On Jon Harris And Closet Dispensationalism

Jon Harris is a Christian YouTuber, the host of the Conversations That Matter podcast which has 54.9K subs on YouTube. He is also a pastor and musician. During Woke Wars I, Jon Harris played a pivotal role in standing up to the onslought of Social Justice in the church. His opposition to Critical Race Theory is commendable and his work exposing David Platt, JD Greear, among others is top-notch.

Thus, a recent article that he wrote, “The New Anti-Jewish Theology,” is the latest step in a disappointing direction that Harris has since taken. In early 2025, Harris shifted his focus to focusing on “ideology,” and this focus on ideology became itself an unself-aware ideology. This message neither resonated with me nor much of his audience which is far from what it used to be. Indeed, Harris has done much content promoting Modern Israel, even if clinically. Harris’s article is the latest in the line of Doug Wilson which is to baptize dispensationalism in Reformed theology.

However, fed up with the retard right, Harris is, his solution is a 9902 word sophist dribbel that applies the Reformed restorationist (a position within Reformed theology) position to a dispensationalist mandate in Genesis 12 to “bless” unbelieving Jews. Harris’s thesis is this:

There are three simple points I want to make. First, the Bible consistently speaks about a future completed restoration of ethnic Israel. Second, spiritual fathers throughout church history believed this promise. Third, the command to bless Israel is still in effect.

The third point is decidedly dispensational, but we’ll get there soon.

Future completed restoration of ethnic Israel

Some theologians understandably think these events mark the final fulfillment of the land promise to Abraham. There are some problems with this view, though. First, God promised Abraham (Genesis 15:18), Moses (Deuteronomy 11:24), and Joshua (Joshua 1:4) possession, not just control, of the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi) to the Euphrates. Second, the historical scenario of rebellion, captivity, repentance, and return had not taken place yet. Third, the Abrahamic covenant is described in Genesis 13:15 as an everlasting covenant, using the same term (“olam”) that Genesis 9:16 used to describe the Noahic covenant. Fourth, the Abrahamic covenant is a singular promise to institute a land, nation, and blessing together, not separately.

Harris argues that the land promises were not fulfilled; however, the Bible clearly teaches that God kept his promise both in Joshua, 1 Kings, and Ezra. A better argument would be that there are multiple fulfillments of this prophecy, but a futurist fulfillment would not necessitate unbelieving Jews.

Of course, something is Scripture being taught once is more than sufficient; however, Scripture consistently teach this or is there a few places that raise this question, mainly Romans 11? Paul in Romans is not prophecy but rather a treatise on the gospel and how the doctrine of election operates. Paul, in Romans, talks about the branches being cut off and branches being grafted on. Such branches, when grafted on, become part of the tree as though they were natural branches the whole time.

Appeal to precedent

There is much in tradition both ancient and Reformed that affirm a future restoration of the Jews. The most compelling argument that Harris has is to appeal to the authority of nondispensationalists. But an apocalyptic conversion of many Jews is not the heart of this debate, even though a preterist readng of Romans 11 is on the rise and for good reason.

Harris spends a great deal of time addressing whether the Modern Jews are genetically decendents of Abraham.

This is a worthwhile discussion for Christians, because if there are no modern Jews, then this has implications for our theology. It would mean that Paul was wrong in Romans 11 because there would be no pending “fullness of the Gentiles” or salvation for Israel. Jews would have died under a partial hardening. The prophets Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31–34) and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 36–37) would also be wrong to associate this salvation with a future kingdom. There would be no valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37) and no ingathering to Jerusalem (Zechariah 12–14). This would challenge the accuracy of Scripture directly.

Harris argues, like a dispensationalist, that a genetically diasporic Abrahamic seed would undermine Scripture’s integrity. But frankly, it wouldn’t undermine a futurist reading. The genetic descendants of Abraham are diverse in religion, be they Christian, Muslim, Druze, or even Jewish. These people stealthily accepting the gospel until the end of time is still within Paul’s teaching on election.

Throughout church history, no one questioned who the Jews were, not even Martin Luther. They are denoted by both ancestry and custom. A genetic study (Skorecki et al., 1997, Nature, with follow-up in Thomas et al., 1998) on the Cohens and Levites traces them both back to a “Y-chromosomal Aaron” who lived 3,000 years ago. Half of Ashkenazi ancestry comes from the Levantine region (according to this study https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644). Sephardic Jews, who make up half of Israel’s population, are more closely tied to the Levant with most studies showing 50–70% Levantine ancestry.

Levantine is a broad term that includes Israelites, Edomites, Moabite, Ammonites, and Canaanites. And Harris asserts that the novelty of challenging Jewish ancestry undermines its Scriptural basis. But Harris introduces equally novel arguements as to why exact lineage doesn’t matter. As an aside, Mizrahi Jews are the most populous Jewish population in Modern Israel.

It is important to remember that while genealogical lines are tremendously important, Israel was never fully monolithic. The mixed multitude that left Egypt, along with biblical figures like Caleb, Rahab, Doeg the Edomite, Ruth, and Uriah the Hittite, shows there was a practice of assimilation into Israel’s bloodline. This is true for most populations throughout history. For example, modern Persians have significant Turkic admixture (20–40%). Yet, they still think of themselves as Persian. English people are a fusion of various groups such as Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Romans, and Vikings. The incredible thing about Jews is how they have held on to their identity by maintaining a close cultural connection despite 2,000 years of captivity.

Yet the Samaritans of antiquity who believed in God and had discernible mixed ancestry, were not considered Jewish in the Bible. So if Paul would not have considered Samaritans Jewish, what would he consider the Ashkanizi? DNA evidence should factor into this since paternal lineage matters. Modern Judaism is traced matrilinnealy which undermines their ties to Abraham signifficantly. Thus, Rehab marrying into Israel is irrelevant, and David’s mighty men were still subjected to generations before complete ceremonial recognition.

Harris, arguing that the descendants of converts receive the promises of Genesis 12 and Romans 11, is repackaging Doug Wilson’s covenant of Hagar with more words.

 Thus, the difficulty of recognizing modern Jews has always had a religious component that makes it a complicated identity, but it was never a major problem until recently.

This also assumes a covenant without Christ and a religious continuity which is nonexistent.

The command to bless Israel is still in effect

In both Genesis 12 and Numbers 24 the promise to bless and curse is applied to Abraham and then to Israel before settlement in Canaan. If this applies today, it would apply to the people of Israel broadly, most of whom are not living in the modern nation state.

And this is where Jon Harris goes John Hagee. This belief is outside the Reformed tradition, yet Harris has painstakingly appealed to tradition, only to switch to a novel belief.

At the very least, blessing Israel would include evangelism, since the way God blesses both Israel and Gentiles, who are grafted into Israel’s spiritual root, is through what Peter in Acts 3:25 calls “turning every one of you from your wickedness.” Prayer and evangelism are the main ways Christians can bless Israel today, because it is in connection to their Messiah that they will receive all available blessings.

Sure, he couches his language in a truism, but this form of evangelism is now distinct from evangelizing other pagans because of his dispensational interpretation of Genesis 12. Dispensationalism teaches that God preserved a distinction between Israel and the church and that God has promises to Israel of the Old Testament that have not been fulfilled yet.

Jon Harris has claimed to be Reformed, yet he joins in with the multitude of so-called Reformed leaders who are rushing to defend not only dispensationalism but also political Zionism (Harris goes on to defend the idea of Israel being within America’s national interests, but that is outside the scope of this article. This puts him in league also with Al Mohler, who also claims to be Reformed.

This argumentation is, frankly, dishhonest is Harris just did a bait and switch from Reformed theology to a dispensational rug pull.