Antisemitism—the irrational hatred of Jews, often extending to opposition against the nation of Israel—has long intertwined with Christian theology, particularly in debates over eschatology and covenant theology.

At its core, this correlation stems from supersessionism (or Replacement Theology), the belief that the Christian Church has fully supplanted ethnic Israel in God’s redemptive plan. This view, popularized by Catholic heavyweight Augustine of Hippo and embedded in much of Reformed and Catholic tradition, contrasts sharply with Dispensationalism, a 19th-century eschatological framework that maintains a distinct future role for Israel, including a literal restoration and millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:1–6).

Critics of Dispensationalism often label it “heretical” or “Zionist propaganda,” but a closer examination reveals that such opposition frequently veils or amplifies antisemitic tropes: Jews as “obsolete,” Israel as a “false covenant,” or Christian support for Zionism as “dual loyalty” to a “foreign power.” This dynamic has historical roots in centuries of pogroms and expulsions justified by supersessionist theology, and it persists today among some Reformed theologians and commentators who either exhort overt hate, or echo language that dehumanizes Jews or delegitimizes Israel.

Many claim that Dispensationalism originated with John Nelson Darby and was popularized by Cyrus Scofield’s Reference Bible (1909). Dispensationalism affirms God’s “irrevocable” covenants with Israel (Romans 11:29, KJV). It posits a future national restoration of the Jews (Romans 11:26: “All Israel shall be saved”) and a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ from Jerusalem (Revelation 20:4–6). This framework fosters Christian Zionism, where support for Israel is seen as obedience to prophecy, not mere politics.

In contrast, supersessionism—prevalent in amillennialism and postmillennialism—spiritualizes Israel’s promises as fulfilled in the Church, rendering ethnic Jews “cursed” for rejecting Christ (a misreading of Matthew 27:25). As historian Donald Lewis notes, this “theology of contempt” (versus a “theology of esteem”) views Jews as perpetual witnesses to their own rejection, justifying marginalization.

Augustine himself, in City of God (Book XX), allegorized Israel’s restoration as the Church’s triumph, concluding Jews must “suffer” as proof of Christian truth—a view that, per Tractates on John (Tractate 35), casts them as eternal “Christ-killers.” This isn’t abstract; it birthed the Fourth Lateran Council’s 1215 mandate for Jews to wear yellow badges and live as “perpetually enslaved” for deicide.

Reformed theologians, heirs to this tradition, often critique Dispensationalism as “novel” or “unbiblical,” but their rhetoric can veer into territory that echoes antisemitic canards. Consider R. Scott Clark, a prominent Reformed scholar and professor at Westminster Seminary California. In his 2013 blog post “Covenant Theology Is Not Replacement Theology,” Clark defends supersessionism while dismissing Dispensationalism as ignoring “the very category of ‘replacement’ is foreign to Reformed theology.”

He argues the Church “aligns” with God’s will by fulfilling Israel’s role. Still, he admits some covenantalists exhibit “an attitude of ‘Gee, we can diss the Jews again!’”—a candid acknowledgment of the view’s potential for abuse, yet one that persists in his ecosystem. Clark’s broader writings, like Recovering the Reformed Confession (2008), lambast Dispensationalism as “sectarian” and “dual-covenant” heresy, implying it elevates Jews unduly, which subtly reinforces the “dual loyalty” trope used against Jewish Americans.

While Clark condemns overt hate, his framework—shared by many Reformed voices—spiritualizes away Israel’s land promises (Ezekiel 37), portraying modern Zionism as “eschatological folly” rather than covenant fulfillment, a stance that aligns with historical dismissals of Jewish self-determination as “worldly ambition.

“Kevin DeYoung, pastor at Christ Covenant Church and a Gospel Coalition contributor, exemplifies this tension in his 2024 sermon “Questions from Revelation: What is Dispensationalism?” He describes Dispensationalism as a “three-movement” novelty from the 19th century, “ripe for creative misunderstandings” of Scripture, and contrasts it with Reformed covenant theology’s “one people of God.”

DeYoung argues it “ignores the trajectory of history,” implying Dispensational support for Israel distorts God’s plan, echoing critiques that view Zionism as “prophetic manipulation.”

“What about Israel?” (same series), he spiritualizes Romans 11 as “grafting” Gentiles into a “new Israel” (the Church), downplaying ethnic restoration as secondary. While DeYoung affirms “Israel’s right to exist” in broader writings, his eschatology—rooted in amillennialism—treats Jewish nationalism as optional, not covenantal. This “indifference” (as critics like Donald Lewis term it) can foster passive antisemitism, where opposition to “Zionist theology” slips into questioning Israel’s legitimacy, mirroring European mainline denominations’ pre-Holocaust dismissals of Jewish homeland aspirations as “political, not prophetic.”

John MacArthur, a premillennialist who critiques “leaky Dispensationalism” (his term for inconsistent variants), offers a nuanced case. In his 2007 Shepherds’ Conference address, he argues against “two ways of salvation” in Dispensationalism, calling it “retrogressive” and hostile to Reformed (Calvinist) soteriology. Yet MacArthur affirms Israel’s future (Romans 11:26) and rejects full supersessionism, stating in The Gospel According to Jesus (1988) that ignoring Israel’s election “destroys the perspicuity of the Old Testament.”

MacArthur’s partial alignment with Reformed critiques shows how even moderate opposition can amplify supersessionist echoes, where Dispensationalism’s “novelty” justifies sidelining Jewish restoration. The correlation intensifies in broader Reformed discourse. In The Christian Century (2023), Reformed writers like those responding to UCC synods decry Dispensationalism as “baked” into “white supremacist” Zionism, equating support for Israel with “denouncing” Palestinian rights.

This conflation—critiquing Israeli policy as “apartheid” while ignoring similar in other nations—fits Deborah Lipstadt’s definition of antisemitism: disproportionate scrutiny of Jews.

X posts amplify this: One user ties “replacement theology” to “antisemitism” as a “detectable odor,” while another calls Dispensationalism “concocted by Zionists” to fuel “antisemitism” accusations. A post from @ShadowofEzra (2025) quotes Tucker Carlson decrying Christian Zionism as a “brain virus,” linking it to figures like Cruz—framing Dispensational support as “heresy” that “infects” the church. @ShadowofEzra Cruz’s retort highlights the chill: “remarkable… watching Tucker turn into Nick Fuentes,” invoking the white nationalist’s antisemitism.

Not all anti-Dispensationalists are antisemitic; many, like MacArthur, affirm Israel’s future while critiquing extremes. The correlation arises when opposition morphs into delegitimization: viewing Dispensationalism as “Zionist theology” enables tropes like “dual loyalty” (Jews/Christians prioritizing Israel) or “conspiracy” (prophecy as political manipulation).

As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks noted, “Antisemitism is not about Jews. It is about anti-Semites… blaming someone else.” In Christian contexts, rejecting Dispensationalism’s literalism can rationalize ignoring Romans 11: “God hath not cast away his people” (v. 2), fostering indifference or hostility toward Israel. This interplay threatens ecumenical bridges.

The KJB’s Romans 11:18 warns: “Boast not against the branches.” True Christian witness requires philo-Semitism—love for Jews as God’s elect (Romans 11:28)—without idolatry of any nation. Opposition to Dispensationalism need not breed hate, but when it does, it reveals a heart more aligned with Augustine’s curse than Paul’s grafting.

Don’t forget to Subscribe for Updates. Also, Follow Us at Society-Reviews, YouTube,  Twitter, Odysee, Rumble, and Twitch