Here is a research paper by pastor Jeff Vinci, who is one of my D.Min. students at Veritas Baptist College. I asked permission to post his paper so others could benefit from it.
Introduction
There are many issues that divide the church. Issues of doctrine, worship style, and church affiliation are at the top of this list. While some of these issues are legitimate reasons over which to part ways, there are many that do a disservice to the mission of the church and the testimony of Jesus Christ. One such issue is how the church should relate to modern Israel. Although this debate is not new, recent events have caused this debate to resurge as a hot-button issue that is causing conflict and division in the church. My thesis and the purpose of this paper are to summarize this age-old theological debate, to show the recent events that have caused this resurgence, to strategize the proper response of the church, and to list some steps the church and pastors can take to resolve conflict over this issue. It would not be academically ethical to fail to acknowledge the biased viewpoint from which this paper is written. This topic will be addressed from a primarily dispensational lens within a Baptistic theological worldview, but even if the reader disagrees with those presuppositional hermeneutics, he should hopefully see the value in the paper’s conclusions.
Summary of an Old Theological Debate
Antisemitic views within Christendom are nothing new. Some of the early church fathers are on record expressing their disdain for the Jewish race. Justin Martyr (110-165) said in his Dialogue with Trypho, an imagined discourse with a Jew, “But the highest pitch of your wickedness lies in this, that you [Jews] hate the Righteous One, and slew Him.”[1] John Chrysostom (347-407) commented, “But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons…who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons?”[2] Later in Homily 6 of Against the Jews, he said, “This is why I hate the Jews. Although they possess the Law, they put it to outrageous use.”[3] Peter the Venerable (1092-1156) said, “In fact, I do not dare avow that you [Jews] are human, lest perhaps I lie, because I recognize that that rational faculty that separates a human from the other animals or wild beasts and gives precedence over them is extinct or, rather, buried in you.” Later during the Reformation, Martin Luther, who at first hoped to convert the Jews grew frustrated and hostile towards them, eventually condemning them in his work, On the Jews and Their Lies: “I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings…be taken from them. I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.”[4]
These comments, generally considered extreme by most modern Christendom, were the product of theological error extrapolated into opinion and practice. “Supersessionism is the view that the NT church is the new and/or true Israel that has forever superseded the nation Israel as the people of God.”[5] Proponents of this view see the Old Testament failure of the Jews to keep the Mosaic covenant and their subsequent rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, as unpardonable sins not just individually but also nationally. Their honored place as the people of God has been stripped from them and given to the church. God is done dealing with them in a special way, and all the promises that were made to them in the Old Testament are absorbed by the church. As a people they bear the responsibility for crucifying Christ when they told Pilate, “His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matt 27:25). Admittedly most modern supersessionists do not share the extreme views represented by the quotes above and would decry violence and hatred. They do not call for militant revenge against the Jewish race but rather relegate them to God’s judgment for their deicide, limiting their viewpoints to the theological and doctrinal realm.
Some scripture passages used in support of supersessionism include Galatians 3:28-29: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” These verses are used to make the case that only those who had faith were the true seed of Abraham which is now considered to be the New Testament church. Other familiar passages include Matthew 21:43 where Christ said He was taking the Kingdom away from Israel, Ephesians 2:14-16 where the division between Jew and Gentile is broken down in Christ, and Romans 2:28-29 where it says that “he is a Jew, which is one inwardly”. Romans 9:6-8 is probably one of the most commonly used passages in support of this view:
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
These verses are presented as conclusive evidence that New Testament believers who comprise the Church are considered the elect or the “New Israel”. Charles Hodge said in his commentary on Romans 9, “That God was at liberty to reject the Jews and to call the Gentiles, Paul argues, by showing that the promises which he had made, and by which he had graciously bound himself, were not made to the natural descendants of Abraham, as such, but to his spiritual seed.”[6] John Calvin, whose teachings were central to the development of Reformed Theology was clear in his belief that the church had replaced Israel in God’s redemptive historical narrative: “Many understand this of the Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored among them as before: but I extend the word Israel to all the people of God…”[7]
A major share of patristic records came from Roman Catholic institutions because they have survived from antiquity due to state backing and funding. These views are often supersessionist as noted above. Opposing views were forced underground through intolerance or persecution, but there are some surviving records that show that not everyone held a completely supersessionistic theology. Tertullian (155-220) wrote in An Answer to the Jews,
For, as the carnal circumcision, which was temporary, was in wrought for "a sign" in a contumacious people, so the spiritual has been given for salvation to an obedient people; while the prophet Jeremiah says, "Make a renewal for you, and sow not in thorns; be circumcised to God, and circumcise the foreskin of your heart:" and in another place he says, "Behold, days shall come, says the Lord, and I will draw up, for the house of Judah and for the house of Jacob, a new testament; not such as I once gave their fathers in the day wherein I led them out from the land of Egypt.[8]
As the Reformation began to take hold so did the proliferation of different theological ideals under the new culture of intellectual freedom including the Biblical notion of the salvation and restoration of the Jews. Iain Murray noted,
Neither Luther nor Calvin saw a future general conversion of the Jews promised in Scripture; some of their contemporaries, however, notably Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, who taught at Cambridge and Oxford respectively in the reign of Edward VI, did understand the Bible to teach a future calling of the Jews. In this view they were followed by Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor at Geneva.[9]
Beza would go on to add in the marginal notes of his Geneva Bible on Romans 11:15 and 26, “He sheweth that the time shall come that the whole nation of the Jews, though not every one particularly, shall be joined to the church of Christ.” With the progression of time, the theological concept of the salvation and restoration of Israel became less faux pas, and this view, held by a minority of theologians, organically found a voice. John Darby (1800-1882) a leader of the nondenominational group, the Plymouth Brethren, did much to advance this viewpoint by systematizing it into a hermeneutic called Dispensationalism.[10] Dispensationalism did not introduce any new concepts into Bible study that were not already there, but it did present a neat framework in which to interpret and recognize God’s plan in His continuing redemptive historical narrative. That plan included the salvation and restoration of Israel.
Dispensationalism grew to become the mainstream hermeneutic of 20th Century evangelicalism. A recent Pew Research poll found that 70% of white evangelicals see the land of Israel as belonging the Jews.[11] There were other factors in play that lead to the proliferation of Dispensational thought that are beyond the scope of this paper such as its literal, historical, grammatical approach to scripture interpretation that served as a bulwark against the liberal theological departure that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Tim 3:16) in the late 19th and early 20th century. As Charles Ryrie noted, “Dispensationalism does foster Bible study, and if with that comes a dissatisfaction with an existing fellowship, that is not surprising.”[12]
Biblical passages used in support of Dispensational thought and the salvation and restoration of Israel include: Ezekiel 36-37 which promises national revival in the latter days, Deuteronomy 31:1-10 promises the restoration Israel after being dispersed, Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the key passage promising the New Covenant for Israel in the future, and Romans 11:25-27 with God’s promise that all Israel will be saved. There is not space in this paper to delve into each of these passages but when interpreted by a literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic, they are clear that God still has a plan in the future for Israel as a nation. The whole Old Testament is built around this hope. When Jesus wept over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37-39, He did not give a final divorce to Israel as God’s people but instead signaled that He would return once Israel was ready to accept Him as their Messiah. Of course, the brevity of this paper will not serve to fully flesh out and solve this age-old theological debate. Enough information has been given to show both historically and theologically that the debate in Christendom over God’s plans for Israel as a nation it is not new.
Contemporary issues and events that have added new fuel to the fire
On October 7th, 2023, Israel experienced the worst single mass casualty event since World War Two. Hamas, the terrorist organization that controlled Gaza since 2006, launched a raid over the Israeli border that brutally murdered over 1200 people and seized 251 hostages.[13] While many nations of the world initially expressed solidarity with Israel in this unprovoked and evil attack, many were unprepared for Israel’s response. Hamas was a terrorist organization that was voted into power by the majority of Gazans. In a July 2023 poll 79% of Gazan’s supported armed resistance to Israeli occupation but also 73% admitted to corruption in their own government run by Hamas.[14] This corruption ran deep as Hamas used their own people as human shields, setting up military command posts in and around hospitals and schools.[15] With these diabolical tactics Hamas knew that any military retaliation from Israel would certainly cause collateral damage and civilian casualties which could then be spun as atrocities and genocide by media outlets with an anti-Israeli agenda. To combat this, Israel blanketed target areas with leaflets before bombing runs[16] and provided an unprecedented amount of relief aid to feed the civilian population with AIPAC citing over 1000 trucks per week.[17] In spite of Israeli efforts, civilian casualty estimates range from 44,000 to 75,000 on the Palestinian side but are very hard to track because of biased reporting and militants posing as civilians.[18] These high casualty numbers lead to widespread criticism from news media outlets and a souring of solidarity with Israel.
This recent downturn in support for Israel has not just come from left leaning media outlets, podcasts and political pundits. The right leaning conservative party has become split on the issue of American support for Israel as well. Due to previously cited theological reasons, evangelicals have largely backed support for Israel since its inception in 1948. This new decline in support can be traced to two factors: the built-up distrust of media narratives, and the America first movement. Both of these factors overlap in some areas, working together to create what some are calling “the horseshoe right” taken from Jean-Pierre Faye and his work on political horseshoe theory.[19] Ever since Donald Trump coined the phrase “fake news” during his first presidential campaign calling out the obvious bias of mainstream new media outlets, the conservative right has become increasing distrustful of media narratives. This created a vacuum of trustworthy news sources which was filled by a growing number of podcasters. Joe Rogan has been the top podcaster on all platforms for five years in a row averaging over 11 million listeners per episode during Trumps final presidential campaign.[20] Many of his listeners were swayed in their political viewpoints by his influence and others like him. Some attribute Trumps political victory to this new media force.
While the war in Gaza raged for over 470 days, Americans grew tired of the raw media footage of the carnage resulting from it. Questions and accusations among free thinking podcasters began to surface about Israel’s tactics and whether they were putting forth enough effort to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties. Conspiracy theories began to surface that Israel, in order to quell decent, was not only influencing media narratives behind the scenes but also pulling the strings of top American government officials in order to insure support.[21] In the midst of this controversy, Charlie Kirk, a leading voice on the conservative right and an avowed Christian, was assassinated on September 10th 2025. Charlie built a conservative/Christian coalition named TPUSA and was well known across university campuses for his love of truth, free speech and respectful dialogue. His death contributed to somewhat of a fracturing of the conservative coalition that he built. One side consists of those who believed the path forward was to fiscally address our national debt, pull out of entangling alliances, stop getting involved in foreign wars and stop allowing foreign nations to lobby within the U.S. Those who held these political concerns coalesced together as the “America first” coalition.[22] The other side of the political right has largely remained aligned with Trump’s ideology that America is at its greatest by leading the rest of the world in strength militarily, diplomatically and economically, aligning with those nations who hold western values that are mutually beneficial.
The leading voices of the “America First” coalition include Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones, all of whom have become increasingly hostile towards Israel in their rhetoric in the last year. These podcasters understand the audience to which they are appealing. They know that a large part of their conservative base identify as evangelical and that there has been a natural tendency historically for this group to support Israel so they have made a concerted effort to appeal to the age old theological position referenced previously that God is done dealing with Israel,[23] and have even launched attacks on Dispensationalism as a theological framework.[24] These theological attacks serve the political purpose that Carlson, and others like him have doubled down on. He presents his attacks as “new information” that uncover hidden conspiracies of deception. This deception is of course attributed to the Jews. The rhetoric has become vitriolic to a point reminiscent of pre-world war 2 Germany. Candace Owens has said, “There will never be peace in the world while Israel exists.”[25]
The Position of the Church in this Conflict
One might ask why it is necessary for the church to take any kind of position at all. The main responsibility of the church is to fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20. When the church gets off mission by entangling itself in politics, it is a double sin in that it is not using its time to preach the vital message of the Gospel to make disciples of Jesus, and it might needlessly offend an unsaved visitor who may have been receptive to the Gospel. This question is a valid objection, especially in a geographic part of the country that is not monochromatic politically. The pastor’s focus should always be on the spiritual needs of those under the sound of his voice and how the Gospel can help. This topic is probably not the focus of most Sunday morning sermons. That is why it is easy to allow it to go unaddressed at all. If this secondary issue does not come up or cause conflict within the church there is little need for concern but churches with a literal, grammatical, and historical hermeneutic usually, by nature, attract people who are serious about Bible study and conservative moral and political principles. This is the target audience of this new “America First” coalition so it would not be strange if some members of these types of churches consumed this media and developed, at the very least, questions they hadn’t thought of before.
In my personal experience as Pastor, a good family left our church primarily because of this ideology. I stress ideology and not theology because I believe the man’s position was more motivated by personal political preference rather than deeply rooted theological conviction. I am not sure there is anything I could have done differently that would have changed the ultimate outcome of their departure, but the general lesson learned is that if members feel strongly enough about a topic, they will force the pastor, and by extension the church, to take a position. I did have a position, but this man did not even ask me what it was. Instead, he silently did research online by watching YouTube videos and, making assumptions about what I believed. He pulled his family out of our church without ever sitting down with me and discussing his assumed theological differences. To this day I am not totally sure what he believes but can only put the pieces of the puzzle together based on third party information and hearsay. My attempts to reach out to him were shutdown with vague texts that “God is moving us away.” I have heard from others that instead of joining another church, he and his family are not even going to church at all. The most frustrating part of this story to me is that it seems so foolish to pull one’s family away from a thriving church where people are being saved, baptized and discipled because of a secondary issue. Given my personal experience and the contextual background established in this paper already, I will now focus on what the Biblical strategy of the church should be regarding this controversial secondary issue.
Addressing Internal Conflict Over These Issues with The Proper Balance
Disagreements within the Body of Christ are inevitable. Requiring everyone to agree with one’s personal opinions as a test of fellowship is one of the worst displays of narcissism. Unity is not accomplished through uniformity, but through Holy Spirit empowered forgiveness and love found through being in Christ. The issue of God’s ultimate plan for Israel is important in that it is a Biblical doctrine, but it is not a doctrine that is considered fundamental to the faith[26] such as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Given the presupposition that this is a secondary doctrine regarding the mission of the church, pastors and their churches can follow Biblical principles to combat disunity over this issue.
Two heart-searching questions should be asked when dealing with secondary issues like the one addressed in this paper: “Do I have the right spirit about it before God?” (James3:13-18) and “Is the person I disagree with going in the same direction?” (Amos 3:3). James 3:13 seems to be peering prophetically through the portals of time into the pews of the 21st century church. Our culture has become inundated with so much information (much of which is admittedly slanted with an agenda driven narrative) that it has become a point of pride in having the wisdom and perception to weed through all of it to find out what is actually true. This point of pride is the primary power source that keeps many conspiracy theories alive despite debunking evidence. “They think we’re stupid”, and “We are getting close to the truth of what they don’t want you to know” are frequent phrases employed by Candace Owens and others because it drives ratings. Having special wisdom and perception; being on the inside track of knowledge is intoxicating to pride and intellectual elitism. It puts the listener in the place of power to judge any situation with their exalted and enlightened wisdom, promoting a critical and unteachable spirit.
In the next few verses, James does not focus on the content of this wisdom (an elite ability to perceive), because that would just create an endless debate about what the truth is. Instead, he focuses on the fruits of it (vs 14-17). These verses beg some questions. Does this wisdom that you boast of cause bitterness in you? Does it make you feel like you have been taken advantage of? Does it make it hard for you to praise the Lord with a spirit of thanksgiving? Does this ability to perceive what is really going on cause you to wish you could take away what others have obtained through their unsavory actions? Do you wish that they could have their things taken away and redistributed to the masses (this is what envy is)? Do you find yourself at odds with other members of the Body if they see things differently or come to different conclusions than you have in your enlightened wisdom? Maybe you refuse to debate or discuss it out of feigned civility, but simply pulling away from fellowship disrupts unity through your absence, and this strife contributes to “confusion and every evil work” (vs 16). According to James 3:18, heavenly wisdom produces purity in heart and mind instead of inspiring vengeance, rage and anger. It prioritizes peace within the church rather than having one’s own way. It is open to discussion in a conflict and is understanding of other’s points of view. It is full of mercy, always giving the other party the benefit of the doubt, and does not allow close relationships to unfairly sway its judgment. These are the fruits of heavenly wisdom and if the special knowledge or wisdom that you claim to have does not produce these fruits, then it is not Godly.
The second question to ask oneself is, “Is the person I disagree with going in the same direction?” Amos 3:3 asks a question: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” The context of this question implies walking together in the same direction in order to arrive at the same end as Matthew Henry noted, “Unless we agree with God in our end, which is his glory, we cannot walk with him by the way.”[27] This verse then provides a good test of whether two believers can continue to walk together in unity: Are they going in the same direction? Do they have the same mission/purpose? A valuable corollary to this verse would be that the context of the question is talking about agreement of direction not about the brand of walking shoes. If two people are walking towards the same destination, they can walk together even if one likes to wear Nike while the other is wearing Adidas. Secondary issues that do not fundamentally determine direction should not cause breakdowns in unity.
Some Practical Ways in Which the Church and Pastors Should Respond
Dr. Tim Whites blog on handling internal conflicts within the church made four points from Nehemiah chapter five.[28] All four points are valid for pastors in addressing conflict and promoting unity within the church: Leaders deal with selfishness with anger at sin (Neh 5:6), with self-control (Neh 5:7a), by rebuking the sin (5:7b-13), and by setting a generous (right) example (Neh 5:14-19). While the blog is drawing from Nehemiah 5 where the Jewish nobles are being selfish with their money, the same principles apply to church members who are selfishly insisting on agreement over secondary issues and disrupting church unity. Pastors should guard the unity of the church because of its immense value to the Lord. In stressing the value of the church Richard Baxter said, “if Christ had but committed to my keeping one spoonful of his blood in a fragile glass, how curiously would I preserve it, and how tender would I be of that glass! If then he have committed to me the purchase of his blood, should I not as carefully look to my charge?”[29] With this precious of an organization under threat, pastors should have some righteous indignation towards selfish agendas that would hurt it, but just as Nehemiah did in 5:7, they should exhibit self-control in handling the situation. Praying, thinking ahead and developing a strategy on how to address the issue is essential to successfully navigating the problem. As stated previously, church members are free to disagree on secondary issues. Pastors should strive for unity not uniformity. If a church member is insisting on promoting their selfish agenda and forcing the issue to the point that it affects unity, private rebuke should be attempted first followed by public rebuke and church discipline in the case of their choice to escalate their dissent (Matt 18).
While some conflicts are hard to see ahead of time because only God can see what is in man’s heart (I Sam 16:7), Pastors and churches should think proactively regarding church conflict. If a pastor’s goal is to produce a healthy church and he works towards that end, the church will not be so easily overcome by the virus of sinful conflict. There is a natural immunity provided by the Holy Spirit in the form of love and the heavenly wisdom of James 3 referred to earlier.
Pastors and churches can be proactive in preventing secondary issues from brewing into conflict by 1. Personal one-on-one discipleship and 2. Doctrinal classes with open dialogue. It has been my personal experience in 23 years of ministry that no one who I have personally discipled has ever caused open conflict in the church. That does not mean that there have not been disagreements, but Biblical personal discipleship forms a bond of brotherly love that is much stronger than disagreement over secondary issues. It is not cliché to say that most, if not all, church conflicts stem from breaking one or both of the two greatest commandments: loving the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul and loving your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:30-31). When Pastors and churches work towards the Great Commission of making disciples of Jesus, they are also being proactive in conflict prevention because if a disciple has a question about something they have heard, there is an open channel of communication and warning already established between them and their mentor. Discipleship does not just fight conflict through relational ties, but also through teaching the disciple what their priorities ought to be. Tara Barthel and David Edling said in their book Redeeming Church Conflicts: Turning Crisis into Compassion and Care:
Rather than answering the question “What causes church conflict?” by addressing only presenting issues, we must realize that those issues are merely the symptoms of the fact that too many of God’s people simply don’t understand, and subsequently do not do, the faithful work of building God’s church. We don’t know what it means to be a disciple of Christ, so we don’t know what it means to be a faithful church member.[30]
Doctrinal classes with open dialogue are also key to being proactive in addressing secondary issues. This must be done carefully but if done correctly, it provides an outlet for church members to ask the teacher/pastor questions about secondary issues. It is not possible for the pastor to personally lead his whole church to Christ. At some point Christians will transfer in from other places who were not personally led to the Lord or discipled by the pastor or someone from his church. Doctrinal classes provide a means of teaching and feedback whereby these issues can be questioned and discussed with the proper spirit and in an encouraging atmosphere. Experience has shown that groups of 4-12 provide the perfect context for people to open up with questions that they might not feel comfortable verbalizing in a larger group.
Conclusion
In a fast-moving and sinful world, Pastors and their churches can not always predict potential conflict issues. Knowing their people, keeping their fingers on the pulse of the church and being knowledgeable about theological and contemporary issues can go a long way in proactively preventing conflict. The debate over God’s plan for Israel is not new, and history tends to repeat itself as contemporary issues bring this old theological debate to the surface. Conflict about this or other secondary issues will inevitably happen at some point, and when it does, self-control, prayer, pastoral preaching and teaching, and rebuke in a relational context are all essential to navigating it. The primary goal should be the Glory of God. The pastor should remind the church about having the right spirit, thanking and praising God, and staying focused on the Great Commission. The unity that God commands does not require uniformity, but it does require love and humility. Even if two agree that they can no longer walk together because they are not fundamentally going in the same direction, love and humility should still govern the separation, because if both parties are believers, their separation is only temporary and not eternal.
[1] “Logos Virtual Library: Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, 136” n.d., chap. 136
[2] John Chrysostom, 1979. Discourses against Judaizing Christians: Vol. 68. Washington, D.C., DC: Catholic University of America Press, 11
[3] Roger. Pearse, n.d. “John Chrysostom, against the Jews. Homily 6.” Tertullian.org. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_06_homily6.htm, sec. 6
[4] Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, ed. Thomas Dalton (Clemens & Blair, 2019), 134.
[5] Michael J. Vlach, "Various Forms of Replacement Theology." The Master's Seminary Journal 20, no. 1 (2009): 57.
[6] Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Miami, FL: HardPress, 2017), loc. 6015 Kindle.
[7] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. and ed. John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.), 265, https://www.graceebooks.com/library/John%20Calvin/JC_Romans.pdf.
[8] Tertullian, “An Answer to the Jews,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, trans. S. Thelwall, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885), accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0308.htm
[9] Iain H. Murray, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2015) 41.
[10] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 67, Kindle. “There is no question that the Plymouth Brethren, of which John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) was a leader, had much to do with the systematizing and promoting of dispensationalism. But neither Darby nor the Brethren originated the concepts involved in the system, and even if they had, that would not make them wrong if they can be shown to be biblical.”
[11] Pew Research Center, “Modest Warming in U.S. Views on Israel and Palestinians,” May 26, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/26/modest-warming-in-u-s-views-on-israel-and-palestinians/.
[12] Ryrie 2007, 75
[13] Jeremy M. Sharp and Jim Zanotti, “Israel and Hamas Conflict In Brief: Overview, U.S. Policy, and Options for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, October 4, 2024, R47828
[14] Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), “Public Opinion Poll No. 88,” June 7–11, 2023, https://pcpsr.org/en/node/944.
[15] NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. “Hamas’ Use of Human Shields in Gaza.” June 6, 2019. https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf.
[16] Michael N. Schmitt, “The Evacuation of Northern Gaza: Practical and Legal Aspects,” Articles of War: The Lieber Institute, West Point, October 15, 2023, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/evacuation-northern-gaza-practical-legal-aspects/
[17] American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), “Israel Facilitates Humanitarian Aid to Gaza as Hamas Continues to Attack,” AIPAC.org, last modified May 20, 2024, https://www.aipac.org/resources/israel-humanitarian-aid-gaza.
[18] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Occupied Palestinian Territory, “Gaza Humanitarian Response | Situation Report No. 66,” February 6, 2026, https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ocha-gaza-humanitarian-response-situation-report-no-66/.
[19] Jean-Pierre Faye, Théorie du récit: introduction aux langages totalitaires. Critique de la raison, l’économie narrative (Paris: Hermann, 1972).
[20] “Who Will Be TIME’s Person of the Year for 2024? See the Shortlist,” TIME magazine, December 9, 2024, https://time.com/7200122/person-of-the-year-2024-shortlist/
[21] “Netanyahu Boasts That He Destroyed Free Speech in America.” 2020. Truthdig.com. February 17, 2020. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/netanyahu-boasts-he-destroyed-free-speech-in-america/.
[22] The Associated Press. 2025. “MAGA Rift Grows as Trump Feuds with Greene before Key 2026 Midterm Elections.” Cbsnews.com. November 16, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/maga-rift-grows-as-trump-feuds-with-greene-before-key-2026-midterm-elections/
[23] Michelle Boorstein and Heba Farouk Mahfouz, “Tucker Carlson, Mike Huckabee Debate Israel’s Right to Land in Middle East,” The Washington Post, February 21, 2026, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/02/20/tucker-carlson-mike-huckabee-israel-middle-east
[24] SonServer. 2025. “Tucker Carlson and John Rich Tackle the Pre-Trib Rapture!” Pretribulation Rapture. September 15, 2025. https://pretribulation.com/pastors-preachers-and-teachers/oliver-melnick/tucker-carlson-and-john-rich-tackle-the-pre-trib-rapture/
[25] Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO), "There will never be peace in the world while Israel exists.," X (formerly Twitter), April 8, 2026, https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/2041948361570283553.
[26] R. A. Torrey, ed., The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (Chicago: Testimony Publishing, 1917), This collection of 90 essays written on what are considered topics that are fundamental to the faith, do not address the salvation or restoration of Israel.
[27] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), Amos 3:3.
[28] Tim White, “The Six Marks of Leadership, Mark Six, Part 2: Leaders Handle the Inside Opposition of Selfishness (Nehemiah 5:1–19),” Dr. Tim White Blog, March 13, 2018, https://www.drtimwhite.net/blog/2018/3/13/the-six-marks-of-leadership-mark-six-part-2-leaders-handle-the-inside-opposition-of-selfishness-nehemiah-51-19
[29] Richard Baxter, 2020. Reformed Pastor. Banner of Truth, 116-117.
[30] Tara Klena Barthel, and David V. Edling. 2016. Redeeming Church Conflicts: Turning Crisis into Compassion and Care. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 77.
Bibliography
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “Israel Facilitates Humanitarian Aid to Gaza as Hamas Continues to Attack.” AIPAC.org. Last modified May 20, 2024. https://www.aipac.org/resources/israel-humanitarian-aid-gaza.
The Associated Press. 2025. “MAGA Rift Grows as Trump Feuds with Greene before Key 2026 Midterm Elections.” Cbsnews.com. November 16, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/maga-rift-grows-as-trump-feuds-with-greene-before-key-2026-midterm-elections/.
Barthel, Tara Klena, and David V. Edling. 2016. Redeeming Church Conflicts: Turning Crisis into Compassion and Care. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Baxter, Richard. 2020. Reformed Pastor. Banner of Truth.
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Translated and edited by John Owen. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d. https://www.grace-ebooks.com/library/John%20Calvin/JC_Romans.pdf.
Chrysostom, John. 1979. Discourses against Judaizing Christians: Vol. 68. Washington, D.C., DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Faye, Jean-Pierre. Théorie du récit: introduction aux langages totalitaires. Critique de la raison, l’économie narrative. Paris: Hermann, 1972.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Hodge, Charles. 2017. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Miami, FL: HardPress.
“Israel and Hamas Conflict In Brief: Overview, U.S. Policy, and Options for Congress.” 2024. Congress.gov. October 4, 2024. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47828
“Logos Virtual Library: Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, 136.” n.d. Logoslibrary.org. Accessed April 12, 2026. https://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/trypho/136.html.
Luther, Martin. 2019. On the Jews and Their Lies. Edited by Thomas Dalton. Clemens & Blair.
Murray, Iain H. The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2015
NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. “Hamas’ Use of Human Shields in Gaza.” June 6, 2019. https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf.
“Netanyahu Boasts That He Destroyed Free Speech in America.” 2020. Truthdig.com. February 17, 2020. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/netanyahu-boasts-he-destroyed-free-speech-in-america/.
Owens, Candace (@RealCandaceO). "There will never be peace in the world while Israel exists." X (formerly Twitter), April 8, 2026. https://x.com/RealCandaceO/status/2041948361570283553.
Pearse, Roger. n.d. “John Chrysostom, against the Jews. Homily 6.” Tertullian.org. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_06_homily6.htm.
Peter the Venerable. 2013. Against the Inveterate Obduracy of Jews. Translated by Irven M. Resnick. Washington, D.C., DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Pew Research Center. “Modest Warming in U.S. Views on Israel and Palestinians.” May 26, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/26/modest-warming-in-u-s-views-on-israel-and-palestinians/.
“Public Opinion Poll No (88).” 2023. Pcpsr.org. June 26, 2023. https://pcpsr.org/en/node/944.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007. Kindle.
Schmitt, Michael N. “The Evacuation of Northern Gaza: Practical and Legal Aspects.” Articles of War: The Lieber Institute, West Point. October 15, 2023. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/evacuation-northern-gaza-practical-legal-aspects/
SonServer. 2025. “Tucker Carlson and John Rich Tackle the Pre-Trib Rapture!” Pretribulation Rapture. September 15, 2025. https://pretribulation.com/pastors-preachers-and-teachers/oliver-melnick/tucker-carlson-and-john-rich-tackle-the-pre-trib-rapture/.
Tertullian. “An Answer to the Jews.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Translated by S. Thelwall. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0308.htm.
Time. 2024. “Who Will Be TIME’s Person of the Year for 2024? See the Shortlist,” December 9, 2024. https://time.com/7200122/person-of-the-year-2024-shortlist/.
Torrey, R. A., ed. The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. Chicago: Testimony Publishing, 1917.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Occupied Palestinian Territory, “Gaza Humanitarian Response | Situation Report No. 66,” February 6, 2026, https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ocha-gaza-humanitarian-response-situation-report-no-66/.
Vlach, Michael J. "Various Forms of Replacement Theology." The Master's Seminary Journal 20, no. 1 (2009): 57–69.
White, Tim. “The Six Marks of Leadership, Mark Six, Part 2: Leaders Handle the Inside Opposition of Selfishness (Nehemiah 5:1–19).” Dr. Tim White Blog. March 13, 2018.