MODERN ISRAEL & THE CHURCH

One of the more controversial topics within Christianity today is modern Israel's relationship to the Church. This subject also holds significant implications for how we interpret Scripture, especially in connection to Bible prophecy and the end times. So what is the role of modern Israel and the Jewish people in God’s prophetic timeline, and more importantly, how does it relate to the Church? 

Many Christians turn to dispensationalism for the answers. Originating with John Nelson Darby in 1827, dispensationalism divides the Bible into different dispensations or time periods, each marked by God's covenants. It also maintains a strict distinction between Israel and the Church by suggesting that God deals with them separately in terms of prophecy and salvation. But is dispensationalism correct or is there an alternative view that's more faithful to Scripture? 

​

It's important to note that for 1800 years prior to Darby, most Christians would have held to a very different understanding of this subject. The purpose of this writing, therefore, is to explore how early Christians would have viewed the relationship between Israel and the Church, and the prophecies relating to them. What we may soon discover is an uninterrupted continuum between God's remnant people in the Old Testament and their New Testament counterpart, the Church.

​

The Church and Israel

When reading the Old Testament, it is evident that most of it concerns the story of Israel. From Jacob, the patriarch, to the Jewish exiles, the people of Israel take center stage throughout its pages. Despite the continual sin of Israel's kings and God's recurring judgements, the prophets look beyond this with hope to a time of restoration. Clearly, God’s primary concern was tied to His chosen people and their spiritual well-being. But this leads us to wonder about the Church's role in Old Testament prophecy. While it may seem as though God had completely overlooked the Church, such disregard does not agree with either His character or the Scripture's testimony. For example, God has promised "to do nothing at all without first revealing it to His servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). So could it be that God failed to disclose His plans for the Church to His prophets? Certainly not. In fact, the apostle Peter affirms otherwise:

"It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you ..." (1 Pet 1:12).

This suggests that the dispensational understanding of Israel might be flawed. And perhaps "Israel" is more than just a physical nation comprised of Jewish people. This possibility seems much more plausible when examining the original covenant that God made with Abraham, also known as the Abrahamic covenant:

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice" (Gen 22:17-18).

Based on Genesis 22, Abraham’s “seed” was to inherit special promises or blessings. At a casual glance, it may be assumed that the “seed” here strictly refers to Abraham's physical descendants, the Israelites. However, Paul’s New Testament commentary sheds more light into how we should interpret these covenantal promises. Notice:

"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" (Gal 3:16).

According to Paul, God’s promises applied to only one of Abraham's descendants (a single “seed”), NOT the whole nation descended from him. Paul further revealed that this Seed is Jesus Christ. Therefore, if all of the Abrahamic promises and blessings apply to Christ, then we are not so far removed from Israel:

"That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Eph 3:6).

"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect" (Rom 4:13-14).  

​

These verses easily disprove the popular notion that Israel is the sole recipient of all of God’s promises, further closing the gap between Israel and the Church. But more can be said here. For instance, few realize that a typological Church has always existed, even in the Old Testament period. The Old Testament Church or Congregation was first revealed in Exodus. It was initially comprised of the faithful few who through faith and perseverance inherited the physical promises. They entered Canon—the land of promise—while the vast majority fell short of it and perished in the wilderness (Heb 3:17). Who were these faithful few? They were the second generation to come out of Egypt, including Joshua and Caleb (Num 14:21-24). Eventually, they would come to be known as the “remnant” (Romans 11:14). God would preserve for Himself a faithful remnant from every subsequent generation of Israel.

We may be certain, therefore, that the Abrahamic blessings and promises pertain to Christ. And as heir, Christ has enrolled the Church to inherit them with Him. Moreover, the Church has always existed in the form of a faithful remnant, even in the Old Testament.

So this is the view that was held by the early Church, preceding dispensationalism by many centuries. Sadly, it is now rejected as an anti-Semitic teaching and given the pejorative name of “replacement theology”, which is the idea that the Church replaced Israel. But such a label is highly misleading. The early Church viewed itself as a continuation of Israel, developing out of it like new growth on a tree (Rom 11:18-21), rather than Israel's replacement. That is why those who adhere to the earlier view reject the false notion that God maintains two programs side by side (Israel and the Church) and affirm that His Old Testament dealings have always proven otherwise.

​

R.C. Sproul effectively defines the relationship between Israel and the Church in his teaching on the subject. To help clarify this connection, I’ve attached an excerpt from his teaching below:

In Romans 11, Paul uses a highly instructive analogy of the olive tree. The tree represents Israel—the covenant people of God. Paul compares the unbelieving Israelites to branches that have been broken off from the olive tree (v. 17a). Believing Gentiles are compared to branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted onto the cultivated olive tree (cf. 17b–19). The important point to notice is that God does not cut the old tree down and plant a new one (replacement theology). Neither does God plant a new tree alongside the old tree and then graft branches from the old tree into the new tree (traditional dispensationalism). Instead, the same tree exists across the divide between Old and New Testaments. That which remains after the dead branches are removed is the true Israel. Gentile believers are now grafted into this already existing old tree (true Israel/the true church). There is only one good olive tree, and the same olive tree exists across the covenantal divide.

During most of the Old Testament era, there were essentially three groups of people: the Gentile nations, national Israel, and true Israel (the faithful remnant). Although the nation of Israel was often involved in idolatry, apostasy, and rebellion, God always kept for Himself a faithful remnant—those who trusted in Him and would not bow the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18). This remnant, this true Israel, included men such as David, Joash, Isaiah, and Daniel, as well as women such as Sarah, Deborah, and Hannah. There were those who were circumcised in the flesh and a smaller number who had their hearts circumcised as well. So, even in the Old Testament, not all were Israel who were descended from Israel (Rom. 9:6).

At the time of Jesus’ birth, the faithful remnant (true Israel) included believers such as Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:25–38). During Jesus’ adult ministry, true Israel was most visible in those Jewish disciples who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Those who rejected Jesus were not true Israel, regardless of their race. This included many of the scribes and Pharisees. Though they were physically Jews, they were not true Israel (Rom. 2:28–29). True Israel became defined by union with the true Israelite—Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16, 29).

On the day of Pentecost, the true Israel, Jewish believers in Jesus, was taken by the Holy Spirit and formed into the nucleus of the New Testament Church (Acts 2). The Holy Spirit was poured out on the true Israel, and the same men and women who were part of this true Israel were now the true New Covenant Church. Soon after, Gentiles began to become a part of this small group. This is an extremely important point to grasp because it explains why there is so much confusion regarding the relationship between the Church and Israel. The answer depends on whether we are talking about national Israel or true Israel. The Church is distinct from national Israel, just as the true Israel in the Old Testament was distinct from national Israel even while being part of national Israel. The remnant group was part of the whole but could also be distinguished from the whole by its faith.

However, if we are talking about true Israel, there really is no distinction. The true Israel of the Old Testament became the nucleus of the true Church on the day of Pentecost. What does this mean for our understanding of the relationship between the Church and Israel? It means that when true Israel was baptized by the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, true Israel became the New Testament Church. Thus, there is continuity between true Israel and the Church. Yet there is discontinuity between the church and national Israel as well, just as there was discontinuity between the faithful remnant and apostate Israel in the Old Testament.

Romans 11 and the Future of Israel

So is God finished with Israel in a covenantal sense? In order to answer this question, we must turn to Paul’s argument in Romans 9–11. Remember that in Romans 1–8, Paul denied that Jews were guaranteed salvation on the basis of their distinctive privileges as Jews. Faith was the key, not ethnicity or any kind of works. Paul argued that all who believe in Jesus are children of Abraham. He also argued that none of God’s promises would fail. All of this would raise serious questions in the minds of his readers. What about Israel? What has become of God’s promises to her in light of her rejection of the Messiah? Has the faithlessness of Israel negated God’s promises? Has Israel been disinherited? Has the plan of God revealed throughout the Old Testament been derailed or set aside? Paul answers these questions in Romans 9–11.

Paul begins Romans 9 with a lament for Israel—his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (v. 3). He then recounts all the privileges that still belong to Israel—including the adoption, the covenants, and the promises (vv. 4–5). In verses 6–29, Paul defends the proposition he states in verse 6a, namely, that the promise of God has not failed. In verses 6–13, he explains that the corporate election of Israel never meant the salvation of every biological descendant of Abraham: “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (v. 6b). In verses 14–23, Paul expands on this, explaining that salvation was never a birthright based on biological descent. It has always been a gift based on God’s sovereign election.

In Romans 9:30–10:21, Paul elaborates on the turn that redemptive history has taken, namely, that while Israel has stumbled over Jesus, Gentiles are now streaming into the kingdom. It is important to observe that in Romans 10:1, Paul writes, “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.” He’s talking about Israel. The very fact that Paul can continue to pray for the salvation of unbelieving Israel indicates that he believes salvation is possible for them.

What Paul has said thus far raises the big question, which he now states: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!” (11:1a). This is the basic theme of chapter 11. In verses 1– 10, Paul demonstrates that God has not rejected Israel by distinguishing between the “remnant” and the “hardened.” Building on what he has already said in 9:6–13 and 9:27, Paul indicates that just as in the days of Elijah, there is also now a believing remnant (11:2–5). In contrast with the remnant, chosen by grace (v. 5), is “the rest,” the nation of Israel as a whole, which has been “hardened” (v. 7). God has dulled the spiritual senses of Israel (v. 8), and they have stumbled (vv. 9–10).

Paul then asks, “Did they stumble in order that they might fall?” (11:11a). What is his answer? “By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous” (v. 11b). What is the present significance of Israel’s stumbling? Paul explains that it has happened as a means to bring a multitude of Gentiles into the kingdom. The hardening of Israel is serving God’s purpose. Their trespass has served as the occasion for the granting of salvation to the Gentiles. Paul states, “Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (v. 12, emphasis mine).

In verses 11–12, Paul mentions three events: the trespass (or “failure”) of Israel, the salvation of the Gentiles, and the full inclusion of Israel. The first of these leads to the second, and the second leads to the third. Israel’s trespass, in other words, started a process that will ultimately lead back to Israel’s restoration, a remnant being saved even out of the national whole earlier rejected. This is the first of five places in this short passage where Paul explains the purpose and future of Israel in terms of three stages. Douglas Moo provides a helpful summary:

vv. 11–12: “trespass of Israel”— “salvation for the Gentiles”— “their fullness”

v. 15: “their rejection”— “reconciliation of the world”— “their acceptance”

vv. 17–23: “natural branches broken off”—“wild shoots grafted in”—“natural branches” grafted back in

vv. 25–26: “hardening of Israel”—“fullness of Gentiles”— “all Israel will be saved”

vv. 30–31: disobedience of Israel—mercy for Gentiles— mercy to Israel

The repeated occurrence of this “three-stage” process reinforces the idea that Paul is looking forward to a future restoration of Israel. Israel’s present condition is described as “failure” and as “rejection.” Paul characterizes the future condition of Israel in terms of “full inclusion” and as “acceptance.” Israel is not simultaneously in the condition of “failure” and “full inclusion,” of “rejection” and “acceptance.” The “full inclusion” will follow the “failure.” The “acceptance” will follow the “rejection.”

Paul anticipates a potential problem in verses 13–24. Gentile believers who had been taught that they were now God’s people could be easily misled into thinking that this was cause for boasting against the Jews. In these verses, Paul warns against such arrogance. In 11:16–24, Paul explains the development of redemptive history and the place of Israel within it by using the olive tree analogy that we discussed above. Here again, Paul points to three stages in redemptive history: “natural branches broken off”—“wild shoots grafted in”— “natural branches” grafted back in.

Paul’s teaching in verses 25–27 has been at the center of the debate concerning the proper interpretation of chapter 11. Paul writes in verse 25: “Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” Here Paul is still speaking directly to the Gentiles (see v. 13). He wants them to understand a “mystery.” In this context, the mystery involves the reversal of Jewish expectations concerning the sequence of end-time events. The “mystery” is that the restoration of Israel follows the salvation of the Gentiles.

In verse 26, Paul continues the sentence begun in verse 25: “And in this way all Israel will be saved.” The biggest debate here is the meaning of “all Israel.” Charles Cranfield lists the four main views that have been suggested: (1) all the elect, both Jews and Gentiles; (2) all the elect of the nation Israel; (3) the whole nation Israel, including every individual member; and (4) the nation Israel as a whole, but not necessarily including every individual member. Since Paul repeatedly denies the salvation of every single Israelite, we can set aside option (3).

John Calvin understood “all Israel” in verse 26 to mean all the elect (remnant), both Jews and Gentiles. Paul does use this language in other places in his writings. The problem with understanding “all Israel” in 11:26 in this sense is the context. Throughout verses 11–25, Paul has consistently distinguished between Jews and Gentiles. We also have to remember that Paul’s concern in these chapters is for his kinsmen according to the flesh (9:1–5). His prayer in this context is for the salvation of unbelieving Israel (10:1). In Romans 11:26, Paul is revealing that the prayer of 10:1 will be answered once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Other Reformed theologians, such as O. Palmer Robertson and Herman Ridderbos, have argued that “all Israel” refers to all the elect of the nation of Israel throughout the present age. As with the view that understands “all Israel” to be the church, there is truth in this interpretation. The Jews who are being saved in the present age are not any different from the Jews who are to be saved in the future. The problem with this interpretation, as with the previous one, is that it conflicts with the immediate context. As John Murray observes, “While it is true that all the elect of Israel, the true Israel, will be saved, this is so necessary and patent a truth that to assert the same here would have no particular relevance to what is the apostle’s governing interest in this section of the epistle.” Paul is not in anguish over the salvation of the remnant. They are already saved. He is in anguish over unbelieving Israel. It is this “Israel” for whose salvation he prays (10:1), and it is this Israel that he says will be saved in verse 26.

The interpretation of “all Israel” that best fits the immediate context is that which understands “all Israel” as the nation of Israel as a whole, but not necessarily including every individual member of ethnic Israel. Paul consistently contrasts Gentiles and Israel throughout this chapter, and he continues to do so in the first half of the sentence we are examining (v. 25). There is no contextual reason to assume that Paul changes the meaning of the term Israel in mid-sentence here. The “Israel” that will be saved (v. 26) is the “Israel” that has been partially hardened (v. 25). This partially hardened Israel is distinct from the Gentiles (v. 25) and is also distinct from the present remnant of believing Jews, who are not hardened (v. 7).

Conclusion

The relationship between Israel and the church in the New Testament is not always easy to discern, but it can be understood if we remember the differences between national Israel and true Israel in both the Old Testament and the New, and if we keep in mind what Paul teaches in Romans 11. Israel’s present hardening has a purpose in God’s plan, but this hardening is not permanent. The future restoration of the nation of Israel will involve their re-grafting into the olive tree, the one people of God. The restoration of Israel will mean their becoming part of the “true Israel” by faith in Jesus Christ the Messiah."

In summary, I find Sproul's view to be biblically sound and wholeheartedly agree with it. It precisely identifies the prevailing errors espoused by many teachers today regarding Israel and the Church. On one extreme, some have swung entirely toward an anti-Israel bias, adopting replacement theology. Conversely, others have become so inclusive that they embrace even those Jews who have rebelled against God, mistakenly qualifying them as true Israel solely based on ethnicity. Yet, Paul distinctly delineates spiritual (true) Israel from physical Israel, asserting: "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, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom 2:28-29).

​

It is evident, then, that not all of national or physical Israel constitutes spiritual Israel, God’s elect. Nevertheless, God’s desire is to include as many members of physical Israel within His spiritual remnant. Consequently, He will continue to chasten national Israel until an increasing number of their hardened hearts are drawn into covenant with Him, so that “all Israel” (the elect and a portion of the hardened) might be saved. Perhaps a more profound fulfillment of this promise awaits us in the near future. The manner of this fulfillment is described in Ezekiel 20. According to this prophecy, God will one day plead with Israel face to face in the wilderness to which He has brought them. This “wilderness,” I believe, refers to the final regrouping of Israel and their return to the land that occurred in 1948. It is here, on their own turf, that God will engage with them in a way that culminates in their ultimate salvation: “And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people... and there will I plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord GOD. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant” (Ez 20:35-37).

​

Now while we affirm that God is still saving Jewish members of national Israel and will continue to convert many more, we must be clear regarding the irreversible consequences of their rebellion. Due to their unrepentant condition, they have forfeited their national and political status permanently. What does this mean? It simply indicates that God has revoked their physical role as the crown of nations—a beacon of light and hope to the world. As such, they are not the ones to carry the torch of salvation to the nations. Instead, it is Israel the Elect (spiritual Israel), the Church and Bride of Christ, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, who are charged with this divine task. Can we substantiate this claim scripturally? Consider that when Jesus encountered a fig tree and found nothing but leaves, He declared, “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward forever.” Consequently, the fig tree withered away. Jesus, then, concluded with the following decisive words: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Mat 21:19; 43).

So how did Christ terminate the original role of national (physical) Israel? According to His own words, Jesus replaced the political component with a spiritual one: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (Jn 18:36). It is essential to recognize that either God continues to maintain a kingdom in this world known as national Israel, or He does not. But the latter is true because Jesus affirmed it. No earthly kingdom will exist until His future reign. Thus, as a theocracy, national Israel has ceased to exist and holds little relevance in God’s eyes. It does not enjoy His blessings, approval, or divine protection because those who have rejected their Messiah remain under a curse (Deut 3:19; Mat 21:19; 43). Instead, it has been succeeded by Israel the Elect, the eternal Church, comprised of God’s faithful remnant. This is the very Kingdom Christ referenced in John 18. For this reason, I urge great caution toward those who strive to support national Israel or wave its flag in their midst. Christ has distinctly detached His followers from any political affinity, including that with national Israel. To remain supportive of national Israel in this respect contradicts Christ’s non-political teachings and perpetuates the erroneous two-kingdom paradigm of dispensationalism.

Erroneous “Two Kingdom” Teachings

So far, we covered significant ground concerning the relationship between Israel and the Church. Considering Paul's teachings on the present and future condition of Israel, it should be clear by now that we are confronting the error of dispensationalism in respect to its two-kingdom dichotomy. But it's important to grasp the main arguments behind this "two kingdom model" in order to avoid misunderstanding Scripture, especially when studying prophecies about Israel's future in the millennium. To help with this, here are the key arguments that are central to dispensational thinking:

​

(i) Ethnic Israel may participate in the Church but remains bound by the Mosaic Law, including circumcision, dietary laws, and the civic and ceremonial requirements once the new temple is erected.

​

(ii) Ethnic Jews, whether Christian or not, are encouraged to inhabit the land of Israel and maintain their Jewish identity.

​

(iii) The Church is to provide political support for the nation of Israel.

​

(iv) National Israel possesses an unconditional right to their homeland.

​

My objections to these assertions are as follows:

​

(i) The notion that ethnic Israel is somehow obligated to adhere to the Mosaic Law while the Gentile Church is exempt is deeply troubling to many believing Jews. This idea arises from a misinterpretation of Acts 15:20. A closer examination of Acts 15 reveals the context and teaching necessary to appreciate the flaws in this argument.

In Acts 15, we read that certain Jewish Believers insisted on imposing circumcision and the observance of the Law upon Gentile converts. This prompted a dispute among the Apostles, leading to the first council of Jerusalem, where it was resolutely concluded that Gentiles are saved in precisely the same manner as Jews—through faith in Jesus Christ and by grace (vv. 9-11). The Apostle Peter underscores that there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles when it comes to salvation: “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Furthermore, verse 10 emphasizes that neither the Jewish Apostles nor their forefathers could bear the burden of the Law. This signified their liberation from its bondage since the ceremonial aspects of the Law had been fulfilled in Christ and no longer applied. Ultimately, verse 20 delineates four essential prohibitions for believing Gentiles: (1). abstaining from idolatry, (2). fornication, (3). eating strangled meats, and (4). consuming blood. These are not exhaustive regulations but rather foundational principles of the Christian faith. The remainder of God’s Law could be learned through the synagogue as these Believers matured spiritually, as “Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him” (Acts 15:21).

​

(ii) The assertion that Jews must return to Israel in order to preserve their identity is rooted solely in Old Testament theology and is conspicuously absent from the New Testament. In fact, throughout their travels among the dispersed Jews, we never find the apostles calling for the mass exodus of Jews back to their homeland. Still, many Christians fall prey to this misconception, actively encouraging Jewish individuals to return to their homeland and reestablish their ethnic heritage. While I do not wish to be overly harsh, the truth is that such theology lacks a scriptural foundation. Instead, we find passages that convey the exact opposite message:

​

“Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us” (Eph 2:11-14).

​

“Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all” (Col 3:11).

​

“Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him” (John 4:21-23).

​

Paul makes it abundantly clear that Jews and Gentiles are no longer to be distinguished. Christ has irrevocably dismantled the dividing wall between them, and they are now one in Faith and mission. This profound reality implies that the Church, characterized by its ethnic diversity, is a single living organism, likened to the olive tree (Israel), while the “grafted wild shoots” represent the Gentile converts. The redeemed Gentiles are no longer heathens; they are now regarded as the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), fully participating in the commonwealth of Israel and the covenantal promises.

In a very real sense, the Church has inherited Israel’s national characteristics—government, priesthood, temple, and more—but only in a spiritualized form: “But ye (the Church) are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Pet 2:9).

​

Notice that the Church is called to proclaim God’s praise throughout the whole earth. This mission aligns precisely with what God intended for ancient Israel. However, due to their failure, He has turned to the Church—Israel the Elect—to fulfill this divine calling. It is solely through the blood of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that we shall succeed.

​

Yet, we must also address the physical geography of Israel. A substantial number of Christians regard Israel's land as still sacred. In their view, Israel and Jerusalem remain exceptionally special in God’s sight. The flaw in this mentality is that it lacks any New Testament support. Quite the contrary, the New Testament reveals that God no longer regards the land of Israel as a sacred possession. Instead, we learn that God’s heavenly dwelling will soon replace all earthly real estate (Rev 21-22). Thus, Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the hour had arrived when neither Jerusalem nor Mount Gerizim would be deemed sacred any longer. True worshippers would worship the Father in Spirit and in truth, irrespective of their location (Jn 4:23-24).

​

Finally, if we believe that Jews should live in their homeland, we must also recognize that Gentile converts, who are now part of Israel's commonwealth, should also share that right. This is based on Paul's teaching that Gentiles are now co-heirs with Israel and entitled to its promises, including the physical real estate (Eph 2:11-14). But you might wonder how this fits with prophecies about God’s people returning to their homeland. Although Israel was established as a state in 1948, I don’t believe it currently has God's blessing or protection. It’s hard to argue that God brought the Jews back to their land in order to bless them and restore His covenant with them when there are still numerous wars and conflicts in that region, resulting in numerous Jewish casualties. The true fulfillment of those prophecies will happen when Jesus returns, creating a new heaven and a new earth and bringing down the New Jerusalem. Looking at the prophecies that pertain to the restoration of the land, we see that this won’t happen until Christ’s Second Coming. At that time, God will give His people—the Church—a permanent inheritance built on solid foundations, made by God Himself. 

​

(iii) Regarding the assertion that churches today should lend their support to national Israel, I would like to pose the following question. Does the New Testament contain any exhortations from the apostles for political alignment with the land of Israel or for fundraising for its government? Not at all. These practices are of recent origin. Sadly, they are gaining traction in many evangelical churches today. I raise these objections not out of some hidden bias or resentment. Frankly, I have no preference as to where individuals direct their financial support—whether to Afghanistan or Israel. My concern, though, lies in the fact that these practices are inconsistent with biblical teaching, and for this reason alone I bring them to light.

​

(iv.) The final assertion we must examine pertains to the belief that Jews possess an unconditional right to their homeland. Before revealing my view on this matter, I wish to clarify that I am neither advocating anti-Semitism nor fostering animosity toward the Jewish people—such notions would be absurd, particularly as I am a natural-born Jew and citizen of Israel. My only intent in raising these objections is to undo the damaging falsehoods surrounding this issue and to restore our understanding to the truth contained in the Scriptures. Having said that, please pay attention to the warnings contained in Deuteronomy 28:1-68. In these verses, Moses pronounces a blessing for Israel’s twelve tribes, contingent upon their faithfulness to the law and its commandments. Part of this blessing includes possession of the Promised Land, along with prosperity and security within its borders. However, a grave warning also accompanies this promise, which is often overlooked and underappreciated:

​

15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: 21 The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it. 25 The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth. 29 And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee. 32 Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand. 36 The Lord shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone. 37 And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee. 43 The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. 44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. 45 Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee: 46 And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.

​

This leads us to a pivotal question: When has national Israel truly reformed and turned back to God? When have they collectively accepted the Messiah whom they crucified? It is true that individual conversions have occurred, yet on a national level, the answer is dishearteningly clear. We do not witness a nation devoted to God. Consequently, they remain under the curse pronounced in Scripture, which denies them any land rights. To bolster this truth, notice that when Christ cursed the fig tree, a symbol for Israel, He declared that it would bear no fruit henceforth (Mat 21:18-19). This curse was further echoed in the parable of the husbandmen, allowing the Pharisees to unwittingly condemn themselves (Mat 21:33-46). Moreover, they solidified their own curse by accepting the burden of responsibility for the crucifixion of the Son of God (Mat 27:25).

​

It is interesting that the modern state of Israel has adopted a flag emblazoned with the hexagram, often referred to as the Star of David. The history of the “hexagram” should not be overlooked, as it signifies a curse. But is this merely coincidence, or could it be a sign of God's enduring curse over their nation in view of their ongoing rebellion and rejection of Christ? I have personally witnessed this symbol waved during worship services in many Churches as a sign of solidarity with Israel. Because of this, I urge Believers to investigate the true origins of the so-called Star of David. It is essential to understand that it lacks divine sanction, since the only biblical symbols of Israel are the Menorah, pomegranate, olive branch, and the Lion of Judah. So I wonder how God feels about our dedicated endorsement of modern Israel and its hexagram emblem.

​

Conclusion

The purpose of this study has been to reaffirm the centrality of the Church in God’s prophetic timeline. Too often, Christians perceive the Church as merely a parenthesis in God’s program, rather than the principal actor. As such, the devil has succeeded in deceiving many into sidelining Israel the Elect—chosen and beloved of God (Col 3:12)—in favor of a mere political construct known as national Israel. However, let me be clear: I do not express these sentiments to insult or further reproach the Jewish people. My prayer, akin to that of Paul, is for the salvation of all of Israel. Our posture toward them must be one of love and compassion, always holding out hope for their future redemption.

​

Moreover, as we reflect upon God’s faithfulness in fulfilling both warnings and promises to national Israel, it should remind all of us, both Jews and Gentiles, that we stand in jeopardy before the living God if we are remiss in fulfilling our own obligations towards Him. We must consider the reality that if God severed the natural branches due to disobedience, we ought to be vigilant against taking His covenant—sealed by the precious blood of Christ—lightly. If the ancient Israelites forfeited their inheritance in the Promised Land because of unbelief, let us strive earnestly not to follow in their footsteps and risk losing our eternal inheritance. May we pursue faithfulness toward God, ever mindful of the truth we have explored in this teaching.