Doug Wilson's Covenant Confusion: A Biblical Critique of Heretical Doublespeak
Introduction
Doug Wilson's recent article, "Children of Hagar," emerges as a delayed response to critiques of his positions outlined in his 2023 book, American Milk and Honey. In the book, he posits that unbelieving Jews—those modern-day Israelites who reject Jesus as Messiah—hold a covenantal status akin to the "children of the bondwoman" mentioned in Paul's Galatians 4:21–31 allegory, symbolized by Hagar and Ishmael as a form of spiritual bondage, contrasted with the line of promise through Sarah and fulfilled in Christ.
This piece didn't appear in a vacuum. It has surfaced during intensified scrutiny of Wilson's theology (via private and public communication) and public influence, especially after his participation in Turning Point USA's AmeriFest 2025 conference and his interview with Tucker Carlson on Man Rampant. At the TPUSA event, Wilson fielded questions on Jewish identity, Zionism, and the modern state of Israel, including a “debate” with Steve Deace (there really was not debtate, they were in complete Jew loving agreement the whole time), where he denounced "Jew hate" (his term for antisemitism) while elaborating on his "soft supersessionist" stance. The conference sparked significant online backlash in conservative and Christian circles, with some accusing Wilson of ambiguity that could enable antisemitic undertones in right-wing spaces, and others faulting his views on Jewish covenantal ties as overly (and unnecessarily) nuanced or inconsistent. This controversy unfolded against a broader 2025 backdrop of surging antisemitism reports, heated debates between Christian Zionists and covenant theologians, and Wilson's increasing prominence in national conservative media and political discourse.
In the article, Wilson defends his interpretation (as he always does) as solidly Reformed, portraying the "Hagar covenant" not as a literal, ongoing pact but as a timeless typological distortion: unbelieving Jews engage the Torah through legalistic works-righteousness, apart from Christ, leading to spiritual bondage and a veil of blindness (drawing on Romans 11:25 and 2 Corinthians 3:14–15). However, Wilson extends Galatians 4 beyond its proper first-century context, claiming its relevance endures because contemporary practicing Jews still read Moses veiled, ignoring Christ as the true meaning of law (Romans 10:4). He does this becaue he assumes modern day Israel is the same as the Israel of biblical antiquity. Wilson attempts to counter Gabe Harder's 2023 Theopolis Institute critique systematically, denying that his view establishes a separate historical covenant with Hagar or sustains Judaism after AD 70. He insists his view does not promote a dual-covenant theology; he insists that he believes that salvation is through Christ alone; he insists that unbelieving Jews inherit nothing until regrafted by faith (Romans 11:23–26), but a careful reader will be able to see that Wilson clearly desires to have his cake and to eat it too. A simple question: are the Jews special today? If so, why? The answer to these questions for Wilson (and anyone holding to his satanic scheme) is that the Jews are special because of their ethnicity and because they are chosen by God—neither of which is true. He wants the Jews to have necessary and legitimate significance with the Christian church (and the world) while rejecting a dual covenant; this is, however, double speak.
Yet, despite these qualifications, Wilson's framework insists on an enduring covenantal distortion for unbelieving Jews, making them "covenantally Ishmaelites" in bondage, while rejecting any salvific status outside Christ. Biblically, this creates an irreconcilable tension, straining against the new covenant's finality and the old system's obsolescence. The following sections expose these contradictions, showing how Wilson's position deviates from Scripture.
Wilson's Core Argument
At the heart of Wilson's thesis is the claim that unbelieving Jews remain connected to Abraham covenantally, albeit in a negative, distorted form. In his AmeriFest remarks, he stated: "If these people covenanted with the God of Abraham in the Middle Ages and they’ve been living that way for centuries, then they’re in covenant, they’re in that covenant." Notice his words, which were deliberate and deceptive. He roots this in Abraham's household, where non-blood relatives were circumcised and included (Genesis 17:12–13), emphasizing that Jewish identity is "always covenantal, not DNA."
Wilson frames this as the "covenant with Hagar": a perennial approach to the old covenant through self-justification (Leviticus 18:5 as works), resulting in bondage rather than the grace seen by faith (Deuteronomy 30:6; Romans 10:5–6). He then applies this idea to modern Judaism, noting synagogues, Torah readings, and the Wailing Wall as evidence of ongoing veiled unbelief, which of course, it is. Not unlike, however, all other false religions that reject Christ and practice abominable acts. His idea, he argues, isn't novelty but is "mainstream Reformed," aligned with the Westminster Confession's view of the old covenant as an administration of grace pointing to Christ (WCF 7.5).
Well, if we are to take his word on the legitimacy of his ideas, then we should look no further. The issue, however, is that Wilson is either lying or is terribly ignorant. The problem is that this "covenantal but not saving" distinction isn't biblical. Scripture doesn't allow for partial covenantal attachments, parallel covenant streams, or dual-covenant existence pre or post-Christ. Wilson's attempt to walk this tightrope—affirming Christ's exclusivity while positing an ongoing tie with the Jews—ends up as theological doublespeak, contradicting the Bible's clear lines between inclusion and severance. After all, Paul instructs us on how to read his words in Galatians: allegorically, not literally.
Biblical Contradictions and Distorted Covenants
Wilson's view flatly contradicts key scriptural principles. Start with heirship to Abraham: Galatians 3:7 declares, "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." Notice: “those of faith” are the “sons of Abraham.” Not those who reject Christ and believe he burns in feces in hell. Verse 29 reinforces: "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" (Emphasis mine). There's no middle ground for unbelievers being "in covenant" with Abraham, even distortedly. Ephesians 2:12 describes them as "alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise." Alienated means cut off, not half-in through typology. Not one foot in and one foot out. Not holding on via unbelief. Not a son via ethnicity.
Moreover, the end of the old covenant (the Mosaic Covenant) was a decisive move by God. Hebrews 8:13 says: "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete." In covenant theology, we understand that the New Covenant is the final exfoliation of the covenant of Grace (the everlasting covenant) which God established with Abraham, our forefather. This same covenant has had several previous exfoliations under different administrators like Adam, Noah, Abraham, and David, with Christ being the final administrator over the final exfoliation, revealing the totality of this covenant.
When the second temple was destroyed in AD 70, as recorded in Matthew 24:1–2, this marked the practical disappearance and God’s decisive destruction of the Jewish people and the Mosaic Covenant, which Paul heavily implies in Hebrews 9:8–10 implies. Wilson's perennial Hagar covenant, however, revives what God annihilated and declared dead, suggesting that there is an enduring system for Jews, allowing them to remain God’s people all while being entirely separated from Christ. Further, Wilson does this while ignoring Paul’s words in Romans 10:1–4, in which he laments the ignorance of unbelieving Jews seeking their own righteousness, not a covenantal status, distorted or otherwise. But the Jewish confusion appears to have transcended to Wilson’s mind as well.
John 8:39–44 is even more stark: Jesus tells unbelieving Jews, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires." No "typological sons in bondage" here—just outright rejection; outright idol worship; outright Satanic love; outright submission to the Devil. Oddly enough, this is still what characterizes those who today call themselves “Jews.” Wilson's framework blurs these divine boundaries created by Christ, creating a category Scripture never recognizes.
The Hagar Heresy
Wilson's heavy reliance on Galatians 4 is where his heresy becomes crystal clear. Paul uses Hagar and Sarah allegorically to contrast bondage (old covenant legalism) with freedom (the promise in Christ). Notice, just for the sake of posterity, that Paul explicitly calls his usage of these women as an allegory: “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar” (Galatians 4:24, emphasis mine). God, it seems, is telling this to us explictely so that we can avoid making the same ignorant mistake Wilson is making. Hagar "is" Mount Sinai, corresponding to the "present Jerusalem" in bondage (vv. 24–25). But Paul's command is unequivocal and unambiguous: "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman" (v. 30). So does God command the continuation of the Jews to be in covenant with God, if we understand this as Wilson does? No. Wilson’s own theory backfires almost immediately. Even if the Jews are represented by Hagar, as Wilson assumes, they are commanded to be cast out, expelled, deprived, banished, evicted, expatriated, dismissed, and displaced. This is deliberate expulsion, not perpetual attachment.
Wilson extends this to modern Jews, claiming the allegory applies because they "still read the Old Testament" with a veil (2 Corinthians 3:14–15). New’s flash: everyone outside of Christ who reads the Old Testament reads it with a veil. But Paul's context targets first-century Judaizers enticing Gentiles back under the law—not a blueprint for ongoing Jewish covenantal distortion. As critics like Harder note, this makes Wilson's "Hagar covenant" a novel invention, unsupported by exegesis. Reformed men, more faithful than Wilson, like Calvin saw Galatians 4 as illustrating the old covenant's temporary tutor role (Galatians 3:24–25), now fulfilled and set aside—not a timeless category for “ethnic Jews.” But Wilson isn’t concerned with creating novel doctrines never before contrived by anyone orthodox.
By insisting on this enduring "bondage covenant," Wilson asserts that God maintains a separate relational track for Jews, even if cursed, parallel to the church. This doesn’t just appear to veer perilously close to a dual-covenant; this is a dual covenant. Despite his denials, rhetorical devices, and denunciations, Wilson has adopted dispensationalism as it regards the Jews and places them into a special relationship with God, undermining Christ's sole mediation (Hebrews 9:15; Acts 4:12).
On Supersessionism
What is quite astounding to any half-interested and semi-informed Christian is Wilson’s liberty of self-labeling. Wilson brands himself a "soft supersessionist" (an unnatural label at best), claiming the church is the "true Israel" (Christians as Isaac's heirs, Galatians 4:28) with a future for ethnic Jews via grafting (Romans 11:23–26). Supersessionism, known better as “replacement” theology, is the idea that the church has replaced Israel; hardly a reformed or covenantal idea. Wilson rejects "hard" versions of supersessionism, however, claiming that this degree of supersessionism is bent on erasing any future Jewish hope. What Wilson would rather do is split hairs and assert (without evidence) that the historic Reformed/covenantal understanding is that the Church is the continuation and fulfillment of Israel, while somehow suggesting that it is faithful and necessary to believe that ethnic Jews are not excluded from God’s saving purposes and may yet experience large-scale conversion.
But the reader must understand that supersessionism (replacement theology), whether soft or hard, is the belief that the church has replaced Israel. Biblically, the church isn't a "replacement" or even a "fulfillment" in the sense of superseding; it's the continuation of the singular (one) people God has always had throughout the ages. The evidence for this continuation (not replacement) is obvious. In Acts, during Stephen’s speech, he says, “This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us” (Acts 7:38). The word here translated as "congregation" is ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) which is the same term used to describe not only the nation of Israel but also the church (1Co 12:28; Col 1:18). Likewise, the New Testament church is refered to as the "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16), and the New Testament is blatant when it says, “And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:29). Who descends from Abraham? Israel, of course. Who is Israel? Anyone in Christ. What this all reveals to us is that God has always had one covenant community—one covenant people—defined by faith and faith alone (Romans 9:6–8: "Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel").
Wilson's "soft" (or better “limp”) twist assumes modern unbelieving Jews retain a covenantal identity as biblical Israel—distorted, yes, but still tied to Abraham. This is wolfish sleight of hand: If unbelief breaks the branch (Romans 11:20), and the old is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), how can “the Jews” be "in that covenant"? Answer: They can’t. His position intentionally confuses continuity with revival, treating post-AD 70 Judaism as a legitimate extension when Scripture sees it as alienation, desertion, devotion to destruction.
Conclusion
Doug Wilson's "covenant with Hagar" is a house built on exegetical sand—concrete in its contradictions, polemical in its persistence despite legitimate, correct, and damning critique. It revives an obsolete system, denies our Lord’s decrees, and undeniably fosters confusion about the status of those who call themselves “Jews and are not, but lie” (Revelation 3:9). The Bible demands clarity: Christ is the end of the law for righteousness (Romans 10:4), the new covenant people of God are in the same family as Abraham “the man of faith”(Galatians 3:9), those who are truly Israel today are the church, and true Abrahamic heirs are those in Christ by faith alone.
Wilson's view isn't mainstream or historic Reformed; it's a deformed and perverted deviation that rightly invites heresy charges. Amid outcries over antisemitism from Wilson against anyone who disagrees with him, Christians need theology that actually upholds Christ's uniqueness and his word without ambiguous and unrighteous ties to pagan people. Notice our Lord’s command: The instrucions we’re given from the Apostle to the church are the same instructions Moses gave to the church in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus, Jeremiah, Ezekial, Isaiah, Zephania, and Hosea. And we receive them again, because we’re the same people, not a replacement people.
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.” —2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Doug is believing and teaching heresy, and he must repent of this doublespeak. If he wishes to have any sway with or respect from younger men, then he will return to Scripture's unnuanced truth: one people, one way, no distortions allowed and the Jews are no people at all.
Citations:
Doug Wilson’s Q&A At Amerifest:
Q: My name is Vash. I’m from Georgie. And I have a question for pastor Wilson. So, do you believe that modern Jews - Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc. - do you believe they are the same as the Jews of the Bible the 12 tribes of Israel and the Jews in Jesus’ day, and if you do not I would ask you why you believe in soft supersessionism and that there is a necessity for a new state of Israel for those people?
A: “That’s a great question. First, the theory is that some promote is that Ashkenazi Jews were Eastern European, basically, that converted to Judaism sometime in the late Middle Ages. I believe that the Ashkenazi Jews are genuinely Jews, but I think it’s a reasonable question to raise whether or not they are. If someone says ‘Ashkenazi Jews are not really Jews, ’ then I would say ‘okay, so then they had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus, right?’ Secondly, I think it doesn’t matter because throughout the Old Testament, it’s always covenantal. It’s not DNA imprints or bloodlines, it’s the covenant. If these people covenanted with the God of Abraham in the Middle Ages and they’ve been living that way for centuries, then they’re in covenant, they’re in that covenant. Most of Abraham’s household was not related to Abraham by blood, but they were all circumcised first generation Hebrews. But they didn’t have any blood connection to Abraham. So the issue is not bloodlines. The issue is always covenant.”
