Song I wrote on the Antioch Declaration and mentioning DeMar, Webbon, Wilson, Luther, and Rushdoony.
Song I wrote as a duet on Romans 9-11 that is also relevant to this article:
At the Heart of This Debate Is the Defining Role of Christian Nationalism
During COVID, questioning the vaccines got you labeled an “anti-vaxxer,” “anti-science,” and someone who wanted to kill children and grandma. Since October 7th, a growing number of Christians are waking up to the violence and Jewish supremacy of the Talmud—and are being falsely labeled “antisemite” or embracing a “conspiracy theory.” The Antioch Declaration is deploying exactly this social-engineering technique that most people are beginning to realize is just mere desperation and a desire to control a false narrative.
Doug Wilson and his circle are attempting to define Christian Nationalism in a way that can still accommodate and protect the theological and geopolitical project of Talmudic Zionism. Joel Webbon, by contrast, has correctly identified the incompatibility: Zionism and the Talmud are neither compatible with Scripture nor with the founding principles of the American Constitution. Wilson and his enablers are working to pigeonhole Webbon with the label “antisemite.”
The Antioch Declaration is not a defense of the gospel once for all delivered to the saints. It is an act of ecclesiastical betrayal and controlled opposition. Drafted and signed by a coalition of confessionally Reformed, Lutheran, and evangelical leaders—including Doug Wilson, James White, Joseph Boot, Jeff Durbin, Andrew Sandlin, and Tobias Riemenschneider—it presents itself as a necessary stand against “anti-gospel racial categories” and “reactionary thinking” on the fringes of their circles. It invokes Paul’s confrontation of Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:11) and warns that younger Christian men are being led astray by “wolves clothed as shepherds.” In reality, the Declaration functions to protect a compromised post-WWII consensus, a selective ethnic sensitivity, a futurist eschatology that keeps the Old Covenant partially alive, and institutional respectability at the expense of the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ and the plain teaching of Scripture concerning the end of the Old Covenant age.
The Hypocritical and Unbiblical Pattern of These Men
This is not the first time this same circle, headed in significant measure by Andrew Sandlin, has resorted to a public declaration as a tool of boundary enforcement and scapegoating. Not long ago the same network produced a contradictory and divisive statement condemning full preterism. In that earlier document Gary DeMar was cast as the primary scapegoat and target—portrayed as a dangerous influence whose views threatened the faith. The critique was exegetically shallow, historically selective, and theologically inaccurate. It misrepresented the full-preterist reading of the time-texts, the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in AD 70, and the present reality of the Kingdom. Now, with the Antioch Declaration, the same pattern reappears. Pastor Joel Webbon and those associated with similar concerns have been positioned as the new scapegoats—labeled “wolves” for raising questions the establishment prefers to silence. In both cases the signers stand on the wrong side of the exegetical and historical debate. In both cases they unnecessarily sow division in the body of Christ, elevating institutional control and personal platforms above the plain teaching of Scripture and the finished work of Christ. The consistent thread is not defense of the gospel but the protection of a particular postmillennial, establishment consensus that cannot tolerate either the full implications of AD 70 or honest examination of the theological and historical issues surrounding modern Israel and the Talmud. I have covered both of these topic in detail in my books, “Armageddon Deception” and “In the Land vs. In Christ” and they inevitably overlap.
The parallel is striking and damning. In the earlier public letter signed by many of the same men (Jason Bradfield, Uri Brito, Ardel Caneday, Jeff Durbin, John Frame, Sam Frost, Ken Gentry, Phillip Kayser, Brian Mattson, Andrew Sandlin, Keith Sherlin, Jeffery Ventrella, James White, and Doug Wilson), they demanded that DeMar answer their questions or face withdrawal of support from American Vision—because they “love” him. The letter then moved to another declaration – A Statement on Unorthodox Eschatology. DeMar’s “crime” was simply stating that the debate between partial and full preterism should continue, that both sides needed to hash out issues, and that he wanted the freedom to study these matters for himself. He had unanswered questions for them (such as the clear parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4–5) that they refused to address publicly. It was a one-way street. They claim to embrace “Scripture alone,” “Reformed and always reforming,” the “priesthood of all believers,” and the Westminster Confession’s own acknowledgment that creeds may err and are subject to revision by the Word of God. Yet when someone exercises those principles on eschatology, the hyper-creedalists demand silence or face their wrath. Some of them claim to be public apologists yet have offered no consistent defense of their futurist “hope” (or challenges from myself to debate)–against the imminent time-texts of the New Testament. The original context of 1 Peter 3:15 was first-century believers prepared to give an answer concerning the imminent hope of Christ’s coming in their generation—a hope realized in AD 70. The signers of both letters promote a delayed, sick hope (Proverbs 13:12) that they are unwilling and unable to defend consistently. None of the signers are willing to debate me publicly to defend their claims.
Worse still, the signers of that earlier letter were (and remain) a house divided among themselves on the very texts that determine the debate. Some of them take Daniel 12:1–7, 13; Acts 17:31 YLT; Acts 24:15 YLT; 1 Thessalonians 4–5; Matthew 24:3, 27–31; 25:31; 1 Corinthians 15:23; Matthew 13:39–43; Matthew 16:27–28; Revelation 22:7, 10–12, 20; 1 Peter 4:5–7, 17; 2 Peter 3; 2 Timothy 4:1 YLT; and large portions of Revelation 1–19, 21–22 as fulfilled in AD 70. Others among the same signers insist these passages teach a future, end-of-world-history Second Coming, general resurrection, and final judgment.
The “house divided” conflict can be summarized this way in addressing the Reformed “A Statement on Unorthodox Eschatology” trying to harmonize its eschatology with the uninspired traditions of the creeds and trying to address full preterism:
- A REFORMED HOUSE DIVIDED: THE FULL-PRETERISM QUESTION The Internal Conflict in “A Statement on Unorthodox Eschatology”
MAJOR PREMISE:
The New Testament teaches ONE consummative eschatological Second Coming at the end of the age, at which occur the ONE resurrection and judgment of the living and the dead and ONE arrival of the new heavens and new earth (the classic Amillennial position affirmed by some of the signers).
MINOR PREMISE:
The New Testament teaches that Christ’s promised coming—described as occurring within “this generation,” “soon,” “near,” “about to,” and “in a very, very little while” without delay—was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 at the end of the Old Covenant age, in connection with “a” resurrection and judgment of the living and the dead event (the Partial-Preterist/Postmillennial position affirmed by other signers).
CONCLUSION:
Therefore, the ONE consummative eschatological Second Coming, including the ONE resurrection and judgment of the living and the dead, and ONE arrival of the new creation event was fulfilled within Jesus’ contemporary “this generation” in AD 70, bringing the Old Covenant age to its consummation. This is the Full-Preterist conclusion produced by combining the premises the signers themselves affirm but refuse to consistently synthesize.
And now the “house divided” conflict can be summarized this way in addressing the Reformed “Antioch Declaration” trying to harmonize its eschatology in handling the modern Jewish or Israel issue and an America First or Christian Nationalism:
- A REFORMED HOUSE DIVIDED: THE JEW & ISRAEL QUESTION The Internal Conflict in the “Antioch Declaration”
MAJOR PREMISE:
The New Testament teaches ONE consummative Second Coming, involving the ONE resurrection and judgment of the living and the dead, the passing away of the old heavens and earth, and the arrival of the new heavens and earth. This same eschatological complex includes Christ’s judgment of the “tribes of the land” and the salvation of “all Israel” (Matt. 24; Rom. 9:6–11:27; 13:11–12; Isa. 65–66; Heb. 1:10–12; 12:26–28; 2 Pet. 3; Rev. 21–22).
MINOR PREMISE:
The Abrahamic promises reached their New Covenant fulfillment in Christ when He came from Zion to “save all Israel” while judging apostate Old Covenant Israel in AD 70. At that same covenantal consummation, the Mosaic heavens and earth passed away, and the promised new heavens and earth / New Jerusalem arrived (Matt. 24; Rom. 9:6–11:27; 13:11–12; Isa. 65–66; Heb. 1:10–12; 12:26–28; 2 Pet. 3; Rev. 21–22).
CONCLUSION:
Therefore, the ONE Second Coming, ONE resurrection and judgment of the living and the dead, ONE passing away of the old heavens and earth, and arrival of the new heavens and earth occurred in AD 70. Consequently, the Abrahamic promises require no post-AD 70 prophetic restoration of an ethnic or geopolitical Israel. New Covenant identity and inheritance are defined “in Christ,” not by ethnicity, genealogy, or a modern nation-state.
The New Testament’s post-AD 70 eschatological distinction is therefore between those within the New Jerusalem/New Creation and unbelievers outside its gates who need the gospel—not between Gentiles and a separate ethnic Israel awaiting another covenantal destiny. Thus, this synthesis removes the exegetical basis for both Dispensationalism and forms of Postmillennialism that posit a future eschatological salvation of ethnic Jews as a distinct prophetic people or a future covenantal destiny for national Israel.
These exegetical concessions, made by the very men who attacked Gary DeMar and full preterism, spill directly into the present conflict over how the Christian Church—and any coherent Christian Nationalism—should view modern “Jews” and “Israel.” Doug Wilson, for example, takes Matthew 24:1–25:30 as fulfilled in AD 70. He therefore knows that Christ’s coming on the clouds to judge the “tribes of the land” (and the parallel in Revelation 1:7; 22:6–7, 20) occurred in AD 70 and closed the old-covenant age. He knows this judgment burned the Temple where all the genealogies were kept; thus, modern Jews have no verifiable tribal affiliation. He also knows that James Jordan has adopted a full-preterist interpretation of Romans 11:25–27, concluding that “all Israel” was saved at Christ’s coming from Zion in the “near” AD 70 timeframe (Romans 13:11–12 = Romans 11:25–27).
If—as these men themselves concede on key texts—Christ’s coming in these passages was fulfilled in AD 70, then there remain no passages of Scripture that support a future end-time eschaton for the “Jews” or national “Israel.” And that is precisely why the signers of the Antioch Declaration do not want these questions asked.
This is why they offered no Scripture in their letter to DeMar precisely because any text they might cite would expose their own internal contradictions. If the majority of New Testament eschatological texts were imminently fulfilled in AD 70 (as many of them admit on individual passages), then the farm has been given away to full preterism. Consistency would require either abandoning the AD 70 fulfillments or accepting the full implications. Instead of reconciling their major differences, they prefer to condemn those who piece the data together into a coherent system. Attacking others is easier than doing the hard work of reformation.
The same pattern of hypocrisy, selective orthodoxy, and institutional gatekeeping reappears in the Antioch Declaration. The signers again position themselves as defenders of the faith while refusing open exegetical engagement, branding necessary questions as wolfishness, and protecting platforms rather than pursuing truth. In both instances they stand on the wrong side of the exegetical and historical evidence and sow unnecessary division in the body of Christ.
Further Hypocrisies: Doug Wilson, Race, and Christian Nationalism
Further hypocrisies compound the problem. Doug Wilson has publicly boasted of his approximate 2 percent European Jewish ancestry (with higher percentages in his immediate family, connections to a rabbi on his wife’s side, and Israeli cousins) and expressed personal attachment to the modern state of Israel over against the U.S. Yet the Antioch Declaration itself affirms that Jew and Gentile are one in Christ, that ethnic barriers have no place in the Church, and that the ultimate bond is the Kingdom of God through the Covenant of Grace rather than blood. Wilson’s selective ethnic pride sits uneasily beside the document’s formal universalism.
Likewise, many of the signers identify as Reformed theonomists who claim the heritage of Martin Luther and R.J. Rushdoony. Yet their declarations force them into the position of cursing both men. Luther, in On the Jews and Their Lies, explicitly identified the Talmud’s teachings of Jewish supremacy, the permission to kill Gentiles, the view of Gentiles as cattle, and the hope of a Messiah who would slay Christians and make Jews lords of the world. Rushdoony, in Institutes of Biblical Law, challenged aspects of the conventional Holocaust narrative and the standard six-million figure while still affirming Nazi atrocities. By the logic of the Antioch Declaration, both Luther and Rushdoony would fall under the same anathemas now directed at those who notice Talmudic content or question protected historical narratives. The signers cannot consistently claim these theological fathers of their movements while anathematizing the very positions those fathers held.
In 2016 Doug Wilson wrote the following in his Blog & Mablog post “A Diem That Needs Some Carping” (December 29, 2016):
“My affection for Israel is personal, in addition to being theological and political. My wife’s great-great-grandfather was Rabbi Cohn, one of my co-grandfathers is a Christian Jew, my kids and grandkids have cousins who are Israeli, and according to AncestryDNA, I myself am 2% European Jewish. Nancy is 11% European Jew, her mother 26%. What all this amounts to is that our family would be much more involved on an active personal level if terrorists overran Israel than we would be if terrorists overran Vermont.”
Wilson later clarified that he was speaking of personal and family connections rather than U.S. military policy. Nevertheless, the statement remains revealing. On the basis of a 2% AncestryDNA result and distant family ties, he openly ranks personal concern for the modern state of Israel above concern for an American state.
Never mind Israel’s role in stealing our nuclear secrets, selling our secrets to China, most likely being involved with the C.I.A. in assassinating President Kennedy, their role in killing our sailors aboard the USS Liberty, and the Pentagon telling us that Israel commits more espionage against us than any other country in the world. Never mind that they are the most hated country in the world for committing war crimes and genocide. Never mind that they control and install their Zionist politicians and run our elections through AIPAC. Never mind that many in Israel and their foreign policy of genocide are guided by their Talmud, which teaches that Gentiles and Christians are animals and were only created to be slaves to the Jews. Bibi and many Rabbis admit they are at war with “Edom” and “Rome,” which refers to Christians and America.
No, because Doug thinks he is 2% Jewish, this trumps all these facts. And the irony only deepens when Doug tries to position himself as the poster boy for “Christian Nationalism.” The wicked and violent eschatology found in the Muslim Quran and the Jewish Talmud is incompatible with Scripture, our Christian founding, and the Constitution. Doug Wilson is no less a “useful idiot” than the Dispensational Zionists that Israel and AIPAC install in our government to silence free speech and spread genocide. There is nothing “America First” or “Christian Nationalism” about Doug Wilson. Thus his attack on Joel Webbon—who has now rightfully taken that mantle and exposed Wilson as a total fraud. The Antioch Declaration wants us to “identify the enemy,” and ironically for them—it’s staring back at them in the mirror!
This comprehensive response is historical, logical, and thoroughly eschatological from a full-preterist perspective. It draws extensively on the critiques developed by Peter Boland of Supremacy of Christ Studios, the genetic and historical data concerning the population of the modern state of Israel, the published contents of the Talmud as a post-biblical tradition, the detailed full-preterist exposition of Romans 9–11 showing that “all Israel” was saved in the first-century covenantal transition culminating in AD 70, and a systematic engagement with every major affirmation and denial in the Declaration. The result is not a secondary intramural disagreement; it is a fundamental collision between the finished work of Christ and a theology that continues to treat ethnic and geopolitical Israel as carrying ongoing prophetic privilege.
I. The Antioch Analogy Inverted: Who Are the True Judaizers?
The Declaration opens by quoting Acts 11:26 and Galatians 2:11, claiming the mantle of Paul opposing Peter for subjecting the gospel to racial barriers. Paul rebuked Peter because he withdrew from Gentile table fellowship under pressure from the “party of the circumcision.” The issue was the reimposition of ethnic and ritual criteria as conditions of full standing in the people of God. Justification is by faith in Christ alone, not by Jewish identity or Mosaic observance (Galatians 2:16).
The irony is profound. The authors of the Declaration are the spiritual successors to the Judaizers. They have constructed a modern version of the error under the banner of “Judeo-Christian” values and an uncritical protective posture toward the modern state of Israel and its related historical narratives. As Peter Boland has demonstrated across multiple episodes of Supremacy of Christ Studios, there is no such thing as a “Judeo-Christian” ethic. The Talmud, like the Quran, is a post-biblical tradition that stands in opposition to the claims of Jesus Christ and laws go contrary to our Constitution and founding. Syncretism is sin. The Declaration’s collaborators—many of whom have spent careers opposing dispensationalism—suddenly sound as protective of ethnic and political Israel as the most ardent Christian Zionists when the subject turns to criticism of Talmudic influence, genetic claims, or the prophetic status of the modern state. This is not consistent covenant theology; it is practical heresy that subordinates the finished work of Christ to ethnic and geopolitical considerations.
They demand that European-descended Christians reject “identity politics” and absolute loyalty to “blood and soil,” while remaining silent about the explicit ethnonational character of the State of Israel, which defines citizenship and national identity in terms of Jewish peoplehood and the Law of Return. This is the double standard at the heart of the document. One group is permitted—and celebrated for—an explicit ethnostate with a Law of Return based on blood and ancestry, while another is told that noticing its own demographic dispossession or seeking the continuity of its historic peoples is an “anti-gospel” sin. The Declaration effectively demands that Christians support a geopolitical and theological double standard hostile to their own survival and to the universal leveling of the gospel (Ephesians 2:11–22; Colossians 3:11; Galatians 3:28). This asymmetry is not the power of the Cross; it is the selective application of universalism that binds Christian consciences to a foreign political and religious interest. Boland is correct: the framing of the Declaration turns disagreement into wolfishness. When Andrew Sandlin responded to Boland’s critique by accusing him of “Jew-hatred” and calling for divine anathemas to “rain down afresh on these enemies of the Cross,” he illustrated the point. The Declaration’s severe language makes intramural conversation impossible and functions as gatekeeping by men who have positioned themselves as Reformed Popes.
II. The “Wolf” Motif Inverted and the Hireling Dynamic
The Declaration affirms that faithful shepherds must identify and fight wolves, and it warns that disillusioned young men, reacting against secular lies, are vulnerable to a new set of reactionary falsehoods. This pastoral concern is formally valid. Its practical application is inverted, and the inversion reveals the hireling dynamic at work.
For decades many of these same leaders have watched Western Christian societies undergo demographic transformation, institutional capture by ideologies hostile to historic Christian norms, and cultural narratives that pathologize European identity while celebrating every other form of group interest. When some of those young men begin examining open-source patterns of overrepresentation, published religious texts, and the theological errors that sustain uncritical support for modern Israel, the response is primarily denunciation rather than careful historical, genetic, and biblical analysis. Labeling the inquiry itself as scapegoating or antisemitism functions as a conversation-stopper.
Why do they do this? It is not primarily about defending the faith once delivered. It is about the preservation of institutional respectability. Men like Wilson, Durbin, White, and Sandlin have carefully curated brands, conference circuits, publishing arms, and platforms within the conservative and Reformed establishment. They are terrified of being cancelled by the same secular media and elite institutions they claim to oppose. To speak plainly about the Talmud as a published tradition hostile to Christ, about the genetic discontinuity of the dominant population in the modern state of Israel, or about the end of the Old Covenant in AD 70 would risk the loss of mainstream access, donor networks, and the appearance of respectability. They are hirelings protecting their own prestige rather than shepherds willing to suffer for the truth. Boland has documented this pattern repeatedly: the Declaration’s collaborators treat substantive critique as wolfishness while their own severe language forces a fight rather than inviting fraternal discussion. Scripture rejects collective ethnic guilt (Ezekiel 18; Romans 2:6–11). It does not thereby forbid honest examination of cultural, religious, and institutional patterns. Christian writers from the early centuries through the Reformation engaged the Talmud and rabbinic literature as public, normative texts. Treating published legal and theological traditions as data is not conspiracy theorizing. The Declaration’s pastoral rhetoric protects platforms more than the flock.
Boland further notes that Sandlin’s call for divine anathemas to rain down on those who share his views would necessarily encompass figures the signers themselves claim as part of their heritage—most notably R.J. Rushdoony (“y’all’s boy”), who also refused to treat the conventional postwar historical narrative as beyond scrutiny. The same gatekeeping that anathematizes Boland would, by consistency, anathematize Rushdoony.
III. Genetic Reality Versus the Zionist Founding Myth
The Declaration treats the modern state of Israel as an object of ongoing providential care whose critics must be carefully restrained. Yet the foundational claim of political Zionism—that the Jewish population of the state consists primarily of the genetic descendants of the ancient Israelites—is contradicted by modern genetic evidence.
Ancient Canaanite and Israelite genomes from Bronze and Iron Age sites in the Southern Levant show that modern Arabic-speaking populations (Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese) derive substantial ancestry—often 50 percent or more—from those ancient populations. Ashkenazi maternal lineages, by contrast, are overwhelmingly European, with the closest matches among modern Italians and Israelite contribution estimated at only 5–7 percent in direct competitive models. Samaritans, who maintain continuous residence and authentic priestly genealogies, cluster with Levantine populations; Ashkenazim cluster with Southern Europeans. Whether the historical pathway ran through Khazar conversion or Southern European admixture, the result is identical: the Ashkenazi population that has dominated Israeli politics, military command, the Supreme Court, and financial institutions is the least genetically connected to the ancient Israelites.
Jewish identity under traditional Halakha is transmitted through the mother. If the majority of Ashkenazi maternal lines are European, then by the tradition’s own standards a large portion of the population descends from converts. This observation implies no collective moral inferiority and justifies mistreatment of no individual. It simply exposes the racial founding myth of political Zionism as historically and genetically false. The Declaration’s equation of such questions with antisemitism, and the institutional pressure against researchers who publish inconvenient findings, functions as censorship rather than defense of truth. The Ninth Commandment requires honest testimony. Protected myths do not.
Since old covenant national Israel reached her OT and NT prophetic “appointed time” to her “end” in AD 70 when Christ came upon the clouds in vengeance (Deut. 32:20-29, 35 LXX-43; Dan. 9:24-27 LXX; Dan. 12:4 LXX; Matt. 24:3-34 / Luke 21:20-32), we must address who actually are the people claiming to be “Jews” living in “Israel” today and what is their Talmudic eschatology that calls for war with Christians and global dominance. For more on that see my article here. Or see my new book, “In the Land vs. In Christ” which addresses these exegetical and political issues in much more detail than I can get into here.
IV. The Talmud as Published Tradition, Not Conspiracy Theory
The Declaration denies that Jews are uniquely malevolent, that Judaism represents an exceptional threat, or that world affairs are governed by a Jewish conspiracy. It affirms that individual God-hating Jews have produced cultural destruction just as individual God-hating Gentiles have. These formal statements are true as far as they go. They do not address the actual content of the post-biblical rabbinic tradition.
As I document in my books: “Armageddon Deception” and “In the Land vs. In Christ” and as Boland has shown at length, the Talmud is a legal and theological corpus intended to govern Jewish life. Standard published editions contain passages that distinguish Jewish souls from Gentile status, permit certain forms of economic advantage and deception toward non-Jews, and express hostility toward Jesus and Christianity. Leading rabbis have publicly reiterated related themes of Jewish spiritual superiority and Gentile service. The common “context” defense requires demonstration that the plain sense is overturned; blanket dismissal while demanding silence is not scholarship. The Talmud itself restricts Gentile study of its contents—a fact that historically limited Christian awareness.
Luther engaged these texts as the legal and religious reality of his day. Boland emphasizes that Luther, in On the Jews and Their Lies, was not merely an “antisemite” as modern critics claim; he knew exactly what the Talmud taught. Luther recorded that the Talmud and the rabbis teach it is no sin for a Jew to kill a Gentile (only a sin to kill a fellow Israelite), that breaking an oath to a Gentile is permitted, that stealing or robbing from a Gentile is a service to God, that Jews are the “noble blood and circumcised saints” while Gentiles are “accursed,” “servants,” and “cattle,” and that they are the “lords of the world.” Luther further noted that the Jewish Messianic hope is for a worldly king who will “slay the Christians,” divide the world among the Jews, and make them masters. He therefore advised that Talmudic writings be taken from them because they teach “idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy.” Boland’s point is precise: Luther recognized a different religion that is completely incompatible with biblical Christianity. Searching for “pure exegetical gold” in the Talmud, as some have claimed, is futile; the text stands opposed to Christ in the same way the Quran does.
To categorize sustained examination of these texts today as “conspiracy theory” or “scapegoating” is either historical illiteracy or a calculated preference for mainstream respectability over the God of truth. This is not an ethnicity problem; it is a theology problem. Judaism is an ethnic religion, and its published traditions shape patterns of thought. Pointing this out is the loving act of telling every people—including Jewish people—that there is no hope in ethnicity, flesh, merit, or religious tradition, but only in Jesus Christ alone. Boland’s formulation remains the most precise: “I actually love Jewish people more than Douglas Wilson does, because what he is saying actually hardens them in their sin by appealing to their sinful flesh and their lust for Jewish supremacy. Whereas what I’m doing is pointing out the plain testimony of Scripture in order that they might realize that there is no hope for them on the basis of their ethnicity; that there is nothing in their flesh, no good works, no merit, no virtue in them—just as it is true of all the rest of us—that their hope might be solely on the basis of Jesus Christ. And telling a person that is the most loving and compassionate thing you can do for them.” The charge of “antisemitism” functions here not as moral correction but as a conversation-stopper—an institutional tool to protect a mid-twentieth-century synthesis from scrutiny.
V. Protected Historical Narratives and the Ninth Commandment
The Declaration affirms that the volume of evidence for the deliberate mass murder of millions of Jews by the Nazi regime constitutes historical certitude, and that denying this calls the science of history itself into question. It distinguishes legitimate debate about Allied strategies from malice or hatred.
A consistent application of the Ninth Commandment requires that every historical claim remain open to evidence-based scrutiny. No narrative—religious or secular—should be elevated to the status of an unchallengeable sacrament enforced by social, professional, or ecclesiastical penalties. Full preterism already locates the decisive covenantal judgment in AD 70. Later historical tragedies, however real and horrific, do not reopen or reverse that fulfillment. Treating any twentieth-century narrative as a unique quasi-theological foundation for the post-WWII moral and political order can function as a secular sacred canopy that substitutes for the finished work of Christ. If the evidence is decisive, open historical debate strengthens rather than weakens it. Protected narratives enforced by anathemas are the mark of ideology, not of truth-seeking.
It is worth noting that R.J. Rushdoony, a figure many of the Declaration’s signers claim as part of their intellectual heritage, challenged aspects of the conventional scale of the Holocaust in Institutes of Biblical Law. While affirming Nazi atrocities against Jews as mass murder, he questioned the standard six-million figure by reference to revisionist sources and framed the discussion in terms of the danger of inflated numbers numbing the modern conscience. He also pointed out documented and historical lies the Jews have spread about Germany:
“With the two world wars, lying became especially prominent in international politics…The false witness made with respect to Germany in World War I was thus clearly evil. The stories of German atrocities were manufactured and were vicious and totally false. The false witness born during World War II with respect to Germany is especially notable and revealing. The charge is repeatedly made that six million innocent Jews were slain by the Nazis, and the figure-and even larger figures-is now entrenched in the history books. Poncins, in summarizing the studies of the French Socialist, Paul Rassinier, himself a prisoner in Buchenwald, states: ‘Rassinier reached the conclusion that the number of Jews who died after deportation is approximately 1,200,000 and this figure, he tells us, has finally been accepted as valid by the Centre Mondial de Documentation Juive Contemporaine. Likewise he notes that Raul Hilberg, in his study of the same problem, reached a total of 896,292 victims.’ Very many of these people died of epidemics; many were executed. During World War II, a brief and popular book gave a hint of the new mentality. Kaufman called in 1941 for the total sterilization of all Germans and the elimination thereby of the German nation. Kaufman was not alone … ” -R.J. Rushdoony (Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, Pg. 586-589). If you want to see it in context, please go here and scroll to page 597: https://www.scribd.com/document/336023560/Institutes-of-Biblical-Law-R-J-Rushdoony#page=597
Not only is there no mention of Rabbis calling for the extinction of the German race, there is no effort to be objective and discuss Talmudic Jewish Communism killing 60 million Christians. I digress. Sandlin’s anathemas, if applied consistently, would fall on Rushdoony as well.
VI. Full Preterism and Romans 9–11: AD 70 as the Pivot That Liberates the Church
The Declaration’s eschatology remains implicitly futurist. It affirms, with the Puritans of old, that multitudes of Jews will one day come to faith and be added to the true commonwealth of Israel. The Bible and Full preterism demonstrates that this hope was fulfilled in the first-century remnant and the ingathering of the Gentiles. This is the lethal corrective. AD 70 is not merely a historical detail; it is the pivot that liberates the Church from the bondage of waiting for a geopolitical restoration that already occurred in the shadow of the Cross and the destruction of the Temple.
Paul’s central burden in Romans 9–11 is not a distant future restoration of ethnic Israel after two millennia. It is the immediate covenant crisis of his own generation: the majority of Israel had rejected the Messiah, yet God’s word had not failed. “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Romans 9:6). This distinction between Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to promise is the interpretive key to the entire section. Covenant identity has always operated through sovereign promise rather than physical descent alone (Isaac over Ishmael; Jacob over Esau). There have always been two Israels: the rebellious majority and the faithful remnant.
Paul’s argument is saturated with the Old Testament, and he expects readers to recover the full contexts. Hosea’s declaration that those once called “Not My People” would become “sons of the living God” is fulfilled in the multi-ethnic Church composed of the Jewish remnant and believing Gentiles (Romans 9:25–26; cf. 1 Peter 2:9–10). Isaiah’s cry that only a remnant would be saved, and that the Lord would execute a short, decisive sentence upon the land, is applied directly to Paul’s generation (Romans 9:27–29; Isaiah 10:22–23). The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) foretold a terminal, perverse, and crooked generation that would reject its Rock, fill up the measure of its rebellion, and be provoked to jealousy by a “no-people,” with vengeance and salvation arriving together at the appointed kairos. Paul identifies the Gentile mission, Israel’s jealousy, and the approaching judgment as that fulfillment (Romans 10:19; 11:11; 12:19; 13:11–12). Jesus Himself identified His contemporaries as that generation (Matthew 23:32–36; 24:34).The “mystery” revealed in Romans 11:25–26 is not a future ethnic restoration. Elsewhere Paul defines the mystery as the uniting of Jew and Gentile into one new body in Christ (Ephesians 2:11–22; 3:1–6; Romans 16:25–26; Colossians 1:25–27). A partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness (pleroma—completeness, maturity, consummation) of the Gentiles has come in. “And in this way (houtōs—manner, not merely sequence) all Israel will be saved.” “All Israel” is the true Israel already defined in Romans 9:6—the children of promise, the elect remnant together with the grafted-in Gentiles—brought to covenantal maturity when the old order passed away when Christ came from Zion in a “near” AD 70 time frame (Rom. 11:25-27; 13:11-12).
Paul supports the salvation of “all Israel” by conflating Isaiah 59 and Isaiah 27: the Deliverer comes from Zion to banish ungodliness from Jacob and take away their sins. In the prophetic contexts, this coming brings both judgment upon the unfaithful and redemption to the remnant, and the removal of Jacob’s sin is linked to the crushing of the altars and the desolation of the fortified city (Isaiah 27:9). These events occurred in the Jewish-Roman War of AD 66–70. John the Baptist had already prepared the way for this dual reality of judgment and salvation (Isaiah 40; Malachi 3–4), warning of the wrath about to come and declaring that the winnowing fork was already in the Messiah’s hand. The same harvest and trumpet imagery appears in Jesus’ teaching concerning His coming within that generation (Matthew 13:39–43; 24:30–31).
The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29), but those gifts—adoption, glory, covenants, law, worship, promises, and the patriarchs—were always mediated through promise rather than flesh and find their telos in Christ (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:16, 29). The land was typological and conditional. The inheritance is the new-covenant world and the heavenly country the patriarchs sought (Romans 4:13; Hebrews 11:10, 16). The double “now” of mercy in Romans 11:30–31 places the entire mechanism of disobedience, jealousy, and reciprocal mercy inside the first-century horizon. God has consigned both Jew and Gentile to disobedience so that He may have mercy on both—the “all” who constitute the true Israel of God.
By pushing the “promises” into an open-ended future, the Declaration and similar frameworks create a theological vacuum that allows support for whatever geopolitical project is currently en vogue. AD 70 closes that vacuum. The Old Covenant age ended. The modern state of Israel is not a fulfillment of prophecy; it is a purely secular, geopolitical project. The Temple is dust. The genealogical records were destroyed. The Church—Jews and Gentiles who confess Jesus as Lord—is the true Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). This is liberation. The Church is no longer bound to wait for a fleshly restoration that already occurred. Any attempt to exhume the corpse of ethnic Israel as a prophetic necessity is a direct assault on the finished work of Christ.
The Inconsistency of Joel Webbon & Peter Boland on Romans 11:25-27
I would not be fully honest if I failed to note that both Joel Webbon and Peter Boland have adopted what amounts to a full-preterist exegesis of Romans 11:25-27. Only by reading these verses as fulfilled in the first-century transition can they consistently refute the church’s compromise with Talmudic or Dispensational Zionism and dismantle any ongoing “prophetic Israel” or “the Jews” as fulfilling any alleged “end-time eschaton.” When they take this approach, they are able to neutralize a future eschatology of the Jews or national Israel that appears in both classic Dispensationalism and in certain forms of Postmillennialism that still treat ethnic Israel as a distinct covenantal entity awaiting mass conversion. This reading alone equips them to address the Jewish question, critique the modern state of Israel on theological grounds, and advance a coherent Christian Nationalism. For a more detailed exegesis of Romans 9-11 refuting Dispensationalism and Postmillennialism see my article here.
The move stands in clear tension with the earlier declaration signed by many of these same men—an effort that sought to police the boundaries of acceptable discourse within the Reformed community and actively discourage open study of full preterism.
VII. Kingdom Purposes, Political Antitheses, and the True Conflict
The Declaration denies that “the Kingdom purposes of Christ and requirements of His Word can be equated with the seating positions of political actors during the French Revolution, or that the modern antithesis between right and left is equivalent to the antithesis that God established in the Garden of Eden between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, the kingdom of darkness and kingdom of light.”
This is formally correct and should be affirmed by any consistent Christian. The ultimate antithesis is spiritual and covenantal: Christ versus the serpent, the Kingdom of God versus the kingdom of darkness, the New Covenant versus the Old that ended in AD 70. Political categories—whether the left and right of the National Assembly in 1789 or today’s progressive versus conservative spectrum—are secondary, shifting human constructs. They are not the primary binary of redemptive history.
Historically, the French Revolution’s seating arrangement (supporters of the king on the right, radicals on the left) gave us the modern political vocabulary, but it arose from Enlightenment rationalism, anti-clericalism, and the collapse of the ancien régime. It was not a recovery of biblical categories. Logically, equating any modern political coalition with the seed of the woman risks baptizing temporary alliances as eternal. Full preterism reinforces this: the decisive victory of the seed of the woman occurred in the first-century judgment on the Old Covenant order and the establishment of the Kingdom that now fills the earth. No contemporary left/right alignment can claim to be that antithesis. The Declaration is right to deny the equation; the critique is that its practical effect still subordinates Kingdom priorities to the preservation of a particular post-WWII political-theological consensus.
VIII. The Origins of Neo-Pagan Secularism: Enlightenment Roots and the Post-WWII Tipping Point
The Declaration denies that “neo-pagan secularism with its utopian religious motive arose as a consensus after World War II.” Instead, it affirms that it “manifests itself as the political outworking of the so-called Enlightenment during the French Revolution and gradually won the hearts and minds of Western nations, being well expressed in the political philosophies dominating Europe prior to the outbreak of the two great global conflagrations.” It further affirms that the aftermath of WWII served as a “cultural tipping point” for the secular narrative, the myth of religious neutrality, idolatrous pluralism, and mandatory globalist cosmopolitanism, while also nurturing a thread of self-doubt and white guilt.
History confirms the deeper roots. The Enlightenment (roughly 17th–18th centuries) elevated autonomous reason, natural religion or deism, and the social contract over revealed religion and Christendom’s confessional order. Thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and the French philosophes attacked the Church as the source of superstition and tyranny. The French Revolution (1789–1799) attempted to enact this program: the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, the Cult of Reason, the de-Christianization campaign, and the metricization of time and space were explicit efforts to replace Christian order with a secular, utopian alternative. Nineteenth-century liberalism, positivism (Comte), Marxism, and various forms of nationalism continued the trajectory. By the early twentieth century, secular philosophies dominated European intellectual life; the world wars were fought in a culture already largely post-Christian in its elite institutions.
The Declaration is therefore historically accurate that secularism did not begin in 1945. WWII and its aftermath functioned as an accelerant and a moral reset. The scale of industrial death, the revelation of the camps, and the subsequent American-led order elevated “never again,” human rights universalism, and a myth of neutral procedural liberalism into quasi-sacred status. The self-loathing and civilizational guilt the Declaration notes are real cultural phenomena in the post-war West, particularly in Protestant and formerly Christian nations. Logically, however, recognizing pre-WWII roots does not require treating the post-war settlement as beyond critique. Full preterism further relativizes all such historical tipping points: the decisive civilizational and covenantal transition already occurred in AD 70. Later secular projects, whether Enlightenment or post-1945, are simply further rebellions against an already-established Kingdom. The Declaration’s historical point is sound; its implication that challenging the post-war narrative is necessarily a reactionary trap within that narrative does not follow.
IX. Disillusionment, Self-Loathing, and True Repentance
The Declaration affirms that disillusionment and resentment over secular lies leave young men vulnerable to new deceptions, and that there is a vital biblical difference between the self-loathing of men in the grip of a failed idol and the true repentance of the Christian man. It denies that disillusionment alone prepares one to stand in the truth.
This is pastorally and psychologically true. Scripture distinguishes worldly sorrow from godly grief that leads to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10). Self-loathing that remains centered on the failed idol (whether progressive utopia or a romanticized past) produces either despair or a search for a new scapegoat. True Christian repentance turns from idols to the living God, receives forgiveness in Christ, and then walks in the light of the already-inaugurated Kingdom. Full preterism supplies the positive content: the Old Covenant idols (including any lingering ethnic or territorial claims) have already been judged; the believer is transferred into the Kingdom of the Son (Colossians 1:13). The Declaration’s distinction is correct. The critique is that its application often treats any sustained critique of post-war sacred narratives or of Talmudic/Zionist theological errors as evidence of the wrong kind of disillusionment, rather than as potential fruits of genuine repentance from false trusts.
X. Honoring the Fathers Without Dishonoring Them
The Declaration denies that “it is possible to recover an ethic that honors our fathers and their momentous sacrifices while actively and openly dishonoring them.”
Historically and logically this is sound. The Fifth Commandment requires honor of father and mother; by extension, a people that systematically despises its own ancestors cannot sustain itself. The men who fought in the world wars, built the institutions of the West, and transmitted the Christian faith deserve honor for genuine goods they preserved or achieved. Open contempt for them as a class is corrosive. At the same time, honor is not uncritical hagiography. Scripture itself records the sins of the fathers (the golden calf, the high places, the rejection of the prophets and the Messiah). Full preterism requires us to honor the faithfulness of the remnant in the first century while recognizing that the majority of ethnic Israel in that generation filled up the measure of its fathers’ sins and came under covenant judgment. The same principle applies later: one can honor the courage of Allied soldiers or the genuine achievements of Western civilization without treating every wartime decision or every post-war institution as sacrosanct. The Declaration’s principle is right; its application must not be used to shield particular narratives from examination.
XI. The Theudas Example and the Temptation of Influence
The Declaration affirms that as the secular edifice crumbles, many will refuse Christ; “strong gods” will return; godless influential figures will arise the way Theudas did (Acts 5:36); and some Christian leaders will be tempted to ape such methods for clicks, followers, and ephemeral influence.
The historical reference is accurate. Theudas was a first-century Jewish revolutionary who gathered a following with messianic claims and was killed by Roman forces; Gamaliel cites him as an example of a movement that came to nothing. Josephus records similar figures. The logical warning is also valid: in times of cultural upheaval, the desire for rapid influence can lead Christian teachers to adopt the rhetorical style, scapegoating techniques, or personality-driven methods of secular influencers. Full preterism supplies the corrective: the true “strong God” has already come in judgment and Kingdom establishment. The Church’s task is patient proclamation of the finished work, not imitation of fleeting charismatic movements. Boland’s critique of institutional gatekeeping and anathema-issuing aligns here: the temptation cuts both ways. Established leaders can also use the language of “wolves” and “influence” to protect platforms rather than to shepherd. The Declaration’s warning is legitimate; consistency requires applying it to all parties, including those who deploy ecclesiastical declarations as tools of boundary enforcement.
XII. Civic Adiaphora on WWII Strategies Versus Malice and Race-Baiting
The Declaration denies that any particular view of Allied leaders, strategies, or tactics during World War II should be a test of Christian orthodoxy. It further denies that this civic adiaphora may be expanded to cover malice, vainglory, race-baiting, antisemitism, treachery, bitterness, or hatred. These issues are entirely distinct. It also denies that Hitler’s racial and antisemitic theories and Nazi neo-pagan doctrines can be harmonized with the gospel.
These distinctions are logically necessary. Christians may disagree in good faith about the wisdom of particular strategic decisions, the morality of area bombing, the justice of the post-war settlements, or the precise scale and mechanisms of wartime atrocities without thereby endorsing Nazi ideology or racial hatred. Nazi racial theory and its neo-pagan mythology are fundamentally anti-Christian; any attempt to baptize them is foolish. The Declaration is right to keep these categories distinct. The critique is that the Declaration’s practical effect often collapses legitimate historical inquiry (including examination of wartime propaganda, post-war narrative construction, or the published contents of the Talmud) into the forbidden categories of “antisemitism” or “race-baiting.” Civic adiaphora must remain adiaphora; it cannot be selectively expanded or contracted to protect one set of sacred narratives while leaving others open.
XIII. Consistency on Peoples, Nations, and the Model of Christ Alone
The Declaration affirms that God has ordained the existence of peoples and nations (Acts 17:26–28), that cultural heritage is something for which to be grateful, and that national pride and healthy patriotism are appropriate for Christians. It simultaneously rejects every form of identity politics and subordinates blood, soil, family, and nation to the totalizing bond of the Kingdom of God. This is formally correct.
Consistency requires applying the same standards across the board. If European Christians may not notice or advocate for the continuity of their historic peoples and cultures without being charged with anti-gospel categories, the same logic must apply to every other people group—including those that explicitly organize around ethnicity and kinship. The Declaration’s intense focus on shielding one particular people group from collective critique, paired with its strong language against “right-wing” identity politics, produces an uneven application. The silence on Israel’s explicit ethnonationalism while condemning European identity awareness is the double standard already noted.
Doug Wilson’s public statements concerning his partial Jewish ancestry (approximately 2 percent European Jewish by AncestryDNA, higher percentages in his immediate family, connections to a rabbi on his wife’s side, and Israeli cousins) and his personal attachment to the modern state illustrate the divided loyalties the Declaration protects. Boland has highlighted the inconsistency of treating the Talmud as containing “pure exegetical gold” while the same tradition contains explicit hostility toward Jesus. Collaborators who have long promoted Wilson now face the question of whether institutional alliances outweigh fidelity to the exclusive claims of Christ. A man cannot serve two masters.
The Declaration closes by affirming that “in all things, including the treatment of our fellow human beings, the model man and example is not the life and teaching of Aristotle, nor any other merely historical personage, but the Lord Jesus Christ himself, Son of Man and eternal Son of God.” This is theologically non-negotiable and should be affirmed without qualification. Aristotle’s ethics of virtue, magnanimity, and the natural hierarchy of peoples have been influential in Christian thought (especially via medieval reception), but they are not the norm. Christ is the image of the invisible God, the last Adam, the perfect human, and the Lord of the nations. Full preterism intensifies this: the Kingdom He established in the first century is the present reality in which all human relations are to be ordered. Any recovery of classical pagan categories (including certain ethnonationalist appropriations of Aristotle or other ancients) must be subordinated to, and corrected by, the person and work of Christ. The Declaration is right. Consistency requires that the same Christ-centered standard be applied to every competing loyalty—whether classical, ethnic, national, or the “Judeo-Christian” synthesis itself.
Christ also referred to those claiming to have Abraham as their father as “serpents” and “sons of the Devil.” He also called them out for their verbal Talmudic traditions–pointing out how their traditions sought to nullify the Word of God. The signers of the Antioch Declaration and their attacks on full preterism receive the rebukes of Christ Himself. We gladly expose the errors that Christ Himself did.
XIV. Conclusion: The Kingdom Is Here — A Call to the Remnant
The Antioch Declaration seeks to protect the gospel from ethnic barriers, scapegoating, and hatred. Those aims are legitimate in the abstract. In practice, it is a defensive mechanism for a dying regime—preserving institutional respectability, conference circuits, and curated brands within a post-WWII consensus that is disintegrating. It brands necessary theological and historical inquiry as wolfishness while maintaining a futurist vacuum that keeps the Church tethered to the corpse of a dead covenant and Rothschild’s attempt to make “Israel” prophetic and esteemed again to push endless holy wars which they profit from.
We do not need the permission of the Antioch signers to be the Church. We do not need their anathemas. AD 70 is the pivot that liberates us. The shadows have passed. The substance is Christ. There is no hope in ethnicity, in Talmudic tradition, in geopolitical projects claiming prophetic status, or in protected secular narratives. There is hope only in the finished work of Jesus Christ and the one new man He has created—the sole Israel of God. The charges of “antisemitism” or “conspiracy theory” are frequently a smokescreen designed to protect a lie. Scripture proves the Old Covenant ended. Genetics and history expose the myth of unbroken succession. The Talmud itself testifies to its violent opposition to the Messiah and Christians. It’s violent eschatology is no much different than that of the Muslims and the Quran. The faithful remnant will continue to proclaim the truth without fear, build parallel institutions grounded in the victorious gospel, and refuse the theological errors that have paralyzed the Church. Let the signers issue their declarations. The Kingdom is here, the Old has passed away, and the absolute, uncompromising truth of Jesus Christ alone is already winning.
Soli Deo Gloria.
