Among many Jews—and indeed among many non-Jews who have spent their lives in America’s secular urban enclaves—there is a widespread belief that evangelical Christian enthusiasm for Zionism is motivated solely by a desire to bring about the messianic era, rather than from any genuine affection for the Jewish people. Jarvis Best, himself a Christian Zionist raised in a fundamentalist church, explains how far this crude stereotype is from the truth, and urges Jews to “take Christian support of Israel at face value.”

In the fundamentalist, conservative church I grew up in, with hymns and organs, long skirts for the ladies and young-earth creationism, preachers frequently borrowed an image from the New Testament book of Romans to explain the relationship between Christians and Jews. It said that Jews were like an olive tree with a strong root in the law, the prophets, and the Torah. . . . Christians were not one with Judaism, but were supported and nourished by it. We were taught that Christians and Jews are natural allies.

Sure, there were political differences; my church was almost 100-percent Republican, and we knew that most American Jews were Democrats. But we did not care. The biblical mandate to support Jewish people trumped the fleeting controversies of partisan politics. I eventually abandoned the fundamentalism of my youth. But I retained my Christianity, and with it, the love of the Jewish people and Israel.

A 2017 survey of evangelicals who support Israel found that the primary reasons for their support were their beliefs that God gave the Land of Israel to Jews and that Israel is the historic Jewish homeland. Only 12 percent of evangelicals cited fulfillment of prophecy as the most important reason to support Israel. . . . In my decades of church attendance, I have heard just two or three sermons on the “end times.”

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.