I would defend the freedom of Tucker Carlson and those like him to take an unscriptural, convoluted, and false position on Israel. If someone would have a discussion on it, it should be something not like it is right now. Him and his allies on this issue do not represent the biblical position. They give worse than a caricature of that. Neither do they give a close to good defense of their position from scripture. I can’t follow their defense of their own position and mainly I hear just a slanderous attack on mine or ours. This is my biggest problem with what I hear from Tucker Carlson and his ilk.
If Tucker Carlson will take his stand for his position and against mine, he should give a brutal take on more than just my or our position, but also on the craziness from those on his side. I don’t hear it from him. Just because they are free to take their positions according to freedom of speech and they are not critical of his, because theirs aligns with him, does not mean he should give them a pass. I like the terminology, permission structure, that I’ve read recently to describe what people are doing, who remain silent about something much more extreme and even dangerous than Carlson’s position on Israel.
Three Points in the Argument of Tucker Carlson
As I understand it from him, I hear at least three parts in or points to the argument of Carlson against Israel. Not the first point, I can hear him in my head saying that he loves Israel, so he doesn’t have an argument against Israel. I answer, Okay, but you know what I mean. This post will now start to answer the three points to his argument.
The first point is America First. All decisions of America should start with what benefits America first and without exception. This explains “the chosen people” discussion. Does present day Israel fulfill the Abrahamic covenant? If so, America blessing Israel means blessing for America. Carlson is saying that Israel today does not fulfill the seed of Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. He says he believes that the seed of Abraham is spiritual, not physical or ethnic.
Carlson has never given any substantive argument for his take on the seed of Abraham. His best argument so far, as I have heard him, is that “Ted Cruz gives a bad argument.” “Ted Cruz bad” is not enough to make his point about this subject. I already agreed with Tucker Carlson that Ted Cruz did not give a good explanation for modern Israel fulfilling Genesis 12:1-3 or that Israel is “the chosen people.” However, I have given a lengthy, substantial argument, something he has never, that I know, received on his show.
Ten Reasons Modern Israel Fulfill the Seed of Abraham or the Chosen People
In this post and in answer to Tucker Carlson, I offer ten reasons modern day national or ethnic Israel is the fulfillment of the seed of Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 and God’s chosen people. These will overlap with my previous posts and others I wrote before those. Here goes.
1. The Abrahamic Covenant is Unconditional and Eternal (Genesis 12:1–3; 15:18; 17:7–8, 19)
The phrases “everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:7, 13, 19) and “to your offspring I give this land” (Genesis 15:18) are unilateral and not contingent on Israel’s obedience. The land grant is “forever” (Genesis 13:15). “Everlasting” (עוֹלָם) implies no expiration. Since the covenant is with Abraham’s physical seed and the land, its modern restoration is the natural outworking. Modern Israel’s existence in the land reads like a literal fulfillment.
2. Physical Seed vs. Spiritual Seed Distinction (Genesis 12:2 (“a great nation”); Romans 9:6–8; Galatians 3:7–9)
Paul distinguishes between Isaac’s physical line (Israel) and spiritual children of faith, but never nullifies the physical promise. Romans 9:4 affirms that Israelites still retain “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.” The “great nation” promise is ethnic/national, not merely spiritual. Paul in Romans 9–11 distinguishes ethnic Israel from the church; the “seed” is repeatedly tied to biological lineage (Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5).
3. The Land Promise is Literal and Unfulfilled Until Modern Times (Genesis 17:8; Ezekiel 37:21–25; Amos 9:14–15)
The promise of Canaan as an everlasting possession was never fully realized in biblical history. Israel never possessed all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18). The 1948 re-establishment and expansion of Israel brings the beginning of literal fulfillment. The geographic borders are defined (from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates). Modern Israel occupies a portion of that exact territory.
4. The Regathering of Israel in Unbelief — First Stage (Ezekiel 36:24–28; 37:1–14 — Valley of Dry Bones)
God promised to regather Israel physically before spiritual renewal. Ezekiel 36:24 says, “For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land,” followed by cleansing (v. 25). The modern aliyah (immigration) of Jews—many secular—marks the physical regathering preceding national repentance. The 20th-century ingathering of Jews from one hundred plus nations matches the scope of the prophesied return, that is, “out of all countries.” The sequence is (1) physical restoration and (2) spiritual regeneration. Modern Israel’s secular beginnings fit stage 1.
5. Israel’s Preservation Through History is Supernatural (Jeremiah 31:35–37)
God ties Israel’s existence to the fixed order of the sun, moon, and stars. Jeremiah 31:36 says:
If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
If the sun, moon, and stars did go away, we’d all be dead anyway. Since they are not, the promise remains intact. The survival of the Jewish people through millennia of persecution and exile is evidence of divine election.
6. The New Covenant is Made with Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31–34; Hebrews 8:8–12)
The New Covenant is explicitly with the house of Israel and Judah, not the Church. While Christians partake in its blessings, the primary recipients are ethnic Israel. Future national salvation (Romans 11:26) fulfills this.
7. Paul Affirms a Future for Ethnic Israel (Romans 11:1–2, 25–29)
Israel’s hardening is partial and temporary; “all Israel shall be saved.” Paul asks, “Hath God cast away his people? God forbid” (Romans 11:1). The “gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (v. 29). Modern Israel’s restoration sets the stage.
8. The Fig Tree Prophecy — National Restoration (Matthew 24:32–34; Luke 21:29–31)
The fig tree budding equals Israel’s national rebirth in one generation. The fig tree is a common Old Testament symbol for Israel (Hosea 9:10; Jeremiah 24).
9. National Israel Remains “Beloved” and Elect for the Sake of the Fathers (Romans 11:28-29)
Paul affirms an enduring corporate election tied to the patriarchs—independent of present faith.
10. God’s Name is Tied to Israel’s Destiny (Ezekiel 36:22–23; Isaiah 11:11–12)
God acts “for My holy name’s sake” in regathering Israel. The restoration is not because Israel deserves it, but to vindicate God’s holiness before the nations. The global attention on Israel today fulfills this.
I could give at least a few more than these, but they collectively assert that modern Israel is not a historical accident but the literal, progressive fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Modern Israel is a partial but real fulfillment with fuller spiritual and territorial aspects still future (Zechariah 14; Romans 11:26). While spiritual blessings extend to all believers (Galatians 3:29), the national, ethnic, and territorial promises remain with Abraham’s physical descendants—the Jewish people—and are visibly unfolding today.
If modern Israel is the seed of Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, blessing modern Israel is America First. This alone debunks Carlson’s argument. God Himself is not on the side of something not blessing Israel. Carlson would say we don’t bless modern Israel, because modern Israel is not the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. He caricatures any other argument by saying, God doesn’t bless the administration of Bibi Netanyahu, which is actually a very odd representation (but kind of normal for him and people like him). Asking, Is Israel Jewish or Abrahamic? is a bit like asking, Is the Pope Catholic? The last Pope was actually less Catholic than Israel being Jewish.
More to Come