In his article for The Daily Wire titled “The Choice Is Crystal Clear: Christians Must Defend Israel As She Confronts Evil,” Jentezen Franklin presents a passionate appeal to American Christians, urging unwavering support for the modern State of Israel in its present conflicts. Quoting Genesis 12:3 and referencing shared religious heritage, Franklin argues that Christian faith demands political solidarity with Israel. While his zeal for condemning terrorism and antisemitism is commendable, his theological reasoning is deeply flawed. The article conflates the covenantal promises made to Abraham with the modern political entity of Israel, misrepresents the Church’s identity as the fulfillment of Israel, and blurs essential distinctions between Christian and Jewish understandings of the ontology of God. A faithful reading of Scripture calls not for allegiance to a modern nation-state but for a clear understanding that the Church, through Christ, is the true heir of Abraham’s promise
The Modern State of Israel is Not the Fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant
Franklin’s primary theological error lies in his application of Genesis 12:3 to the modern State of Israel: “I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the Earth shall be blessed” (NKJV). The verse, in its original context, is a promise made to Abraham concerning the coming of the promised Seed, who is Christ (Genesis 3:15; 22:18 Galatians 3:16). The fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant is not national or territorial but Christological and ecclesiological. As Paul writes in Romans 4:13, “For the promise that he [Abraham] would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith” (cf. Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:1-3) The Church, composed of Jews and Gentiles alike who believe in Christ, is the true Israel (see Romans 11:17-24). Not Israel’s replacement, but her fulfillment. To apply Old Testament promises to a modern political state while ignoring their Christ-centered fulfillment is to misread Scripture through the lens of nationalism rather than through the cross.
This misreading stems largely from dispensational theology, a relatively recent interpretive framework that emerged in the 19th century and gained popularity in the United States through figures like John Nelson Darby and later through the Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensationalism insists on a strict division between Israel and the Church, asserting that God’s prophetic plans for Israel remain tied to the physical descendants of Abraham and a future earthly kingdom.
However, this approach runs counter to the apostolic witness in the New Testament, where the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been torn down (Ephesians 2:14), and where “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God (Romans 2:28-29; cf. Matthew 3:9; Deuteronomy 30:6). The promises of the Old Testament find their fulfillment not in the restoration of a geopolitical nation but in the gathering of all believers into one Body through faith in Christ, the Church (Ephesians 1:22-23).
Furthermore, this theological conflation risks idolatry by investing sacred significance into a secular political state. To treat the modern State of Israel as if it were the ongoing locus of God’s redemptive work is to undermine the centrality of Christ and the Church. It effectively supplants the Gospel with a nationalistic narrative that grants divine favor based not on faith but on ethnicity or national/political alignment. The true heirs of the covenant are those who’ve been baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:26-29). By elevating the modern state to the level of divine promise, Franklin’s argument ignorantly shifts the hope of salvation and God’s activity away from Christ and back into the shadows of the Old Covenant, forgetting that all of God’s promises are “Yes” and “Amen” in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 1:20).
A Confusion of the Two Kingdoms
One of the most significant theological errors in Franklin’s argument is his confusion of the Two Kingdoms—a foundational distinction in Lutheran theology (he’s not Lutheran, so it’s not surprising he commits this error). According to the doctrine articulated by Martin Luther and maintained by confessional Lutheranism, God governs the world in two distinct ways: through the kingdom of the left, which is the civil/temporal realm (government, law, nations), and the kingdom of the right, which is the spiritual realm (the Church, the proclamation of the Gospel, the forgiveness of sins in the Sacraments). These two realms are both under God’s authority, but they’re not to be confused or conflated.
Franklin’s insistence that Christians must offer theological and political allegiance to the modern political State of Israel collapses the distinction between the spiritual and temporal realms. In doing so, he elevates a geopolitical entity into a sacred instrument of divine promise, thereby granting the kingdom of the left (Law) a salvific significance that belongs only to the kingdom of the right (Gospel). This effectively turns support for a temporal nation into a mark of spiritual and religious fidelity, which is a dangerous form of civil religion and a distortion of the Gospel. In contrast, Lutheran theology insists that the Church is not established or preserved by earthly power, military might, or political allegiance, but by the pure preaching of the Word and the right administration of the Sacraments (AC VII).
Moreover, Franklin’s confusion undermines the freedom of the Church to speak prophetically to the State. If theological faithfulness is tethered to the support of a particular nation, then the Church ceases to be a distinct, critical voice and becomes instead a political appendage—an arm of the State. This is precisely the kind of entanglement Lutheran theology warns against. The left-hand kingdom is indeed ordained by God to preserve outward peace and justice, but it’s not the instrument by which God brings eternal salvation. That task belongs solely to the right-hand kingdom where Christ reigns through grace, not through Law or force.
By demanding Christian support for a secular nation under the guise of religious obedience, Franklin collapses the Two Kingdoms into one that threatens the clarity of the Church’s evangelical mission. Yes, Christians are called to be good citizens in the left-hand kingdom, praying for peace and justice (1 Timothy 2:1-2; Romans 13:1-7), but their ultimate allegiance is to Christ’s kingdom, which is not of this world (John 18:36). When this distinction is maintained, Christians are free both to oppose injustice and to proclaim the Gospel without confusing the cross with the sword.
Christians and Jews Do Not Have “a Shared God”
Franklin also asserts that Christians and Jews worship “a shared God.” While this may seem like a gesture of goodwill or interfaith solidarity, it glosses over a fundamental theological divergence. Christians confess that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Jews explicitly reject this confession, hence why St. Paul says Christ crucified is a stumbling block to the Jews (1 Corinthians 1:23). The Jews expected their Messiah to deliver them from Roman occupation and set His rule on Earth, which even the disciples stated several times, but again, Jesus stated His kingdom is not of this world. While both faiths speak of the God of Abraham (just like Islam), the object of their worship differs in essential identity. Both Jews and Muslims do not worship Jesus Christ as God; therefore, we worship entirely different Gods.
Jesus says in John 5:23, “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” The apostolic witness is palpable: to reject Christ is to reject the true knowledge of Yahweh. This is not a statement of superiority or malice but a theological reality grounded in the Christian confession of the Trinity. In this regard, Franklin’s statement misleads by implying that doctrinal disagreement does not touch the very nature of God. To claim Christians and Jews worship the same God is to deny the centrality of Christ in Christian soteriology.
To be sure, Christians should recognize and respect the Jewish roots of our faith, and we do affirm that the God of Israel revealed Himself to the Patriarchs and Prophets. But the fullness of that revelation is found only in the person of Jesus Christ, our Jewish God-man. Hebrews 1:1-3 makes this irrevocably clear: “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
Therefore, while Judaism and Christianity share historical origins, they do not share a common object of worship in the present, and ergo do not share the same God. Any statement suggesting otherwise compromises the uniqueness of Christ’s divinity and undermines the Christian confession that “no one comes to the Father except through [Christ]” (John 14:6).
Christians Are Called to Compassion, Not Political Allegiance
What, then, is the Christian’s calling in response to global conflict involving Israel? It’s certainly appropriate to condemn antisemitism, to mourn the loss of innocent lives, and to oppose acts of terrorism. But none of these moral imperatives necessitate theological or political allegiance to the modern State of Israel. The Church’s mission is evangelical, not political. Her mission is not to baptize political alliances but to bear witness to the Kingdom of God, which transcends all earthly borders and allegiances.
Again, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). To suggest Christian faithfulness requires support for a particular nation-state risks displacing the Church’s identity from its heavenly citizenship—the new creation (Philippians 3:20-21). Christians are called to love their neighbors—including both Jews and Palestinians—without turning theological truths into political slogans, or compromising the faith for vain virtue signaling. Compassion and justice are Christian virtues, but they must be grounded in the truth of the Gospel, not in a politicized misreading of biblical promises.
Indeed, Christians are free to engage the political realm as citizens of their earthly nations, but their ultimate allegiance belongs to Christ and His reign. Lutheran theology emphasizes that Christians live in tension between the two kingdoms, able to work for justice in society while not confusing such work with the evangelical mission of the Church. Thus, we can condemn the evil actions committed both against and by Israel, but by no means do we have to support the nation-state as if our common religious heritage binds us by blood lest we profane God’s name. When compassion is divorced from the cross, and political allegiance is treated as a test of faith, the result is not true witness but idolatry. The Gospel compels us to love not only our friends but also our enemies by praying for them (Matthew 5:44), and to act not out of partisanship but from the mercy we ourselves have received in Christ.
Conclusion
Jentezen Franklin’s article represents a popular but deeply misguided trend within modern American Christianity: the fusion of theological conviction with political ideology. While his desire to stand against evil and protect human life is noble, his interpretation of Scripture undermines core Christian teachings about the nature of God, the identity of Israel, and the mission of the Church. Christians are not called to place their hope in earthly states but in our crucified, risen, and ascended Lord, Jesus Christ. It is through Him—and Him alone—that the promises of Abraham find their fulfillment, the Church finds her identity, and the world finds its peace.
The Lutheran Column 