This transcript documents a dialogue between Jay Rogers and Eric Holmberg regarding the modern theological movement known as Christian Zionism. Holmberg argues that contemporary beliefs about a divine right to the Holy Land are a recent “thought virus” that contradicts nearly two millennia of traditional Christian interpretation. The discussion highlights the transition from historical views—which saw the Church as the heir to biblical promises—to a 19th-century system that prioritizes the nation-state of Israel. These theological shifts are presented as having dangerous, real-world consequences, potentially influencing American foreign policy and military rhetoric regarding conflict in the Middle East. Holmberg warns that framing modern warfare through the lens of End Times prophecy risks escalating regional tensions into a global catastrophe. Ultimately, the source serves as a critique of how specific eschatological scripts may be steering superpowers toward unnecessary and destructive confrontations.
Jay Rogers:- I’m talking with someone who is an old friend of mine and has spent a lot of time thinking about the intersection of theology, politics, and foreign policy. We got into a pretty intense conversation recently about something that’s been weighing on his mind—how certain readings of the Bible, specifically about the end times, might be shaping real-world events in some pretty dangerous ways. I wanted to pick his brain about it further, to understand where he’s coming from and why he feels so strongly about it.
—-
Jay Rogers:- You told me a story about a minister friend you’ve interacted with for years, someone you really respected for his boldness. And then you saw him post something about Zionism that you felt you had to push back on. Can you describe that moment? What was it about his post that made you feel you couldn’t just scroll past it?
Eric Holmberg:- I have a minister friend who I have never met but have interacted with for many years over his bold stance—bolstered by an important book he authored—against the normalization of homosexuality around the world. He seemed fearless and willing to take the heat, a true Gideon, immune from the slop that courses down the sluices built by the “New Model Army Corp of Engineers” that are high jacking America.
So I was taken aback when he posted this on his FaceBook account: “This truth deserves frequent repetition in today’s climate of mindless Anti-Zionism. “Zionism” is merely the belief that the House of Judah has a covenantal right to the Holy Land granted by God to Abraham and his descendants. Bible literalism affirms this right, which Gal 3:15-17 and Romans 11:25-29 confirm is not revocable nor merit-based like the Mosaic Law is/was.”
I responded: “I agree with your definition of Zionism. Couldn’t disagree more that it is supported by scripture.”
He responded: “Gal 3:15-17 and Romans 11:25-29: simple biblical math.”
I then responded: “Using New (Darby/Scofield) Math, yes. Old, classical mathematics, absolutely not.”
And then, to quote the poet, “I felt the earth move underneath my feet” and hammered out a full-throated response:
You do realize, that for roughly 1,850 years the vast majority of Christian scholars—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike—understood that the only remaining promise concerning natural Israel was a future spiritual revival before Christ returns to close the scroll on this world, when many Jews would come to faith in Him.
As for every other promise—including the land grant—it was understood to belong to the true seed of Abraham: the Church. And the land? Not a narrow strip of territory in the Middle East, but ultimately the whole world.
Because of a theological thought virus that has infected you, Pete Hegseth, and millions of other well-meaning evangelical Christians, the world now finds itself in a very dangerous place.
Jay Rogers:- You used a pretty strong metaphor—you called this theological system a “thought virus.” That’s a loaded term. Can you unpack that for me? What do you mean by that, and what do you see as the core ‘infection’ at the heart of it?
Eric Holmberg:- The virus was manufactured in England by John Nelson Darby in the late 1820s and early 1830s, cultured in the laboratory of Plymouth Brethrenism, and then carried across the Atlantic when Darby conducted multiple preaching tours in America between 1862 and 1877—an environment already fertile soil for religious innovation, eccentric sects due to the distinctly Protestant assumption that “my private interpretation of Scripture is just as valid as yours.”
Once here, the virus found its super-spreaders: the Scofield Study Bible (1909–early 1950s); Dallas Theological Seminary (mid-1920s through the late 1960s); Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology (1947–48); Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth (1970); The Ryrie Study Bible (1978); and, eventually, the Left Behind novels (1995–2007).
Jay Rogers:- You mentioned that for something like 1,800 years, most Christians read the Bible’s land promises very differently. If that’s true, how did this newer interpretation take hold so completely? Who were the key people who spread it, and why do you think it became so popular, especially in America?
Eric Holmberg:- Well the result was disastrous. A large segment of American Christianity now reads the Middle East through a prophetic script written not even two centuries ago, unheard of for over 1,800 years. And ironically that script has helped draw the United States into conflict in the very region where those false prophetic expectations are supposed to unfold—all at the behest of natural Israel, no less.
Jay Rogers:- This is where I think your argument takes a really sharp turn. You’re not just saying this is bad theology; you’re saying it has literal, real-world consequences. You mentioned reports of U.S. military commanders framing conflicts in ‘end-times’ language. Can you explain that connection? How does a belief about the future, held by people in the pews, actually end up influencing foreign policy or the mindset of troops on the ground?
Eric Holmberg:- If Shakespeare were writing tragedies today, he could scarcely ask for a more darkly ironic plot: a theological theory conceived in Victorian England helping to steer modern superpowers toward a war that could spiral into a global catastrophe, complete with nuclear weapons.
Don’t believe me? According to recent reporting, a watchdog organization [Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF)] has received more than 200 complaints from U.S. service members alleging that some commanders have framed the war with Iran in explicitly biblical “end-times” language: briefings where officers told troops that the conflict was: “all part of God’s divine plan … connected to Armageddon,” and related to the “imminent return of Jesus Christ.” One complaint from a non-commissioned officer said a commander referenced the Book of Revelation and told troops the conflict could trigger the biblical end times. Another allegation claimed a commander said that the president had been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon.”
Jay Rogers:- You mention Iran’s perspective, which I think a lot of people might find surprising, maybe even uncomfortable. You talked about their history, their own motivations, and even their own eschatology. Why was it important for you to bring that into the conversation? What’s the danger in not understanding how they see this?
Eric Holmberg:- Iran knows they’re in a literal fight for their survival. They understand that Israel wants their Islamic regime wiped off the face of the earth. And America, Israel’s lap dog, has joined them. (Read Rubio’s comment to reporters on March 2, 2026, one he tried to walk back the next day.) Whatever demonic ideologies waft through the turbaned heads of their _velayat-e faqih_-led government, and there are many (don’t try to write-off what I’m saying by labeling me an apologist for Islam, Jihad, etc.; I’m not), Iran is well within their right to resist Israel and America’s satanic support of homosexuality, abortion, gender confusion, human sex-trafficking (Epstein-ology), the seizure of Palestinians lands coupled with ethnic cleansing; and an Imperial America that thinks it has some kind of divine mandate to meddle in other country’s’ internal affairs and tell them what they MUST do or we seriously mess you up. And as true believers, many people in Iran—proud heirs and guardians of a civilization of immense antiquity, one whose kings ruled the known world and whose culture flourished thousands of years before America was even a glimmer in history’s eye—are more than ready, due in some cases to their own equally flawed eschatology, to light up Israel and every other Arab nation that—because of their compromising love of personal peace and affluence—are in bed with America (housing military bases, loosening moral standards, etc.).
Jay Rogers:- You also described the whole situation as a dark, Shakespearean irony—a 19th-century British theology potentially helping to steer nuclear-armed superpowers toward a war over Armageddon. When you really sit with that thought, what’s the most tragic part of it for you? The misreading of the Bible, or the potential human cost?
Eric Holmberg:- Well in addition, a number of other powerful nations like Russia, Turkey, and even China who share similar tradition-based values coupled with a fear of American imperialism may jump in as well.
As the Roman historian Tacitus said, Desperatio facit audacem “Desperation makes men bold.”
Jay Rogers:- Wow! You’ve laid out what you see as a pretty serious problem. Is there a solution? For the millions of people who have been taught this their whole lives, what would a healthier, more historically grounded way of reading the Bible and engaging with the world look like?
Eric Holmberg:- We shall see. Trump/Hegseth may haven’t gotten supremely lucky and taken out enough of Iran’s defense (and let me emphasize that they are more defensive than offensive) capabilities to neutralize any blowback that could lead to WWIII. (Google the “Sampson Option.”)
And maybe not.
Jay Rogers:- If you could sit down with that minister friend again, or with an evangelical leader who fully embraces this end-times script, what would be the most important question you’d want to ask them? What would you hope they would stop and really think about?
Eric Holmberg:- We’re looking to see the church have spiritual integrity. That’s our whole focus. Our number one obligation is to please God and to be a reflection of Him. The Church, when it doesn’t reflect Christ, brings destruction to society. We are the ones with whom God has charged to reflect Him, not civil government. If we reflect Him properly, then we can cause civil government to mirror some of those same attributes and ideas. But when we don’t reflect Him properly, then how do we expect them to reflect Him properly?
Jay Rogers:- So it’s more of an issue of reflecting God’s character than an issue of some doctrine or eschatology?
Eric Holmberg:- I think so. Although I have been amazed at how some people’s eschatology holds them captive. I’ve heard postmillennial people say that before and I definitely think that they have an argument. I think that eschatology can be an escape.
