Eschatology

Is Jesus King?

/ Lee A. Robinson / Leave a comment

One of the defining teachings of classic dispensationalism is the belief that Jesus came to Israel offering the promised kingdom, but because Israel rejected Him, the kingdom was postponed until a future time. This idea has been taught clearly and consistently by many of the most influential dispensational theologians and advocates. C. I. Scofield stated in his notes on Matthew 11:20 that “the kingdom of heaven was announced as ‘at hand’… but it was rejected by the Jews, and the kingdom was therefore postponed.” Lewis Sperry Chafer likewise wrote in his Systematic Theology that “the kingdom was offered to Israel at the first advent of Christ, but was rejected. It therefore awaits establishment at the second advent.” John F. Walvoord echoed this position when he said in The Millennial Kingdom that “the kingdom in its mediatorial, Davidic form was offered to Israel, but because of their rejection of Christ, the kingdom was postponed until His second coming.” Charles Ryrie summarized the view succinctly when he said, “The kingdom was genuinely offered to Israel, but because it was rejected, it was postponed.”

Traditional dispensationalists have clearly articulated their position, but what does Scripture teach? Did Jesus postpone His kingdom because the Jews rejected Him? Or did He inaugurate His kingdom anyway? We will look at the narrative of the New Testament to demonstrate that Jesus, the King of Israel, did indeed establish His kingdom on time and as planned. We will then conclude with remarks about why this matters.

The King Has Come

The advent accounts of Christ are marked potently by references to Jesus not merely as the Savior of the world, but as the King of the Jews. He is called “the Christ,” “the Messiah”—both explicit ways of saying that He is the anointed One of God, God’s chosen King. Has He been anointed yet? Was His anointing delayed? No.

Jesus has eternally been recognized by God as King (Psalm 2). At His baptism, the Holy Spirit—like the anointing oil of old—descended upon Jesus publicly installing Him as King. Acts 10:38 says, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power.” How unbiblical would it sound to say, “Jesus will be the Christ,” or “Jesus will be King one day”?

When Jesus was born, the angel Gabriel announced to Mary in Luke 1:32–33 that her Son would receive the throne of His father David and reign over the house of Jacob forever. There is no hint of delay or contingency. Isaiah 9:6–7 speaks similarly: “For unto us a child is born… and the government shall be upon His shoulder… of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David.” The government would be established with the birth of the child and would increase endlessly. No postponement. No gap.

In Matthew 2:2, the magi ask, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?” Jesus did not come to offer to become King. He was born King. The same is true at the crucifixion. Though rejected by Israel’s leaders, the sign above His head providentially declared the truth: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” Human rejection did not negate divine reality.

Jesus’ Own Testimony

Jesus Himself clearly believed He came to inaugurate the kingdom. In Mark 1:14–15 He announces, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” This is not conditional language. It is declarative. The time is fulfilled. If this was not the intended moment for the kingdom, then Jesus Himself misunderstood the divine timetable.

In Matthew 12:28, Jesus states, “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” The kingdom is not postponed; it is present and active, overthrowing the dominion of darkness.

Later, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey, intentionally fulfilling Zechariah 9:9: “Behold, your king is coming to you.” Whether the people received Him or not is beside the point. He is the King.

Even the crucifixion does not negate His kingship but reveals its nature. The cross is not the cancellation of the kingdom; it is the means by which the King is enthroned. God, not Israel’s leaders, determines when and how He installs His King.

The Apostolic Interpretation

Peter’s sermon at Pentecost is decisive:

“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins… he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne… Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus… both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:30–36)

Peter explicitly identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of the Davidic promise and places His enthronement at the resurrection. Jesus is reigning now, seated on David’s throne, until every enemy is subdued.

Paul preaches the same message in Acts 13:32–34, declaring that God fulfilled His promises to the fathers by raising Jesus from the dead.

Paul’s epistles reinforce this repeatedly. Romans opens by linking Jesus’ Davidic lineage, resurrection, and lordship into a single, present reality (Romans 1:1–4). In 1 Corinthians 15:25, Paul says Jesus “must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” Reigning “until” implies present reign. Colossians 1:13 says believers have already been transferred into the kingdom of God’s Son.

Theological Consequences of Postponement

Understanding that Jesus is already reigning matters deeply—not only doctrinally, but practically and ethically.

One unintended consequence of postponing Christ’s reign into the future is a subtle tendency toward Jewish supremacy. When the Davidic kingdom is framed as an exclusively future, ethnically-centered reality, ethnic Israel can be viewed as permanently superior in God’s redemptive hierarchy. This can lead to Jews being regarded as inherently closer to God’s ultimate purposes than The Church. While Scripture honors the nation of Israel’s role in redemptive history, it is equally clear that in Christ there is “one new man” (Ephesians 2), and that there is neither Jew nor Greek in terms of covenant standing (Galatians 3:28). Any theology that subtly reintroduces a two-tiered church undermines the unity Christ achieved by His cross. The center of gravity for God’s work and plan in the world is not the state of Israel, or the Jewish people, but is only and fully Jesus Christ! If you want to know what God is up to, look to Christ and those who follow him. 

Postponement theology also diminishes the present authority of Jesus, especially in the public and political realm. If Christ is not reigning now, then His lordship becomes largely internal, private or relegated to being “spiritualized,” while earthly powers are treated as the true governors of history. This weakens Christian confidence in proclaiming Jesus as Lord of nations, rulers, and laws. Yet the New Testament insists that Jesus already possesses “all authority in heaven and on earth.” Jesus is the Savior of the world, but he is also the King of Kings. Individuals ought to obey Jesus, but so should every organization, institution, state and nation. 

If the kingdom was postponed, the cross risks becoming a contingency plan rather than the centerpiece of God’s eternal purpose. Yet Acts 2:23 tells us Jesus was delivered up according to God’s definite plan. Nothing caught heaven off guard.

If Jesus is not reigning now, the church is merely waiting for victory in the future. But if He is reigning now, then evangelism is the announcement of a victory already won, obedience is joyful allegiance to a present King, and suffering is participation in an unshakable kingdom.

God’s King & Kingdom (Jesus) did not arrive early. He did not arrive late. He did not arrive almost successfully. He came exactly on time. He fulfilled the promises made to Abraham and to David. And He reigns now.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

The King is on the throne—and He will be forever. Amen.

*This article was compiled partially with research and grammatical assistance from chat gpt. 

Review of Jack Hibbs “Get Rid of The Jews”

/ Lee A. Robinson / Leave a comment

He opened talking about ungodly, leftist Americans, especially on university campuses defending Hamas and the “palestinians.” I stand against all of that. The leftist radicals are following their principle of oppressor/oppressed groups. Why are liberal American Jews of all people speaking up for Hamas and against their own Jewish people? Because they wrongly believe that “oppressed” groups are always right in their resistance and that “oppressor” groups are always wrong and are justifiably attacked. So in this current situation, Israel is rich and powerful and the Palestinians are poor and are “oppressed” by Israel. Therefore, in their minds, any actions against Israel is the “righteous cause,” etc. 

This mindset has nothing to do with replacement theology. People who surrender to demonic plans for the world may try to use certain aspects of the Bible/truth to support their evil plans (like Satan telling Jesus to cast himself down because the angels would bear him up), but we should never confuse truth with those who try to twist it to accomplish their schemes. Every real Christian I know of that holds to what would be called “replacement theology” is pro-Israel is this current situation and is in no way anti-semitic.   

  • Can you point me to any person alive right now that is a serious Bible student with a good testimony in the church who holds to “replacement theology” who is anti-semitic. I don’t think you’ll find any but if you do I will say beforehand that they are wrong. 

5:00 “What did Covid do? It divided the church. It divided real Christians from pretend Christians. This is a healthy thing. Division is good when it is done on doctrinal grounds.” 

  • I agree that Covid was helpful in purging the church. I also agree about his sentiment on doctrine rightly dividing, but he gives no qualifications at all. Should we divide over every single doctrinal issue? Is there absolutely no room for disagreements in the church? This would be completely unrealistic and impossible. No two Christians agree about everything. So, the natural, right question becomes – what doctrines are serious enough to divide over? This is a key issue and the way we answer this question is critical. Some people think that their own denominational standards or their own traditions are the guide on determining which doctrines should divide. But this is not sufficient. It must be Scripture that informs us what doctrines we must divide over. Where does the New Testament teach us that we should divide from other Christians who have a different view on details about the return of Christ or how the world ends or on the specific nature of what “Israel” is? The Bible is clear when we should separate from others. For example: we should separate from unbelievers (2 Cor. 6), from those who believe salvation by works (Gal 1), or from those who are living in unrepentant sin (1 Cor. 5), etc.
  • Where would you point to in Scripture that God commands Dispensational Premillennialists to separate from those who hold to more of a Covenant Theological position?  

7:45 “In Romans 11 it says that gentile believers have been grafted into the “commonwealth of Israel.”

  • Romans 11 actually says that we have been grafted into the olive tree, which is Israel. The “commonwealth of Israel” language is from Ephesians 2:12. But this is a wonderful point to show that the church has not “replaced” Israel. The church – or the congregation of Israel – expanded to include Gentiles. “Commonwealth” is political/national terminology – Gentiles were invited in to the nation of Israel by way of Christ. God only has one “nation”: Israel, His Church, His special, chosen, beloved people. The God of the Old Covenant Congregation (Church) is the same God of the New Covenant Church. When we read in the OT “the congregation of Israel,” this is the same as saying the “church of Israel.” the word church and congregation mean the same thing – an “assembly.” In the OT the church (Israel, God’s chosen people) had genuine believers in it as well as merely professing believers, but mainly everyone was ethnically Jewish. When the New Covenant was established the church of the OT stretched out its tent stakes to include gentile believers. The church expanded beyond the borders of Israel and flooded around the world. Read Isaiah 54 with this in mind. It is so beautiful. 

There is so much that can be said here, but I’ll just leave it by saying that the church in the new testament is called all the same things as Israel was in the OT: God’s people, the chosen people, the vine, God’s house, God’s temple, a peculiar people, the beloved, etc. There is only one olive tree, not two. God only has one true people – those who are in Christ. All of the promises of God in him are yea and amen. Therefore, if you are in Christ (Jew or Gentile) all of the promises pertain to you. If you are outside of Christ (Jew or Gentile) then you are outside of the promises of God.  

  • How many special, chosen people’s does God have – one or two? 
  • Will there be an eternal distinction in heaven between Jewish believers and Gentile believers, or are we one? 
  • The New Heaven and New Earth, New Jerusalem – who will it belong to? Only believing Jews, or also believing Gentiles? If both, then the land promises and all of the other everlasting, unconditional promises made to Abraham were ultimately not for his physical seed, but for his spiritual seed. Ethnic, unbelieving Jews will not inherit the promised land eternally, but believing Gentiles will. 

8:35 “Are you going to have a woke view of your theology?” “If you are going to approach the Bible based on your feeling you don’t have God.”

  • He is strongly, erroneously mixing the views of radical leftists with careful, sound, conservative Bible believing people. This is weird and dangerous. Additionally, he is inferring that if you hold to any form of “replacement theology” you are an apostate, an unbeliever.  

9:20 Didn’t God give Abraham the boarders of what would be the land of Israel? Is God a liar? . ..  God symbolically told Abraham what the borders of the promised land would be…

  • God did in fact promise his people a land to live in (The Promised Land). There were specific borders given. No, God is not a liar. What happened though, eschatologically, is that the land promise was expanded in the New Testament to include the whole world: Romans 4:13 “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”

The land promise is not to Abraham and all of his physical descendants (such as Ishmael and Esau and their descendants), but is rather to Abraham and all of his spiritual descendants. Read Galatians 3 & 4 carefully with this topic in mind. “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ…And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” The promises made to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ – Abraham’s one faithful son. Christians are the true children of Abraham and the covenant made between him and God. If you are not in Christ (Jew or Gentile) you are under a curse, not a favorable covenant. 

So, no I don’t take the “land promise” as symbolic. Abraham and his true descendants will inherit the whole entire physical world. Just as Jesus said, Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

10:07 “My view is not my view. I don’t want my view. What I believe is based solely upon Scripture.” 

  • It sounds like Pastor Hibbs believes that all of his interpretations of the Bible are infallible. All true Christians confess the Bible as our ultimate authority. We all want to think that our views are the correct, Biblical view. So why are there so many differences in beliefs amongst Christians if we all have the same goal? The difference lies not in what authority we appeal to, but rather in interpretation. The Bible is perfect, but not one Christian is a perfect interpreter. Pastor Jack’s theological views were not formed in a vacuum. He wants to think that he is theologically unbiased, but he cannot be. He has been influenced heavily by the people, teachers, sermons, books, and tradition that he is a part of. We can all say all day long “I only believe the Bible,” but at the end of the day it is our interpretations of the Bible that we hold to, which is not infallible. Pastor Jack, along with many other Christians, must come to the realization that there are Christians with opposing views who are just as capable, well meaning and committed to the authority of Scripture as he is. That would really help out. 
  • 4:00 He called any eschatology opposing his “pathetic.” There are so many heroes of the faith: ancient, modern, of all different denominations and nations and languages that have a differing view of eschatology that Pastor Jack. It feels kinda arrogant to lump such a huge group of faithful Christians/Bible students together and think their view is “pathetic.” He’s a little too confident in himself. 
  • Do you believe that your own personal understanding of the Bible is perfect? If not, then what areas of Bible doctrines do you think you might be a little shaky on? 
  • Are you willing to admit that your current theological convictions have in large part been shaped by the influences that you have received?   

11:00 “Does Israel exist today? If you say, “Nope.” then you know not God, my friend.” 

  • Yes, Israel exists today. There is a true Israel of God on the one hand, and a heavily secular, primarily ethnically Jewish nation called Israel on the other hand. The Blessings promised to Abraham are for those who are in Christ, the true Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). The Blessings of Abraham are not for those who are only members of the secular, earthly nation of Israel. I do believe there is a promise from God in Romans 11 that the ethnically Jewish people as a whole will one day be given repentance and faith and come back into the true olive tree (true Israel), but until then they are cut off from the true vine and the blessings which flow from it. Isn’t this what Romans 11 (The olive tree) says? The natural branches have been cut off. Cut off from what?  
  • If I hold this view, do you think that I know not God, like Pastor Jack seems to be implying?   

14:30 “If you are into Replacement Theology and think that Israel is illegitimate…” “people say that Israel is not even supposed to be existing today.”  15:50 “there is no Israel that is viable today.” 

  • Any person I have heard from a Covenant Theology viewpoint does not believe that Israel is illegitimate. This is a weird claim. There are people with extreme views in every camp – he must be listening only to them. My view is that Jewish people have a right to their homeland and to be a politically sovereign nation just as any other legitimate nation does, and they have a right to defend themselves. You don’t have to believe dispensational premillennialism to allow that, unlike Jack thinks.  

“Some of you say that Jesus is not returning again.” 

  • Yes, some people say that, but not the overwhelming majority of Bible believing theologians that hold to some form of what would be called “replacement theology.” By the way, most people who hold to that view do not like the term “replacement,” because it’s not actually what they believe. It is a mischaracterization of what they believe. They would prefer a terms like “Covenant theology” “expansion theology” “fulfillment theology” which points to the fact that God has in very deed kept his promises to Israel, but the promises were bigger than anticipated originally: the promises included the Gentiles and the whole world, not just Jewish people in a small part of the middle east. This is the “mystery” that was hidden since the foundation of the world that was revealed to the apostles of Jesus. The Old Testament was unclear, but now it was made fully known. Read the second hald of Ephesans 2 – God broke down the dividing wall so as to make in Christ one new man. Covenant theologians think that God has had one plan all along: Christ, his kingdom and his people. Dispensationalists think that God had a plan, but the Jews messed it up because of their unbelief, so God switched to plan B, which is to make a completely new program with the NT church. This plan B would in turn help out to get plan A back in order, which is God working at the focal point of an ethno-political centered kingdom.    

17:00 “Jesus is going to return to Jerusalem to establish his throne as is written in the OT prophets.” 

  • If Jesus has not yet established his throne then he is not king and his kingdom has not yet begun. To me it seems clear that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords now and will be forever. He ascended to sit on his throne in the heavens and he rules over all of the earth, now. Matthew 28 “All power (authority) is (present tense) given to me in heaven and on the earth. Psalms 2:7-8 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Dispensationalists think that when Jesus comes again he will on one day kill all his enemies and the world will be basically perfect then. But Jesus said that the kingdom grows slowly like yeast in dough or like a tree grows (Mat. 13). Also the Bible seems to me to indicate that Jesus returns after he has put all enemies under his feet, as opposed to coming in order to put all enemies under his feet. 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till  (he is reigning now, until) he hath put all enemies under his feet.”
  • Do you believe that Jesus is sitting on his throne now, or is that only future from now?
  • Has the kingdom of God come or is it only future? 

Acts 2:29-36 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted (Jesus is presently on David’s throne ruling and reigning), and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool (Jesus will rule and reign until every enemy is destroyed). Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord (king) and Christ.

17:20 “The tribulation has nothing to do with the church nor is the church mentioned.” 

  • This is pretty much correct. Why would the church be a focal point in a massive outpouring of God’s judgment on the world or on Israel? Why does it matter if the church is mentioned or not? 
  • Also, if you believe that there are Christians in “the Tribulation” then wouldn’t they be a part of the church, God’s ekklesia? Or do you think it is possible for someone to be a Christian and not be a part of God’s Church? It seems clear to me that everyone born again is a spiritual member of the church of God regardless of whether they officially become a member of a local church or not. 
  • How do people get saved in the Tribulation? This is how dispensational premillennialism goes: Jesus comes in the clouds and the church is raptured out of the world. Every single believer is removed from the earth. Also, the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth as well (1 Thess. 2). This begins a time of judgment. Then, all of a sudden, there are 144,000 Jewish evangelists converting people… The question I have is: If every single Christian is removed at the rapture, and also the Holy Spirit is removed, where do all of these Jewish evangelists come from and how do people get saved? If there are no Christians then there are no preachers. And if there are no preachers then there is no Gospel being proclaimed and people won’t believe. Romans 10:14-15 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

And most importantly, if there is no Holy Spirit at work, there is no conviction of sin (John 16), no drawing of the Spirit, and no regenerating power of the Holy Spirit available to people. This doesn’t make sense. 

17:35 “Is there a future, according to the Bible, for Israel and for Jerusalem? Does the Bible say that Israel will be forever”

  • I say yes to all of that. The difference lies in the nature of what you mean by Israel. Jack believes that it means ethnically Jewish people. I think Israel means God’s true believing people. Ruth and Rahab were gentiles, but they were counted with Israel because they were genuine believers in Yahweh. What is the destiny of unbelieving people with Jewish blood running through their veins? The same as non-Jews: they will not live in the promised land forever. It is only death and hell, unfortunately. God has only had one plan for history: early on his people were mainly ethnically Jewish and confined to a small portion of the middle east, but when Messiah came, his people, his nation has been growing through the whole world to include ethnic gentiles as well. Israel (God’s people, God’s nation) will never fail, but will destroy in time every form of demonic oppression and will in the end inherit the earth.

20:20 “Jesus is going to rule and reign on earth for a thousands years. Some of you do not believe that . . . some of you say, “that is typological metaphor. Thats not real!” . . . If you approach the Bible like that, how are you going to know that you’re saved? Oh it was a metaphor. . . Don’t let your feeling get in the way of your theology.” 

  • Underlying what Jack is saying here is our view of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation). Jack prides himself in holding to a very literal interpretation of the Bible. The literal approach is the correct approach (I would want someone to take my words at face value). Many literalists, though, create a false dichotomy: they say there are only two approaches: totally literal or totally metaphorical/symbolic. But this is not true. Everyone allows for both. The question is a question of degree. Jesus said that he is the door? Does this mean that he is made out of wood? No. He is not a physical door in any way shape or form. It means that he is the entry point; you get access through him. 

When the Bible says that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills – Does this mean that God only owns the cattle on 1,000 hills and not 1,001 hills? Or is the phrase symbolic of every hill? The context answers the question: Psalms 50:10,12 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills…If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.” The same could be said for where the Bible promises blessings or judgment on descendants to a thousand generations. Does it mean only a thousand? Because that would be the strictly literal interpretation. No, it means forever. So when the Bible says that Jesus will reign for a thousand years, does this mean that he will only reign for a thousand years and no more? No, it means that he will reign for ever and ever. 

Jack doesn’t allow for the reality that the Bible is made up of different kinds of literature, and that in order to interpret literally we must seek to find out what the author actually meant. We should not interpret Revelation like we do Proverbs or John. If you interpret every detail of visions, dreams and prophecy strictly literally you will miss the literal point of the author. For example: In revelation there is a beast coming up out the sea with horns. If we interpreted this literally we would be wrong. The great enemy of mankind is not a sea creature. The beast is symbolic for a ruthless, powerful, satanic world leader.   

  • With this in mind, no I don’t doubt my salvation at all. The Bible is very, very clear on this matter. There are scores and scores of verses to support the promise of eternal life, and many are written in books like John which is a historical account or Romans which is a legal defense – no strange symbolism, dreams, or visions here. Thankfully, we do not base our assurance of salvation mainly from a book of apocalypse or prophecy. 
  • Also, just because something is “symbolic” or “spiritual” doesn’t mean it is not “real.” In Romans 9 Israel is likened to an Olive Tree. This is symbolic. It doesn’t mean that Israel is not real. It is using the Olive Tree as a beautiful word picture to describe the nation. 
  • Question: Do you allow for Scripture to speak metaphorically or symbolically? What rules do you apply to try to come to a wise, prudent use of scripture to determine what should be strictly literal from what should be seen as symbolic? 

21:20 “If the church has replaced Israel…we should let Hamas slaughter every Jew.” 

  • What!? This makes no sense at all. How is he bridging this gap? I don’t know who Jack has in mind, but he is mischaracterizing and generalizing those who hold Covenant Theology in a massively big way. This is actually embarrassing. It’s like saying, “All northerners are mean people.” That logic is so childish and silly. I honestly do not think that Jack understands covenant theology at all, like even a basic level. If he did, he would not be making such outlandish statements like this. He demeans other believers by saying that they follow their feelings and emotions rather than the Bible, yet he is saying things like this. No Christian I have ever heard who holds Covenant Theology thinks this. If they do, they are insane and probably not a true Christian.   

27:30 “Beware everybody, of those who are replacement theology heretics. . . they are wrestling the Scriptures to their own destruction.”  

28:35 “Replacement Theology is from Hell.”

  • It seems pretty clear here that Jack is saying that if you hold to “replacement theology” then you are not a Christian- your profession is false. Jack is consigning to Hell – I would guess – half of the evangelical church in America and half if not the majority of Christians of history. I do have to give Jack some grace here though because I don’t think he actually knows what he’s talking about. He has someone specific in mind that is not the majority of Christians who hold to “replacement theology.”. If he is talking about some kind of trans, leftist, socialistic, atheistic, apostate “Christian” in name only, then yes I agree with him, but he is mixing that kind of person with sound, conservative Bible believers who have a different view than himself on eschatology. This is very dangerous talk. He is the one promoting unnecessary division in the body of Christ through this language.     
  • Do you think that I am an heretic and wrestling the scriptures to my destruction? 

I do pray for the peace of Jerusalem and I do witness to Jewish people. I also pray for the peace of well-meaning palestinian people who are enslaved by terrorists but don’t know how to get free. I desire to witness to them as well. Terrorists deserve to die and they should. But just because someone is a Jew or a citizen of Israel does not leave them off the hook if they do evil things as well. 

Conclusion – My greatest concern for the church at large and for people who I know personally is not that we would have to try to get everyone to agree on every particular about these topics, but rather that we actually hear each other out, agree to disagree and be united in our fight against evil. I am concerned that Pastor Jack’s rhetoric is not careful and is causing unnecessary division, but even still I would stand arms locked together with him in the Gospel and would worship together with him. Eschatology is important. Yes, it does matter, but when details of Christ’s coming and the end of the world divide believers it is so unnecessary and hurtful.

Thanks for reading! Shalom, Lee