For years, American Christians have been catechized to believe that unquestioning loyalty to the modern state of Israel is a biblical obligation, that covenant theology is a threat, and that withholding the gospel from Jews is an act of love. This article traces how Israeli state programs like Kela Shlomo, later rebranded as Concert and Voices of Israel, were created to shape American opinion while evading transparency laws.

Insight to Incite shows how these programs funneled resources into U.S. evangelical organizations, how CUFI became the central delivery system, and how pastors and churches were targeted not with policy arguments but with theological framing. We then follow the trail to public figures like Rafael Cruz, his embrace of CUFI’s dual covenant theology, and the stunning contradiction of Ted Cruz attacking covenant theology while defending a doctrine that denies Jews the need for Christ.

This is not an article against Jews. It is an article against false gospels, foreign manipulation of the church, and politicians who weaponize theology. The issue is not Israel’s right to exist. The issue is Christ’s exclusive right to rule His church. Evangelicals are being discipled by something other than Scripture, and it is long past time to say so plainly.

Ted Cruz recently preached to a room full of nearly a thousand pastors on a Potemkin Tour of Israel, whose plane tickets and hotels stays were paid for American tax dollars laundered by the Israeli government through Friends of Zion, an Israeli propaganda organization masquerading as a Christian ministry. And when I say Ted Cruz preached, I mean he preached. It was every bit a sermon as what you heard in Church on Sunday, probably more so if you attend a typical evangelical Big Box church where the pulpit has been replaced with a preaching stool.

It was as cringe an audible experience as hearing Hillary preach in black cadence back at the First Baptist Church of Selma, Alabama in 2008. Cruz, doing his best Southern Revivalist voice preached…

“But I will tell you, there is a movement among Christians, particularly young Christians….They are being taught replacement theology. Which is a lie that the promises God made to Israel, and the people of Israel, are somehow no longer good! They are no longer valid! That when God made a promise, He didn’t mean the promise He made! And instead, it is an argument that the Christian church has replaced Israel and the Jews, and the Jew are no longer God’s chosen people, and all of the promises throughout the Bible are now a dead letter.

What makes that clip so astounding is that just a few short months ago, Ted Cruz couldn’t tell Tucker Carlson what book of the Bible those promises are, and now he’s doing his best Billy Sunday impression. The only thing missing was an altar call, inviting believers to come down the aisle and ask Bibi Netanyahu into their heart.

Of course, none of that Cruz’s theological claims are true. Replacement Theology, also known as Covenant Theology (aka historic Christianity that the church universally believed until a bizarre Irish sect thought up a new doctrine in a 19th century basement) doesn’t teach that God fails to keep promises. It teaches that the promises made in Genesis 12 to Abraham are fulfilled in Jesus and given to Christians (because that’s exactly what the New Testament explicitly teaches).

IF YOU PREFER TO LISTEN ON SPOTIFY, CLICK HERE

Cruz ted this theological concern directly to political outcomes, arguing that doctrinal rejection of Israel leads inevitably to political abandonment of Israel. In his framing, theology determines foreign policy. He called on pastors to teach congregations to “stand with Israel” - even mid-genocide - and suggested that silence or neutrality was a sin, with a cadence and posture were explicitly sermonic.

And if you’re wondering where Cruz got his sermon notes, or from where he inherited his penchant for sermon-talk, it’s from his dad, a New Apostolic Reformation evangelist, Rafael Cruz. And if you’re wondering where Rafael Cruz got his theology, it’s obviously from a 19th century heretic named John Darby. But less obviously, it’s also from the State of Israel.

ISRAEL’S STRATEGIC INFLUENCE OF AMERICAN EVANGELICAL RELIGION

In Acts 20, the Apostle Paul warned of the Judaizers who, in his absence, would mislead the church, “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” And they’ve done just that.

Most Americans have never heard the name Kela Shlomo, and that is by design. Kela Shlomo was the original name of an Israeli government backed influence initiative created in the late 2010s under Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs. Its purpose was to shape foreign opinion, particularly in the United States, at a moment when Israeli officials were alarmed by growing criticism of Israel among young people, progressives, and Christians.

The name Kela Shlomo roughly translates to “Solomon’s Sling,” an intentional biblical metaphor. The project was conceived as a weapon in an information war. Internal planning documents and subsequent investigative reporting show that Israeli officials believed traditional public relations efforts were failing. They wanted a more aggressive, decentralized system capable of influencing civil society abroad without appearing to be a foreign government operation. But that’s exactly what it is.

That concern mattered because of U.S. law. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), organizations in the United States that act at the direction of or receive funding from foreign governments for political or public opinion work are required to register and disclose those relationships. Israeli officials understood that open government funding of American advocacy groups, especially religious ones, would trigger registration requirements, public scrutiny, and reputational damage.

Kela Shlomo was designed to solve that problem.

Instead of funding American groups directly as a foreign principal, the program was structured as a hybrid entity, combining Israeli government money with private donations and routing funds through intermediary nonprofits. This structure allowed Israeli officials to claim distance from the downstream advocacy while still directing strategy, priorities, and outcomes. When scrutiny increased, Kela Shlomo was quietly rebranded as Concert, and later again as Voices of Israel. The name changed. The function did not.

Concert’s role was to finance, coordinate, and amplify pro Israel advocacy abroad while minimizing the appearance of state involvement. One of its most effective strategies was not advertising or lobbying, but relationship formation. Rather than issuing talking points, Concert funded leadership trips, conferences, educational programs, and coalition building efforts aimed at influencers who already possessed moral authority within their communities.

American evangelicals became a central target.

Evangelical Christians occupy a unique position in U.S. politics. They vote reliably, mobilize quickly, and often frame support for Israel not as a policy preference but as a matter of biblical obedience. Israeli planners recognized that shaping evangelical theology could have downstream political consequences far more powerful than any press release. As a result, Concert funds were directed toward organizations that specialize in pastor engagement, Christian leadership travel, and theological framing of Israel.

One major recipient of this ecosystem was Christians United for Israel, the largest pro Israel evangelical organization in the United States. Reporting shows that CUFI received substantial funding connected to Concert for programs that brought American pastors and Christian leaders to Israel. These trips were not neutral tourism. They included briefings with Israeli officials, curated historical narratives, and religious messaging designed to reinforce an Israel first theological framework. When participants returned home, they did so as trusted voices within churches, denominations, and Christian media. One such event was reported on just last week, hosted by Friends of Zion, which I wrote about at I2I here.

Join JD Hall’s subscriber chatAvailable in the Substack app and on webJoin chat

Other organizations functioned alongside CUFI within this same infrastructure. The Israel Allies Foundation worked on the political side, helping draft and promote pro Israel legislation at the state level using Christian language of covenant and blessing. Proclaiming Justice to the Nations hosted events and conferences that framed support for Israel as a moral and biblical imperative for Christians. Each organization occupied a different niche, but all contributed to the same outcome: embedding Israeli government priorities inside American evangelical life without transparent disclosure of foreign sponsorship.

This is why the funding structure matters. The issue is not whether Christians may support Israel. It is whether a foreign government may shape American religious belief and political behavior through proxy organizations while deliberately avoiding the transparency laws designed to expose such influence. By routing money through Concert and its successors, Israeli officials were able to fund American advocacy while insulating both themselves and their partners from scrutiny.

The trail is not speculative. It runs from the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs, through Kela Shlomo, Concert, and Voices of Israel, into U.S. based organizations, and ultimately into churches, conferences, and pastors, with CUFI standing at the center of that evangelical network.

CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL

You might have thought that Christians United for Israel is a ministry to evangelize Jews, but it’s nothing of the sort. Not only does it emphatically not evangelize Jews (more on that in a moment), it doesn’t operate independently of the Israeli government. CUFI occupies a central position within that Israeli government ecosystem because it functions as the primary bridge between Israeli political interests and American evangelical theology. Its scale, reach, and credibility within churches make it uniquely valuable as a downstream amplifier of foreign policy narratives framed as biblical conviction.

CUFI was founded by John Hagee with a clearly articulated theological mission. From the beginning, the organization has taught that modern Israel occupies a unique covenantal status and that Christian support for the Jewish state is not merely prudent but spiritually obligatory. This theological framework made CUFI an ideal partner for Israeli influence efforts. It already possessed the audience, the language, and the ecclesial authority needed to translate geopolitical priorities into moral imperatives inside American churches.

Concert did not need to create CUFI. It only needed to support, fund, and expand it.

According to investigative reporting, CUFI received significant funding connected to Concert for programs that brought American pastors and Christian leaders to Israel. These programs were described publicly as “educational trips” or pilgrimages, but their structure reveals a more strategic purpose. Participants were not simply touring holy sites. They were attending briefings with Israeli officials, receiving curated historical narratives, and engaging in theological framing that reinforced a specific understanding of Israel’s role in God’s plan.

These trips matter because pastors are not passive consumers of information. They are interpreters. When a pastor returns from a sponsored trip to Israel, speaks from the pulpit about what he saw, and frames that experience as spiritual illumination, the message carries authority. It does not feel like lobbying. It feels like testimony. Concert understood this dynamic and invested accordingly.

The funding structure allowed CUFI to carry out this work without publicly disclosing that a foreign government was underwriting it. By routing funds through Concert and related intermediaries, Israeli officials could support programs that directly influenced American religious teaching while avoiding the transparency requirements that would normally apply to foreign funded advocacy. CUFI, in turn, could maintain its identity as a grassroots Christian movement rather than a foreign aligned organization.

Beyond travel programs, CUFI’s conferences and summits function as amplification hubs. Speakers regularly include Israeli officials, diplomats, and military figures who are introduced to evangelical audiences as guardians of biblical promise rather than as representatives of a modern nation state. The messaging consistently collapses biblical Israel and modern Israel into a single category, leaving little room for theological nuance or dissent. This framing aligns precisely with the objectives articulated in Israeli planning documents associated with Concert.

WOLVES IN THE CHURCH, FOXES IN THE HENHOUSE

CUFI also plays a disciplinary role within evangelicalism. Pastors, writers, and theologians who question Christian Zionist assumptions or affirm covenant theology are often portrayed as threats, either to biblical faithfulness or to Jewish safety. By framing theological disagreement as moral failure, CUFI helps police the boundaries of acceptable belief within evangelical spaces. This dynamic benefits Israeli strategic interests by marginalizing perspectives that might otherwise weaken unconditional Christian support (just like what Ted Cruz did in the excerpt from earlier).

Importantly, CUFI does not operate alone. It functions alongside organizations like the Israel Allies Foundation and Proclaiming Justice to the Nations, each addressing different sectors of the same audience. CUFI focuses on mass evangelical mobilization. Israel Allies Foundation works legislative channels. PJTN targets moral and legal narratives. Concert coordinated support across these efforts, ensuring that messaging remained consistent while appearing decentralized.

Israeli government funding flows into these intermediaries. John Hagee might tell his television listening audience that donations from viewers support the organization, but most of it actually comes from Israel. Intermediaries for Israel fund these American organizations. Those organizations, in turn, influence pastors. Pastors influence congregations. Congregations influence politics. At no point does the average churchgoer see a foreign government logo attached to the message. What they see is Scripture, testimony, and appeals to faithfulness.

This is why CUFI’s association with Concert matters. The issue is not that CUFI supports Israel. The issue is that a foreign government identified CUFI as a strategic theological asset and invested resources accordingly, while structuring that investment to avoid public accountability. When foreign policy objectives are laundered through religious conviction, believers deserve to know where the framing originated.

CUFI stands at the end of the trail, not because it is uniquely corrupt, but because it is uniquely effective.

THE CRUZ FAMILY AS AGENTS OF ISRAEL

Senator Cruz’s father, Rafael, is an evangelist heavily associated with the New Apostolic Reformation, a hyper-charismatic health, wealth, and prosperity gospel affiliation founded by C. Peter Wagner and associated with some of the more cartoonish evangelical televangelists, ranging from Kenneth Copeland to Benny Hinn. And when Rafael isn’t pronouncing his son as hand-chosen by God to lead the nations, he’s advocating for the body-politic of modern Israel.

In his public statements, Rafael Cruz has consistently framed Israel not as a conventional foreign policy issue but as a theological mandate, rooted in Christian Zionist teaching. In sermons, conference remarks, and public appearances, he has spoken of Israel in covenantal terms, presenting support for the modern Israeli state as obedience to God rather than prudential judgment. His rhetoric mirrors the broader Christian Zionist framework popularized by figures like John Hagee, where Genesis promises are applied directly and uncritically to contemporary geopolitics. And so far as Cruz is concerned, what the Apostle Paul says about those Abrahamic promises be damned.

Cruz regularly warns Christians against what he calls “theological deception” regarding Israel. In fact, Cruz’s comments that I quoted above are almost a word-for-word verbatim quotation of remarks his father has made elsewhere (I’m alleging he plagiarized his dad, or his dad wrote his remarks, in case you’re wondering).

Cruz Sr. has portrayed declining evangelical support for Israel as the result of false teaching rather than informed biblical interpretation. In this framework, covenant theology and any form of fulfillment theology are treated not as historic Christian positions but as dangerous errors that undermine God’s faithfulness. Israel, as a nation state, is cast as the ongoing bearer of divine promise, and Christians are urged to align themselves accordingly. This is the message of Israel for evangelicals, who have oddly let people who believe Jesus is in hell write their eschatological position.

Rafael Cruz is squarely within the ecosystem shaped by Christians United for Israel. His affiliation with CUFI is not speculative. A public report from May 15, 2024, describing a CUFI affiliated event, stated the following: “It was a blessing to have a surprise visit from Rev. Rafael Cruz, father of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is a CUFI member and a Christian Hispanic International Minister.” The context of the report was a CUFI gathering focused on Christian support for Israel, where clergy and ministry leaders were being encouraged to stand publicly and politically with the Jewish state.

The description provided of Rafael Cruz as an official member of CFUI means that he is not as a distant sympathizer, but as an active participant within CUFI’s network. CUFI is not merely a devotional organization. As I explained above, CUFI is a structured evangelical advocacy group that works closely with Israeli officials and has received funding connected to Israeli government influence programs, including Concert. Cruz’s membership therefore places him inside a system that merges theology, politics, and foreign policy into a single moral narrative for American Christians and he’s acting as an actual foreign agent of Israel.

UNDERSTANDING THE DISTURBING ANTICHRIST THEOLOGY OF CUFI

The Dual Covenant Theology of CUFI represents one of the most consequential theological distortions in modern evangelicalism. It is not merely an error of emphasis or an intramural disagreement about eschatology. It is a doctrine that directly contradicts the gospel, undermines the mission of the church, and withholds Christ from the very people Scripture commands Christians to love enough to evangelize.

At its core, Dual Covenant Theology teaches that Jews have a separate, ongoing salvific covenant with God apart from faith in Jesus Christ. According to this view, the Mosaic covenant remains sufficient for Jewish salvation, rendering the gospel unnecessary for them. While Hagee has occasionally attempted to soften or clarify his language, his public statements over decades have repeatedly communicated this basic claim. He has said that “Jews already have a covenant with God that has not been replaced with Christianity” and that efforts to evangelize them are misguided or unnecessary.

This teaching stands in direct contradiction to the New Testament. Jesus Himself declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me” in John 14:6. He did not carve out an ethnic exception. Peter proclaimed to Jewish leaders in Acts 4:12 that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles and a Hebrew of Hebrews, expressed continual anguish over unbelieving Jews precisely because they did not possess saving righteousness apart from Christ. Romans 10 makes clear that zeal for God without Christ is not salvific, no matter how sincere.

Message JD Hall

CUFI’s DUAL COVENANT THEOLOGY

Dual Covenant Theology does not merely reinterpret these texts. It effectively nullifies them. It teaches that Jews can reject Jesus and still stand justified before God. In doing so, it presents a Christ who is optional, a cross that is unnecessary for some, and a gospel that is not truly universal. That is not a different emphasis. It is a different religion.

If you appreciate my free posts, you’ll love my paid content. Act now and get 20% off to access exclusive content (like the rest of this article.