Charlie Kirk Biblical Claims Reviewed by Bible Scholar Dan McClellan

Dan McClellan does a superb job of reviewing Charlie Kirk's Biblical claims

Dan McClellan Responding to Charlie Kirk on Christian nationalism:

Charlie Kirk was stunned when this liberal made the most outrageous claim about Christianity.

All right, let's see it. I'm particularly concerned about your brand of Christianity as a

Christian myself. Um, Christian nationalism I do not agree with at all.

Um, I think it's antithetical to the values of the early church.

And I think how do you reconcile the es especially white Christians in this America

marrying politics and power with their faith in this country?

CHARLIE KIRK:

Well, there's a lot there. I've never described myself as a Christian nationalist.

So, I'm a Christian and a nationalist. So, launching into a Christian nationalist screed after

saying you're not a Christian nationalist, you're just a Christian and a nationalist is not very

convincing. It just shows you're a Christian nationalist who for whatever reason doesn't like the

label Christian nationalist. So, I've never used those two.

And then right there that and nationalist where in the scriptures does a Christian Thank you.

Jeremiah 29:7, demand the welfare of the nation that you are in because your welfare is tied

to your nation's welfare. So that is absolutely not what Jeremiah 29:7 says.

And this is an awful argument because Jeremiah 29:7 is addressing a specific

set of circumstances and is not generalizable to any people's in any nation in any circumstance.

This is about the exile in Babylon who, as we see in chapters 27 and 28, are expecting

an immediate return to Jerusalem and are seeking their peace or their own welfare

in returning immediately from exile. And what Jeremiah says is, "Get comfy.

You're going to be there 70 years."

That was God's prophecy. That's going to be fulfilled. So we have this letter in

Jeremiah 29 being sent to the exileles.

And it starts in verse 4. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I

have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon.

Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat what they produce. Take wives and have

sons and daughters. Take wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage

that they may bear sons and daughters.

Multiply there and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I

have sent you into exile. Seek is the verbal root dash. It does not mean demand.

Welfare is the noun shalom or peace. Means city. It does not mean nation where I have sent you

into exile.

That's the verbal root gala which usually means to uncover, but can also mean to send into exile.

And here it is in the causitive stem, the hifil stem. I have caused you to be sent into exile

and pray to the Lord on its behalf. For in its welfare or peace, shalom, you will find your welfare

or peace. Shalom.

So, in other words, this is telling the Judeian exilees, you're not going to find your peace in an

immediate return to Jerusalem. That's not going to happen. Get comfy in Babylon.

This is not generalizable to all peoples in all nations in all circumstances in all times.

And it does not say to demand. It does not say to grab the levers of power.

It says to seek the peace of the city of Babylon because you're going to be there for a while.

This is not at all a general defense of Christian nationalism.

Let me continue. Daniel fasted and prayed for his nation.

Esther and Mororti carried for their nation their accounts for the king.

Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Joseph, Jacob. I can keep on going.

So these are all Hebrew Bible figures who are seeking the survival of their ethnic identity in the

face of persecution and oppression. This is ethnic insolarity as a means of survival.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the most privileged and powerful classes within the most

privileged and powerful nation on earth grabbing the levers of power and saying I want my

way. This is entirely unrelated to what Christian nationalism is seeking.

And these figures in no way, shape or form whatsoever authorize, validate or rationalize

Christian nationalism. Moses, Aaron. In fact, Moses was so political that he wrote an entire book

of the Torah all about how to set up a government. It's the book of Deuteronomy.

No, the book of Deuteronomy was not written by Moses, who was likely not a historical figure,

but even if he was, would have been long gone centuries before the book of Deuteronomy

began to be compiled under the reign of King Josiah toward the end of the 7th century

BCE as a part of his campaign to centralize cultic and political power in one city under one

priesthood in the name of one God. But it would take several generations for the different

constituent parts of the book to come together into what we now know as the

book of Deuteronomy which has nothing to do with how to set up a government.

So in fact the the Bible is an explicitly political text amongst many other things

which is not relevant to the actual concern that was expressed. Now can we

interpret those texts in the light of

the revelation of Christ? Because you

cited all old testament texts. We have

not once cited St. Paul. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. If you want me to also, by the

way, St. Paul about the kingdom of

heaven and the government. Just so we're

clear, do you think like the New

Testament is greater than the Old

Testament? It is. It is greater because

the revelation of Christ dictates how we

interpret the Old Testament. So you

think that all of a sudden like Genesis

1 is not as great just because the New

Testament. The Old Testament was a type

and shadow of the things to come. And

now we live in the full revelation of

Christ. Again, that's such a dangerous

theological That's not true. That's

christoologgical theology. Hold on. Of

course I believe in the resurrection.

But to all of a sudden say that like in

the beginning God created the heavens

and the earth is like somehow in like

lesser because of the revelation of the

New Testament. So here's where Kirk's

cherry-picking forces him into a

disingenuous and a hypocritical argument

where he's got to deny what this speaker

is actually claiming and pretend that

he's arguing something else because the

speaker rightly points out that Kirk

interprets the Hebrew Bible through the

lens of the New Testament through a

christoologgical lens. And Kirk is

saying, "No, no, it's not less than

appealing to Genesis 1." But Kirk very

clearly reads Genesis 1 through a

christoologgical lens. Ask Kirk what let

us make man in our likeness and

according to our image means. He's going

to interpret it through a

christoologgical lens. That's the

Trinity. Jesus is present in the

creation that is described in Genesis 1.

Of course, he reads the Hebrew Bible

through a christoologgical lens.

However, because his defense of

Christian nationalism appeals

exclusively to the ethnosentrism and the

ethnic insolarity of these authors who

are fighting for the survival of an

oppressed small group, he has to deny

that the New Testament's prioritization

of universalism over and directly

against ethnosentrism

ought to be the priority. He has to

pretend that's not the case at all. He

can't directly address it. So he just

has to make this ludicrous case that

Genesis 1 stands on its own independent

of the New Testament and is not less

than. Even though he will very clearly

read Genesis 1 through a

christoologgical interpretive lens.

Christ even said, "I did not come to

abolish the law of the prophets. I came

to fulfill the law." In fact, he said,

"All the laws of the prophet hang on the

two teachings, Leviticus 19 and

Deuteronomy 3-5." So here Kirk's

argument gets more ridiculous. He's got

to defend the notion that the Hebrew

Bible is not to be interpreted through

the New Testament by appealing to the

New Testament's interpretation of the

Hebrew Bible. But it's even worse than

that because he appeals only to the

Gospel of Matthew, which is a Judaizing

Gospel, which asserts that the law of

Moses remains in effect, which Kirk

would vehemently deny. But additionally,

the Gospel of Matthew insists that

Jesus's authority is greater than that

of the Hebrew Bible because Jesus says,

"You have heard that it was written in

the law, do this, but I say to you, do

this other thing." Which amplifies the

law. It says, "This is still in effect,

but you actually have to live a higher

law." In other words, it's the New

Testament reinterpreting the Hebrew

Bible in an authoritative way, at least

for Christians. Now, Kirk is not aware

of all the complexities of the Judaizing

nature of the Gospel of Matthew and he

doesn't really know what he's talking

about, but he's shooting his own

argument in the foot here. However, to

use a New Testament example as you as

says in first Timothy, pray for your

leaders in authority by name that they

might great decisions. And this has

nothing to do with Christian nationalism

and is not advocacy for taking over the

government or leveraging the power of

the state to force others to comply with

your worldview. I'm going to continue.

Christ our Lord said, "On this rock

build my what? Church." Wrong. Ekklesia.

It's not the word church. The English

translations of common Bible say church.

So my Well, actually it shouldn't

because the original Greek term says,

"On this rock build my government

structure." Ekklesia was a secular word

used in that time. So this is wildly

misinformed and there are a couple of

things I want to point out. The first is

that the New Testament is not using

ecclesia according to this notion of a

regularly summoned body of citizens who

come together to craft legislation.

Not only is that a technical use that is

not manifested anywhere in the New

Testament, but that would be something

approximating a pure democracy, which

Charlie Kirk really doesn't like. So,

it's definitely not that. And

overwhelmingly pretty much all scholars

are in widespread agreement that eklesia

is being used in the New Testament

according to one of the other very

common uses to refer to a gathering of

like-minded people, a congregation or a

community of believers. It's beginning

to take on the sense by the time the

Gospel of Matthew is written of a church

or at least a congregation. But what it

is manifestly not is this thing that

Charlie Kirk hates, namely a pure

democracy where all the citizens are

summoned together in order to craft and

pass legislation, which was all about

the advancement of freedom and liberty,

which are the two words in Greek,

elutheria and sonomia, which are the two

words there. So I know the word alleia

and that can be translated freedom or

liberty. I don't know what other word

he's trying to say. Sonomia or sonomia.

Those aren't words in Greek. They're

certainly not the words that are

translated liberty or freedom anywhere

in the Greek New Testament. And also, I

don't know what he means by the two

words there. They're not in Matthew

16:18. So, unless he's just pointing out

that the Greek New Testament has words

for liberty or freedom, I have no idea

what point he's trying to make here. So

the point being Christ called us to be

salt and light. We as Christians should

change the environment that we come in

contact with. That's what salt and light

do. So why should we then not care about

changing government to be more

Christlike. So the salt and light

metaphors in the sermon on the mount are

about your example influencing others.

It is not advocating for appropriating

state coercive power so that you can

implement Christian rule. That is

absolutely not a part of what Jesus is

saying in the sermon on the mount. Well,

you're conflating changing government to

be more Christlike with what I was

discussing was nationalistic endeavors,

which is the the inherent view that our

nation is better than other nations. It

is. Well, God shows no partiality. So,

well, that's not true. God says in

Revelation, I will judge the nations.

God says that the nations means

ethnicity group. He's not being mean

borders of countries. Not necessarily.

Hold on. So, this is an absolutely

laughable argument on the part of Kirk.

The fact that the book of Revelation

says God will judge the nations does not

mean that God loves the United States of

America more than any other contemporary

geopolitical unit. The word that is

translated nations in the book of

Revelation is ethne which is the plural

of the singular ethnos which would be

ethnic group which is why it is combined

with tongues, tribes, peoples. These are

designations that do not align with

contemporary

geopolitical divisions. And so what they

talk about as nations in the book of

Revelation does not square with

contemporary concepts of a nation. So

Kirk doesn't have a clue what he's

talking about here. It does. God says

the constitution of Israel come at the

end of the age. There is no reference

whatsoever to the constitution of the

state of Israel anywhere in the Bible. A

borders is biblical. The entire book of

Nehemiah is about building a wall around

the nation of Israel. No, it is about

the reconstitution and the survival of

an ethnic identity. And the wall is

symbolic of the integrity of that ethnic

identity. And as this speaker has

already pointed out, these are Hebrew

Bible stories that are concerned with

the survival of this ethnic identity in

the face of persecution and oppression

on the part of larger empires. something

that the New Testament tries to do away

with. It is universalizing salvation. It

is universalizing God's favor. In fact,

the idea of borders, the idea of

sovereignty is an explicitly biblical

idea. Yes, but Israel is no longer

defined by the the physical borders.

It's actually defined in the spiritual

sons and daughters of God. That's a

Catholic interpretation. That's not just

Catholic. Again, it's it's it's it's

primarily a Catholic interpretation. I

don't share it. I don't want to get in

that theological debate. That is

absolutely not a Catholic

interpretation. There are multiple

places in the New Testament where

membership in the house of Israel is

quite explicitly recast as a question

not of ethnic descent but as a question

of belief. American history slavery most

of majority of white Christians

supported the institution of slavery.

Move on to Jim Crow. That's actually not

true. That is true. Time out. Time out.

Time out. nine out of 13 of the states

by the time of the grat ratification of

the constitution were already abolishing

slavery. So as near as I can tell this

is entirely false. From what I can

gather only Massachusetts and Vermont,

which was not yet a state in 1789, had

formally abolished slavery in their

constitutions. And for Vermont, it was

just adult slavery. Men could no longer

be held as slaves once they reached the

age of 21. women could no longer be held

as slaves once they reached the age of

18. Four other states were in some stage

of a process of gradual abolition in

1789 and then the eight other states had

taken no formal steps towards abolition

by 1789. So that's a minority of states.

But additionally, even in the states

where slavery was abolished, it wasn't

all of the citizens or even necessarily

a majority of the citizens who opposed

slavery. And even in those states where

slavery was abolished, people still

purchased goods that were generated or

produced in states that approved of

slavery and by enslaved peoples. So the

benefits of slavery were still enjoyed

throughout the United States. And

additionally, it was primarily

congregationalists and Quakers who

pushed the abolitionist movement. and

they represented maybe 20 to 25% of all

the Christians in the United States.

They were a majority of the population

in those states in New England where

slavery was being abolished, however.

And so the largest factor in Christian

opposition to slavery was a minority

population of Christians, primarily some

congregationalists and most Quakers. So,

I think the data best support the

conclusion that the majority of

Christians in 1789 at the founding of

the United States still supported

slavery. And even those that

don't still benefited from it and did

not boycott, for instance, goods from

states where slavery was legal or was

still being practiced. Let's move on to

Jim Crow. Time out. Slavery actually had

a minority approval rating by the time

of the US founding. We were the second

nation ever to abolish slavery. So, we

were not the second nation. If we're

talking about actual formally recognized

nations, we were like 22nd on the list.

Now, Vermont, which identified itself as

an independent republic in

1777, again, abolished adult slavery,

uh, and it would become a state, I

believe, in 1791. So, if you count

Vermont as a nation, it was not

recognized as a nation at the time, but

if you count that, then Vermont would be

first. Massachusetts would be the first

state in the US to abolish slavery in

their constitution. But when it comes to

the United States as a nation, that

would take decades more and we would not

be even in the top 20 in terms of

nations abolishing slavery because of

Christianity. Certainly, Christianity

was a primary driving force in the

abolitionist movements starting around

the late 16th century CE. But this was

in spite of the Bible, not because of

the Bible. And it required a

renegotiation of the Bible's position on

slavery. And it was driven not by a

biblical hermeneutic, but by personal

experiences witnessing the horrors and

the brutalities of slavery combined with

developing enlightenment ideals about

natural law and universal human rights

and things like that which compelled

congregationalists and Quakers to return

to the Bible and try to find an

opposition to slavery in the Bible. That

renegotiation. So again, it was a

product of other influences and then a

renegotiation of the Bible. Let's move

on to Jim Crow because majority moving

on because I just finished my statement.

But it was Christianity that abolished

slavery. So this is a laughably myopic

and ignorant and hypocritical claim for

a Christian nationalist to make in

defense of Christian nationalism given

the abolition of slavery was the outcome

of a minority of radically progressive

Christians pushing back against the

established Christian tradition and

advocating for the rights of a minority

over and against the power of the

majority. In other words, everything

that Christian nationalists today stand

directly against and opposed to. Charlie

Kirk in the late 18th century would have

been a vehement supporter of slavery,

but wants to leverage Christianity's

role in the abolition of slavery to

defend his belligerent right-wing

authoritarianism and social dominance

orientation identity politics today,

which again is laughably myopic and

ignorant and hypocritical. And the fit

for this video has been Miles Morales.