In the last year, Tucker Carlson admitted that he just started to read the Bible all the way through for the first time. His parents raised him Episcopalian and this was not something that they would have done. At the same time, he interviewed several men on his show through this last year, who opposed and attacked the belief of Israel today as “the chosen people.” They treated this idea like it arose in a kind of cultic fashion during the middle of the 19th century, especially pushed and funded by rich Zionists.
Carlson Interview of Andrew Isker
One of the interviewees of Carlson in March of 2025 was the man, Andrew Isker. The discussion on dispensationalism occurs approximately midway through the episode, around the 45-55 minute mark, as part of a broader conversation on eschatology, its influence on American Christianity, and its cultural impacts. Here is the transcript of that section:
TUCKER CARLSON: So, Andrew, we’ve been talking about how the church has sort of accommodated to this pagan revival that’s happening—abortion as sacrament, transgenderism as a kind of twisted baptism. But I want to pivot to something you mentioned earlier about eschatology. You grew up in a dispensationalist environment, right? That’s the whole Left Behind, rapture-ready mindset. How did that shape your view of the world, and why do you think it’s so pervasive in American Christianity?
ANDREW ISKER: Oh, absolutely. I mean, dispensationalism was the air I breathed growing up in evangelical circles in the Midwest. It wasn’t just theology; it was the soundtrack of my youth—country songs about the end times, sermons warning about the mark of the beast. But here’s the thing: it’s actually a pretty novel invention. It’s not ancient church teaching. It really takes off in the late 19th century with guys like John Nelson Darby, and then Cyrus Scofield popularizes it through his reference Bible in the early 1900s. Suddenly, you’ve got this whole system where the Bible is chopped up into these discrete “dispensations”—eras where God deals with humanity differently. And the big one, of course, is this idea that the church age is just a parenthesis. God’s real plan is still with ethnic Israel, and we’re all just waiting for the rapture to get yanked out before the tribulation hits.
TUCKER CARLSON: Right. For people who maybe aren’t deep into this—and I admit, I’m no theologian—dispensationalism basically says that biblical prophecies about Israel are literal and future, right? So the modern state of Israel in 1948 is a huge fulfillment, and that sets up the end times clock. Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth sold millions on that premise. But you reject it now. Why? What’s the problem with it?
ANDREW ISKER: Yeah, exactly. And that’s where it gets problematic. Dispensationalism creates this sharp divide: the Old Covenant is still somehow operative for Jews, and there’s this ongoing distinction between Israel and the church—Jew and Gentile. But that’s not what the New Testament teaches. Paul in Ephesians says the dividing wall of hostility has been broken down; in Christ, there’s no Jew or Greek. The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Galatians 6:16 calls the church “the Israel of God.” So why are we pretending like there’s this dual track—God has Plan A for ethnic Jews and Plan B for the rest of us? It’s not just bad exegesis; it’s disempowering. It tells Christians, “Don’t invest here. The world’s going to hell anyway. Just wait for the helicopter out.”
TUCKER CARLSON: What an interesting point. I’ve never thought of that before. So dispensationalism, for those who haven’t followed it closely, is normally criticized and defended because of its interpretation of what biblical Israel is now—whether it’s the church or the modern nation-state. But you’re saying it’s not just about Israel; it’s about passivity. It makes people fatalistic.
ANDREW ISKER: Precisely. Look at the timeline: dispensationalism explodes right as America is industrializing, building railroads, creating wealth. But it teaches this escapist mindset—any day now, Jesus is coming back, so why build? And then 1948 happens, Israel is reborn, and boom—apocalyptic fever dreams everywhere. You get books like 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988. It peaked then fizzled, but the damage was done. It fostered this pessimistic worldview in American Christianity for the last 130 years or so. Instead of seeing ourselves as salt and light, conquering and building kingdoms for Christ, we’re just survivors waiting for extraction. That’s not the victorious faith of the apostles.
TUCKER CARLSON: I’m sorry I’ve gone so far afield, but your point is that dispensationalism not only has specious theological elements—which I think very obviously it does—but it has real-world consequences. It discourages long-term planning, investment in communities. Like, why plant a church or start a family if it’s all winding down?
ANDREW ISKER: Yeah, spot on. It is. And when I’m preaching now, people sometimes say, “Andrew, you’re doing the weave like President Trump”—you know, that hand motion thing. I try not to, but we all have our rhetorical styles. But it’s interesting because the whole dispensational thing lingers: okay, the Old Covenant still somehow sort of exists, and there’s still this distinction between Jew and Gentile out there. It keeps Christians on the sidelines, cheering for earthly powers instead of wielding the sword of the Spirit. We’ve got to reclaim the postmillennial hope—that the gospel will advance, nations will be discipled, and Christ returns to a world that’s been leavened by His kingdom.
TUCKER CARLSON: That’s a total mind-flip for most evangelicals I know. But it makes sense in the context of what you’re doing in Tennessee—building actual communities, not just bunkers for the end times. Thank you for that.
ANDREW ISKER: Oh, I love him, by the way—Trump, I mean. He was like the soundtrack of my youth in country music. He wrote all those songs. So on that basis alone.
Deep Problems in and with this Interview
This wasn’t the first interview by Carlson with someone saying such things, but it shows the influence upon his thinking, fueling other things he says. You can see that Isker says nothing, zero, from the Bible. He doesn’t make his point at all from scripture like a true representative of faith in God’s Word would do. Also, Isker totally perverts in a slanderous way a literal interpretation of scripture, essentially an originalist, grammatical-historical approach, like Jesus and the Apostles took. His means of combat against the true position are lies of distortion, exaggeration, and mockery.
For instance, how many people did Harold Camping persuade through his book, 88 Reasons for the Rapture in 1988? His audience on Family Radio gives a false impression of his influence. In general, biblical churches outright rejected him as a false teacher in the nature of a cult. Camping’s soteriology would align itself much more closely to Isker’s himself.
Camping was deeply rooted in Reformed theology with Calvinist principles of predestination. Family Radio reflected his Calvinist beliefs, particularly his emphasis on God’s absolute predetermination of who would be saved. Carlson says Christians choose Jesus and this is universal — Isker and Harold Camping say, “No.” The latter two say, God predetermines who are Christians. They believe only and irresistibly after they’re chosen to do so.
Postmillennialism, View of Isker
Postmillennialism, Isker’s professed view, the belief that Christ will return after a long period of increasing righteousness and prosperity brought about by the influence of a Catholic Church, emerged as a distinct eschatological view in the 17th century. American theologians like Jonathan Edwards in the 18th century formalized it, building on Puritan optimism about societal transformation. By the 19th century, it became prominent among certain Protestant groups, especially in America, tied to revivalism and social reform movements.
Isker’s novel, unscriptural view of the future experienced a sharp decline in the early 20th century, largely due to the catastrophic events of World War I and World War II. The unprecedented scale of death, destruction, and human atrocities during these conflicts directly contradicted the postmillennial expectation of steady moral and societal improvement toward a utopian era. World War I, in particular, marked the beginning of this erosion, as it discredited the idea that humanity was on an upward trajectory, while World War II further solidified the pessimism.
Carlson does not have the ability to push back on views like those of Isker. He knows very little. If he wants to learn about premillennialism, a literal interpretation of scripture, and the continuity and discontinuity of the Old and New Testaments, he should bring on someone who knows the subject. Isker does not. For premillennialism and dispensationalism, Carlson could interview Michael Vlach, who would destroy his and other’s comic book characterizations, such as the country western singer, John Rich, who Tucker also interviewed on this subject.
Unscriptural and Subjective Postmillennialism
Isker’s postmillennialism does not emerge or arise from an exposition of scripture. He reads it into the text through a method of alleogrization. He spiritualizes nearly thirty percent of the Bible, something more in line with modern progressivism, where the reader in a subjective way determines the meaning. Isker mocks the teaching of the rapture and he inserts the idea that it necessitates pessimism, really requires it.
Carlson says the position mocked by Isker brings a bunker type of mentality and practice. Where does he see that, evangelicals in a bunker without any missionary zeal or optimism of change in society? Nowhere. He invents it out of sheer cloth.
Why did postmillennialism, if it’s so optimistic, almost disappear after World War 1 and 2? It was not rooted in scripture. This viewpoint doesn’t come from the Bible unless someone is permitted to take the Bible just like he wants. Postmillennialism blew onto the scene when it was convenient for it to do so and then it almost disappeared. It nearly went away when the United States believed and practiced much more closely to scripture.
Twisting of Galatians 6:16
The church is not the fulfillment of Israel. The only text to which Isker referred was Galatians 6:16 and in an offhanded way. He used Galatians 6:16 to make that point, saying that the church is the Israel of God. Galatians 6:16 does not say that.
The author of Galatians, the Apostle Paul, consistently uses “Israel” in the New Testament to denote ethnic Jews or a subgroup within them, with no clear exceptions elsewhere. The grammatical structure of Galatians 6:16, where the conjunction “and” (Greek kai) functions as epexegetical or adjunctive, singles out Jewish believers for special mention without equating them to Gentiles. This aligns with Paul’s purpose in Galatians: to refute Judaizers, who insisted on circumcision for salvation, while encouraging and affirming faithful Jewish believers, clarifying that his writing is not against true Israel but against legalism.
In all 73 times the New Testament uses “Israel” it refers to ethnic Israel or a faithful subgroup within it. Those of the true Israel of God are both physical descendants of Abraham and spiritual heirs through faith, echoing Galatians 3:7, 18 and Romans 2:28–29 and 9:6–7. Isker’s viewpoint contradicts Paul’s broader theology of Israel’s future restoration (Romans 11). He concludes his letter by giving special pastoral attention to Jewish Christians amid the Judaizer controversy, affirming they are not the targets of his rebuke.
Israel the Chosen People through History
Justin Martyr
Israel as “the chosen people” is not a nineteenth century invention. It proceeds from the Bible, but the oldest preserved extra-scriptural writings indicate the belief from professing Christians authors. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD), who engaged in dialogues with Jewish scholars, wrote of a distinct role for national Israel in God’s plan, particularly in eschatological restoration. In his Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 135), he writes:
For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves [Jews] alone; but this [Christian faith] is for all universally… But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now—(for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God)—we believe that there will be a future restoration of the Jews, when they shall turn to the Lord.
Justin Martyr suggests a future restoration for the Jews, implying that God’s promises to national Israel remain valid, though he sees the church as distinct in its current role.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD), in his Against Heresies, addressed eschatological expectations and maintained that God’s covenant with Israel was not nullified, anticipating a future fulfillment for national Israel. In Book V, Chapter 34, he writes:
Thus, then, the promise of God which He gave to Abraham remains steadfast… For the promise was not to one nation only, but to the seed which is of faith, and also to the children of Abraham according to the flesh, who are to inherit the promises in the latter days.
Irenaeus affirms that the promises to Abraham’s physical descendants (Israel) remain, distinct from the spiritual seed (the church). He expects a literal fulfillment for national Israel in the end times.
Tertullian
Tertullian (c. 160–220 AD) also distinguished between the church and Israel, seeing the latter’s promises as still operative in God’s plan. In Against Marcion (Book III, Chapter 24), he writes:
The Jews were the chosen people for the promises, and though they have been set aside for a time, the promises made to them are not void, for God will yet restore them to their land and their covenant.
Tertullian argues that Israel’s temporary “setting aside” does not annul God’s promises to them, which include a restoration to their land, distinct from the church’s role.
John Chrysostom
Then John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD), while known for anti-Jewish rhetoric, expressed a belief in the future restoration of Israel, separating it from the church’s identity. In Homilies on Romans (Homily 11), Chrysostom wrote:
For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Though the Jews have stumbled, their election remains, and in the fullness of time, they shall be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Referencing Romans 11:29, Chrysostom underscores the irrevocability of God’s promises to Israel, anticipating their future restoration, distinct from the church.
Later, Spurgeon
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a foremost Baptist preacher in the 19th century in London, England anticipated a future restoration of national Israel, distinct from the church. In his sermon on Romans 11:26 in 1868, he writes:
The Jews, as a people, still have a future. The promises of God to Abraham and his seed are not cast away. The church has not taken Israel’s place, but rather, Israel shall yet be restored, and all Israel shall be saved.
Spurgeon affirms the distinct identity of Israel and the church, expecting a literal fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, particularly their national restoration and salvation.
More to Come