Author: Brandon Holthaus

Tucker Carlson has become one of the most dangerous voices affecting many professing Christians today. He has repeatedly given a platform to antisemites such as Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, Munther Isaac, and Mother Agnes-Mariam de la Croix.

He has also promoted pseudo-historian Darryl Cooper, who portrays Winston Churchill as the principal villain of World War II while minimizing Adolf Hitler’s responsibility. Carlson further gave musician John Rich a platform to present a deeply flawed understanding of biblical prophecy and eschatology to millions of viewers, repeating the familiar claim that the pretribulational Rapture was invented by John Nelson Darby and that the Scofield Reference Bible was part of a Zionist conspiracy designed to manipulate Christians into supporting Israel. These claims are historically inaccurate and have long been recycled by critics of dispensational theology despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Most recently, Tucker Carlson featured J.D. Hall to attack Christian Zionism and argue that God has finished with national Israel. Before responding to Hall’s theological claims, however, it is important to address the issue of credibility. While theological truth is ultimately determined by Scripture—not by a person’s past—credibility still matters, especially when someone is presented as a trusted authority on the Bible. Tucker Carlson has shown a consistent willingness to platform guests with deeply troubled or highly controversial backgrounds to promote these kinds of views, yet he rarely provides his audience with the context necessary to properly evaluate their credibility.

Before considering J.D. Hall’s theological arguments, readers should be aware of his public record—something Tucker Carlson never shared with his audience.

Here is J.D. Hall’s documented public record:

JD Hall is a former pastor publicly disqualified from ministry by his own church because of “serious sin” and removed from Protestia, the ministry he founded. Hall’s public record includes a DUI arrest while carrying a concealed firearm, admitted Xanax abuse, bankruptcy, a libel settlement after admitting he fabricated a defamatory story about Native American activist Adrian Jawort, and allegations of domestic abuse involving his wife and family, including assault and strangulation allegations investigated by law enforcement. He also became the subject of an embezzlement investigation involving church funds, entered a nolo contendere (no contest) plea under a deferred sentencing agreement, and was ordered to pay restitution to his former church before the charge was later dismissed after he fulfilled the agreement. These events are documented by Ministry Watch  Religious News Service  The Christian Post 

However, Carlson introduced Hall by saying,

“I think you’re one of the clearest writers on the internet. It’s an honor to have you here.”

But as you will see, J.D. Hall’s arguments are anything but clear. Throughout the interview, he makes numerous assertions he cannot substantiate and seriously mishandles biblical theology. Like Carlson, Hall also appears to have an axe to grind against Israel, Zionism, and any theological framework that supports God’s ongoing covenantal purposes for the nation of Israel.

Because of the sheer number of inaccurate historical claims, theological errors, and misleading assertions made during this interview, it is impossible to address them adequately in a single article. This will therefore be a multi-part series consisting of Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and possibly Part 4, as we carefully examine and respond to the major claims one by one.

From the outset, Christians should never accept theological claims because of the size of someone’s platform or the popularity of the speaker. Every claim must be tested by the Word of God.

Carlson claims that people have died because of Christian Zionism, yet he offers no evidence to support such a serious accusation. Given the seriousness of the accusation, such a claim demands evidence—not mere assertion. There is no credible evidence that Christian Zionism, as a theological movement, has produced or promoted violence. While individuals of any background can commit wrongful acts, there is no documented pattern demonstrating that Christian Zionism has incited or inspired violence as a defining characteristic of the movement. Claims to the contrary require substantial evidence, yet none has been presented.

When Tucker asked Hall to define Christian Zionism, Hall never actually defined it. Instead, he mocked figures like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee before claiming that the Zionist movement originally sought to establish a Jewish homeland in places such as America and Morocco. That is simply false.

In reality, the modern Zionist movement seriously considered locations such as Uganda and Argentina before ultimately focusing on the ancestral homeland of Israel. Hall completely ignores the historical context that drove these discussions: by the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, antisemitism had become deeply entrenched throughout Europe. Jews were not looking for a new homeland out of colonial ambition; they were seeking a place of refuge from relentless persecution, pogroms, and discrimination. Leaving out that historical reality fundamentally distorts both the purpose and the history of the Zionist movement.

Before responding to Carlson and Hall’s criticisms, we need to define what Christian Zionism actually is, because throughout the interview they repeatedly misrepresented and maligned it.

Christian Zionism is the belief that God made four unilateral, unconditional, and eternal covenants with Israel that will be fulfilled: the Abrahamic Covenant, the Land Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant.

These covenants have not been fully fulfilled yet, but they will be fulfilled in the Messianic Kingdom after Israel receives Jesus as her Messiah.

Therefore, Christian Zionism teaches that the Jewish people are still the chosen people of God, that they have a God-given right to the land of Israel, and that Messiah will one day rule through the nation of Israel from the Davidic throne. In that Kingdom, Israel will receive the full land grant God promised to Abraham and will finally experience the physical and spiritual blessings promised in the Abrahamic and New Covenants.

As Christian Zionists, we also believe Israel’s return to the land and rebirth as a nation in 1948 is prophetically significant because the prophets predicted a worldwide regathering of Israel in unbelief. That unbelief is important because it shows that God is not regathering Israel because of her behavior, but because of His promises.

Many people point to Israel’s current behavior and use that as a reason to dismiss her prophetic significance. But they fail to understand that God’s covenant promises do not depend on Israel’s present obedience. Yes, in the future all Israel will be saved, and then the nation will walk rightly before the Lord. But until that national salvation takes place, we should not expect unsaved Israel to act like redeemed Israel.

Christian Zionism also affirms that Israel has the right to exist, the right to self-determination, the right to defend herself, and a future role in God’s Kingdom program as a light to the Gentiles. God still has a plan and purpose for the nation of Israel.

The Second Coming itself is connected to Israel’s future acceptance of Jesus as Messiah. In that sense, the Second Coming is also a rescue mission, where Messiah returns to deliver Israel from the Antichrist and bring the nation into her promised Kingdom blessing.

None of this means we blindly support everything the government of Israel does, everything its judicial system does, or anything else that violates Scripture. Our love for Israel is like someone’s love for a family member who has gone astray. We love them because of God’s covenant promises, but that does not mean we agree with all their behavior.

Another major error throughout the interview is Hall’s repeated misrepresentation of Dispensationalism.

Like many critics, he argues that John Nelson Darby invented Dispensationalism in the nineteenth century. That claim is historically and biblically misleading.

First, the very concept of a “dispensation” comes directly from Scripture, not from Darby. The Greek word oikonomia (οἰκονομία), translated “dispensation,” literally means “household administration,” “stewardship,” or “management.” It is derived from oikos (“house”) and nemo (“to distribute” or “manage”). The term appears primarily in Paul’s writings (Ephesians 1:10; 3:2, 9; Colossians 1:25), where he describes God’s administration of His redemptive program. Darby did not invent the word or the concept—it is found in the biblical text itself.

In reality, every Christian is dispensational to some degree because every Christian recognizes that God has administered His program differently at various times throughout biblical history. No Christian believes they live in the same conditions as Adam and Eve lived.  Likewise, every Christian recognizes that before the Flood humanity was permitted to eat only plants, whereas after the Flood God permitted mankind to eat meat (Genesis 9:3). Every Christian understands that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived before the Mosaic Law and therefore were not under its requirements. Likewise, Christians recognize that believers today are not under the Mosaic Covenant in the same way Israel was. We do not offer animal sacrifices, have a Levitical priesthood and a temple, or observe Israel’s Mosaic laws (613 commands)  because Christ has fulfilled the Law of Moses. (Romans 10:4; 2 Corinthians 3:2–11; Galatians 2:16; 3:19; Ephesians 2:11–16; 3:6; Colossians 2:13–14; Hebrews 7:11–12; 18-19) Therefore Christians are currently under the Law of the Messiah which contains 1,050 commands under the New Covenant. (Romans 8:2; Galatians 6:2; Ephesians 2:11-16; 3:6)

Furthermore, every Christian acknowledges that the present Church Age differs from previous eras. The permanent indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit is unique to this age (John 14:16–17; Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 6:19) as is the Church. Likewise, Christians who take the scriptures in a literal way recognize that the future Messianic Kingdom will differ from the present age, as creation itself will experience dramatic restoration, the animals will be restored to their Edenic conditions, and there will not be any infant mortality. (Isaiah 11:6–9; 65:17-25).

The real disagreement is not whether God has administered His program differently throughout history, virtually all Christians acknowledge that. The disagreement concerns how those administrations relate to one another and whether God still has distinct covenantal purposes for national Israel.

Historically, the idea that God works through distinguishable periods of redemptive history long predates Darby. The early premillennial church fathers, often termed Chiliasts (from the Greek chilioi, meaning “thousand”), explicitly recognized successive eras in redemptive history. They often distinguished between the Mosaic economy, the present Church Age, and the future Millennial Kingdom. While they did not develop a complete dispensational system as it is known today, many clearly recognized major distinctions in God’s administrations in His dealings with humanity across time.

Hall’s historical argument ignores an important fact: the literal interpretation of biblical prophecy did not begin with Darby. Long before Darby, early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Victorinus, Lactantius, and Methodius all affirmed a future earthly reign of Christ which is an element of Dispensationalism called Premillennialism.

Likewise, Covenant theologians themselves recognize historical distinctions. They distinguish between the pre-Fall world, the antediluvian era, the patriarchal era, the Mosaic era, the New Covenant era, and the eternal state. In other words, elements of dispensational thought are present throughout church history and even within Covenant Theology itself.

Darby did not invent premillennialism or dispensationalism; the elements in church history were already there. Darby simply systematized a consistent literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic that maintained the biblical distinction between Israel and the Church and allowed God’s unconditional covenants with Israel to mean exactly what they say. This systematized and organized biblical distinctions now called Dispensationalism had long been recognized in Scripture and, to varying degrees, throughout church history. To claim that Darby invented Dispensationalism is therefore a gross oversimplification of both biblical theology and historical theology.

But Hall then resorts to a familiar tactic employed by many critics who cannot win the biblical or historical argument: attack John Nelson Darby personally. He portrays Darby as belonging to a “bizarre Irish sect,” claims the Plymouth Brethren rejected all church authority, and argues that they left the established church because their beliefs were too “eccentric and weird” to be accepted within historic Christianity. That is an outright lie.

First, Darby was not raised and trained in some “bizarre Irish sect.” He was an ordained minister in the Church of Ireland, the Irish branch of the Anglican Communion. He faithfully served within the established church before eventually separating from it because he became convinced that the union of the church and the British state was inconsistent with the teaching of the New Testament. That was not an act of rebellion, it was an act of biblical conviction. A church married to the state is an unequally yoked institution that inevitably compromises its allegiance to Christ. Darby’s concern was not some bizarre theological novelty, but the authority of Scripture over church tradition and state control. In that respect, he was following the same principle that motivated the Protestant Reformers centuries before him.

Second, Darby did not reject church authority. He rejected what he believed to be an unbiblical state-controlled ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is the error of Pergamum with the church being married to the state.  Like the Protestant Reformers before him, Darby believed that Scripture, not bishops, church tradition, or a government-established church was the final authority in matters of faith and practice. There is a vast difference between rejecting an unbiblical church system and rejecting all church authority. JD Hall either doesn’t know this or he is lying.

Third, Hall portrays the Plymouth Brethren as some kind of fringe cult that abandoned organized Christianity. In reality, the early Brethren emphasized the authority of Scripture, the priesthood of all believers, weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, elder leadership within local assemblies, expository Bible teaching, evangelism, holiness, and congregational accountability. They rejected denominationalism and state ran churches of Pergamum, but they did not reject the local church itself. They sought to recover what they believed was the simplicity of the New Testament pattern.

Hall’s assertion that Darby’s beliefs were so “eccentric and weird” that he would have been excommunicated ignores the historical context. Darby voluntarily left the Church of Ireland because of his biblical convictions. That is hardly unique in church history. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, and virtually every major Protestant Reformer separated from established church systems because they believed those institutions had departed from biblical truth.

Furthermore, what Hall dismisses as “weird” is simply the result of taking the Bible at face value. Darby believed that God meant what He said when He made unconditional covenants with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. He believed God still has a future for national Israel, that the Church is not Israel, and that God’s promises should be interpreted according to their normal, historical-grammatical meaning rather than being allegorized or reassigned to the Church.

If believing that God keeps His Word exactly as He promised is considered “eccentric,” or “weird” then the problem is not with Darby, it is with those like Carson and Hall who refuse to let Scripture speak for itself.

More importantly, Hall commits the genetic fallacy. Rather than asking whether dispensational theology is biblical, he attempts to discredit it by attacking the character and background of one of its principal systematizers.

Even if every criticism Hall made of Darby were true, it would prove absolutely nothing about dispensational theology. The real question is not: “What kind of man was John Nelson Darby?”

The real question is: “Does the Bible teach a future for national Israel?” That question must be answered from Scripture not from biographies.

Ultimately, Hall and many like him want the debate to revolve around John Nelson Darby so they can set of a straw man and knock it down.

Ultimately, Hall, and many others who oppose dispensational theology, want the debate to revolve around John Nelson Darby because it allows them to construct a convenient straw man. If they can convince people that dispensationalism rises or falls with Darby, they never have to deal with the real issue: What does the Bible actually teach? The question is not whether Darby was right. The question is whether Scripture teaches that God still has a future for national Israel. That is the debate they consistently avoid.

Ironically, Hall contrasted Covenant Theology with Dispensationalism and claimed that Covenant Theology had been the church’s position for 1,800 years.

That assertion is historically inaccurate. Neither Covenant Theology nor Dispensationalism existed as fully developed theological systems for the first 1,800 years of church history. While elements associated with both perspectives can be found in earlier writers, Covenant Theology was not systematically developed until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Dispensationalism was not systematized until the nineteenth century. Presenting Covenant Theology as a fully formed system that dominated the church for eighteen centuries is a significant oversimplification of historical theology.

Unfortunately, viewers were never told the other side of the story.

As this first article demonstrates, there is simply too much misinformation packed into this interview to address in a single response. For that reason, this will be a multi-part series. In Part 2, Part 3, and likely Part 4, I will continue examining Hall’s historical claims, theological assertions, and biblical arguments one by one and compare them with both Scripture and the historical record.

But one thing should already be evident from the outset. Tucker Carlson did not platform J.D. Hall by accident. Hall’s message perfectly complements Tucker’s growing narrative regarding Israel, the Jewish people, Christian Zionism, and Dispensational theology. Rather than challenge Hall’s assertions, Tucker repeatedly affirmed them, giving millions of viewers the impression that these claims represent established historical and biblical fact.

Unfortunately, they do not.

As the interview progresses, it becomes increasingly apparent that Hall either has a profoundly deficient understanding of church history and systematic theology, or he is knowingly presenting a distorted version of both. Whatever the explanation, the result is the same: viewers are presented with an almost sinister portrayal of Christian Zionism, a false caricature of Dispensationalism, and Covenant Theology as the only correct biblical position, even though it undermines God’s ongoing covenant promises to national Israel.

The irony is that Dispensationalism is not pro-Israel because it is politically motivated. It is pro-Israel because it seeks to interpret Scripture consistently according to its normal, historical-grammatical meaning. If God made unconditional, eternal covenants with Abraham, David, and the nation of Israel, then those promises must be fulfilled exactly as He gave them. To deny Israel’s future is ultimately to question the faithfulness of the covenant-making God Himself.

In the next article, we will continue exposing these historical and theological errors of Tucker Carlson and JD. Hall and demonstrate from Scripture why God’s plan for Israel remains exactly what He promised it would be.