give their unreserved support to the State of Israel even when it is to the detriment of the Jewish people themselves.     

Although Hagee says that he intends to give Bible reasons for supporting the State of Israel, Genesis 12:3, to which he appeals, says nothing about a State or any other political entity.  Since he equates the State of Israel with the Jewish people, he is wrong in three ways.  First, Genesis 12:3 refers to Abraham and his seed.  They were never constituted a national, political entity until they insisted, contrary to the directive will of God, that they wanted to be like “all the other nations” (I Sam. 8:5).  In regard to their desire to be like other nations, God said, “they have rejected Me as their King” (I Sam. 8:7). 

It was always God’s permissive will and not His directive will for Israel to have a king.  Most of the kings of Judah and Israel (the northern kingdom) set a bad example, doing wickedly and leading the people into spiritual and moral compromise and even flagrant idolatry.  God’s directive will mandated only One to be King.  Christ is called “the King of Israel” (Jn. 1:49) and in Zechariah 14:9, 16 it says that “the Lord will be King over the whole earth.”

Second, contrary to the widespread assumption among Christian Zionists, it was not necessary for the Jewish people to have a State prior to the Millennium in order for end-time prophecy to be fulfilled.  One can imagine a scenario like the following.  World

War I prepared the land for the Jewish people, and World War II prepared the Jewish people for the land.  The Balfour Declaration designated Palestine as a homeland for Jews—contrary to the British promise of Palestine to the Arabs.  Suppose that immigrant Jews between 1917 and 1948 had not agitated for a nation-state.  Suppose that their number had grown but had not become so large as to be unmanageable to the British and to the indigenous population.  Suppose they maintained relatively peaceful relations with the rest of the population in Palestine and the Middle East.

On the typical prophetic scenario of dispensationalism, all that is required is that there be a sizable community of Jews living in the land—not that there be a nation-state of Jews in the land.  At the beginning of the future seven-year Tribulation period, the world ruler of Daniel 9 would make a treaty with the community, guaranteeing its security.  In fact, at his instigation, the community of Jews in the land could even be made into a nation-state at that time as part of his covenant with them.  He would divide “the land for a price” (Dan. 11:39), and thereby grant them territory for their new nation.  Then the rest of the scenario for the Tribulation period would ensue.

Neither in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament is there any indication that the  community of Jews in the land must be a nation-state like the contemporary State of Israel.  Nothing more is prophetically required than that there be a substantial number of Jews in the land at the beginning of the seven-year Tribulation period.  All else that needs to transpire prior to the second advent of Christ could be done during that period.  

To be sure, the contemporary State of Israel is a historical fact.  From a biblical standpoint, however, it is not a necessary, prophetic development that had to take place prior to the Tribulation period.  In all the Old Testament, I find only one passage that unequivocally specifies events that were to occur during the intercalation between the end of the sixty-ninth heptad of years and the beginning of the seventieth heptad of years.  “After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.  The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” (Daniel 9:26).  It is clear from the context that these two events—the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans—occur in the unspecified time-period between the sixty-ninth and seventieth heptads.  The prophetic clock begins again for the Jewish people and for Jerusalem in Daniel 9:27, which speaks of one who “confirms a covenant with many for one ‘seven’.”

Christian Zionists typically wrest verses from Ezekiel 36-37, disregarding the clear contextual indications that it is the Millennium that is in view, and not events that are to transpire during the church age.  In contrast to the contemporary State of Israel, which is there by the permissive will of God, at the beginning of the Millennium God “will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land.  I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel.  There will be one king over all of them” (Ezekiel 37:21, 22).  This is one of the key passages used by anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews, for it says that “the Sovereign Lord” (v. 21) will constitute the Jewish people a nation, not human means.

Such biblical passages say nothing about the Lord creating a Jewish nation-state prior to the Millennium.  Daniel 9 only indicates that there must be “many” Jews in the land with whom a future ruler would confirm a covenant.  The founding of the State of Israel in 1948 is not foretold in either Testament.  The prophecy that states that a nation will be “born in a day” (Isaiah 66:8) clearly refers to the beginning point of the Millennium, as the context indicates (Isaiah 66:10-18).

The occupation of Jerusalem by the State of Israel in 1967 was also not foretold in either Testament.  Luke 21:24 was not fulfilled in 1967, for the verse can only mean that Jerusalem will be continually (not continuously) trodden down of the gentiles until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled.  The times of the gentiles, which began with the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., will not be completed until the return of Christ to the earth.  Jerusalem will be trodden down by gentiles during the latter half of the Tribulation period (Daniel 11:41-45; Revelation 11:1, 2). Only the return of Christ will put an end to gentile invasion and domination of the city of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1, 2). 

All of the end-time prophecies preceding the Millennium could be fulfilled, in principle, during the Tribulation period alone, without a State of Israel existing prior to it.  Nothing more is required than the presence of a large Jewish community in the land at the beginning of the seven-year Tribulation so that the future world ruler could confirm a treaty with them, thereby guaranteeing the community’s rights and security. 

Third, Genesis 12:3 refers to blessing the Hebrew people and not a political entity. Approximately two-thirds of the Jews in the world do not live in the State of Israel today.  Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of Jews—even some living in the State of Israel—are opposed to it for various reasons, including reasons based on their understanding of the Old Testament.  Are we to bless only pro-Israeli Jews and ignore (or “curse”) anti-Israeli Jews?  On what basis does one presume that Genesis 12:3 allows for such discrimination?

Fourth, if we are going to be consistent dispensationalists, we must take our stand with New Testament teaching that applies to the church age of which we are necessarily a part.  Christ said, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18), and the future tense of his promise found fulfillment on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).  In his church, “there is neither Jew nor Greek…for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).  Furthermore, Christ is the Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16).  “Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). 

Therefore, Christ must have the preeminence; then all believers, Jews and gentiles, must have priority over the physical seed of Abraham.  If we are to carry out the blessing of Genesis 12:3 as consistent dispensationalists, we must give precedence to blessing the spiritual seed of Abraham, namely, our fellow believers in Christ. 

By failing to interpret Genesis 12:3 correctly in the light of New Testament teaching and by conducting his teaching and actions as if he were in a Jewish dispensation rather than in the church age, Hagee draws mistaken inferences from it.  His use of Genesis 12:3 provides no justification whatever for elevating Abraham’s physical seed over his spiritual seed, the Body of Christ, nor for giving the State of Israel unconditional support.  The New Testament teaches us to bless all people (Lk. 6:28; Rom. 12:14) and to curse no one (James 3:9-12). 

Hagee presents a false bifurcation: either bless the State of Israel by unconditionally supporting her or you are cursing her.  And if you withhold unconditional support, you are cursing her and you will be cursed.  However, if I am blessing all people in the biblical sense, which does not imply unconditional support for any nation-state, and if I am cursing no people in obedience to New Testament teaching, then ipso facto, I am blessing the Jewish people and I am not cursing them.  Jewish people are part of all people.

At this point I can hear a Christian Zionist say, “Well and good; we should bless everyone and curse no one, but we must give priority to the Jewish people (which Christian Zionists simultaneously confuse with the State of Israel).”  Now that is precisely the error of inconsistent dispensationalists.  Nothing could be clearer from the New Testament than the God-inspired truth that only those who believe in Christ are the true seed of Abraham, and to that seed, namely, Christians who constitute the Body of Christ, are we to give priority. 

The Body of Christ is a “chosen people” (I Peter 2:9; Eph. 1:4; I Cor. 1:27ff.) and the apple of His eye in this present era.  This is the mandated priority in the church age.  How could it be otherwise, for the church (the Body of Christ) is the bride of Christ (Rev. 19:7)?  Can anyone justifiably consider unbelieving, ethnic Israel to be the apple of His eye in the church age rather than His bride?  We are not living in the Old Testament, nor in the Tribulation, nor in the Millennium.  A consistent dispensationalist fully understands this and acts accordingly. Lamentably, inconsistent dispensationalists do not.

1. Hagee’s Second Reason: Romans 15:27

Hagee’s second reason for unconditional support of the State of Israel is found in his appeal to Romans 15:27.  I have dealt with this at length in the body of my paper.  Nevertheless, I want to re-emphasize some basic facts.

First, the apostle Paul does not advocate support for any political entity, such as the State of Israel.  Second, he does not promote the sending of financial resources to unbelievers, but only to believers who are part of the Body of Christ. 

Hagee says that “Christians owe a debt of eternal gratitude to the Jewish people for their contributions that gave birth to the Christian faith.”  He also cites John 4:22, “Salvation is of the Jews”—more accurately translated, as in the NIV, “Salvation is from the Jews.” 

The context indicates that Christ is emphasizing the fact that salvation is not from the Samaritans or any other non-Jewish people.  If one wants to find God’s provision of salvation, it is in the Messiah, “the Savior of the world” (John 4:25, 26, 42). 

The salvation of which Christ spoke was not due to anything that Jews could do; it was the result of divine choice and action in providing the Scriptures and ultimately Christ, the Seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David to provide redemption for mankind.  That is why salvation is from the Jews, for only from them did the Messiah and Savior come: “the gospel of God—the gospel He promised beforehand through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David”  (Romans 1:2, 3).  Our Savior was not a gift of the Jews to the world; he was God’s gift to the Jews and to all mankind: “For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.  And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6; italics added for emphasis).

Since “gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessing,” Paul says, “they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.”  How is this to be done?  Paul tells us in the same passage: by providing material resources for Christian Jews, for they are the true Jews who believe God’s promises in the Tanach about His Son, Jesus Christ (Romans 2:28, 29).  Paul does not leave us confused or guessing; he specifically states that he is raising a contribution for “the saints in Jerusalem.”  They are the heirs and continuation of the Old Testament remnant from whom the Messiah came.  We should especially thank God for that remnant who remained faithful to the Lord in the midst of a nation that had turned to its own way (Isaiah 53:6; 6:13; 66:1-6). 

Hagee writes:

“Consider what the Jewish people have given to Christianity:  a) The Sacred Scripture b) The Prophets c) The Patriarchs d) Mary, Joseph, and Jesus Christ of Nazareth e) The Twelve Disciples f) The Apostles.

Notice that all of the above were given by God and transmitted to and through believing Jews who were part of the faithful remnant.  “The saints in Jerusalem” who were to be the recipients of the contribution that Paul was raising were part of the faithful remnant of believing Jews during the church age (Rom. 11:5). They were the Jews who stood in the line of the spiritual remnant through whom the aforementioned blessings came. Therefore, gentile believers owe material blessings to poor Christian Jews who did not take their stand with the majority of Jews who hardened their hearts against Christ and against the apostles who proclaimed the gospel.

Our eternal gratitude should supremely be to God, who in His electing grace, chose Abraham and the Israelites as His special vehicle through whom He would bless all nations: “The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession…not because you were more numerous…Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people” (Dt. 7:6, 7; 9:6). 

The apostle Paul reiterated the Lord’s assessment of the Israelites: “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people” (Rom. 10:21).  Despite the unfaithfulness and rebellion of the vast majority of the Israelites, “at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace” (Rom. 11:5) and there will be future remnant at Christ’s second advent who will be delivered, “so all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26).  All this takes place because, “as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28, 29).”

So whatever gratitude we have to the Jewish people, let it be qualified by realism.  The Jews did not merit the divine choice nor did they originate the plan of salvation.  If it had depended upon the Jews or any other human community, salvation would have never been provided.  Someone has said, “How odd that God should choose the Jews.”  What is misleading about this couplet, however, is that if He had chosen anyone else, we would be pondering the same question about them.  God is sovereign, and He will choose whomever He desires.  Besides, He did not choose the Jews as an already existing people. God created a new people by His choice of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

We should be thankful to God who chose the Patriarchs and their seed to be His servant- nation for the blessing of all peoples, but we should never forget that pure electing grace means that neither they nor anyone else can take credit for it.  It is only God’s purpose in electing grace that stands (Rom. 9:11), and, therefore, all glory is due to Him.  Ultimate gratitude belongs to God for His ultimate gift: “Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift” (II Cor. 9:15).   That gift is not the Jewish people, but the Lord Jesus Christ.”

We ought to appreciate the Christian faith’s Jewish roots, but not once in the New Testament do the apostles exhort us to thank ethnic Jews for spiritual blessings.  “Jewish roots” are rooted in God.   Like everyone else, they had nothing but what they had received from God (I Cor. 4:7).  Both the spiritual and material blessings of Romans 15:27 have their source in God.  The Jews cannot take credit for the spiritual blessings and the gentiles cannot take credit for the material blessings. 

Tragically, most of the Jews rejected Christ and sought to hinder the conveyance of the Gospel, which is the greatest of all spiritual blessings, from others—as the book of Acts makes clear (also see I Thess. 2:14-16).  It was only the work of God that made gentile Christians share in the blessings of God’s household by destroying “the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph. 2:14).  It was not the Jews but God alone who purposed “to create in himself one new man out of the two” (Eph. 2:15).  The vast majority of Jews wanted to maintain the wall of hostility between them and gentiles, whom they considered to be as unclean as dogs. Recall the prayer of the Pharisees: “I thank God that I was not born a gentile, a dog, or a woman.” Our eternal gratitude belongs to Christ who is “our peace” (Eph. 2:14)—the One who removed the wall of hostility.

The apostle Paul never says that gentile Christians owe their material blessings to unbelieving Jews.  Consistently in all of his epistles, he says that we are to provide material resources for needy Christian Jews, as well as poor Christian gentiles.  Christian Zionists apparently do not understand this, for they send their largesse almost entirely to non-believing Jews, leaving Christian Jews neglected.  That is something that the apostle Paul never intended or taught, and, in fact, it flies in the face of both his example and his instruction. 

As far as it goes, I agree with Hagee’s statement, “It is not possible to say, ‘I am a Christian,’ and not love the Jewish people.”  But it does not go far enough.  It is also defective in its implication that a certain priority must be given to ethnic Jews.  In fact, within the context of his Christian Zionism, the statement involves a culpable mishandling of the word of God by substituting the priority of “the Jewish people” for the priority that rightly belongs to fellow-members of the Body of Christ. Incredibly, Hagee cites I John 3:18 relative to the necessity of demonstrating our love in tangible ways. I say “incredibly,” because the immediate context of the verse indicates that precedence  ought to be given to fellow Christians.  It says nothing about the alleged priority of caring for unbelieving, ethnic Jews.  Nevertheless, the replacement theology of Christian Zionists leads to the substitution of “Jews” for “Christians” in contradiction to the clear statements of Scripture.

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.  And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.  If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? (I John 3:16, 17; italics added)

Therefore, a New Testament Christian will not say what Hagee said, with its Christian Zionist implications.  Rather, he will say, “It is not possible to say, ‘I am a Christian,’ and not love fellow-members of the Body of Christ.”    This simply restates I John 3:16-18.

Furthermore, Hagee’s statement is inadequate in another way.   If we are to be true to the New Testament, we must say that it is not possible to claim to be a Christian and not love all people.  We are told to “be imitators of God…and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us” (Eph. 5:1, 2).  “God so loved the world,” not merely the Jewish people.  

Of course we should love Jews just as we should love all people.  We should also refuse to adopt the replacement theology of Christian Zionism, for it denies the clear teaching of Scripture about the universal imperative given to Christians to love all people.  Within the scope of this universal love is a certain priority to be given to fellow believers, just as we have a special responsibility to give priority to caring for our own household and family members.  

III.  Hagee’s Third Reason: Jesus was a Jew

Hagee’s third reason has little relevance to the question of supporting the State of Israel.  Certainly Jesus was Jewish as to his human ancestry.  Why that should be a reason for supporting the State of Israel, which still rejects him, is not clear.  When “he came to that which was his own,…his own did not receive him” (Jn. 1:11).

Hagee tries to make his point relevant by tying it to Matthew 25:40.  On that basis, he says that “Jesus considered the Jewish people His family.  Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren (the Jewish people…Gentiles were never called His brethren), ye have done it unto me.” 

As I pointed out in my paper, however, the Jewish people were never referred to as Christ’s brothers in the New Testament.  Apart from his biological half-brothers, the reference to Christ’s brothers designates only those who are regenerated believers in Christ.  This can be verified by taking an exhaustive concordance to the Bible and reading every one of the New Testament references to “brother,” “brothers,” and “brethren.”  Hagee is not only in error when he says that the term is used to refer to ethnic Jews but he is also in error when he says that gentiles were never called Christ’s brethren.  Of course, unregenerate gentiles, just like unregenerate Jews, are never called his brothers.  But regenerate Jews and regenerate gentiles are both referred to as Christ’s brothers (Hebrews 2:11; Romans 8:29).

A very important implication of the passage in Matthew 12:46-50 is missed by the Christian Zionist assumption that ethnic Jews have a special claim on Christians by the mere fact that they are Abraham’s physical seed.  Note the significance of Jesus’ reply to the man who thought that because it was members of his biological family—namely, his mother and his half-brothers–who were wanting to speak with him, he would be expected to give them special treatment.  However, his response completely eliminates the value of any physical relationship as a basis for priority over a spiritual relationship: “He replied to him, ‘Who is my mother and who are my brothers?’  Pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers.  For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother’” (Mt. 12:48, 50). 

Applying this to Matthew 25:40 gives us an a fortiori argument–i.e., it is even more the case that those who are not as physically close to him as his nuclear, biological family have no special claim on him or the Body of which He is the head.  Thus, ethnic Jews do not occupy a special status that overrides or even rivals the special position of people who are in Christ.  The primacy of a spiritual relationship with Christ is clearly established in this passage.  This powerfully underscores the correctness of my interpretation that Christ’s brothers in Matthew 25:40 are not ethnic Jews but regenerated believers, whether Jew or gentile. Therefore, Hagee’s appeal to it as a rationale for Christian Zionism is unwarranted. 

1. Hagee’s Fourth Reason: Psalm 122:6

The fourth reason he gives is often quoted by Chistian Zionists: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; they shall prosper that love thee” (Ps. 122:6).  He comments, “the scriptural principle of prosperity is tied to blessing Israel and the city of Jerusalem.”

Although there is nothing wrong with praying for the peace of Jerusalem, the way that Christian Zionists over-emphasize this is one of the many ways their inconsistent dispensationalism is revealed.  Nowhere in the New Testament does one find an exhortation to pray for the peace of Jerusalem.  It tells us to pray for one another, to pray for the Lord’s servants, to pray for our needs, and to pray for everyone:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful lives in all godliness and holiness.  This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2:1-4).

It is significant that when the apostle Paul instructs Timothy about prayer, he does not cite Psalm 122:6.  Praying for the peace of Jerusalem is tantamount to praying “Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10), for Jerusalem will only know real peace when the King comes to establish the Millennial kingdom with Jerusalem as his world capital (Zech. 14:9, 16, 17; Isaiah 66:12). 

It is important to see, however, that the extent of the kingdom will be the whole earth—God’s will is to be done on earth as it is in heaven.  It is not sufficient to have peace limited to Jerusalem.  Psalm 122:6 is not repeated in the New Testament because the scope of the coming kingdom is worldwide.  This is emphasized so that the tendency toward ethnocentricity, which was endemic among the Israelites, would be overcome and replaced with a vision including the whole of mankind, thereby fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3).  

The second problem with Hagee’s interpretation of Psalm 122:6 is his implicit “prosperity gospel.”  He seems to interpret the word “prosper” in the verse to refer primarily to material possessions and physical well-being that will accrue to Christians in the church age if they love the city of Jerusalem and pray for it.  The so-called prosperity gospel has been analyzed and refuted by a number of scholars, so I will not engage in further discussion of it here.  Suffice it to say, gentile nations that submit to Christ’s kingship as he reigns in Jerusalem during the Millennium will prosper and those who fail to do so will not prosper (Zech. 14:16-19).

The material prosperity promised to those who love and pray for the peace of Jerusalem will find fulfillment in the Millennium.  Christian Zionists are not all materially rich and most will never be materially rich in this life.  Nor are they all free of disease.  It would also be gratuitous to claim that they experience spiritual blessings more than non-Zionist Christians. 

It only takes one counter-example to a universal proposition to falsify it.  The application to the church age of the universal proposition that all who love Jerusalem will materially and physically prosper is shown to be misconceived by the presence of poor and unhealthy Christian Zionists.  Obviously, being a Christian Zionist does not guarantee such prosperity.  In the New Testament, the degree of a Christian’s material and physical prosperity is a matter of wise stewardship and God’s sovereignty.  There is nothing in the New Testament that guarantees material riches or physical health to Christians, and there is nothing in it that links it to the extent of one’s devotion to the peace of Jerusalem.  Only inconsistent dispensationalists think otherwise.

Surely the Christian Jews in Jerusalem during the first century loved their city and prayed for its peace.  Nevertheless, Paul tells us that they were enduring intense suffering and extreme poverty.  Apart from prospering spiritually, the poor saints in Jerusalem were certainly not prospering in any other way.  Here is a counterexample that demonstrates the falsity of the Christian Zionist interpretation of Psalm 122.6.  Some of the most devoted Christians in the world today are poor in material possessions and physical health, even though they may be praying for the peace of Jerusalem.

1. Hagee’s Fifth Reason: A Gentile Centurion

Hagee’s fifth reason is found in the account of a gentile centurion who asked Jesus to come and heal his servant.  He surmises that Christ responded to the centurion’s plea because some of the elders of the Jews said, “This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue” (Luke 7:5). 

From this account Hagee concludes that the message is that “this Gentile deserves the blessing of God because he loves our nation and has done something practical to bless the Jewish people.” 

I find this quite disturbing, for Hagee injects the notion of merit into the compassionate actions of the Lord Jesus.  Everything the four gospel accounts tell us about Jesus contradicts the assumption of merit.  The text does not say that Christ healed the servant because the centurion loved the nation of Israel and did something practical to bless the Jewish people.  This is not only reading into the text what is not specifically stated but it is also reading into it that which is contrary to the character and motives of Christ.

It was the Jewish elders who appealed to Jesus on the basis of meritorious works.  Such thinking was devoid of the understanding of grace, and it dominated the outlook of Jews.  But Christ operated on grace, not merit.  It is ironic that Hagee would adopt the assumption of “works-righteousness,” as expressed by the Jewish elders, rather than the compassion of God’s grace manifested by Christ.  This undercuts Hagee’s appeal to the elders’ statement as a reason for supporting Israel.

Both the Matthean and Lukan accounts stress the centurion’s faith in the authority of Jesus.  Of him, the Lord said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.”  The text immediately follows this with the statement, “Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well” (Lk. 7:9, 10).  That the elders appeal to merit was not Christ’s motivation for healing the centurion’s servant is supported by the fact that there is no mention of their plea in Matthew’s account.  Matthew makes it clear that Jesus responded to the centurion’s faith (Mt. 8:5-13). 

It is also significant that when the gentile Syrophoenician woman fell at Jesus’ feet, pleading with him to cast a demon out of her daughter, she had nothing of merit to give her supposed leverage with him.  Nevertheless, Jesus responded to her humble faith and cast the demon out of her daughter (Mark 7:24-30).

Again, when Jesus brought salvation to the Samaritan woman in John 4, she had done nothing to deserve it—nor could she.  Jesus went to the Samaritans and brought salvation to many, even though they did nothing meritorious to induce him to visit with them.  The Samaritans were not known for their love of the Jews or the city of Jerusalem.  Mutual prejudice ran deep between them.  Although the Samaritans did not love the Jews or Jerusalem, they still prospered spiritually—for they received the greatest blessing of all in the person of Christ and the salvation he brought to them.  It was done by him on the basis of grace (John 1:16, 17; 4:1-42), not works. 

Another consideration is germane here.  On the premise that the centurion had become a true believer in Christ, for whom would he have provided material resources after his conversion?  Is it credible to think that he continued to support the nation of Israel that rejected Jesus and had him crucified?  Or is it more likely that he shifted his alms from the synagogue and its correlative Jewish establishment to the apostles and to his fellow believers in Christ?  

Until the cross and the founding of the church in Acts 2, Israel occupied center stage in God’s dealings with the nations.  Therefore, it was entirely appropriate for the gentile centurion, as a convert to the Jewish faith, to love and support the Jewish people and their synagogue.  That was a Jewish dispensation.  But especially after Pentecost, the only appropriate thing for him to do was to shift his loyalty to the Body of Christ, for a new dispensation had dawned (Eph. 3:1-6).  It is inconsistent dispensationalism that appeals to the thinking of the Jewish elders (Lk. 7:5) as paradigmatic for the church age.  They belonged to a dispensation in which we are no longer living.  

1. Hagee’s Sixth Reason: Another Gentile Centurion

The sixth reason that Hagee advances suffers from the same defects as his fifth reason.

His appeal to the actions of Cornelius in Acts 10 is based on a fallacious inference that supposedly lends credence to the unconditional support of the State of Israel. 

Hagee claims that Acts 10:2, 4, 31 show that “a godly Gentile who expressed his unconditional love for the Jewish people in a practical manner was divinely selected by heaven to be the first Gentile house to receive the Gospel and the first to receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.” Notice how Hagee smuggles in the word “unconditional,” which is nowhere to be found in the entire tenth chapter of Acts.  It is another case of a Christian Zionist reading into the text of Scripture rather than adhering to what is actually in the passage.

Hagee asks, “Who were the people to whom Cornelius gave these alms?  They were the Jews!”  What he overlooks, however, is that Cornelius was living under the Old Covenant with Israel.  He had not heard of the New Covenant with the church.  Of course, as a sincere believer in the true God who was revealed in the Old Testament, he was “giving generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly” (Acts 10:2).  This showed the genuineness of his faith, and the angel that appeared to him let him know that heaven was fully cognizant of the demonstration of his faith in the true and living God. 

It was entirely understandable that those who already believed in “Moses and the prophets” (Lk. 16:31) should hear the Gospel of Christ and find salvation in him, for “all the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43). 

After Cornelius and his household believed in Christ, they were “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48).  This meant that they were no longer identified with the Old Covenant and with the nation of Israel that had rejected the Lord Jesus.  They were now identified with Christ and the New Covenant.  This put them in a new community—“outside the camp” of unbelieving Israel (Heb. 13:13)–giving them new priorities. 

Instead of giving to poor Jews on the basis of their ethnicity or on the basis of the Old Covenant which was “only a shadow” (Hebrews 10:1), Cornelius was brought into a New Covenant, which “made the first one obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13).  Since Judaism’s Mosaic Covenant was no longer in effect, its requirements and priorities were replaced.  Henceforth, Cornelius would be identified with the apostles of Christ and the relatively small remnant of Jews who trusted in Christ.  His material resources would now go to helping poor Jewish and gentile Christians, for they had become his new spiritual family.

Hagee takes a description of temporary actions on the part of the centurion in Luke 7 and Cornelius in Acts 10 and anachronistically absolutizes them for all time.  This is another example of his inconsistent dispensationalism.   Cornelius did not remain in the same condition, with the same relationships, and the same guidelines that characterized his pre-conversion way of life. 

Furthermore, contrary to Hagee’s implication, Cornelius could not give unconditional support to the nation of Israel—if he ever did–for it had rejected the Messiah whom he had received.  Representing the leadership of Israel and the majority of her people, Pharisees and other Judaizers were still hounding and persecuting the apostles and countless other Christian believers.  If Cornelius and his household did not shift their loyalties to the Body of Christ from the nation of Israel, then they would have betrayed Christ whom they acknowledged as their Lord, and they would have been as inconsistent as Christian Zionist dispensationalists are today.  They knew better and did better, however, for the apostle Peter was personally with them to teach them about the New Covenant replacing the Old Mosaic Covenant. 

Perhaps a historical example from the life of Abraham Lincoln will elucidate the nature of the error committed by Christian Zionism in this regard.  I once debated with an atheist who dogmatically asserted that Lincoln was not a Christian.  He quoted a statement to that effect from Lincoln’s early years in the presidency.  For him, that was the end of the argument.  However, his mistake was elementary.  He had committed the blunder of anachronism.  What Lincoln said at one time was certainly the case.  He admitted that he was not a Christian.  But toward the end of his presidency, when his beloved son Willie died, he said that until then he had not been a Christian, but when his son died he placed his trust in Christ, ending the final, brief period of his life as an avowed Christian. 

With a similar anachronistic blunder, Hagee and other Christian Zionists lift historically conditioned statements out of the biblical text, freeze them for all time, and then inappropriately apply them to the church age.  It should not be assumed that what Cornelius once did is what he continued to do after his conversion.  The teaching of the New Testament is unequivocal: we are not under the Mosaic system with the religious hegemony of the nation of Israel.  We are under grace with the spiritual hegemony of Christ and his church.  The consequences of that change are far-reaching, and they completely undermine Hagee’s implication that “prosperity (Genesis 12:3 and Psalm 122:6), healing (Lk 7:1-5), and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit came first to Gentiles that blessed the Jewish people and the nation of Israel in a practical manner,” and, therefore, the same will come to people today who do likewise.  This claim is based on nothing other than a radical misunderstanding of biblical teaching.

VII.  Hagee’s Seventh Reason: Israel Alone Was Created by God Who Gave the Nation an Unconditional Land Grant

For his last reason for advocating the unconditional support of the State of Israel, Hagee says, “we support Israel because all other nations were created by an act of men, but Israel was created by an act of God!”  Then he adds, “the Royal Land Grant was given to Abraham and his seed through Isaac and Jacob with an everlasting and unconditional covenant (Gen. 12:1-3; 13:14-18; 15:1-21; 17:4-8; 22:15-18; 26:1-5; and Psalm 89:28-37).”

Actually reason number 7 is two reasons.  The first of the two reasons is ambiguous in two ways: in the term “created” and in the word “Israel.”  In one sense, as the Bible categorically states, “From one man He made every nation (ethnos) of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live” (Acts 17:26).  Understood this way, the Bible flatly contradicts Hagee’s statement, for it says that all nations (ethnic groups) were created by an act of God.  In another sense, “created’ can mean “chosen by God from among all peoples for special purposes,” as in Deuteronomy 7:6, Isaiah 51:1-3, and Romans 9:4, 5.   Nevertheless, on the assumption that Hagee means the latter, it does not follow that Israel should have unconditional support, for God’s choice does not entail its perfection.  When Israel is disobedient to the will of God, its acts of spiritual and moral dereliction should not be supported.

How are we to understand the word “Israel” in Hagee’s statement.  Does he mean that Israel in the Old Testament was originally created by an act of God or does he mean that contemporary Israel was created by an act of God in 1948?  If he intends the former meaning, the aforementioned strictures apply.  If he means the latter or perhaps both, it implies that the contemporary State of Israel was created by the directive will of God.  But in rebuttal of this assumption are two important factors.  First, there is no direct revelation from God stating that Israel’s founding in 1948 was according to the directive will of God.  Second, there are formidable reasons–biblical, ethical, and spiritual—to maintain that the State of Israel exists by the permissive will of God and not by the directive will of God.  I have elaborated on some of these in my paper.  On either semantic assumption, it does not follow that anyone should give the State of Israel unconditional support.

 

The second half of Hagee’s seventh reason betrays a cardinal mistake made by virtually all Christian Zionists.  They fail to distinguish between the unconditional, divine promise of the gift of the land specified in passages like Genesis 15:18, 19 and the conditional enjoyment of the land by actual occupation as specified in passages like Leviticus 18:28 and Deuteronomy 28-30. 

The Christian life provides an analogy that elucidates the foregoing distinction.  God has given all regenerate Christians the unconditional gift of eternal life (Romans 6:23; Eph. 2:8, 9), but that does not mean they will unconditionally enter into the enjoyment of that gift in this life.  That is why Paul tells Timothy, “Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called” (I Tim. 6:12).  Or to put it another way, the Holy Spirit is God’s unconditional gift to every believer (Rom. 8:9), but to enjoy His presence and power is conditional (Gal. 5:16; Eph. 4:30; 5:18).  Carnal Christians have the same gift of eternal life that spiritual Christians have, but unlike the latter, they are not enjoying its present experiential benefits (I Cor. 2:14-3:4; Rom. 14:17; 15:12, 13).

By wittingly or unwittingly ignoring the many biblical passages that state the conditions for Israel to occupy the promised land, Christian Zionists are misled into believing that the unconditional “land promise” entitles Israel to occupy the land at any time in any spiritual-moral condition.  This is the most fundamental error of Christian Zionism.  It is certainly obvious that political Zionism and the State of Israel that it spawned do not conform to the spiritual-ethical conditions that God Himself requires for the Jewish people to occupy and live on the land.

Three of the most important consequences of understanding that there are necessary conditions that must be met before Israel can claim a biblical right to occupy the land are: (1) the State of Israel is not in the land today by the directive will of God, for she is far from conforming to the biblically specified requirements, (2) all justifications for the State of Israel’s occupation of the land today can only be non-biblical, and (3) it is anti-biblical to give the State of Israel unconditional support.  

A serious entailment of unconditional support of the State of Israel is implicit idolatry.  The first of the Ten Commandments says, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex. 20:3).  Unconditional support means that whether the State of Israel is right or wrong in what it does, one must not deviate from absolute devotion to it and justification of whatever it does. It means that God’s holy standards are to be subordinated to the State of Israel.  It means that the lives and rights of Palestinian Arabs are of no consequence.  It means that justice and compassion are to be unilaterally applied for the benefit of Israel and always subsumed under the State of Israel’s self-interest.  It means that the efforts of President Bush and the Roadmap Quartet to provide an even-handed resolution to the Middle East conflict are to be opposed.  It means that it is always right to put the State of Israel above biblical ethics and above the Body of Christ.  It means, in the final analysis, the very apotheosis of the State of Israel.

The stinging question that God asked Eli in I Samuel 2:29 must be asked of all Christian Zionists with the ad hoc substitution of “Israel” for “your sons” in the text: “Why do you honor Israel more than Me?”  As Eli put his sons before God, so Christian Zionists, with their advocacy of unconditional support for the State of Israel, are thereby putting it before God.  God alone is worthy of unconditional devotion.  If God is truly ultimate in our hearts, we cannot give unconditional support to any political entity or human institution. 

If one gives the State of Israel unconditional support, then how can God be truly ultimate in such a person’s heart?  The State of Israel, like all states and all people, must be assessed by God’s standards.  I realize that the charge of idolatry will be deeply resented and vehemently denied by Christian Zionists.  The danger of rationalization, however, invariably intrudes at this point. Like some  “churches” that deny that they worship “the virgin Mary” and other “saints” by rationalizing their attitude toward them as “veneration,” Christian Zionists will b loathe to admit that they raise the State of Israel to an idolatrous level.  Yet there is a real choice to make between ultimate loyalty to God and ultimate loyalty to Israel.  It cannot be both God and Israel, for only one can be ultimate (Matt. 6:24). 

Christian Zionists’ most accommodating rationalizations and most vociferous denials cannot nullify the logical entailments of their position.  If their intentions are biblically right but do not match their assertions, then they need to bring their assertions in line with their intentions and cease calling for unconditional support of the State of Israel.  Mere terminological change will not suffice, however.  The attitude of the heart must also be aligned with the worship of God as ultimate, for “true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks” (John 4:23).     

Contrary to Hagee’s claim that his seven reasons for supporting Israel are solid, on close analysis they are lacking both relevancy and cogency.  “The emperor has no clothes and he doesn’t realize it.”  I am still waiting for any Christian Zionist to give me one sound, biblical reason for unconditionally supporting the State of Israel or even the Jewish people.  As long as inconsistent dispensationalists like Hagee are held captive by the notion that they will obtain God’s blessing relative to the degree of their support of the State of Israel, they will continue to force biblical passages into the procrustean bed       of Christian Zionism.  Genesis 12:3 is not invoked even once in the New Testament as a basis for churches or individuals to receive divine blessing.  

It cannot be denied that most, if not all, Christian Zionists are primarily motivated by a desire to obtain the blessing entailed in Genesis 12:3.  There are three serious dangers that such a desire can lead to: (1) the danger of self-centeredness, (2) the danger of manipulation, and (3) the danger of “works-righteousness.”

Although it is not wrong to want God’s blessing on one’s life, it is wrong to focus on the fulfillment of one’s desires rather than on the Giver of blessings.  Even in pursuit of a good thing, the motive can be wrong.  One’s desire for happiness and prosperity can be entirely selfish.  Impelled by that kind of desire, one is predisposed to latching on to Genesis 12:3 as a means for realizing one’s own self-aggrandizement and egocentric yearnings.  Chauvinistic devotion to the State of Israel is not only a misconceived interpretation of Genesis 12:3, but it may be little more than a means to selfish ends.  There are many ways that people try to use God, and this is one of them.   

Predicating one’s actions on a Christian Zionist interpretation of Genesis 12:3 can readily lead to a form of magic, i.e., an attempt to manipulate the divine to act on one’s behalf.  This danger is subtle and it can entice a Christian Zionist to think that he can virtually demand various types of “blessing” from God because he is ostensibly fulfilling the implicit mandate inherent in Genesis 12:3.  An unspiritual sense of entitlement can easily grow on such soil: “Please observe my devotion, even sacrifice, for the State of Israel (or for the Jewish people).  On the basis of Genesis 12:3, You must bless me—spiritually, physically, materially, financially, and in every other way.  You are compelled to do so or else Your word is not true.”  This is antithetical to the heart-attitude that says, “Not my will but Your will be done.”

Closely related to the foregoing is the danger of “works-righteousness,” an ever-present temptation for Christians, as the epistle to the Galatians reminds us.  It is the attitude that assumes that one can acquire merit and thereby deserve the blessing of God.  A Christian is mistaken if he thinks that by taking action to give the State of Israel (or the Jewish people) unconditional support, he is earning points with God that will bring him a commensurate reward.  This is a legalistic debasement of the Christian life.  It is incompatible with the “grace of God that…teaches us” (Titus 2:11, 12). Grace, not works, is the New Testament principle on which our relationship with the Lord should be based. 

As Christians we care about all people because “the love of Christ compels us” (II Cor. 5:14).  Since we have “every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3), we do not need to earn them.  If one were to examine every New Testament reference to God’s blessing, he will be surprised to find at least three things. First, it is our spiritual incorporation in Christ that makes all blessings ours.  That is pure grace.  Second, experiencing God’s blessings in our daily lives depends on our walking in the Spirit so that we enjoy the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16, 22, 23). Third, there is no reference in the entire New Testament that makes chauvinistic devotion to the Jewish people a condition for experiencing God’s blessings.  Rather, it is walking by faith, abiding in Christ, yielding to the Holy Spirit, having our minds transformed—all such expressions referring to the same reality—that brings the experience of the abundant life (Jn. 10:10).

It must be asked, “If devotion to the State of Israel or to the Jewish people is as important for Christians as Christian Zionists maintain, why is there no mention of it in the New Testament?”  Even the key New Testament passages invoked by Christian Zionists do not say what they try to constrain them to say.  Romans 15:27 says that gentile Christians already share in “the Jews spiritual blessings.”  It does not say that we are to share our material blessings with them so that God will bless us.  One cannot find any passage in the epistles that would be more appropriate than Romans 15 for Paul to specifically cite Genesis 12:3 in support of his  exhortation to contribute to the aid of Jewish Christians.  But Paul does not quote it or refer to it.  Why?  Because in the church age it is not a condition for being blessed by God.  The love of Christ constrains us to first provide tangible aid to all fellow-members of the Body of Christ who are in need (I John 3:16-18) and then to all people without ethnic discrimination (Gal. 6:10).   

Why did Christ not cite Genesis 12:3 when he told about the sheep and goats in the judgment that will occur when He returns?  For one thing, as we have seen, the reference in Matthew 25:40 to Christ’s brothers does not designate ethnic Jews.  Second, entrance into eternal life (v. 46) is not a Genesis 12:3 blessing based on compassionate acts, whether toward Christ’s brothers or anyone else.  Such acts manifest genuine faith, which faith, as the epistle of James says, cannot be seen.  We exhibit our faith by our works.  Our works are the evidence of salvation, not the ground of salvation—not even in part (Romans 11:6; Gal. 2:21).  Third, as there is a special identification with Christ by the “brothers” referred to in Matthew 12:40, there is now a special identification with Christ of all regenerate people who comprise the church (Acts 9:4) and are, by spiritual incorporation into his Body, his “brothers” (I Cor. 12:13; Rom. 8:29). 

When Christian Zionists shed their inconsistent dispensationalism and start living in the framework of the New Testament, they will acquire the proper perspective that should be embraced with regard to the State of Israel, the Jewish people, the Body of Christ, and the whole of mankind.  As long as they persist in staying ensconced in the Old Testament framework, they will mistakenly believe that they are doing God service by their unbalanced view and pro-Israeli extremism.  Radical change is never easy, but sometimes it is necessary.  It remains to be seen if Christian Zionists will allow the Holy Spirit to use biblical truth to effect such a radical change in their hearts.

All rights to this article are reserved.  If anyone wants to use or quote any portion of it—other than in a private, direct response, negative or positive, to the author, he or she must first obtain the author’s permission in writing: mmhanna7@hotmail.com .