The term “Judeo-Christian values” has been spreading across the internet and throughout conservative politics for years. It is now one of the most polarizing expressions in the Christian community.
In July 2026, biblical scholar Wes Huff defended the phrase by arguing that academics use it to describe the combined corpus of the Old and New Testaments. Jordan Peterson followed with an emotionally charged post on X, insisting that the Ten Commandments and the great stories of the Old Testament are Jewish, defending the modern state of Israel, and condemning Christians who object to the term.
But Peterson’s indignation does not settle the theological question. Neither does academic convention.
The issue is not whether the Old Testament matters. The issue is not whether Jesus was born among the Jewish people. The issue is not whether Christians should mistreat Jews; they should not.
The issue is whether Judaism and Christianity can honestly be fused into a shared religious and moral system called “Judeo-Christian values.”
They cannot.
The hyphen conceals a contradiction. At its worst, it places Christianity inside a civil religion constructed for political purposes, one that uses biblical vocabulary while avoiding the one name that divides the entire question: Jesus Christ.
What does “Judeo-Christian values” supposedly mean?
Defenders of the phrase generally use it in one of two ways.
The first is textual. Wes Huff argued that “Judeo-Christian” is simply an academic description of the Old and New Testaments together, the Jewish heritage of the Hebrew Scriptures combined with the New Testament. Now I am not attacking Wes Huff. Wesley Huff is one of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith and I highly respect him. I am only criticizing his use of the term.
Under that definition, “Judeo-Christian values” refers to moral teachings found across the Christian Bible: marriage, love your neighbor, do not steal, do not murder, defend justice, and recognize that man is accountable to God.
The second use is political. Politicians, commentators, Zionist advocates, and conservative institutions use the phrase to suggest that modern Jews and Christians belong to a single moral civilization with essentially shared values. In contemporary politics, that language frequently becomes an argument for binding Christian identity to support for the modern state of Israel.
These are not the same claim.
One describes the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. The other claims unity between two living religions that fundamentally disagree about Jesus Christ.
The first use is unnecessary. The second is false.
The Old Testament is Christian Scripture
Christians do not need the term “Judeo-Christian” to claim the Old Testament. The Old Testament is already Christian Scripture.
Christianity did not appear from nowhere as a foreign religion that later borrowed Jewish books. The New Testament presents Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, the patriarchs, the prophets, and Israel.
Christ did not come to establish an unrelated religion. He came as the promised Messiah.
The Gospel is not a rejection of the Old Testament story. It is its culmination. Jesus is the promised seed, the Son of David, the suffering servant, the Lamb of God, and the mediator of the new covenant.
This is why describing the Old and New Testaments together as “Judeo-Christian” muddies what Christianity itself claims. If the Old Testament promises are fulfilled in Christ, then the unified witness of the Old and New Testaments is properly called Christian.
The Old Testament points forward to Christ. The New Testament reveals Christ. The entire Christian Bible testifies of Christ.
There is no theological need for a hyphen.
Old Testament Israel and modern Judaism are not identical
The most important distinction in this debate is the one defenders of the phrase routinely blur: biblical Israel and modern rabbinic Judaism cannot simply be treated as identical religious categories.
Historically, Christianity and rabbinic Judaism both emerged from the upheaval surrounding Second Temple Judaism. Theologically, however, Christianity is continuity through fulfillment: the promises given in the Old Testament reach their intended destination in Jesus Christ.
The Jews of the time of Christ until today that rejected that claim, then followed a new religion as they had denied the promise from the very beginning.
After the coming of Christ and the destruction of the Second Temple, Jewish religious life increasingly developed around rabbinic interpretation, synagogue practice, the Mishnah, the Gemara, and the broader traditions preserved in the Talmuds. Modern Judaism is therefore not merely “Old Testament religion” frozen in time. It is a rabbinic tradition constructed post-Christ in separation from the Christian proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah.
This is the dividing line that “Judeo-Christian values” attempts to blur.
Christianity teaches that the covenant promises reach their fulfillment in Christ.
Modern Judaism rejects that interpretation.
Therefore it is Christianity that is the same religion as Abraham, Moses, and David. Not modern day Judaism.
Who inherits the promise?
Paul addresses the question of covenantal inheritance directly in Galatians 3.
Referring to the promise made to Abraham, Paul writes:
“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
Paul does not locate the ultimate fulfillment of the promise in ethnicity, national borders, or biological descent. He locates it in Christ.
He then follows that statement by putting it plainly:
“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
This destroys the political theology that treats ethnic descent as an independent title to God’s covenant promises.
The inheritance belongs to Christ. Those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.
To modern Jews, Christians have hijacked their inheritance and promise as God’s chosen, garnering strong resentment and hatred toward them.
Christian and Jewish Values are NOT the Same
Modern rabbinic Judaism also grants enormous authority to the Talmuds, which are a collection of Rabbinic teachings of how to interpret and live out God's laws.
The values of the Talmuds alone show values are contradictory to Christianity, but that is a whole new article in itself.
Another majority separation is Christ’s words in Revelation 3:9, “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie.”
This verse alone could also warrant it’s own article, but here is a simplified question that when answered, explains the meaning: Who are those who say they are Jews, but are not? Paul explains this distinction in Romans:
“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit.”
Paul refuses to make outward identity or circumcision of the flesh the decisive covenantal marker. The decisive matter is inward: the circumcision of the heart through the Spirit. That means according to Paul, Christians are the true Jews, not modern ethnic Jews, making them the very people who say they are Jews, but are not.
Read alongside Galatians 3, Paul’s argument is devastating to any theology that makes ethnicity an automatic guarantee of covenant status. Fleshly descent cannot replace faith. National identity cannot replace Christ. An earthly genealogy cannot provide what only the Spirit gives.
The political purpose of the phrase
Today, the phrase is frequently weaponized by Zionists for political purpose: connecting Christian identity to political support for Israel.
The argument: Jews and Christians supposedly share one moral inheritance. Israel supposedly represents that inheritance geopolitically. Therefore, Christian nations are told that supporting the modern Israeli state is part of defending their own religious civilization.
The modern state of Israel is a nation-state. It is not Jesus Christ. It is not the Church. It is not the new covenant. Its not land that must belong to a group of people of a certain ethnicity and if you do not support that then you are committing blasphemy and going against God.
In the Old Testament, you will find repeated instances that the Jewish people were removed from the land because they denied God and worshipped other gods and idols. This was a repeated theme amongst the Jewish people from the moment they escaped into the wilderness from slavery of Egypt. In 70 AD, the second temple was destroyed and they were then forced out of the land once again signifying once and for all that the land is not the promise, it is Jesus Christ.
The heresy in the hyphen
Not every person who casually uses the phrase “Judeo-Christian values” is consciously promoting heresy. Many use it because they inherited it from pastors, politicians, academics, or conservative media.
But when the phrase is used to imply that Christianity and a religion rejecting Christ form one coherent theological tradition, it crosses a serious line.
Christianity is not one half of a religious coalition.
Christ is not the Christian contribution to a broader interfaith values system.
He is not a symbolic bridge between two equally valid covenantal paths.
He is the promised seed of Abraham. He is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. He is the mediator of the new covenant. He is the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. He is God himself.
In short, the term “Judeo-Christian values” either refers to the unified moral teaching of the Old and New Testaments, in which case Christian values is sufficient, or it refers to supposed theological unity between modern Judaism and Christianity, in which case it is false.
There is no definition under which the phrase provides more clarity than confusion.
Retire the slogan. It is heresy.
The Old Testament belongs to the Christian Bible. Its promises find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Salvation is found in Christ alone, and those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.
Christianity does not need the hyphen.