This is uncharitable towards dispensationalists and treats all dispensationalists as monolithic. There are a variety of dispensationalists--from classic to revised to progressive. In fact, since you believe in a future for the nation of Israel, you may qualify as a dispensationalist of sorts! If you believe Romans 11 teaches a mass conversion of the Jews, then you have to believe in Paul's explanation of their conversion: "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Rom 11:29). If the conversion of the Jews is related to their gifts and calling--then they actually are God's chosen people--in some sense. Not the same sense as the church, but in some sense. And maybe that means that the promise given to Israel still stands: "I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse..." Gen 12:3.
The difference is that I believe the Jews, in converting, will be made members of the Church in which there is no Jew or Gentile. Dispensationalism of all stripes indicates that Israel and the Church are distinct in God’s economy of salvation. I’m not sure you can really claim to be a dispensationalist if that piece falls. The only way ethnic Israel is brought into salvation is through joining the ark of salvation in baptism: the Holy Church.
You are incorrect here. Progressive dispensationalism, as articulated by Saucy, Bock, and Blaising, teaches that the church is not a parenthesis in God's plan, but the present form of the one people of God into which believing Jews and Gentiles are incorporated without distinction.
Lol. This is a crazy comment. Bock, Blaising, and Saucy are the leading theologians articulating progressive dispensationalism. They've each written multiple books/commentaries/articles articulating this very clearly. You just don't like that you're actually a closet dispensationalist, so you're trying to redefine it so you're not included... just embrace it. Welcome to the camp! :)
So if I’m a closet dispensationalist, let me ask this question: can I truly be called a dispensationalist while believing that 1] we are currently in the millennial reign of Christ, 2] the conversion of ethnic Israel is a completely different than national Israel, which is essentially irrelevant and has no biblical significance, and 3] that Jewish conversion is a reasonable hope but not an absolute prophetic necessity?
Okay, maybe you're not a dispensationalist... but my main point is twofold: (1) you're being uncharitable to dispensationalists in this post, and (2) if ethnic Israel's future mass conversion is related to their gifts and calling being irrevocable, then consistentency demands that you see ethnic Israel as still having some sort of unique relationship with God.
Also, how is national Israel completely different than ethnic Israel when their populations largely overlap? That seems strange.
This topic is emotionally, spiritually, and politically charged, and I admire your heart and courage to take it on. I know you are aiming to honor God, think biblically, avoid extremes, and call people to truth and charity in the midst of evil and confusion. That is very admirable.
I read this today and I’ve tried to give it a fair reading and response, one I hope you’ll read not as a criticism of you, but as a brotherly attempt to pursue truth with you, in the spirit of iron sharpening iron.
Points of Agreement
1. Your appeal to Romans 9, Galatians 3, and related passages to affirm that union with Christ, not bloodline, makes one a child of God. The spiritualization of Israel in the New Testament is a foundational Christian doctrine, and the Church is the fulfillment of God’s covenant people (CCC 877, CCC 781). Agree 100%. “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6)… You are absolutely right to use this passage to refute ethnic determinism.
2. Your critique of dispensational theology is also spot on. We should not affirm the idea that the modern nation-state of Israel enjoys divine favor independent of Christ, nor that there are “two tracks” to salvation, as in one for Jews and one for the Church. I also share your concern that forms of Christian Zionism border on idolatry, elevating a political nation to a spiritual pedestal. The Scriptures and the Church do not support this. So when you caution against blindly supporting Israel as a divine imperative, I’m with you.
3. You write of how many Jews rejected Christ in the first century, and how Scripture speaks strongly about that rejection, from Matthew 21 to Romans 11. These rebukes are real, and they underscore the gravity of rejecting the Messiah. Jesus, Stephen, and Paul all grieved over it, and so should we. You show that grief in parts of your piece, and I appreciate how you do not fall into triumphalism.
4. You eloquently denounce the neo-Nazi ideology that dehumanizes Jews, denies their dignity as image-bearers of God, and celebrates genocidal language. I was especially moved when you wrote that: “These kinds of statements and ways of thinking are brutal assaults on the dignity of the human person as an image-bearer of God and the commandment of Christ to love our enemies…” This is the heart of the Gospel, and it shines in your conclusion. You’re right to call out demonic hatred masquerading as truth-telling. I see that a lot now, even in Christian circles, and it was important for you to rebuke.
5. Your reference to Romans 11 and your hope for a future conversion of ethnic Jews is both biblically grounded and consistent with Church tradition. The Catechism teaches that: “The ‘full inclusion’ of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of the ‘full number of the Gentiles,’ will enable the People of God to achieve ‘the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’” (CCC 674). That future hope of Jew and Gentile together glorifying Christ is beautiful, and I wholeheartedly affirm your call to pray for that.
Constructive Criticism
My concerns mostly regard your framing, tone, language, and certain interpretations. I offer these in the spirit of brotherly counsel, not opposition.
1. You cite Revelation 2:9, John 8:44, and similar verses to describe Jews who reject Christ. You’re not wrong that these were spoken to Jews in context, but they were directed at specific individuals or groups, not as a blanket indictment of all Jews for all time. Most scholars agree that “Synagogue of Satan” likely refers to a local group in Smyrna persecuting Christians, and not a judgment of all Jewish synagogues. Using this to generalize about all Jews in relation to God (especially today) removes the Scripture from its context. Again, “Children of the devil” in John 8 refers to those refusing to believe, not Jews by ethnicity. By that logic, any unbeliever could be included.
2. You write: “Like all secular and pagan groups who wield influence, the Jews pose a threat to Christianity.” Even if you’re trying to speak about theological ideas or influence, this phrasing dangerously conflates a people group with an ideology. There are faithful Catholic Jews, secular Jews, atheist Jews, Zionist Jews, and everything in between. There is no monolithic “the Jews.” Generalizations like these echo centuries-old stereotypes about “Jewish power”, fuel conspiracy thinking, and dehumanize through collectivism. Even though I know you do not endorse conspiracy theories, talking about “the Jews” as a bloc is always dangerous. This is one of the reasons I reject CRT. Would you accept generalizations like this about any other group (“The whites pose a threat to…” or “The Italians dominate banking…”)? Especially in a post-Holocaust world, we should be more conscious of how these ideas can be weaponized.
3. You say, “In conclusion, I am no friend of Israel or the Jews.” Even if you meant “I am no friend of secular Israel or of unbelieving Judaism,” this phrasing is volatile. It invites misreading and undermines your entire appeal to Christian love. Imagine someone writing, “I am no friend of Catholics” or “I am no friend of Americans.” Even though your intent is theological, the implication is personal.
4. Though you end with a call to charity, the beginning of your piece frames Jews as: “extraordinarily antichrist”, “wicked”, a threat to the faith, and a group often aligned with Satan. Even if your theological point is that they are in error, the rhetorical weight here leans heavily into condemnation. If a Jewish reader read this, would they feel invited to repentance and love? Or accused, feared, and hated? We are called not just to state theological truths, but to speak them in a way that reflects the heart of Christ, who wept over Jerusalem, even while rebuking her.
I hope my points are taken as intended. Thank you for reading.
Thank you very much for the incredibly thoughtful response. I will pray and consider your points. I am not going to reply to each of them as I simply do not have the time, but please know that they were read and duly noted. Many blessings!
Though I agree that some critics of Judah take it too far, many actions that our Christian forbears would have taken - including the withdrawal of support from Israel and removing Jewish elites with dual loyalties from positions of power - are now labelled as objectionably "anti-Semitic." This must be resisted. Europe is a Christian civilisation and God will scatter all His enemies.
I certainly agree with this. As more people move away from Zionism and Dispensational thinking, their views — which are simply historic Christian views — are now “anti-Semitic.” I am with you in resisting the movement of the goal post.
This is uncharitable towards dispensationalists and treats all dispensationalists as monolithic. There are a variety of dispensationalists--from classic to revised to progressive. In fact, since you believe in a future for the nation of Israel, you may qualify as a dispensationalist of sorts! If you believe Romans 11 teaches a mass conversion of the Jews, then you have to believe in Paul's explanation of their conversion: "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Rom 11:29). If the conversion of the Jews is related to their gifts and calling--then they actually are God's chosen people--in some sense. Not the same sense as the church, but in some sense. And maybe that means that the promise given to Israel still stands: "I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse..." Gen 12:3.
The difference is that I believe the Jews, in converting, will be made members of the Church in which there is no Jew or Gentile. Dispensationalism of all stripes indicates that Israel and the Church are distinct in God’s economy of salvation. I’m not sure you can really claim to be a dispensationalist if that piece falls. The only way ethnic Israel is brought into salvation is through joining the ark of salvation in baptism: the Holy Church.
You are incorrect here. Progressive dispensationalism, as articulated by Saucy, Bock, and Blaising, teaches that the church is not a parenthesis in God's plan, but the present form of the one people of God into which believing Jews and Gentiles are incorporated without distinction.
They call it dispensationalism, but it really isn’t. I don’t see how it could really be considered as such.
Lol. This is a crazy comment. Bock, Blaising, and Saucy are the leading theologians articulating progressive dispensationalism. They've each written multiple books/commentaries/articles articulating this very clearly. You just don't like that you're actually a closet dispensationalist, so you're trying to redefine it so you're not included... just embrace it. Welcome to the camp! :)
So if I’m a closet dispensationalist, let me ask this question: can I truly be called a dispensationalist while believing that 1] we are currently in the millennial reign of Christ, 2] the conversion of ethnic Israel is a completely different than national Israel, which is essentially irrelevant and has no biblical significance, and 3] that Jewish conversion is a reasonable hope but not an absolute prophetic necessity?
Okay, maybe you're not a dispensationalist... but my main point is twofold: (1) you're being uncharitable to dispensationalists in this post, and (2) if ethnic Israel's future mass conversion is related to their gifts and calling being irrevocable, then consistentency demands that you see ethnic Israel as still having some sort of unique relationship with God.
Also, how is national Israel completely different than ethnic Israel when their populations largely overlap? That seems strange.
This topic is emotionally, spiritually, and politically charged, and I admire your heart and courage to take it on. I know you are aiming to honor God, think biblically, avoid extremes, and call people to truth and charity in the midst of evil and confusion. That is very admirable.
I read this today and I’ve tried to give it a fair reading and response, one I hope you’ll read not as a criticism of you, but as a brotherly attempt to pursue truth with you, in the spirit of iron sharpening iron.
Points of Agreement
1. Your appeal to Romans 9, Galatians 3, and related passages to affirm that union with Christ, not bloodline, makes one a child of God. The spiritualization of Israel in the New Testament is a foundational Christian doctrine, and the Church is the fulfillment of God’s covenant people (CCC 877, CCC 781). Agree 100%. “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6)… You are absolutely right to use this passage to refute ethnic determinism.
2. Your critique of dispensational theology is also spot on. We should not affirm the idea that the modern nation-state of Israel enjoys divine favor independent of Christ, nor that there are “two tracks” to salvation, as in one for Jews and one for the Church. I also share your concern that forms of Christian Zionism border on idolatry, elevating a political nation to a spiritual pedestal. The Scriptures and the Church do not support this. So when you caution against blindly supporting Israel as a divine imperative, I’m with you.
3. You write of how many Jews rejected Christ in the first century, and how Scripture speaks strongly about that rejection, from Matthew 21 to Romans 11. These rebukes are real, and they underscore the gravity of rejecting the Messiah. Jesus, Stephen, and Paul all grieved over it, and so should we. You show that grief in parts of your piece, and I appreciate how you do not fall into triumphalism.
4. You eloquently denounce the neo-Nazi ideology that dehumanizes Jews, denies their dignity as image-bearers of God, and celebrates genocidal language. I was especially moved when you wrote that: “These kinds of statements and ways of thinking are brutal assaults on the dignity of the human person as an image-bearer of God and the commandment of Christ to love our enemies…” This is the heart of the Gospel, and it shines in your conclusion. You’re right to call out demonic hatred masquerading as truth-telling. I see that a lot now, even in Christian circles, and it was important for you to rebuke.
5. Your reference to Romans 11 and your hope for a future conversion of ethnic Jews is both biblically grounded and consistent with Church tradition. The Catechism teaches that: “The ‘full inclusion’ of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of the ‘full number of the Gentiles,’ will enable the People of God to achieve ‘the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’” (CCC 674). That future hope of Jew and Gentile together glorifying Christ is beautiful, and I wholeheartedly affirm your call to pray for that.
Constructive Criticism
My concerns mostly regard your framing, tone, language, and certain interpretations. I offer these in the spirit of brotherly counsel, not opposition.
1. You cite Revelation 2:9, John 8:44, and similar verses to describe Jews who reject Christ. You’re not wrong that these were spoken to Jews in context, but they were directed at specific individuals or groups, not as a blanket indictment of all Jews for all time. Most scholars agree that “Synagogue of Satan” likely refers to a local group in Smyrna persecuting Christians, and not a judgment of all Jewish synagogues. Using this to generalize about all Jews in relation to God (especially today) removes the Scripture from its context. Again, “Children of the devil” in John 8 refers to those refusing to believe, not Jews by ethnicity. By that logic, any unbeliever could be included.
2. You write: “Like all secular and pagan groups who wield influence, the Jews pose a threat to Christianity.” Even if you’re trying to speak about theological ideas or influence, this phrasing dangerously conflates a people group with an ideology. There are faithful Catholic Jews, secular Jews, atheist Jews, Zionist Jews, and everything in between. There is no monolithic “the Jews.” Generalizations like these echo centuries-old stereotypes about “Jewish power”, fuel conspiracy thinking, and dehumanize through collectivism. Even though I know you do not endorse conspiracy theories, talking about “the Jews” as a bloc is always dangerous. This is one of the reasons I reject CRT. Would you accept generalizations like this about any other group (“The whites pose a threat to…” or “The Italians dominate banking…”)? Especially in a post-Holocaust world, we should be more conscious of how these ideas can be weaponized.
3. You say, “In conclusion, I am no friend of Israel or the Jews.” Even if you meant “I am no friend of secular Israel or of unbelieving Judaism,” this phrasing is volatile. It invites misreading and undermines your entire appeal to Christian love. Imagine someone writing, “I am no friend of Catholics” or “I am no friend of Americans.” Even though your intent is theological, the implication is personal.
4. Though you end with a call to charity, the beginning of your piece frames Jews as: “extraordinarily antichrist”, “wicked”, a threat to the faith, and a group often aligned with Satan. Even if your theological point is that they are in error, the rhetorical weight here leans heavily into condemnation. If a Jewish reader read this, would they feel invited to repentance and love? Or accused, feared, and hated? We are called not just to state theological truths, but to speak them in a way that reflects the heart of Christ, who wept over Jerusalem, even while rebuking her.
I hope my points are taken as intended. Thank you for reading.
Thank you very much for the incredibly thoughtful response. I will pray and consider your points. I am not going to reply to each of them as I simply do not have the time, but please know that they were read and duly noted. Many blessings!
Thank you for your reply! God bless.
Though I agree that some critics of Judah take it too far, many actions that our Christian forbears would have taken - including the withdrawal of support from Israel and removing Jewish elites with dual loyalties from positions of power - are now labelled as objectionably "anti-Semitic." This must be resisted. Europe is a Christian civilisation and God will scatter all His enemies.
I certainly agree with this. As more people move away from Zionism and Dispensational thinking, their views — which are simply historic Christian views — are now “anti-Semitic.” I am with you in resisting the movement of the goal post.