What if I told you that Christianity is not merely incompatible with Zionism, but was designed from the ground up to be its antidote, that the Jews rejected Jesus for precisely the same reasons American evangelicals now celebrate Israel, and that the first Christians proved where they stood on the question not with a theological treatise but by packing their bags and walking out of Jerusalem while everyone else was dying for it?
Benjamin Netanyahu stood before the international press last week and handed every thinking Christian a gift wrapped in accidental honesty. The Prime Minister of Israel declared that history proves “Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan, because if you are strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough, evil will overcome good.” Bird-brained Christian Zionist influencers rushed to tell us that he didn’t insult Jesus because he was quoting someone else, or because his point was accurate. Both are true observations, because Netanyahu was indeed quoting someone else, and his overall point was, in fact, true. But neither truth meant it wasn’t insulting to use Jesus as the example of a weakling who went to the cross in defeat. That should rightly have any believer not playing Netanyahu’s public relations specialist up in arms.
Netanyahu was also, without realizing it, confessing the entire Zionist worldview in a single sentence. He was telling us exactly what the Jewish leadership has always thought the Messiah should be: a Genghis Khan figure who is ruthless and powerful enough to crush their enemies and restore the national glory of Israel. And that’s exactly why they crucified Jesus. He didn’t fit their Zionist expectations.
That brings me to the point of this article: Christianity is not merely theologically incompatible with Zionism. Christianity is, from its root to its crown, an anti-Zionist religion.
The Messiah the Jews wanted would have restored the kingdom of Israel. That’s all they wanted. Anything else, so far as Messiahs go, was a distraction. Like demons who wander the Earth for bodies to possess so that their sin can be actualized in the flesh, the Jewish people have always pined for a nation-state, with which they can actualize their goals of conquest. The Zionist project has never been primarily about building a safe space for Jews to live in peace. If it were, Palestine would have been off the list of potential homelands, because it’s the most dangerous place in the world for Jews. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Jews who have been fleeing Palestine for the last three years in record numbers, or the millions of Jews happily residing in their nations of origin who have never felt it necessary to leave the safety and security of their homes abroad to migrate to the Biblical Promised Land, including many like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin who repeat the talking points about Jewish safety while they remain in America and watch bombs drop on Tel Aviv.
No, for them, a Jewish homeland is about having a nation not for the purpose of living there (most don’t), but as a clearinghouse for Jewish special interests, and to enjoy things like legal sovereignty, the capacity for warfare to compel others with force, to use legalized violence in the name of security, for the ability to move money, clear transactions, and issue debt instruments outside the regulatory reach of other nations, to move freely between nations while establishing legal residency in countries prime for economic plucking without being stateless aliens, to receive billions in military and economic assistance from other nations and then use that capital to redirect influence derived from it, to use Intelligence operations and foreign lobbying and to launder it through official government channels, and to use it as a safe harbor for everything ranging from fugitives to assets to be physically housed somewhere that extradition treaties don’t reach.
Today, we are lectured by Jews like Shapiro and Levin for the need of a safe Jewish homeland, when it will never be safe and is all but certain to be a continual source of global conflict that leaves its region in total disarray and provides incentives – like staying alive – to Muslims who flood Western Nations while Jewish NGOs pay for their resettlement and Jewish lobbying organizations spend millions ensuring those Western nations leave their borders wide open for it, making each Western nation with strong Jewish influence significantly less secure than it would be if there were no Israel in the Middle East at all.
The point is, the things that Jews want a nation to accomplish, or want a nation to provide them, the Messiah who God sent isn’t going to give them. That’s clear now, and it was clear when He came. Jesus had not the slightest bit of interest in a Jewish ethnostate. The Jews who rejected him did so because he wasn’t the Zionist Messiah they were looking for. And the Christians who have spent the last century baptizing the modern Israeli state with prophetic significance have swapped the actual Christ for the very idol that they crucified Him for not being.
THE MESSIAH THEY WANTED
To understand what happened at Calvary, you have to understand what first-century Judaism was expecting. Israel in the time of Christ was a people seething under Roman occupation, and the popular messianic expectation was not spiritual but military. They were waiting for a son of David who would do what David did: pick up a sword, rout the pagans, sit on a throne in Jerusalem, and restore the physical kingdom of Israel to its former glory, and then some. The Maccabean revolts, which predated Christ by roughly two centuries, were the template everyone was working from. Judas Maccabeus had taken back the Temple from Antiochus IV through guerrilla warfare, and he was the hero of the story. That was the genre. Everyone understood that.
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, the crowds waved palm branches and shouted “Hosanna,” a word that means “save us now” and carried unmistakably nationalist freight. They thought the revolution was starting. They thought he was finally going to do it. When he went straight to the Temple, they probably leaned forward in anticipation. And then he turned over some tables, healed some blind men, cursed a fig tree, and started talking about the Kingdom of Heaven in ways that made everybody uncomfortable. That wasn’t the script. The script called for a Genghis Khan, and they got the Sermon on the Mount.
Netanyahu’s comment is therefore not a modern gaffe. It is a two-thousand-year-old theological position getting accidentally repeated at a press conference. The Jewish rejection of Jesus was not a failure of evidence. The evidence was overwhelming. It was a failure of expectation. They had built a Messiah-shaped hole in their theology that required a warlord, and Jesus didn’t fit. He was the wrong kind of king. He was, in the language Netanyahu would understand, insufficiently ruthless.
THE JUDAS THEORY
Among the more compelling explanations for the betrayal of Christ is the one that treats Judas not merely as a greedy opportunist but as a disappointed Zionist. The theory, held by a number of serious New Testament scholars, is that Judas’s thirty pieces of silver were not the primary motivation but the severance package. The primary motivation was to force Jesus’s hand. If the authorities arrested him, the thinking went, surely then he would have to reveal himself as the military Messiah. He would call down fire, raise the nationalist banner, and the revolution would begin. Judas wanted to trigger the moment. He thought he was engineering the uprising, not the crucifixion.
Whether or not this reading is correct in every particular, it fits the broader pattern with uncomfortable precision. Judas was not a random traitor who wandered in from outside the story. He was a man who had followed Jesus for three years, watched the miracles, heard the teaching, and still couldn’t let go of the Zionist framework of expectations. He had the right Messiah in front of him and kept insisting that this Messiah needed to behave more like Genghis Khan. Sound familiar? It should. The evangelical church has been running the same play for a hundred years, acknowledging Jesus as Lord while demanding he sign off on the ethnic nationalist ambitions of a modern state that institutionally rejects him.
The Judas problem is not ancient history. It is the operating logic of Christian Zionism. You claim to follow the Prince of Peace while funding the military apparatus of a state whose founding law makes it illegal to share the Gospel. The thirty pieces of silver have simply gotten larger.
THE DISCIPLES BEFORE PENTECOST
Here is a detail that rarely gets the attention it deserves. In Acts 1, the disciples have spent forty days with the risen Christ. Forty days of post-resurrection teaching, of opened scriptures, of a Lord who has conquered death and is appearing and disappearing among them like a force of nature. And what question do they ask him just before the ascension? “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom again to Israel?” It appears they knew His time among them was coming to an end, and since Jesus had not yet addressed it in his post-ascension instructions, they wanted to ask before He left. They still wanted the Zionist revolution. Even after the empty tomb and after the Great Commission, they were wondering about the Zionist project. When would God restore the nation? The nationalism was so deep, so structurally embedded in how they understood everything, that the resurrection itself hadn’t yet dislodged it.
Jesus does not give them a political road map. He does not say yes or no to the restoration of the kingdom. He tells them it is not for them to know the times or seasons, that they will understand when the Holy Ghost comes, and that they will be His witnesses to the utter ends of the Earth. Then he ascends. And they stand there staring at the sky until two angels tell them to stop doing that.
Then Pentecost happens. And here is the remarkable thing. The question is never asked again. Not once. Search the entire book of Acts. Search the epistles. Search Revelation. Not one of those Spirit-filled men ever again raises his hand to ask about restoring the kingdom to Israel as a political entity. The obsession that had dominated their entire discipleship, the question they were still asking forty days after the resurrection, simply evaporates the moment the Holy Spirit fills them. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, after all. Before Pentecost, they were Zionists. After Pentecost, they were Christians. These are two different things, and the Holy Ghost is what made the difference.
PAUL’S VANISHING JEWISH IDENTITY
The Apostle Paul is one of the more spectacular exhibits in this argument. In Philippians 3, he catalogs his Jewish credentials: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, as to the law a Pharisee. And then he calls it all dung. The Greek word is skubala, and it is considerably more vivid than the English translators have generally let on. He had the pedigree. He had the bloodline. He had the nationalist bona fides. He counted it all as refuse or garbage.
Notice also the name change. He was Saul of Tarsus, operating under his Hebrew identity, right up until his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road and the subsequent filling of the Holy Spirit. From that point forward in the narrative, he is Paul – his Roman name, his Gentile-facing identity (please note: Paul is not the Greek for the Hebrew name, Saul; it’s an entirely different name). This is not a trivial biographical footnote. The man who would write more of the New Testament than anyone else, who would carry the Gospel across the Mediterranean world, who would author the most comprehensive theological treatment of Jewish-Gentile relations in the entire canon, this man led with his Roman citizenship and his Greek name, not his tribal lineage. He had to be dragged back to Jewish identity for the sole purpose of appealing to Jewish audiences, and even then, he used it as a bridge to Christ rather than as an end in itself.
Paul emphasizes constantly that God is no respecter of persons, that there is neither Jew nor Greek, that the middle wall of partition has been demolished. Paul is not leaving a side door open for ethnic nationalist theology to re-enter through. He is dismantling the entire conceptual architecture that makes Zionism possible as a Christian position. The man who was more Jewish than your favorite dispensationalist preacher will ever be said that his Jewishness was garbage compared to knowing Christ.
ROMANS 11 AND THE OBLIGATORY DETOUR
Every article on this topic is required by unwritten law to address Romans 11, so here it is. Paul asks whether God has cast away his people and answers his own question with “God forbid,” pointing to himself as Exhibit A. He is an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, and he has faith. The remnant survives by grace, not by ethnic entitlement. The olive tree metaphor that follows is not a promise to a geopolitical entity. It is a warning to Gentile believers not to be arrogant, and an explanation of how individual Jews can be grafted back in “if they abide not still in unbelief.” Nothing in Romans 11 was a national promise, but an individual one. In fact, it was the same promise everyone on Earth has: believe in Jesus, and we’ll let you onto the Tree of Abraham.
Romans 11 is not a blank check made out to the modern State of Israel. It is a statement about the sovereign mercy of God toward individual human beings who repent and believe. Paul himself says the branches were broken off because of unbelief. The remedy is not the existence of a Jewish homeland. The remedy is faith in Jesus Christ. If Romans 11 proved anything that Christian Zionists claim it proves, Paul would not have spent three chapters building to it by arguing that circumcision is worthless and that Abraham’s true children are those who share his faith.
THE CHRISTIANS OF 66 AD
In 66 AD, the Jewish revolt against Rome began in earnest. This was the nationalist uprising the Zealots had been planning for decades, the exact kind of military struggle to restore Jewish sovereignty that the disciples had been asking Jesus about before Pentecost. The Roman legions under Vespasian and then Titus came to crush it, and Jerusalem was surrounded.
The Christians in Jerusalem fled to Pella, a Gentile city in the Transjordan. They left. They packed up, and they walked away from the Jewish ethno-nationalist project at the precise moment when the stakes were existential. They had no interest in fighting for Jewish political sovereignty. They had no theological investment in the survival of the Jewish state as a Jewish state. They remembered what Jesus had told them in the Olivet Discourse: when you see the abomination of desolation, flee to the mountains, and they fled. They treated his words as a practical exit strategy rather than as a lament.
These were the people who had been taught by the apostles, who had received the tradition directly from the men who walked with Jesus. They were, by any reasonable measure, the most reliable guide to what Christianity actually teaches about Jewish nationalism available to us from the first century. And their answer, expressed not in theology papers but in shoe leather, was that they had absolutely no stake in whether Rome or the Zealots won. They got out. They were done.
Premium subscribers can access a free PDF of this article (ad and graphic-free) at the bottom of this post, just past the paywall.
CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS ARE BEHAVING LIKE THE WRONG PEOPLE
When American evangelical Christians wave Israeli flags in their sanctuaries, when they send money to Israeli settlement enterprises, when they treat political support for the modern State of Israel as a litmus test of biblical faithfulness, they are not behaving like Christians. They are behaving like the Jews who crucified Christ, the ones who wanted a Genghis Khan and rejected the one who came. They are behaving like the disciples before Pentecost, still asking about restoring the kingdom to Israel, still not yet filled with the Spirit that would cure them of the question. They are behaving like Judas, trying to force a political outcome that the actual Messiah never came to produce.
They are not behaving like Paul, who counted his tribal credentials as dung. They are not behaving like the Jerusalem church of 66 AD, who had no interest in dying for Jewish political sovereignty. The Christians of the first century understood something that the American evangelical establishment has spent a hundred years and billions of dollars trying to forget: the Kingdom of Christ is not the restoration of the Davidic monarchy to a particular strip of land, and conflating the two is not faithfulness but betrayal.
Netanyahu told the world last week, in his own words, what the Zionist Messiah looks like. Ruthless enough. Powerful enough. Strong enough. He described a conqueror, a Khan, a man who takes what he wants by force and calls it the will of God. The Jews have been waiting for that figure for two thousand years, and Christianity exists precisely because the real Messiah showed up and refused the job description. He took the cross instead of the throne, and he told his followers to pick up theirs. The irony is that he will very much resemble the warlord they wanted the first time, but the enemy He’ll be conquering is those who rejected Him.
The Christian who understands that cannot be a Zionist. At least, not a coherent or honest one. The religion itself won’t allow it. The Holy Spirit, when he shows up, kills the question. He did it at Pentecost, and he will do it again every time a believer actually reads the Book they claim to believe.
Christianity is an anti-Zionist religion. It was from the beginning. The evidence is in the text, in the history, in the flight to Pella, and in the Apostle Paul’s cheerful description of his entire ethnic inheritance as a pile of rubbish. And the evidence is in the words of Benjamin Netanyahu himself, who accidentally explained the precise theological error that got Jesus crucified while trying to justify a war with Iran. Jesus wasn’t then, and never will be, the Zionist they wanted. Instead, He’s the Savior they rejected. And when He returns, he’s not establishing a mere Kingdom in the land that was once ancient Israel. He’s establishing a kingdom over the entire world, not as the Jewish Messiah alone, but as the global One.
Leave a Reply