Pulse
1 June 2026
In an interview with prominent right-wing American commentator Tucker Carlson, Mike Huckabee, United States Ambassador to Israel, suggested that Israel has a God-given right to land stretching from the Euphrates to the Nile, which would include Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and parts of Saudi Arabia.
This statement by Huckabee, a self-professed Christian Zionist, saw a torrent of criticisms from Arab and Muslim countries. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the League of Arab States issued separate statements describing the ambassador’s remarks as ‘extremist’, ‘provocative’ and ‘not in line with Washington’s official position.’ In the face of the backlash, the US diplomat tried to do damage control by saying that it was ‘somewhat of a hyperbolic statement.’
However, to many Christian Zionists, Huckabee’s statement is not at all hyperbolic. It quite accurately articulates Zionism’s interpretation of the promise that God had made to Abraham and his descendants. Many Christian Zionists therefore support the concept of Eretz Israel Hashlema (the Whole or Greater Land of Israel) based on their interpretation of Genesis 15:18 (from the Nile to the Euphrates).
Zionist theologian Arnold Fruchtenbaum speaks for many of his fellow Zionists when he insists that God will one day fulfil that promise. He writes:
‘… according to the Scriptures, three promises are made with regard to the land: first, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all promised the possession of the land; second, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were promised the possession of the land, and third, the boundaries of the promised land extended from the Euphrates River in the north to the River of Nile in the south … At no point in Jewish history have the Jews ever possessed all of the land from the Euphrates in the north to the River of Egypt in the south. Since God cannot lie, these things must come to pass. Somehow or other, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must possess all the land, and second, the descendants of Abraham must settle in all of the promised land.’
Far from being a hyperbole, Huckabee’s statement echoes the standard teaching and expectations of Christian Zionists.
This article traces the origins of this movement and examines some of its tenets, especially those concerning Israel and the Promised Land. It argues that the fundamental problem with Christian Zionist theology is that it is established on an erroneous interpretation of Scripture – with profound ramifications.
CHRISTIAN ZIONISM: A VERY BRIEF HISTORY
We begin with a very brief sketch of the history of Christian Zionism, selecting as our starting point the Reformation of the 16th century. While the magisterial Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin did not focus much on Jewish restoration to their land in Israel, some of their contemporaries, including Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli did give more attention to the future of the Jewish people.
Daniel Gruber opines that ‘The probability is strong that Martyr’s careful exposition of the eleventh chapter [of Romans] prepared the way for the general adoption amongst the English Puritans of a belief in the future conversion of the Jews.’ Indeed, many Puritan theologians in the 17th century such as William Perkins, Richard Sibbs, Thomas Goodwin, William Strong, George Gillespie and Robert Baillie adopted this view. The eminent Puritan theologian in England, John Owen, could write, ‘The Jews shall be gathered from all parts of the earth where they are scattered, and brought home into their homeland.’
It was arguably the work of Thomas Brightman that contributed most significantly to what came to be known as the Restoration Movement of the 17th century. In his celebrated work, Revelation of the Revelation, published in 1609, Brightman envisioned ‘how the Jews will return from areas North and East of Palestine to Jerusalem and how the Holy Land and the Jewish Christian church will become the centre of the Christian world.’ As a postmillennialist, Brightman even predicted that the Jews would be converted to Christ in 1650. These developments are often regarded as the precursors to modern Christian Zionism.
Here the difference between Restorationism and modern Christian Zionism must be briefly noted. While the Restorationists were a diverse group, many believed that the Church fulfils Israel. Christian Zionism, however, teaches the enduring distinction between Israel and the Church and the irrevocable character of God’s territorial promises to ethnic Israel.
In the 19th century, a new hermeneutical paradigm that gained traction among proto-Zionist Christians became the theological soil for the rise of early Christian Zionism. In the early 1800s, a former Anglican priest by the name of John Nelson Darby introduced a novel schematisation of salvation history that would be later called Dispensationalism. Darby’s unconventional approach to ‘dividing the Word’ provided Christian Zionism with a structured theological framework and explanatory power.
It was through the work of Darby – and later Cyrus I. Scofield – that modern Christian Zionism attained much of its distinctive theological character and reach. Donald Wagner could write: ‘If Brightman was the father of Christian Zionism [by this he meant ‘precursor’], then Darby was its greatest apostle and missionary, the apostle Paul of the movement.’
In the twentieth century, the most important event that energised modern Christian Zionism is undoubtedly the establishment of the modern State of Israel, which many Christian Zionists saw as the clear fulfilment of biblical prophecy (Ezekiel 36-37, Isaiah 11, Amos 9:14-15, Romans 11).
The euphoria which resulted from the news was palpable. A Christian radio station in Los Angeles pronounced it as ‘the most significant event since Jesus Christ was born.’ John Hagee, who described himself as a ‘cradle-roll Zionist’, exclaimed that ‘the birth of the State of Israel confirmed the accuracy of Bible prophecy.’
Wilbur Smith, professor of English Bible at Fuller Theological Seminary – the bastion of neo-evangelicalism – wrote that it was the ‘greatest event in Palestine certainly since the destruction of Jerusalem, infinitely more important than the Crusades.’ He added that Israel’s national ‘restoration is clearly, unmistakably predicted.’
This historic event also vindicated dispensationalist theology which had consistently insisted that Israel would be restored nationally before the culmination of history.
Another event that fanned the flames of Christian Zionist enthusiasm is the Six-Day War of 1967. Israel’s swift military victory over a coalition of Arab states (Egypt, Jordan and Syria) and its capture of East Jerusalem led many Christian Zionists to believe that end-time prophecies were being fulfilled before their eyes.
The events of 1948 and 1967 propelled Christian Zionism to become a major international movement with advocacy organisations, media ministries and lobbying networks. Organisations such as Christians United for Israel and International Christian Embassy Jerusalem helped to institutionalise support for Israel based on theological as well as political agendas.
ISRAEL
We turn next to what modern Christian Zionism teaches about Israel and how it understands the relationship between biblical Israel and the modern State of Israel.
Christian Zionists who are influenced by dispensationalism broadly follow the strict distinction between Israel and the Church and the different plans and dealings God has ordained for them respectively. Israel is God’s earthly people, the ethnic descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the future inheritors of God’s promises. The Church, which was not foreseen in the Old Testament and is therefore regarded as ‘parenthesis’ or ‘interruption’ of God’s prophetic plan, is God’s heavenly people, which participates in God’s salvation through Christ.
In a highly imaginative interpretation, John Hagee exploits the sands and stars metaphors of Genesis 22:17 to explain the dispensationalist view.
‘Stars are heavenly, not earthly. They represent the church, spiritual Israel. The ‘sand of the shore’ on the other hand, is earthly and represents an earthly kingdom with a literal Jerusalem as the capital city. Both stars and sand exist at the same time, and neither ever replaces the other. Just so, the nation of Israel and spiritual Israel, the church, exist at the same time and do not replace one another.’
It is important to note that not all Christian Zionists are dispensationalists. But all Christian Zionists believe that the Jews and modern Israel are God’s chosen people. This is seen clearly in the fact that Christian Zionists of every stripe hold that the statement that forms part of God’s covenant to Abraham (‘I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonours you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed’ [Genesis 12:3]) applies to the modern state of Israel.
This translates into a forceful and provocative theo-political assertion that the nations which support Israel will receive God’s blessing – an assertion which has profound geo-political implications!
However, the identification of modern Israel with biblical Israel is seriously mistaken.
Biblical Israel came into being because of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This means that Israel in the Old Testament was never merely an ethnic or political entity – Israel’s identity was theological before it was political. As such biblical Israel as a nation was constituted by covenant obedience, temple worship, sacrifice and fidelity to Yahweh. It was a people living under God’s covenant rule, and therefore irreducible to race, geography or statehood.
Modern Israel, on the other hand, was established in 1948 because of a confluence of factors: the political movement of Zionism, the aftermath of the Holocaust, British withdrawal from Palestine and the resolutions of the United Nations. Modern Israel is a democratic nation-state, not a theocracy governed by Mosaic law. The Temple sacrificial system no longer exists, and the majority of Israeli Jews today are secular and non-observant.
To equate modern Israel directly with biblical Israel is to blur an important distinction. Biblical Israel was fundamentally a covenant community defined by its relationship with God, while modern Israel is a contemporary political nation-state shaped by secular, historical and geopolitical realities.
If modern Israel cannot be said to be identical to biblical Israel, then who is ‘Israel’ and who is the ‘Jew’, according to the Scriptures? We find the answer in several places in the New Testament.
Firstly, the New Testament clearly teaches that not every ethnic Jew or biological descendant of Abraham belongs to Israel. In his letter to the Romans, Paul states quite succinctly and categorically that ‘not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’ (Romans 9:6). In an earlier chapter of the same letter, the apostle writes: ‘A man is not a Jew if he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical’ (Romans 2:28).
Secondly, the New Testament teaches that there are some non-Israelites who belong to the true Israel. In his sermon to the crowd who had gathered around him, John the Baptist said:
‘Do not begin to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.” For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham’ (Luke 3:8).
God has indeed raised children of Abraham outside Israel’s fold, not from stones, but from Gentiles. This recalls Jesus’ statement in Matthew 8 that must have shocked his Jewish audience:
‘I say to you that many will come from east and west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (vv 11-12).
In an article entitled ‘The Place of Israel’, John Stott draws the following conclusion from these passages:
‘So, then, paradoxical as it may seem, the true Jews today are Christians, and the true circumcision is that heart-change called new birth. The Gentile followers of Jesus who acknowledge him as the Messiah are more truly people of Israel than those people of Israel who rejected him.’
The New Testament presents the true Israel as the Church, which is the fulfilment (not replacement!) of the Israel of the Old Testament. In identifying the modern state of Israel with biblical Israel, Christian Zionism has missed this fundamental biblical truth.
THE PROMISED LAND
The second aspect of Christian Zionism that merits brief consideration is its interpretation of the promise that God made to Abraham and his offspring concerning their territorial inheritance. In Genesis 15:18, we read: ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.’
If we were to translate these ancient territorial descriptions into contemporary geographical terms, the region would encompass portions of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, Kuwait and parts of Saudi Arabia. It is obvious that until today Israel has never exercised sovereignty over the entirety of this vast expanse. But this remains the vision of some Zionist groups, who use the term ‘Eretz Israel HaSlema’ to describe the complete land of Israel.
It is also pertinent to note that up to today, Israel has not formally and comprehensively declared its final, permanent territorial boundaries. There is to date not a single written constitution defining the state’s final borders.
Christian Zionist movements maintain that the region mapped out in Genesis 15:18 belongs to Israel, and God will in time fulfil his promise to his people. Thus, the Third International Christian Zionist Congress held in Jerusalem in 1996 confidently declared that:
‘According to God’s distribution of nations, the Land of Israel has been given to the Jewish People as an everlasting possession by an eternal covenant. The Jewish People have the absolute right to possess and dwell in the Land, including Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan.
It is for this reason that many (though by no means all) Christian Zionists oppose the two-state solution to the current conflict. God has irrevocably promised the land to Israel and the divine grant should not be permanently divided or relinquished.
Although this interpretation of the promised land fits neatly within the theological and hermeneutical framework of Christian Zionism and dispensationalism, it is fundamentally inimical to the way the universal Church has understood the promise.
The contours of the Church’s understanding of the promised land are clearly elucidated by John Stott.
In the article previously mentioned, Stott points out that the New Testament nowhere repeats the Old Testament promises about the land. Even in Romans 11, when Paul predicts that many Jews will return to Christ, there is no corresponding emphasis on territorial restoration.
Stott argues that according to apostolic teaching, the Old Testament promises found their fulfilment in Christ and the Church. He concludes:
‘The New Testament writers apply to Christ both the promise of the seed and the promise of the land. A return to Jewish nationalism would be incompatible with this New Testament perspective.’
Some years ago, I addressed this issue in an article in which I argued that ‘the land which God has promised to the Israelites points to a greater inheritance that God’s people will receive when the kingdom of God is consummated with the return of the Messiah, Jesus Christ’ (See Roland Chia, ‘What About the Land?’, June 2021, https://ethosinstitute.sg/what-about-the-land/).
From this perspective, the inheritance promised to God’s people is not one piece of land somewhere in the Middle East, but a ‘better country’ (Hebrews 11:10-16), the new heavens and the new earth (Revelation 21:1-4).
CONCLUSION
In bringing this discussion to a close, it is important to recognize what is truly at stake in the debate over Christian Zionism. The issue is not just about the interpretation of some passages in the Bible, but about how the Church ought to read the whole of Scripture in the light of Christ.
There can be no doubt that Christian Zionists are sincere in their desire to take God’s promises to Abraham and Israel seriously. But these promises must be read and understood within the larger movement of the biblical narrative and the fuller revelation given in Christ. The Scripture themselves direct us towards this horizon.
The Church has always been called to read the Old Testament in the light of the New, and indeed to read all Scripture through the lens of Christ crucified and risen. Israel, the land, and the promised inheritance find their deepest meaning in him, in whom the plan and purposes of God reach their decisive fulfilment.
To read and understand the Bible in this way does not lead to the conclusion that the Church has ‘replaced’ Israel or give license to antisemitism, which must be unequivocally rejected. Rather, it is to affirm that the identity of the people of God is constituted in Christ. It is to embrace the wider biblical vision in which the promise to Abraham ultimately points beyond a single territory towards the renewal and reconciliation of the whole creation.
Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.