Jon Harris is a Christian writer, musician, filmmaker, and podcaster. Since graduating from seminary, he has focused his attention on countering the social justice movement within the church (especially the SBC). We would not consider him an enemy of the church by any stretch of the imagination; this is merely a friendly response to a recent interaction.
The Controversial Tweet
Dispensationalism has been a major topic lately, and for good reason. Many on the dissident right have begun to question its veracity or even reject it altogether. Joel Webbon of Right Response Ministries has led the charge in this regard, and it was a clip from one of his podcasts that provided the backdrop for our interaction with Jon Harris.
In the four-minute video, Pastor Webbon was discussing one of the problems with being postmillennial while maintaining a futurist view of Romans 11. That is, if you view the spiritual restoration of Israel as far into the future, before the millennial reign of Christ, you will of necessity need the nation state of Israel to survive for all that time so that such restoration can come about. As Dr. Stephen Wolfe puts it, “It’s like a functional dispensationalism.”
We considered this somewhat of a niche tweet, but it garnered negative responses from the likes of Doug Wilson and Joseph Spurgeon. Spurgeon had authored a rather pitiful response to Wilson’s “Antioch Statement,” so it was interesting to see the two men in agreement here.
Jon Harris Chimes In
Many other smaller accounts (mostly dispensationalists) took issue with the post, and it was one of my replies that got Jon Harris’ attention. I was responding to someone who denied any connection between Dispensationalism and Zionism and said, “Not every Zionist is a Dispensationalist, but every Dispensationalist is a Zionist. There’s no getting around that.” Harris was very quick to respond by saying, “John Nelson Darby [1800-1882] was against Zionism.” So, I decided to challenge Jon to give me an example of a prominent dispensationalist today who is not a Zionist. I thought this was a fair ask, but Jon did not. Rather, he kept going back to Darby and even Charles Ryrie as notable answers to my challenge.
After some back and forth, I made one final attempt to get my point across. I brought up the fact that John Nelson Darby predated the Zionist movement, but he still provided the theological framework that would become the foundation for Christian Zionism. As such, every dispensationalist today is a Zionist. Once again, Harris disputed my claim here, and I politely bowed out of the conversation.
The Two-Hour Podcast and Our Response
In response to the conversation, Jon Harris posted a two-hour livestream entitled “What You Should Know About Christian Zionism.” Jon doesn’t mention his conversation with me, but he does reference what I said about dispensationalism laying the groundwork for Zionism, a near exact paraphrase.
It is not our purpose here to do a full response to his two hour presentation that was mostly historical and not theological in nature. However, he did elaborate on his earlier position on Darby, explaining that Darby explicitly opposed Zionism:
Again, we point out that “Zionism” as a discrete term was not popularized until much later on in the 19th century, but regardless, we would like to respond to this claim with Darby’s own words.
In a pamphlet dated 1829 entitled “Reflections Upon The Prophetic Inquiry And The Views Advanced In It,” John Nelson Darby says the following:
Another subject is the restoration of the Jews to their own land. The calm and judicious Lowth, in a day when nothing but the force of Scripture influenced him, could not withhold assent from the directness of the testimonies to this. I shall advert merely to some testimonies respecting this point, scattered through all Scripture, as it appears to me, and resting on the whole plan of God’s dispensed purposes. Zechariah prophesied after the restoration from Babylon. Let the promises in chapter 10 be weighed, in which He declares that He will bring Judah and Ephraim again to place them, and break down the pride of Assyria, etc. This evidently must refer to some period to come, nor can any figurative interpretation of it be given which the language does not repel.
Here, Darby envisions a time in the future in which the Jews are brought back to their own land, a future state of Israel, and he quotes the Bible as support for this position. Harris would likely argue that Darby’s position that this will happen in the future is merely a recognition of Zionism and not an endorsement, but in our opinion this is a distinction without a difference. Darby’s dispensationalist theology led to Christian Zionism being the majority position in the American church because Zionism would always be the logical result of such a paradigm.
Conclusion
We don’t really understand why Jon Harris is so strident in his views here. The study of how ideas developed is fraught with difficulty, but the modern results of these ideas are often crystal clear. Ultimately, that is what the American church has to grapple with, regardless of how we got here.
11 Responses
I’ve met Jon at a conference. Nice guy and I think he is genuine. But remember he was raised Dispensational (like most of us) but he is loyal especially because his dad is a pastor who also agrees with that eschatology. He will never criticize it. I’m Amill now and I can’t believe anyone would continue to believe it after reading the scriptures. I guess the first 1,800 years were wrong, right? No.
“In response to the conversation”…. um no dawg. Jon’s podcast was not responding to you. He did not buy the history book on Zionism and do all that research and prepare dozens of slides in 2 days.
In this article, you are committing the word-concept fallacy when you cite that the term “Zionism” didn’t appear until the late 19th century. Jon provided abundant evidence of Zionism (the concept) in the Church, over many centuries prior to Darby.
The “distinction without a difference” of Darby’s view is theological vs political. If you won’t allow such an obvious and significant distinction, then why should anyone consider your analysis?
You have a bone to pick with those whose theology you disagree with, and for that reason refuse to acknowledge categories in order to smear them. Repent of this, and treat your brothers whom you disagree with, with integrity.
Realistically to avoid Zionism you also need rid of “continuationism” for “replacement theology.” The church as “continuation” of Israel rather than “replacement” of Israel gives too much room to smuggle Zionism back in. Lurking behind “continuation” is the LIE that “we are grafted into Israel.” NO! Israel was cut off from the root, Abraham, and we were grafted in Israel’s place; we are grafted into ABRAHAM in place of Israel; we are not grafted into Israel. We are the NEW Israel, not a continuation of the old Israel which was cut from the root and has withered off the tree.
“That is, if you view the spiritual restoration of Israel as far into the future, before the millennial reign of Christ, you will of necessity need the nation state of Israel to survive for all that time so that such restoration can come about.”
No, because it does not require a new state of Israel. Please recall that dispensationalism existed before 1948. Dispensationalism only requires God to ingather the Jews. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, the hostility to the existence of the state of Israel is unreal. Why not view them as just another country and move on?
@rano, Dispensationalism was arguing for the recreation of Israel and gathering up money to accomplish it since the 1820s, when it started. Dispensationalism began before “Israel”, of course, because IT (not God) created the fake state of Israel in its own image.
@Paul G you did not listen to Jon Harris’ podcast, and it shows. What you wrote here is a popular trope but is thoroughly debunked by primary historical sources.
@Andrew D,
If you mean guys like Polycarp or Papias, one of whom or both supposedly was/were a millenialist, their millenium was just a time of extreme fruitfulness and NOTHING like dispensationalism. Dispies are all liars. There is no support for their Judaizing heresy in history.
As to Jon Harris, the dude loves to hear himself speak and takes 3 hours to say what I could say in 10 minutes, so yeah, not listening.
@Andrew D,
I went and looked at the quotes he puts on the screen. Oh, you mean some of the Protestant Reformers, specifically the ones who were Jewish Ethnically and put their poison pills in, like Bucer and Beza and maybe even Johannes Cohen, oh excuse me, Calvin. Yeah, I don’t care. Show your heresy to me in the church fathers. You can’t.
Lol @Paul G, you haven’t done the reading. You really need to do the reading. Please try to think clearly.
Also, please name the “Judaizing heresy” of dispensationalism.
You’re not lying about Harris appearing to like his own voice too much. He wastes so much time saying basically nothing that unless you listen 3x speed it’s unlistenable.
The Andrew D guy is seriously going to use a Steven Wolfe “please do the reading, try to think clearly” while defending the very Dispensationalism that Wolfe is very much against as a Judaizing heresy.