For years, Tucker Carlson has pressed a question that political leaders, pastors, and diplomats consistently dodge. When Christian leaders invoke the Bible to justify unconditional political support for Israel, what land—specifically—are they claiming Scripture promises?
In his exchange with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, Carlson narrowed the debate to the only verse that actually defines territory: Genesis 15:18.
That verse states that God made a covenant with Abram, promising land “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.”
Carlson’s question was not rhetorical. It was direct, logical, and unavoidable. If Genesis 15 is cited as a binding promise that applies today, then the land described does not stop at Israel’s current borders. Taken at face value, it spans modern-day Egypt, Jordan, Gaza, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait.
Carlson then asked the question few in Washington are willing to say out loud:
Is Israel ultimately entitled to all of it?
Huckabee’s Answer—Finally, and Clearly
At first, Huckabee attempted to sidestep the issue, invoking theology and diplomacy while avoiding the implications of the verse itself. But when Carlson pressed him to the logical end of the argument, Huckabee dropped the ambiguity.
Huckabee said it would be fine if Israel took it all.
That statement mattered—not because it reflected official Israeli policy, but because it revealed what Carlson had been trying to expose all along: when pressed, the biblical justification does not stop at defensible borders.
Huckabee later attempted to walk the comment back, suggesting Israel was not actively seeking to conquer neighboring nations. But the core admission stood. If Genesis 15 is treated as a valid modern claim, then there is no principled limit to how far that claim extends.
The Territory Problem No One Wants to Own
Genesis 15 does not describe a modest homeland. It outlines a landmass that would absorb or dominate multiple sovereign nations across the Middle East.
That reality presents a dilemma Christian Zionist leaders rarely confront honestly:
Either
Genesis 15 is a theological covenant with no modern territorial application, or
It implies claims that would destabilize the entire Middle East and violate international law
Huckabee tried to occupy both positions at once—affirming the promise while denying its consequences—until Carlson forced him to choose. When he did, Huckabee chose the maximalist interpretation.
Why Carlson Was Right to Press
Carlson’s questioning was not anti-Israel. It was anti-evasion.
He did not argue that Israel intends to seize Saudi Arabia or Iraq tomorrow. He argued something more basic: if Scripture is being used to justify policy, then its full meaning must be faced honestly.
You cannot invoke Genesis 15 to silence criticism while rejecting its geographic scope when that scope becomes uncomfortable. You cannot claim divine authority selectively.
That is not theology. That is convenience.
A Reckoning for Political Christianity
Huckabee’s answer exposed a deeper issue within American political Christianity. Biblical language is often deployed rhetorically to shut down debate, not to clarify it.
Carlson did the opposite. He followed the argument to its end and demanded accountability.
Genesis 15 either has modern meaning, or it does not. If it does, then its territorial implications must be acknowledged openly—even when they shock the conscience. If it does not, then it should stop being used as a moral shield for foreign policy decisions that demand democratic scrutiny.
Tucker Carlson did what few journalists are willing to do. He forced a powerful official to answer a forbidden question—and he got the answer.
Mike Huckabee said Israel could take it all.
And in that moment, the contradiction at the heart of political Christian Zionism was no longer theoretical. It was spoken aloud.
No comments:
Post a Comment