The recent Tucker Carlson interview with JD Hall has generated exactly the reaction one might expect. Christian Zionists are fuming. Anti-Zionists are celebrating. Covenant theologians are declaring victory. Dispensationalists are sounding alarms.
A good amount of the discussion, however, has proceeded from a false premise that, once Tucker Carlson’s questions become sufficiently focused on Israel, these questions should be viewed as theological rather than sociopolitical. There’s just one problem. Tucker Carlson is not a theologian.
He is not presenting a systematic doctrine of Israel. He is not attempting to engage centuries of debate regarding covenant theology, dispensationalism, or eschatology.
He is a journalist asking questions, or at least maintains plausible deniability regarding opponents’ claims about his real motivations and ideology.
Since leaving Fox News, Tucker’s public trajectory has uncoincidentally been marked by increasing skepticism toward elite institutions, foreign intervention, intelligence agencies, and political narratives that appear protected from criticism. His interest in Israel emerged from that broader skepticism, particularly in light of continuing and undeniable special interest lobbying of the US government on behalf of Israel.
The progression seems fairly obvious: Questions about American foreign policy led him toward Israel. Questions about Israel led him toward Christian Zionism. Questions about Christian Zionism eventually led him toward the theological matters that JD Hall has been writing about, nearly obsessively, for a few years now.
That distinction matters because many criticisms of Tucker proceed as though he is attempting to construct a comprehensive theological system. He is not. He is asking questions and interviewing people who claim to have answers (albeit answers that align with his broader positions rather than opposing them).
What JD Gets Right
For those familiar with Protestia’s history, the temptation will be either to dismiss JD Hall entirely or to embrace him uncritically. Both approaches would be mistakes. JD raises several points that evangelical Christians genuinely still need to hear. He is correct that Genesis 12:3 is routinely abused. He is correct that Jews are not saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ. He is correct that the modern State of Israel is not the Kingdom of God. He is correct that Christians may criticize Israeli policies just as they criticize the policies of any other nation. He is correct that Christian Zionism is not Christianity.
He is correct that Christians need not have a particular allegiance to the State of Israel on the basis that we are charged with bringing about God’s eschatological Jewish ingathering by any other means than the Great Commission (more on this “Jewish Nationalism” irony later).
Many evangelicals have never seriously considered these arguments because support for Israel has become so culturally embedded within American evangelicalism that questioning it often produces accusations of anti-Semitism, theological compromise, or disloyalty to Scripture. Yet these are legitimate questions, and snuffing them out before they can be discussed has seemingly resulted in backlash among younger Christian men, and a digital, racialist-tinged, special category of condemnation for anyone with “stein” in their name.
The Real Problem Is Jurisdiction
I’ve written about it on many occasions, and I will continue to beat the drum – the deeper issue in terms of the Christian’s approach to Israel is not dispensationalism versus covenant theology. It is jurisdiction.
As I have previously discussed in critiques of Christian Nationalism, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 teach plainly that God establishes distinct jurisdictions with distinct responsibilities.
He establishes the family (Gen. 2:24, Eph. 5:31-32), but with limited jurisdictional authority (Luke 14:26, Mark 3:31-35).
He establishes the church (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:17-20, Eph. 4:11-12), but with limited jurisdictional authority (1 Pet. 5:2-3, 2 Cor. 1:24, Acts 5:29).
He establishes civil government (Rom. 13:1-4, 1 Pet. 2:13-14), but with limited jurisdictional authority (Acts 5:29, Daniel 3, Daniel 6).
Each possesses real but limited authority. Each possesses authority delegated by God for specific purposes. And this jurisdictional framework applies to all of human civilization, with no Jewish exception. Confusion in this conversation begins when Christians encourage one jurisdiction to exercise authority God never assigned to it.
This principle applies to the modern debate over Israel. The debate is often framed as a conflict between supporters and opponents of Israel. Yet too often, both sides commit the same fundamental error. That is, both collapse categories that Scripture keeps separate.
The Category Collapse Behind Modern Zionism
Christian Zionists often speak as though Jewish genetic or cultural lineage, Judaism, the modern State of Israel, and biblical Israel are essentially interchangeable concepts. Ironically, many anti-Zionists make the exact same move.
One side collapses these categories and demands Christian allegiance to Israel, while the other collapses the categories and demands Christian condemnation of Israel. Yet scripture does not assume nor permit this collapse, no matter which formula one believes holds the moral high ground.
One of Paul’s primary concerns in Romans and Galatians is separating spiritual, worldly, and practical jurisdictional categories that fallen men instinctively merge together. Not all Israel is Israel (Rom. 9:6). Not all descendants of Abraham are children of Abraham (Rom. 9:7-8). Not all covenant members are ethnic descendants (Gal. 3:7, 3:29, Rom. 4:11-12). Not all ethnic descendants possess covenant blessings (Rom. 2:28-29, 9:30-32, Gal. 4:21-31).
The New Testament repeatedly disentangles categories that modern political discourse around the State of Israel continuously combines. Once those distinctions are recovered, much of this debate begins to look very different.
The Right of Return and the Problem of Covenant Identity
One of the strongest observations raised by JD Hall concerns Israel’s religious discrimination against Jews who profess faith in Jesus Christ. For decades, Israel’s Law of Return has created a kind of second-class status for returning Jews who convert to Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter). The precise legal details have evolved through court decisions and exceptions, but the underlying principle remains revealing: A Jew who embraces Christ is denied the ethnic privilege afforded to a Jew who embraces secularism, agnosticism, or atheism. That should immediately raise questions for Christian Zionists.
Many Christian Zionists speak as though the modern State of Israel represents biblical Israel. Yet the state itself frequently operates from explicitly rabbinic assumptions regarding Jewish identity, begging the question of why a supposed ingathering of God’s people is marked by an explicit rejection of Jews who have embraced the Messiah.
A Christian should at least pause when the nation supposedly representing God’s covenant people treats belief in Christ as a disqualifying characteristic.
That does not prove Israel has no future significance in God’s plan, but it does demonstrate that the modern state cannot simply be equated with the covenant people of God. If we reject the idea that Christians are obligated to materially support Christians around the world, insisting on this kind of obligation for non-Christians veers into the absurd, absent a jurisdiction-collapsing hermeneutic that blurs categories that scripture keeps distinct.
And yet, this is one of the places where both Christian Zionists and many anti-Zionists adopt the same framework. Both are too willing to wrap ethnicity, religion, citizenship, and covenant status into the same moral category.
Scripture separates them.
Muslim Rule, Christian Sites, and Protestant Questions
JD Hall’s comments regarding Muslim treatment of Christians deserve a similar qualification.
He is correct that many evangelicals possess an idealized view of Jewish-Christian relations and an exaggerated view of perpetual Muslim hostility. History is more complicated than this.
The Ottoman Empire often permitted Christian communities to exist, worship, and administer their own affairs. Certain Christian sites were preserved under Muslim rule for centuries. Those are historical realities.
Yet Christians under Islamic rule were typically second-class subjects. They faced legal disabilities, special taxation, and civil restrictions. Failing to submit to Islamic rulers often resulted in vicious persecution. As would be expected from an anti-Christ religion like Islam, the overall historical record is hardly favorable.
JD Hall has long argued that false expressions of Christianity and even Islam possess a (at least practically) higher view of Jesus than Rabbinic Judaism because they affirm a figure called “Jesus,” while Rabbinic Judaism explicitly condemns Jesus by name.
Viewed through that lens, JD’s appreciation for Muslim preservation of Christian sites becomes easier to understand. On the surface, Muslim rulers preserving what they believed to be Christian institutions may represent a form of respect toward Jesus, while the fact that some Rabbinic traditions teach that Jesus is burning in Gehenna would seem a more hostile posture, and exclusion of Jewish believers in Jesus from Israeli immigration may be viewed as an explicit condemnation of Christ Himself (it should be noted that Christians can immigrate to Israel and become citizens, just not under the special avenue granted to those considered Jews by the Israeli government).
Yet as those who believe that promotion of a false Jesus is no less condemnation-worthy than explicit rejection of the real One (and even Jews who claim overt opposition to Jesus do not know the real Christ they are supposedly condemning), we must remind ourselves that defending God’s name/honor is not our job (Deut. 32:35), and a religion that exalts a fake version of Jesus is no closer to obedience than one that condemns Him outright.
Why Reformed Christians Should Be Skeptical of Holy Geography
Even if we grant JD’s distinction, the Protestant question remains: Why should preservation of Christian sites carry theological significance in the first place? Is this not the same error committed by Christian Zionists who seek to tie a special Jews-only covenant to a consecrated piece of land? Under the overriding understanding of the Great Commission, we do not attach spiritual significance to geography. The New Testament consistently relocates holy identity away from geography and toward Christ and His people.
Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the hour was coming when worship would occur neither on Mount Gerizim nor in Jerusalem. The temple, sacrifices, and priesthood – all fulfilled in Christ.
The church becomes God’s temple. Believers become living stones. The kingdom is not tied to a patch of dirt.
This means the Protestant should be cautious when hearing Christian Zionists speak about preserving Jewish control of the land, and he should be equally cautious when hearing others praise Muslim stewardship of Christian sites.
Future Israel and Present Israel Are Not the Same Question
One clarification is necessary because some readers will inevitably assume that any criticism of Christian Zionism amounts to covenant theology or replacement theology.
A Reformed premillennialist can affirm a future large-scale conversion of ethnic Jews while rejecting the claim that a present, carnal, disobedient people group is God’s chosen vehicle to maintain an escatological remnant rather than the vehicle of the Word of God. To borrow phraseology from Galatians 3:28, there is no Jew nor Greek when it comes to the necessity of the Great Commission, for all are equal in their depravity, and all are brought to Christ by the preaching of the Word rather than special ethnic identity.
Romans 11 remains a significant text for many Reformed premillennialists. The Apostle Paul plainly asks whether God has cast away His people and answers in the negative. He speaks of a future ingathering that many respected theologians have understood as involving ethnic Israel.
John Murray believed it. S. Lewis Johnson believed it. John MacArthur believes it. Many others have as well, and one does not need to embrace classical dispensationalism to recognize that Romans 11 presents a serious biblical case for a future turning of Jews to Christ.
The crucial point is that Romans 11 does not automatically establish the covenant status of the modern Israeli state.
Future Israel and present Israel are not identical categories, and indeed might be entirely separate people groups.
A future conversion of Jews does not require Christians to sanctify Israeli foreign policy, nor treat the modern State of Israel as though it were the Kingdom of God. Indeed, if the primary ingathering of Jews occurs in connection with Christ’s return, many popular assumptions regarding present-day Zionism become far less certain. The question is not whether God may yet show remarkable mercy to ethnic Jews and bring them to Christ. The question is whether Christians are authorized to assign covenant significance to a modern civil government.
Christian Nationalism and Christian Zionism Share a Common Error
One of the more interesting implications of this framework is how it challenges both Christian Zionism and certain forms of Christian nationalism. Both movements often assign spiritual significance to political realities that belong within the sphere of civil government.
One seeks the advancement of Christendom through political influence. The other seeks the advancement of prophetic Israel through political influence.
Both risk confusing political developments with kingdom developments. Both risk treating territorial control as evidence of redemptive progress. Both can drift toward a kingdom-now mindset.
The New Testament places the church in a different posture, where Christ builds His church (Matt. 16:18), the gospel advances (Matt. 24:14), the nations remain fallen (Psalm 2:1-3, 2 Tim. 3:1-5, 2 Tim. 3:13), and civil governments rise and fall (Dan. 2:21, 4:17, Rom. 13:1). Then Christ returns. The kingdom arrives physically when the King arrives physically (Matt. 25:31, Rev. 11:15).
Recovering Biblical Categories
The modern Israel debate often becomes confusing because both defenders and critics of Israel collapse categories that God keeps separate.
The State of Israel is a civil government. It possesses civil authority. It deserves the same type of moral evaluation Christians should apply to every other civil government on earth.
The church remains the covenant people of God, as Christ draws Jews, Greeks, and peoples from every tribe, tongue, and nation. It does not involve a fast track or exception for Jews, nor does it categorically reject them in any sense other than their exclusivity as God’s chosen.
The issue is not whether Christians should be pro-Israel or anti-Israel. The issue is whether Christians will respect the categories Scripture itself establishes.
When those distinctions are recovered, many of the fiercest arguments surrounding Israel begin to look far less complicated than they first appeared.
