I was reading through those reports from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation this morning, and it is jarring to see how much the rhetoric has shifted in just the last few weeks. Since the strikes on Iran began on February twenty-eighth, we have seen over two hundred formal complaints from service members. We are talking about reports of military commanders telling their troops that this conflict is not just a strategic necessity, but part of a divine plan. It feels like we have moved past simple geopolitical strategy and into something much more ancient, or at least, something that claims to be ancient.
It is a heavy and complex moment to be watching this play out, Corn. I am Herman Poppleberry, and I think what we are seeing right now is the collision of modern high-tech warfare and a very specific nineteenth-century theology that has been simmering under the surface of American power for decades. Today’s prompt from Daniel is about the history and influence of Christian Zionism. He wants to know why these various denominations in the United States are such powerhouse supporters of the Jewish state, and specifically, which branches of the religion are driving this. It is a topic that people think they understand because they see the political rallies or the flags, but the actual engine behind it is much more technical and more recent than most people realize.
That is the part that always catches me off guard. We tend to frame the connection between Christianity and the land of Israel as this two-thousand-year-old constant, but when you look at the actual political movement of Christian Zionism, it is almost like a modern startup that found the ultimate product-market fit in American politics. Daniel wants to know the mechanics. Is it just about being pro-Israel in a political sense, or is there a deeper, more apocalyptic logic at play?
It is definitely about the mechanics. To understand this, we have to look at the specific branch of theology known as dispensationalism. This is primarily found in Southern Baptist circles, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, and a huge swath of the non-denominational evangelical world. We are talking about an estimated thirty million plus people in the United States alone. And the core of their support is not just a general affinity for the Jewish people or a shared Judeo-Christian heritage. It is the belief that the modern State of Israel is a prophetic clock. When that clock ticks, it signals the approach of the end times, the rapture, and the second coming of Christ.
So for them, Israel isn't just a country or an ally. It is a requirement for their own theological timeline to function. If there is no Israel, the clock stops, and their entire vision of the future collapses.
That is it. It is a fundamental requirement of their worldview. Most people assume this is how Christians have always thought, but the history tells a completely different story. If you go back to the early eighteen hundreds, this stuff did not exist in any mainstream capacity. The theological engine of modern Christian Zionism was actually invented by an Anglo-Irish preacher named John Nelson Darby. He was a former lawyer who became a clergyman and eventually founded a group called the Plymouth Brethren. Between the eighteen-twenties and eighteen-thirties, Darby systematized this idea of dispensationalism.
Help me out with that term, because it sounds like a very dense way of saying God has a very strict calendar.
That is a perfect way to put it. Darby argued that God works with humanity in different ages or dispensations. In his view, the age of the church is separate from the age of Israel. He believed that God’s promises to the Jewish people were never replaced by the Christian church, which was a massive departure from what most of Christianity had taught for eighteen hundred years. Most traditional denominations believed in what is called supersessionism, or replacement theology—the idea that the church replaced Israel in God’s plan. Darby said no, those two tracks are separate but parallel. He called the church age a great parenthesis in history. And for the final track to begin, for that parenthesis to close, the Jewish people had to return to their ancestral land.
So Darby is sitting there in the eighteen-thirties, long before there was a formal secular Zionist movement, and he is laying the groundwork for a political reality two centuries later. It is a bit cheeky to think that a British preacher’s interpretation of the Book of Daniel would eventually dictate who gets a seat in the United States Senate or how military commanders talk to their troops in twenty twenty-six.
It is one of the most successful intellectual exports in history. Darby was a tireless promoter. He traveled to the United States seven times between eighteen sixty-two and eighteen seventy-seven. He didn't just give sermons; he created a system. And that system included the concept of the pre-tribulation rapture. This is the idea that true believers will be physically taken up to heaven before a seven-year period of global chaos and the rise of the Antichrist. But here is the key,
according to Darby’s system, the rapture cannot happen until the Jews are back in the land of Israel. So, for a dispensationalist, supporting the return of Jews to Israel is not just a nice thing to do for a persecuted minority. It is the prerequisite for their own salvation event. It is the only way to get the show on the road.
That creates a very uncomfortable alliance. You have the secular Zionist movement, which was started by people like Theodor Herzl who were often quite secular or even atheistic, and then you have this massive group of Christians who are supporting the same goal but for a reason that ends with everyone either converting or, well, not having a great time during the tribulation.
It is the ultimate transactional alliance. And it actually predates Herzl’s political Zionism by a significant margin. This is one of those facts that usually surprises people. In eighteen forty-one, more than fifty years before Herzl wrote The Jewish State, the Church of Scotland sent a formal memorandum to every Protestant monarch in Europe calling for the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. Then you have William E. Blackstone in the United States. He was an evangelist who wrote a massive bestseller in eighteen seventy-eight called Jesus is Coming. In eighteen ninety-one, he organized what we now call the Blackstone Memorial.
I have heard of that. That was the petition to President Benjamin Harrison, right?
It was. And look at the names on that petition. Blackstone got four hundred and thirteen prominent Americans to sign it, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House, and moguls like John D. Rockefeller, J-P Morgan, and Cyrus McCormick. The petition argued that the Jewish people should be restored to their land. This was a formal political act by American Christians decades before the first Zionist Congress. It shows that Christian Zionism isn't a reaction to Jewish Zionism; in many ways, it was the cultural and theological soil that allowed Jewish Zionism to find a footing in the English-speaking world.
It explains why the Balfour Declaration in nineteen seventeen happened the way it did. You had British leaders like David Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour who were raised on the Bible. They weren't just making a cold, calculated imperial decision to secure the Suez Canal. They genuinely believed they were participating in a biblical event. I think Balfour once said that he was a Zionist before he ever met a Jew.
He did. And Lloyd George famously said that he was more familiar with the geography of the Holy Land than he was with the geography of the Western Front during World War One. They saw themselves as instruments of providence. But if we fast forward to today, the scale of this has moved from elite British politicians to a literal mass movement in the United States. That brings us to organizations like Christians United for Israel, or C-U-F-I.
John Hagee’s group. They claim ten million members now, which is just a staggering number. When you compare that to something like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or A-I-P-A-C, which is usually the one people talk about when they talk about the pro-Israel lobby, C-U-F-I is massive. It is the largest Zionist organization in the country, period.
And their influence is not just about numbers; it is about geographical distribution. A-I-P-A-C is very effective in Washington, but C-U-F-I has members in every single congressional district in America. When John Hagee calls for a day of action, he isn't just sending lobbyists to K Street. He is activating voters in rural Texas, the suburbs of Florida, and the heart of the Midwest. These are people for whom the survival of Israel is a primary voting issue, often ranked right alongside abortion or economic policy. And Hagee’s theology is pure dispensationalism. He has been very open about the fact that he opposes any division of the land on theological grounds. He believes the land was given by God to the Jewish people in its entirety, and for the United States to suggest a two-state solution is to invite divine judgment.
I want to go back to the branches of the religion for a second, because Daniel asked who they are exactly. You mentioned Southern Baptists and Pentecostals. But we are seeing a real split in the Christian world over this, aren't we? The mainline denominations, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, they seem to be heading in the opposite direction.
There is a massive theological chasm there. The mainline denominations generally hold to a more traditional view or a social justice framework. They are much more likely to be critical of Israeli policy, and some have even divested from Israeli bonds or companies that operate in the West Bank. They don't buy into the dispensationalist clock. For them, the modern State of Israel is a political entity that should be judged by the same human rights standards as any other country. But for the dispensationalist, Israel is a theological entity that exists in a different category altogether. This is why you see such a stark divide. It is not just a political disagreement; it is a fundamental disagreement about how to read the Bible.
It makes the appointment of someone like Mike Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel so significant. He is a Baptist minister. He has spent years leading Holy Land tours for Christians. When he speaks about Israel, he isn't just using the language of the State Department. He is using the language of the pulpit. In February of twenty twenty-six, when he was invoking that ideology publicly, it sent a clear signal that this administration views the relationship through that prophetic lens.
It really does. And that is why those complaints to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation are so revealing. If you have military commanders telling troops that a conflict with Iran is part of a divine plan, you have moved the theology from the church pews directly into the chain of command. It changes the nature of the conflict. It makes it much harder to have a secular, diplomatic resolution if one side believes the escalation is a necessary step toward the end of the world. In February twenty twenty-five, the London School of Economics published an analysis titled The Politics of Apocalypse, and it argued that this evangelical Zionism is no longer a subculture; it is a primary driver of U-S foreign policy.
That is the part that worries the critics. If you believe that a war is pre-ordained by God, you might be less inclined to try and prevent it. In fact, you might see de-escalation as working against God’s will. It is a very intense way to run a foreign policy.
There is also the internal friction to consider. In July of twenty twenty-five, we saw that coalition of mainstream faith leaders finally standing up to C-U-F-I. They called the organization’s influence dangerous. This was the first time in years we saw a really organized, public pushback from within the Christian world. They are worried that this one specific, and historically very new, interpretation of the Bible is becoming the only voice of American Christianity on the global stage. They are trying to reclaim the narrative, but they are fighting against a ten-million-member machine.
And what about the Jewish community’s perspective on this? Because it has to be a little bit surreal. You have this massive group of people who are your most vocal supporters, but their ultimate goal involves you either disappearing or changing your entire identity.
It is a very complex relationship. Many Jewish leaders, particularly on the right and within the Israeli government, have taken a very pragmatic approach. They see the political and financial support as a vital asset. They figure that they can deal with the theological end-times stuff if and when it ever happens, but in the meantime, they need the votes in Congress and the military aid. There is a famous saying in some Israeli circles: We don't agree with their end-game, but we like their middle-game.
That is a very high-stakes middle-game. But you also see pushback from the more liberal Jewish organizations who feel that this alliance comes at a cost. They worry that Christian Zionist support is tied to a very specific, hardline vision of Israel that makes a two-state solution or any kind of compromise impossible.
That is the Genesis twelve-three argument. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse. That single verse is the foundation of almost all Christian Zionist political activity. They believe that the prosperity of the United States is directly tied to its support for Israel. So, in their minds, being pro-Israel is the most patriotic thing an American can do, because it protects the country from God’s wrath. It is a very powerful motivator. It turns foreign policy into a matter of national survival in a spiritual sense.
It also explains why they are so focused on the specific geography. It isn't just about a safe haven for refugees; it is about the borders. It is about Jerusalem. It is about the Temple Mount. These are the specific locations where the prophetic script is supposed to play out.
And that is why the move of the embassy to Jerusalem was such a massive moment for this movement. For secular observers, it was a controversial diplomatic move. For Christian Zionists, it was a prophetic milestone. It was proof that the clock was ticking faster. And as we see the conflict with Iran expanding here in early twenty twenty-six, you are seeing pastors all over the country framing this as the beginning of the War of Gog and Magog from the Book of Ezekiel. They are literally mapping current military movements onto ancient texts in real time.
I think one of the most important takeaways for our listeners is that when you hear a politician or a commentator talking about Israel in the United States, you have to be able to decode the language they are using. If they start talking about blessing and cursing or prophetic destiny, they aren't just being colorful. They are signaling to a very specific, very organized base that shares this dispensationalist worldview.
You have to look for that prophetic clock language. If a policy is being defended not because it makes the region more stable, but because it fulfills a certain interpretation of scripture, that is Christian Zionism in action. It is a framework that operates outside of traditional secular diplomacy. And because it is rooted in faith, it is incredibly resilient to logical or political counter-arguments. You can't really argue with someone about a peace treaty if they believe that treaty is a sign of the Antichrist.
It is also worth noting that this isn't just an American phenomenon anymore. We are seeing the rise of Christian Zionism in the Global South, especially in Brazil and parts of Africa. It is becoming a global political force. But the United States remains the headquarters because of the sheer amount of money and political leverage that these organizations have.
It really is the engine room. And I think we have to respect the sincerity of the belief, even if we are critical of the political outcomes. These aren't people who are cynical or trying to manipulate the system for personal gain. They genuinely believe they are doing God’s work and that they are helping to bring about the ultimate redemption of the world. That kind of sincerity is what makes the movement so powerful and, to its critics, so unpredictable.
So, looking at the future of this alliance, what happens if the clock doesn't tick the way they expect? Or what happens as the younger generation of Evangelicals comes up? We have seen some data suggesting that younger Evangelicals are less tied to this specific dispensationalist framework than their parents were.
That is the big question for the next decade. There is a statistical earthquake happening. Younger Evangelicals are much more likely to care about Palestinian human rights and are less likely to view the modern State of Israel through a strictly prophetic lens. If that trend continues, the political power of groups like C-U-F-I might start to wane. But for now, they are at the height of their influence. With someone like Huckabee in Jerusalem and the Iran conflict dominating the headlines, the Christian Zionist framework is arguably more influential in the halls of power than it has ever been.
It is a reminder that history is not just a series of random events. Sometimes it is the result of ideas that were cooked up in a small room in eighteen-thirties England by John Nelson Darby and then carried across the ocean until they became the foundation of a global superpower’s foreign policy.
It is a wild story, Corn. From Darby’s pamphlets to ten million members of C-U-F-I and military commanders talking about divine plans in twenty twenty-six. It shows that theology isn't just something that stays in the church. It shapes the world we live in, whether we realize it or not.
I think that is a good place to wrap up the core of this. We have covered the history from Darby to Blackstone to Hagee, and we have looked at the technical side of dispensationalism. It is a lot to process, but it really clarifies why the political landscape looks the way it does right now.
If you want to dive deeper into how these definitions of Zionism are being contested today, you should check out episode eleven twenty-five, where we talked about Zionism-washing and the attempts to decouple the political movement from Judaism. It provides a nice counterpoint to what we discussed today regarding the Christian side of the equation.
And for the broader context on how American public opinion is shifting, episode nine eighty-one covers the fading pro-Israel consensus and the data behind that statistical earthquake Herman mentioned. It is worth a listen if you want to see where the trends are heading.
This has been a really substantive one. I am glad Daniel asked about it, because it is one of those topics that usually gets simplified into a soundbite, but the real story is in the details.
It always is with you, Herman. You and your binders.
I can't help it. The history is too good.
Well, I think we have given people plenty to chew on. We should probably start moving toward the exit before you find another nineteen-century preacher to tell us about.
Fair enough
