Yet the interview served a useful purpose for me. It forced me to examine where I stand. It made me slow down and clarify what I actually believe about Israel, covenant, prophecy, and the relationship between spiritual truth and political reality. It reminded me how careful we must be when we speak about these matters.
It took me almost 4 days to watch- the conversation kept going in strange loops- it was not easy to follow and felt like a lot of 'gotcha' -
One of the difficulties in this conversation is that it feels increasingly hard to occupy a thoughtful middle ground.
Even public figures who attempt to ask probing questions about Israel often find themselves accused of hostility or disloyalty. In some circles, any criticism of Israeli policy is quickly labeled as sympathy for extremism. At the same time, some of the loudest pro-Palestinian activism in our country has, at times, been marked by rhetoric or demonstrations that feel chaotic, reactionary, or untethered from careful moral reasoning.
The result is a climate where nuance is easily lost. Legitimate concerns about justice and human dignity can be swallowed up by partisan suspicion. The space for careful, principled Christian reflection narrows when every critique is treated as betrayal and every appeal for restraint is treated as weakness.
Even Tucker Carlson is conflicted- he was having a hard time between questions and charges of him being 'anti-semitic". As a point of clarity, I like both men- both of them are products of their experiences and belief systems- and life is messy. In some ways we all stumble through and navigate a lot of gray. My faults are more clear to me than anyone else.... and I have to always be willing to say "I was wrong".
Few topics are more complicated. We are dealing with ancient covenant promises, first-century fulfillment in Christ, centuries of Jewish suffering, the horrors of the Holocaust, the establishment of a modern nation-state, ongoing conflict involving multiple peoples, and deeply held theological convictions. Compressing all of that into a podcast exchange almost guarantees that nuance will suffer. But the complexity of the issue should not drive us to slogans.
One thing that troubles me in modern discourse is how quickly Christians are labeled — “Christian Zionist,” “Christian Nationalist,” and so on. These terms often function more as rhetorical weapons than helpful descriptions. Before any modifier, we are Christians. Our primary identity is not political, national, ethnic, or ideological. It is union with Christ. To reduce Christian conviction to a political category shrinks something that Scripture presents as cosmic and redemptive. That does not mean Christians avoid political questions, but it does mean our theological identity must not be reduced to them.
From a Reformed and covenantal perspective, God’s promises to Abraham are not denied or discarded; they are fulfilled. Paul writes in Galatians 3 that the promises were ultimately made to Abraham and to his “offspring,” who is Christ. Those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise. The covenant expands in Christ; it is not erased. The New Testament consistently interprets Old Testament institutions — temple, priesthood, sacrifice, even land — through the lens of fulfillment. The temple is fulfilled in Christ. The priesthood is fulfilled in Christ. The sacrificial system is fulfilled in Christ. The promise to Abraham becomes heir not merely of a narrow strip of land, but of the world. This does not erase Jewish identity or deny historical continuity, nor does it support antisemitism in any form. But it does relocate the center of covenant fulfillment in a person rather than a political structure.
Romans 9–11 sits at the heart of this discussion. Paul begins with anguish over his fellow Jews. He affirms their privileges — adoption, covenants, promises — yet insists that not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. Ethnicity alone is not covenant fulfillment. Righteousness comes through faith in Christ, for Jew and Gentile alike. In Romans 11, Paul uses the olive tree illustration: some natural branches were broken off because of unbelief, and wild branches were grafted in. There is one tree. Gentiles do not replace Israel; they are grafted into Israel’s covenantal story. And embedded in this passage are sobering warnings to Christians: do not be arrogant, do not become proud, but fear. The text is not fuel for triumphalism but a call to humility.
Paul also speaks of mystery. A partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, and “all Israel will be saved.” There remains a future mercy pattern we do not fully grasp. But Paul does not map that mystery onto political sovereignty or territorial charts. He ends not with geopolitical detail but with worship: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!” The emphasis is on divine mercy and unfathomable providence, not on cartography.
Note: You can read my thoughts on Romans beginning here: Romans and there are many posts in that run from May through July 2009.
Those shaped by dispensational theology approach these texts differently, often maintaining a sharper distinction between Israel and the Church and expecting a future national restoration. That perspective arises from a serious desire to take Old Testament promises literally and seriously. It should not be caricatured. But it does create tension, especially when modern political developments are viewed as stages of prophetic fulfillment. When headlines begin to function as eschatology, the line between biblical theology and foreign policy can blur. That is where caution is necessary.
One of the clearest dangers in our time is the temptation to rationalize geopolitical policy on the basis of spiritual truths. It is one thing to affirm that God made promises to Abraham; it is another to draw straight lines from Genesis to modern military or diplomatic policy. Political states are not redemptive entities. They may play roles in God’s providence — as all nations do — but they are not themselves covenant fulfillments. Christians should care deeply about justice, human dignity, and peace for all people involved — Jewish and Palestinian alike. But we must be careful not to baptize policy preferences with biblical absolutism.
Ultimately, this conversation drives me back to humility. God’s providence moves through history in ways we often misunderstand. The first coming of Christ was foretold, and yet largely misread by those who had the Scriptures in hand. Expectations were confident. Interpretations were detailed. Many were wrong. If we misunderstood the first coming, we should hold our interpretations of the second with reverent caution. Conviction is good; certainty about the mechanics of God’s unfolding plan should be tempered by awe.
So where do I land?
I affirm the dignity and worth of the Jewish people and recognize the State of Israel as a nation among nations.
Our hope, however, is not rooted in political arrangements but in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, through whom God is gathering one people to Himself.
I therefore pray for peace, justice, and mercy for all who dwell in the region and seek to approach these matters with humility, charity, and restraint.
Finally- As I mentioned in an earlier post (Aug 2025) year on salvation- Trump, Watters and Questions of Salvation I am finding fewer and fewer people on popular mainstream online discourse who argue from a truly Biblical perspective- MANY people know the words, but few articulate understanding.
Other Resource- Here is a side by side comparison of how Covenantal Theologians differ from Dispensational Theologians on Issues of the Modern Middle East- Side by Side Middle East
No comments:
Post a Comment