Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Jack Hibbs

Jack Hibbs Attacks Christians For Opposing Mike Johnson $95 Billion Israel-Ukraine Spending

Of the American pastors deeply involved in politics, fewer men have a higher profile than Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills. Hibbs is well known for speaking at TPUSA conferences and, within his own church, has a ministry actively engaged in ballot harvesting and political engagement.

Of all men in the world, Jack Hibbs goes to the mattress for Speaker Mike Johnson, who has sold out Americans on every issue since assuming the third highest office in America, whether it be on FISA warrants, omnibus spending bills, or immigration. Going into last Saturday’s vote, in which both parties sold America for foreign wars to the tune of $95 billion, Jack Hibbs imparted to defend Mike Johnson.

Hibbs prefaces the video by emphasizing that he is speaking only to Christians and that he just got out of an intercessory prayer meeting. According to Hibbs, Speaker Johnson is being attacked and slandered because “Mike Johnson will not give up on Israel.”

Friends, for so many years, the Republican establishment, the Democrat establishment, they have been running government on their own resources on their own, thinking on their own human wisdom. Nancy Pelosi in the House and Congress has sowed evil for so long. And then, to be honest with you, Kevin McCarthy didn’t do much better. And then all of a sudden, a man who was not even seeking that position, Mike Johnson, was all of a sudden thrust onto the world scene, and he became the Speaker of the House.

What Speakers Pelosi, McCarthy, and Johnson all have in common is their support for Israel and foreign interests over the American people. To distinguish Mike Johnson from his predecessors is ridiculous. The inability to transcend that which preceded him is why there is increasing animosity towards Johnson. Hibbs proceeds to tout Johnson’s Christian faith, which is linked to his love of Israel. Never mind the fact that Mike Johnson killed an abortion abolition bill in Louisiana because of pragmatism.

He loves God. He loves the word of God and he loves Israel. And This is why he’s in in trouble right now. Republicans—I’m not going to mention their names because I’m going to get upset if I do because some of them are very famous for Republican names, and they are cutthroat RINOs in well disguised positions and settings, whereby they want to bring down Mike with the Democrats because Mike is standing for Israel. He knows his Bible. He wants Israel to be funded and protected.

Presumably, he is referring to Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, and perhaps Tucker Carlson, who are all outspoken against Mike Johnson’s performance. To call them RINOs is complete gaslighting on the part of Hibbs. The vote in the House featured 101 Republicans joining 210 Democrats in support of this spending. But to Hibbs, to be a Republican and oppose Israel is to be a RINO, which is the exact opposite of the term’s original meaning since it was a label employed against Neoconservatives who support liberalism, Forever Wars, and massive federal deficit spending—or Democrats driving the speed limit.

Listen, Mike Johnson is under spiritual attack. The demons that are surrounding Washington, DC to overthrow any decision…that would lead to help coming to Israel. And Mike Johnson is going to cast away his greatest career position you could ever have as speaker of the House. Mike Johnson doesn’t care. He’s following the Bible in the face of even Christians who are frankly ignorant. And they’re piling on with criticism and grumbling and complaining. I’ve had people come up to me at church.

Basically, if Christians are complaining about Mike Johnson’s performance, then Jack Hibbs accuses them of ignorance. Why? For wanting a secure border? For wanting their representatives to represent them? For wanting the government to cease its attacks on Christians via the DOJ? For wanting Congress to prioritize America over other nations? But Hibbs writes these concerns off as grumbling as if the laity were the malcontent Israelites under Moses.

Hibbs proceeds to suggest that this attack against Mike Johnson is why Christians do not get involved in politics. He goes so far as to blame the Republican party for wanting to abandon Israel and even instructed his listeners not to donate a cent to the GOP before comparing Johnson to Daniel in the lion’s den.

Dispensationalism and Politics

The Oct. 7th attack has caused a rift within both parties. The Democrats are conflicted between their Jewish donors who contribute about 50% of their war chest and their non-white progressive base which sees Israel through the cultural Marxist lens. The Republicans are increasingly splitting between the Neoconservatives and Paleoconservatives, with Zionism being a core principle of the former camp. Growing sentiment on the right is increasingly hostile towards Israel because, among other things, the prioritization of Israel over America is apparent to all with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Whereas Christian Nationalism clearly falls in the latter camp, generations of Americans have been inundated with dispensational theology which conflates Modern Israel with the Israel of the bible and shamefully calls Jews “God’s Chosen people,” going so far as to apply Genesis 12:3 to modern Jews. It must be stated that American support for Israel cannot be separated from Dispensational theology and Zionism. There is no geopolitical reason to align with Israel given their history of attacks against Americans via the USS Liberty or their longstanding history of espionage against the United States. Their behavior is more akin to an adversary than a friend. But ideology dictates otherwise.

A key reason for this unwavering support is the belief that God will bless America if America blesses Israel. If one were to assess the state of America after decades of unwavering support for Israel, one would likely think America is a nation under God’s judgment rather than His favor with rampant sexual degeneracy, abortion, fiscal debt, currency debasement, political corruption, needless wars, and cultural deconstruction. Yet dispensationalists like Hibbs and Hagee will contend that blessing Israel results in God’s blessing despite contrary evidence. Furthermore, they will deride any Christians who oppose them as believing in so-called Replacement Theology, essentially creating a friend-enemy distinction based on support for Israel. Hibbs practically stated that those against Mike Johnson were agents of Satan engaged in spiritual warfare.


Dispensationalism is a cancer to American politics. It leads to policy decisions contrary to American interests, both foreign and domestic. It is a middle finger to Americans and to future generations who will suffer because of Mike Johnson’s impotence as Speaker. Politically, the GOP will be cursed with an increasingly apathetic voter base whose interest they have refused to serve for generations, but at least they sent more money to Israel. What a waste of political capital!

At the age of 66, Jack Hibbs exemplifies “Boomer Theology” without qualms for selling out America’s future generations with higher inflation and more debt from foreign boondoggles. The use of spiritual warfare language by Hibbs imputes sin on Christians who are against sending aid to Ukraine and Israel. Rather than maintain this as a secondary issue, Hibbs, and many like him, effectively raise support for Israel to be a primary issue, thereby making it an extension of the Gospel. Theologically, Zionism is modern Judaizing, and the fruits of dispensationalism testify against its merits as a doctrine.

Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

By becoming a member of Evangelical Dark Web, you get access to more content, help drive the direction of our research, and support the operations of the ministry.

16 Responses

  1. I respect for comments in this article, however I have a few questions. I recently found your site and am most appreciative of your research and exposing of false teacher especially, as well as detailing current events regarding Christianity. In this article, it is apparent that you are not a believer in Dispensationalism? So be it. What is your stance (or direct me to something you’ve written/podcast) on this subject? I am curious to know that. Are you a believer in Replacement Theology? I do ascribe to the promise God made to Abraham as a lasting, unbreakable, irrevocable covenant about the ‘blessing and cursing’ of Israel. I do not consider this ‘an ideology’ because it is clearly stated in The Word of God – not because any pastor/theologian teaches it. That being said, God has intentionally saved the Jews from being wiped off the face of the earth time and time again since ancient times (re: Esther, just one example). Does this mean all Jews and/or those in Israel are ‘godly’ or without sin or nefarious intent – absolutely not. But, God is Sovereign, He has a plan, it moves forth in spite of the “subject’ and is based on the integrity of the “object” – God. Thank you again for your work.

    1. Dispensational theology is a recent phenomenon engineered by a heretic (Darby) and promoted by someone who was in the pocket of the Jews (Schofield). It is unbiblical- see Romans 9. “Replacement” theology is biblical – 1 John 2. As a non American it is staggering that so many American believers have been scammed by this nonsense. The amount of money Israel feeds to pastors such as the devil hagee is unbelievable. Not only do they have their hands all over US politics, but US Christianity too. The love of money is the root of all evil. As demonstrated by some in American life willing to sell out their fellow man to a nation of usurers. Israel means “wrestles with God” – they have continued to do this for 3500 years and have been punished accordingly. They killed the messiah and spit on his name – see the talmud. Yet American Christians still love Israel. Bwhahahahahaha

      1. YHWH made promises to Abraham in Genesis – clearly (Genesis 12, Genesis 15… I’m sure you’re aware) – that haven’t been fulfilled yet – clearly. If YHWH did not accomplish what was an unconditional promise and won’t because the Bride has replaced Israel you make God a liar. I don’t see how you can get out of that. The Bible teaches Israel will have all the land promised – not because they did anything – but because God promised. The Church is not Israel. We did not replace them.

        & I don’t know where you get your church history from, but what you say about Darby/ Schofield and their influence is not the only (& therefore only) account out there. Granted they may have stirred this, what might have been, latent theology up, maybe even for nefarious reasons – I won’t pretend to know what their motives were – but dispensationalism is a completely valid conclusion if you hold to a literal hermeneutical.

        Your assertions are bold – but not as iron-clad true as you might think. Dr. Andy Woods from SLBC in Texas is a great resource for a different take. His arguments are compelling and encouraging. I haven’t been able to refute his position in Scripture. I’d be interested to know if you could.

        Btw. I don’t get “replacement theology” from 1 John 2… not at all. Are you saying Israel is the antichrist? I feel like Romans 9-11 clearly teach Israel is blinded now but God has made promises to them and He does not lie. We can expect to see national repentance and acceptance in the future. He’s gathered them back to His land (Ezekiel 36:24-28). The stage is being set for Daniel 9, Revelation 4-19 and many other prophecies! Be encouraged!

        Also. I am not a fan of Hegee, but I wouldn’t call him a devil. That’s a little harsh for someone I expect to see in heaven. He might have bad theology IMO, but I still think the grace of God can cover this. What do you think? Anything given that might soften your position?

    2. In case it matters, you are not alone. I, a “dispensationalist” yet also opposed to Hibbs’ criticism and outright disgusted by Johnson’s behavior, have similar questions and would add that criticizing dispensationalism as a “cancer” in any way, shape, form isn’t a productive way to unify the body, IMO. It’s committing, IMO, the same fallacy Hibbs is committing. “I’m right. You’re stupid.” That’s not right. I feel like there is a middle ground here. I bless Israel (Genesis 12:3) and pray for peace in Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6-9), but I don’t think sacrificing our security for whatever is actually going on over there is an answer. Bottom line. I agree that funding Israel is a middle finger to us and don’t agree we should do it, while at the same time pray for Israel and believe Israel being in their land again is prophetic and highly encouraging.

  2. The irony is that the more people protest against the Jews, the more obvious it is that they need their own homeland. That is how the modern state of Israel came to exist, as a consequence of the holocaust.

    Some of the arguments made in the above article are fair enough, but there is much that is debatable, and many thoughts that come to mind …

    For example, as long as we are giving aid to so-called “palestinians”, the muslim terrorists, how could we not also give aid to Israel? How about cutting off all aid to those who support, harbor, and fund terrorist groups who routinely target civilians in Israel, before talking about cutting aid to Israel.

    Is anyone with at least half a functioning brain cell going to try to argue that Israel is worse than the Islamic terrorists? Who’s worse?

    They are human beings, created by Almighty God, who He loves and patiently waits, not willing that ANY should perish. (2 Pet. 3:9)

    There are many reasons to aid Israel that have nothing to do with whether or not one believes Jews are God’s chosen people, and a lot more to do with whether or not one believes they’re people at all.

    There are also, as I’ve mentioned before, many problems and unanswered questions with the “replacement theology” (or whatever you want to call it). For example, the 144,000 from each tribe. Now, if the blood lineage of Jacob is no longer relevant, and that lineage is now considered to be all believers, then who among the world’s Christians are the 12 tribes mentioned in revelation? When where and how have Christians been divided into 12 tribes?

    I’ve got to stop and go to work, but will post some more considerations later tonight …

  3. I’m not a theologian, but I believe we should all agree on certain basic fundamentals, such as the fact that the Bible is inerrant and sufficient, and basic rules for interpreting scripture.

    Whatever the theology, if any scripture conflicts with it, then is cannot be true.

    This is how many arrive at dispensationalism. God dealt with mankind differently in different eras, not as a matter of His changing, but as a matter of His grace. Twice He even modified Creation itself. Once after the fall. Once at the time of the flood. Fast forward, Jesus’ ministry was to the Jews. The Gospel was given “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). Those are mini-dispensations, of sorts, in that there is a delineation of spans of time.

    Throughout the New Testament, there is a distinction made between Jews , and the church. Acts 11:18, for example. “Then to the Gentiles ALSO God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

    Even Gal. 3:28, which explains that the Gospel is freely available to all, that all who believe (are in Christ Jesus), are of equal significance to Him, and are a vital part of the body of Christ, yet are not the same. The difference between Jew and Greek remains just as the difference between male and female.

    And we have an entire book of the NT that is addressed to the Hebrews, the descendants of Jacob, making a very clear distinction between the church and Israel.

    (Hebrew: Yehudah, and the Greek with basically the same pronunciation “Iouda” – named after Judah, and referred to other tribes, such as Benjamin, at the time of the split between northern and southern kingdom, and then was used to refer to all 12 tribes after the northern kingdom of Israel ceased to be).

    That word, translated as Jew (Iouda) in the NT, literally means the children of Jacob. Wherever it is used in the New Testament, that is its meaning. And it is used referring to Christian Jews and Christian gentiles. (Gal. 3:28 being just one example among many), so the distinction still exists.

    It’s clear to me, in my understanding of scripture, that the lineage of Jacob has always had, and always will have, some measure of significance.

    Replacement theology doesn’t come close to jiving with scripture. And alternatives, of which I’m aware, such as covenant theology, I don’t understand, but would seem to me to be about the same thing as saying that the church has replaced the descendants of Jacob.

    In both cases, interestingly enough, there seems to be at least two major dispensations. Unless one tries to claim that Israel and the church are, and always have been, one and the same, then there is a distinct difference.

    If there is no distinct difference, and nothing changed, then what did Jesus die for?

    Yet I also know that Jesus said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

    And I believe this understanding probably puts me in the majority. Yes, the descendants of Jacob do have a special place. No, they do not get a free ride.

    Very few claim that the Jews get a free ride. I know Hagee has said some things along those lines, but it is very dishonest to lump any and all dispensationalists into that same boat.

    Very few claim that the lineage of Jacob has no significance.

    Somewhere between those extremes, I believe, is an understanding that doesn’t conflict with any scripture, which should be our goal.

    First and foremost, is the fact that the problems in this world are the result of sin. And all have sinned, not just the descendants of Jacob. I don’t understand Christians who go around blaming the Jews for every evil in existence, when they should know better. We do not battle against flesh and blood.

    You can claim that I’ve been brainwashed all you want, but my aim is to fit my theology to God’s word, not to try to fit God’s word to my theology.

    It seems we have many on all sides these days who are all to eager to ignore the parts of scripture they don’t like, that don’t fit their worldview, that don’t fit their theology and their own understanding.

    As far as politics are concerned, I can think of 1001 more pressing problems than whether or not Israel is given any aid.

    And will also say, as far as politics are concerned, that when some on the left claim that the Christian Nationalism movement is nothing but veiled nazified white nationalism, if they read the articles here, and pay attention to what some such as Stephen Wolfe, are saying, you can’t blame them for reaching such a conclusion. All the focus on skin color, ethnicity, constant bellyaching about the Jews and Israel. What else are they supposed to think?

    I’m personally done with politics. I can’t stand either party. And I believe the days of politics making a difference are long gone. Whichever wins, it’s going to be bad for Christians. But I will say if your aim is to ensure that the USA will never again be a Christian nation, and that it will continue to worsen, to hell in a hand basket, then you’re all doing a fantastic job.

    With all that said, I believe I’m done posting here at this website. I’ve tried to reason, but it has not worked. It hasn’t changed any minds. It has been a waste of time.

  4. Should’ve been “And it is used contrasting Christian Jews and Christian gentiles” – i.e., the distinction remains even after one is saved. Whereas Iouda is used to refer to Jews, whether believers or not. (Acts 22:3, for example)

  5. I don’t know of any OT covenant God made with Israel that guaranteed every last one of them would inherit the Kingdom of God and have eternal life in Heaven with Him.

    There is no such covenant.

    Rather, they were under the law.

    So I’m scratching my head wondering the same question about the “free ride” crowd as I wonder about the covenant theology crowd.

    What covenant?

    Where does either side of that debate get the idea that any and all descendants of Jacob have ever, at any time in history, automatically received a free ride to Heaven?

    And I also ask the same of both. If nothing changed, then what did Jesus die for? Just for the Gentiles? That would seem to be the claim in either case. No, the scripture is clear. He died both for Jews and Gentiles. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is first for the Jew and then the Gentile.

    Didn’t it also change for the Jews? Is Jesus not the Messiah?

    Was the curtain not ripped, and the Holy of Holies opened?

    I’m not sure you could have a Gospel without any distinction between Israel and the Church.

    As I said, I don’t know much about it. I don’t understand it all. But I can’t read scripture and reach any conclusion other than that history is indeed divided into different eras, and that there is indeed a distinction between Israel and the Church.

    I don’t understand why some seem to have a problem with the notion that the lineage of Jacob still has significance. I’m not Jewish, and it doesn’t bother me. Why do some get all worked up about it?

    I believe the 144,000, for example, are Christians with blood lineage to the 12 tribes. Christians and Jews, in the same manner that Paul said that he was a Jew. The apostles didn’t stop being Jewish when they became followers of Jesus. They were both Christian and Jews.

    BUT they were NOT Judaizers. There’s a difference. Judaizers wrongly claimed Christians were still under the law.

    I believe there exists a correct interpretation, which does not conflict any other scripture.

    1. … and what did the Apostles say to the Judaizers? You know the scripture. On the subject of circumcision, Paul told them if they said that circumcision was required then they were back under the law, and no longer under grace.

      He did not tell them that they were then Gentiles. He told them that they were Jews under the law.

      Throughout the NT the apostles reiterated time and again that Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, were still under the law.

      NOT that they were no longer Jews, but that they were still under the law.

      The distinction between Israel and the Church, throughout the NT, is as plain as day.

      And that is how it still remains. Descendants of Jacob who have rejected Jesus are still under the law. Since by the law, they are condemned, they don’t get any automatic entry to Heaven. Nobody does. Jesus is the only way. But they are still Jews.

      The subject is ceremonial law, not moral law. 1 John 3 and other scriptures state that one who is born of God will not continue in sin. But the difference is that is a result of sanctification, the conviction of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the conscience. As scripture says, the Holy Spirit writes the law on our hearts. It’s a result. It’s a fruit by which we judge who is and who is not truly born again. But it is not a requirement.

      We’re not saved by works. But faith without works is dead. I.e., it’s bad fruit.

      The counter to judiazers is not an antinomian perversion of the grace of God into a license for immorality. The counter is exactly how the Apostles countered it.

      Again, I’m not a theologian or any sort of expert, but this is how I see it as I understand scripture.

  6. I love Pastor Jack. I watch his sermons every weekend. Pastors have to stand for God’s truth, not what others think. God knows all

  7. In theory, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are trying to address the same thing, but they work in opposite directions of each other. D interprets the covenants as being a new period of time in which God is dealing with mankind differently than He did before, while CT sees God progressing history, eventually to the coming of the Messiah. D interprets the NT in light of the Old, while CT interprets the OT in light of the New. In fact, that’s what “Old Testament” and “New Testament” mean– it’s a reference to the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant” (the words “testament” and “covenant” are both translated from the same word in Greek).

    All that being said, here’s how it pertains to the discussion at hand about Israel. CT understands that Israel and the church are distinct. “Replacement Theology” is a misnomer, and a deceptive one at that. It leads people to believe that CT is saying that the church replaced Israel, and that’s just not true. But what HAS been replaced is the covenant. The New has replaced the Old. This is where those who subscribe to D will say, “But isn’t that just for Israel?” Well, the answer is yes. And no.

    As we move through the NT we begin to see that ultimately what God has done is He has taken believing Jews and believing Gentiles, broken down the middle wall of partition between the two, and made them one body. This is the church. Some refer to it as “spiritual Israel.” This is seen over and over again in the NT, that OT language used toward national Israel is used for the church. I already referenced Ephesians 3 about the two becoming one. I Pet. 2:9-10; Rom. 2:28-29 (along with the preceding context); Gal. 3:26-29; 6:16, etc. Even Hebrews, which was mentioned before, although primarily written to believing Jews, is still written to BELIEVERS. These all show that all who are in Christ–whether Jew or Gentile–are the people of God, His “covenant” people. Those who are not in Christ are outside of the covenant and will die in their sins. I mean, how “chosen” is someone if they have some supposed privileges in this life, but die and go to hell? That’s the destiny for all Jews and Gentiles who are outside of Christ. In other words, the covenant was made with Christ, and all who are in Him by faith are in the Covenant.

    Modern Jews, then, even if they are truly descendants of Israel, are really nothing more than just lost sinners in need of salvation. They get no special privileges in this life. HOWEVER, I will add that, in my opinion (some other CT subscribers may disagree) that it is in God’s plan, per Romans 11, to bring a mass of Jews to Christ at some point just before His return. Rom. 11:26: “and so all Israel will be saved…” I also believe this accords with the 144,000. Not an exact number, but a number that represents a large number and a totality (12,000 from each of the 12 tribes).

    I’m sure I’m not doing the subject justice. I also can’t speak exactly to Ray’s understanding, but it’s probably something similar to mine. But the bottom line is that as we progress through Scripture, especially the NT, physical/national Jews are not to be thought of as being “God’s Chosen” or “Covenant People” UNLESS they are in Christ by faith, at which point, they share that status with believing Gentiles. This is why many of us do not believe that we should support Israel from that perspective. Perhaps there is reason politically to support them as allies (Ray argues against that; I can’t speak to it personally), but believing that we must support them at all costs in order to have God’s blessing is an unbiblical idea, imho. Just for context, I grew up very strongly Dispensational. I obviously no longer hold that view. I also am not “anti-semitic”. Jews, like any other people group, are human beings, made in the image of God, and sinners in need of the saving grace found only in Jesus Christ.

    I hope this helps the conversation.

  8. I also meant to add that we never really see Christ, the apostles, or other NT writers focusing on the nation of Israel and some future return to the land or whatever, but we always see a focus on the gospel and the return of Christ. This is more than I can flesh out here, but I believe the “land promises” will ultimately be fulfilled in the New Heavens and New Earth.

    1. Thanks Jere. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify.

      We do see Israel, and the land thereof, in the prophecies of the end times. The temple being rebuilt and so on.

      Seems to me much of the difference is semantic more than anything else. Since the covenants coincide with periods of time. Dispensationalists believe the NT represents a new and different dispensation. Right, so it’s the same difference.

      God made a new covenant at the fall. That’s a period of time and new covenant.
      God made a new covenant again at the flood. That’s a period of time and a new covenant.

      See where I’m going? At the most basic level, it’s the same thing.

      I grew up in a church where the pastor was a graduate of Dallas. And of course have listened to and learned from dispensationalists over the years. Never once did I hear any of them teach anything other than the true gospel of Jesus Christ, that He is the one and only way to the Father. To lump them all in with the likes of hagee and those who basically say the descendants of Jacob get a free ride, is dishonest. Such a view represents a very tiny minority of teachers who would fall into the dispensationlist camp.

      When I think of the Jews being God’s chosen poeple, I’m thinking of the fact that He chose to use them, to deliver His word, to bring the Messiah. It doesn’t mean they’re “chosen” for automatic entry to His kingdom.

      Jesus’ lineage is plenty reason enough, by itself, to say that the lineage is still significant.

      But if the only difference between us is whether or not we believe that lineage still has significance, then that’s not much of a difference. It’s the same Gospel.

      What I see is a general animosity toward Jews. Right, if the problem is between professing Christians over whether or not the lineage of Jacob is still of significance, then what in the sam hill does that have to do with any Jews? Why take it out on them? Take it out on John Hagee and Co. That false gospel is mostly coming from the charismatics. Right, the Jews didn’t hold Hagee at gunpoint and make him say what he said. It’s not their fault.

      I do not understand the constant bellyaching about Jews.

      Nor do I understand the focus on skin color and ethnicity coming from some in the Christian Nationalist camp, such as Stephen Wolfe. That mess has nothing whatsoever to do with any scripture. It’s not in scripture. It’s not based on scripture. It runs counter to scripture.

    2. Of course, that future return to the land is one of those end time prophecies.

      I agree that the land is not the focus of the NT, but giving it some thought, I don’t believe it’s the main focus of the OT either. I’m not sure the focus of the OT was necessarily any more temporal.

      But, though it isn’t the focus, it is referenced in the NT. The word translated as Judea, for example, is “Ioudaia”. As mentioned above, the word Iouda, which is translated as “Jews”, is the greek spelling of the Hebrew word Yehudah. And the suffix “ia” means “land of”. So the word Ioudaia, translated as Judea, literally means “the land of the Jews”.

      I will have to give that last point some more thought. I agree it’s not the focus. But I don’t agree that it’s not significant, particularly as it relates to end time prophecies. Not only the lineage, but the land.

    3. Considering passages such as Romans 2:12, there is a difference between unbelieving Gentiles and unbelieving Jews. Paul goes on to explain in the following verses, and through chapter 3, that there is no distinction in that all have sinned.

      But the question raised is are Jews still under the law now, or are they without the law? Is there still a difference? Considering nothing has changed since Paul wrote Romans, we’d have to conclude yes, there is still a difference. I don’t know of any scripture that would indicate they are without the law, as an unbelieving Gentile would be. As far as I know, the NT makes it clear that unbelieving Jews are under the law, and so are not the same as unbelieving Gentiles who are without the law.

      Of course, we know that all have sinned. That’s a core part of the Gospel. Which again makes me wonder why there is so much focus on the Jews, rather than the real problem – SIN.

      We battle not against flesh and blood.

  9. “Acknowledge Him in all your ways.” Mike Johnson made promises and then broke them. Period. End of story. Next, he multiplies sacrifices to cover for it (e.g., prayers, giving away other peoples’ money and his own personal integrity). The nation Israel didn’t prosper doing that, but maybe he thinks he’ll have a different outcome. It is better to maintain integrity and then have the Lord make His own way. I don’t believe what Mike Johnson did is a blessing, but rather a missed blessing. Time will tell.

Leave a Reply