Simeon S.
April 25, 2026
Throughout the duration of the school year, a certain Christian school sends out parent feedback surveys for the purpose of garnering feedback on school and teacher performance, as well as to register suggestions or concerns for academic improvement. After a wave of these surveys were sent out and came back, one caught the attention of those reviewing this constructive feedback. It was a passionate complaint, lodged against both school and faculty. It did not pertain to the application of school funds, nor did it concern curriculum, or even the inappropriate conduct of a teacher or student, yet voiced grave concern over a teacher’s personal beliefs—beliefs regarded as harmful, even heretical. It was the claim that the teacher did not support the political State of Israel, and that Christians are the people of God. In the parents’ view, these beliefs were so profoundly misguided that they informed the administration of their intention to seriously consider removing their children from the school. “In conversation with my Pastor, this is very troubling. Nice teacher, but that is unacceptable.” Where does this come from. How does such a seemingly inconsequential matter provoke such outrage from a Christian family in America ?
For decades, the state of Israel headlines the news weekly, and popular preachers have ceaselessly emphasized its importance to the Modern Christian. Still, it seems almost random. Indeed, this idea that the Jews are still God’s chosen people is a fixation stemming from a misunderstanding and ignorance of both Scripture and history, for the Apostle Paul makes clear that the Church is “the Israel of God” (NKJV, Gal. 6.16). The Church is the new Israel; therefore, Christians should not feel obligated to support the political state of Israel. Christians have been delivered the fullness of truth, and their true obligation is to declare that truth to the world.
The Church, simply put, is the body of Christ, consisting of those who have been grafted into Him by faith, repentance, and baptism . She is made up of those who, from all time, have received the revelation of the true God. She has an altar, from which “those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (NKJV, Rom. 13.10, Eph 5.23, Col 1.18). She was neither started in time, nor invented by man. Rather, she is founded in God Himself, in the communion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Church is the created expression of the life of the Holy Trinity, which begins with the creation of the angels, continues in muted form after the fall of Adam in the Old Testament Church, and is perfected through the Incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, who is the only ‘Head’ of the church” (Shanbour 24-25). The Church is a communal organism, a model of the Trinity: of one mind and will. It exists in love and communion between its members and consists of both the heavenly powers, the faithful in heaven, and those on earth. Just as Jesus Christ is both God and man, the church is both spiritual and tangible, and can be traced throughout history. As the body of Christ, She is the access of mortals to God. She has no head but Christ alone, and anyone who claims to sit in the stead of Christ on earth comes in the spirit of the Anti-Christ, whose name literally means “instead of Christ” (“Strong’s Greek: 473.). Likewise, anyone who separates themself from the Church, asserting their own opinion, declares themselves a pope in their own right. The Church is defined by spiritual and tangible aspects, but is most importantly made up of those who follow Christ with true faith and worship.
Dispensationalism, which traces back to the 1800s, innovated such ideas as the tribulation period, rapture, and led to Christian Zionism, the belief permeating American society today. While "Irishman, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) is unquestionably the father of modern dispensationalism" (Ice), his thought was shaped by many others during the formation of his ideas. Made a minister of the Church of England in 1825, Darby was specifically influenced by John Graves, one of his professors who helped him convert to Christianity during his time at university” (Ice). Graves exhibits many characteristics of Darby’s dispensationalism. For example, Graves argued, as do dispensationalists, that “unfulfilled prophecy was to be literally interpreted, and the Abrahamic covenant treated as unconditional” (Ice). Darby clearly was influenced by Graves a great deal, especially as such a young Christian. In 1829, after being Christian a mere 8 years and a pastor 4, Darby left the Church of England, joining the Polity of the Brethren: essentially modern-day Evangelicalism. Throughout Darby’s time with them until his death, he continued refining what became known as Dispensationalist Theology, spending a number of years impressing it in America and Canada in the late 1800s. It made sense amid the more radical post-millennialist theology dominating the American “market” and was popular amongst those trying to combat liberalism in their churches. This led to it quickly becoming a staple part of collective American theology
Dispensationalism influenced the American mindset regarding the Jewish people a great deal since its development in the mid-1800s. Dispensationalism is a philosophy of interpreting scripture thats core tenet is that one must read all of Scripture literally. This practice has led Dispensationalists to understand that the Jewish unbelievers still have a role in the covenant of God. Dispensationalists believe "God’s plan for history includes a purpose for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—that is Israel. This plan for Israel includes promises that they will have the land of Israel, will have a seed, and will be a worldwide blessing to the nations. Many of the promises to national Israel are yet future, therefore, God is not finished with Israel” (Ice). Dispensationalists by definition believe that history is separated into different periods of Grace from God: That there was an Old Testament dispensation, a church, or Christian dispensation, micro dispensations during these two, and after the rapture, a dispensation for the Jewish people. They believe many of God’s promises to Israel have not yet been fulfilled, and so, after the Church is taken to Heaven, the unbelieving Jews will be given a special arrangement, or dispensation. This belief has become subconsciously and erroneously ingrained in the American Christian psyche and has become an entrenched part of mainstream Evangelical Christianity. This doctrine has given fruit to many deciding that they, as Christians, must treat the state of Israel with unfailing respect and support.
This belief, which is the modern son of 19th century Dispensationalism, is called Christian Zionism. Like Dispensationalism, Christian Zionism asserts that the Jews are the people of God. This belief has led them to also support the Jewish Nationalist cause, otherwise known as Zionism. More specifically defined, Christian Zionism is a “theological and political Christian movement that supports the return of the Jewish Diaspora to a Jewish homeland in Palestine based on readings of biblical texts that consider that region a sacred land promised to the Jews by God” (Comstock). Again, this understanding is based on the preconception that all scripture, or at least what one decides is prophecy, is meant to be understood literally. However, it tends to pick and choose where to be literal and figurative, not taking into account other parts of scripture.
Furthermore, not all Christian Zionists align themselves with this perception. There are some non-Dispensationalist Zionists, just as there are some non-Zionist Dispensationalists, yet the point which must be understood is that Zionism logically comes forth and follows from Dispensationalism. History has proven this to be true and as the years have gone on, the popularity of Dispensationalism has declined, replaced by rising Christian Zionism; the emphasis has shifted from a methodical reading of scripture to a more politically emphasizing paradigm of thought. Instead of being concerned with having a reason to believe what they believe, modern Christians tend to be less concerned about that and tend to take bits and pieces from different places and blend them together.
Just as important as understanding Dispensationalism and Zionism is understanding who the Jewish or Hebrew people are. Is to be Jewish a religion, an ethnicity, a political state, or a culture? It is all of these. “Judaism is in part an ethnicity, in part a religion, and in part a culture” (Ahuvia). A person can be a part of one of these groups, or all of them. Someone who is Jewish ethnically does not have to practice the Jewish religion or way of life to still be a Jew. Someone who practices Judaism does not have to be ethnically Jewish. This has essentially always been true, as seen by the example of Rahab and Ruth in the Old Testament. In keeping with these examples, it should be noted that someone who converts to Judaism is generally recognized as a Jew, and can become a de facto citizen of Israel if they go through the legal process, just like a non-religious Jew who simply has Hebrew blood. A modern-day example of this interesting dynamic is that of the state of Israel, which is a secular (not religious) state, but is the nation of the Jewish People, whether they be religious or ethnic. However, up to and after the time of Christ Judaism was always at least associated with believing in the Hebrew God and obeying His law to the best of their ability. This separation between religion and culture is a more recent development, and unheard of until these last days.
Many will take the preceding and forthcoming arguments and strawman them, saying they are antisemitic. They are not. The purpose of this masterpiece/piece of art/paper is simply to refute the false belief that the Jews are still the people of God. I myself have a majority of Semitic ancestry, why would I hate myself? No one really hates himself. I am instead anti-Zionist. However, there can even be confusion between these two terms with the conflation of them in modern media.
Therefore, it is right that the difference between these two terms should be clarified. Etymologically, the term, “Semite”, is not just used to describe the Hebrew people, but to refer to “a member of any people who speak one of the Semitic languages, a family of languages that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, Aramaic, and Tigrinya, among others” (“Semite”). So, according to the original meaning of the word, an anti-Semite could be classified as someone who hates Saudi Arabians, Iraqis, Iranians, Afghanis, or others from this ethnic group! Of course, colloquially, with the Holocaust, and other anti-Jewish travesties across history, “antisemitism” is now understood to be “prejudice against or hatred of Jews” (Antisemitism Explained). In this masterpiece/art/paper there will be no prejudice or hatred conducted. Instead, it will as evenly as possible expound upon its thesis statement, which contains no hints of anti-Jewish sentiment whatsoever.
Sacred Scripture unambiguously defines the identity of the Jewish people after the close of the Old Covenant. It does not provide a special dispensation for them because they were at one time God’s people, but instead explains how The Church becomes the new Israel under the New Covenant. This is attested in both the Old and New Testaments, and was directly prophesied as early as the prophet Jeremiah, in the 6th century BC. The prophet speaks of God’s redemption for Israel, both from their subjugation to Babylon, and to sin. He declares that:
The days are coming, [...] when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.(NKJV, Jer. 31.31-34).
Of course, the prophet goes so far as to stipulate this new covenant by name in this passage, but there is so much more to be gleaned from this. When the Old Covenant and law was formed, it indicated a special intimacy between God and Israel. Israel rejected and broke that covenant in various ways, such as rejecting its fulfillment in Christ, and so, in this passage God promises that after Christ’s work on Earth, the cross and resurrection, the law would not be written on stone tablets as before, but on His people’s hearts. The Old Covenant fulfilled in Christ would be different, delivered through the Jews, indeed, but not exclusive to them anymore. The New Covenant becomes an opportunity for all peoples to worship the one true God, who made them. As the prophecy goes on to say, relationship with God will not be perfected in the rituals and books of the Jews, but in Man’s heart. This equalizes the playing field. The Jews are no longer the only ones who can have an intimate relationship with God, but everyone, through Christ and his body. For in the New Covenant the spirit of God lives within every man.
Jeremiah was not the only prophet who prophesied of the new covenant. A contemporary of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, living thousands of miles away from him, prophesied that the old, temporary Covenant would one day be replaced for everlasting. Berating Israel for their wickedness which is even worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, Ezekiel says, “you have paid for your lewdness and your abominations, [...] I will deal with you as you have done, who despised the oath by breaking the covenant” (NKJV, Ezekiel 16.59). Israel was constantly falling astray, and as the years went by there was constant cycle downturnings and revivals amongst them. At this point, Israel is in a bad place, and faces punishment for it. However, like a good father, God’s retributions are unto repentance and a change of heart. Therefore, God says through the prophet that despite Israel’s apostasy, He “will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you” (NKJV, Ezekiel 16.60). This is clearly another call forward to the New Covenant and to Christ and this new covenant being spoken of would be everlasting, it would not have to be renewed but would be for eternity. Note also that the text says the Old Covenant was created in the days of Israel’s youth, signifying that those under the New Covenant have been brought into spiritual maturity.
Now it has been established that the New Covenant, under which all creation is renewed, was predicted before Christ’s Incarnation and saving work, there can be no question regarding discrepancy between the New and Old Testaments. Just as Ezekiel 16 communicates that the faithlessness of the Jews is what brings about the New Covenant, Christ himself describes this in a series of parables in the Gospel of Matthew. One such parable is that of the two sons in chapter 21. The Lord describes a father who went to one of his sons and asked him to do something. One son said he would do it but did it not. The other said “I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went (NKJV Matt. 21.29). This is a picture of the world. The work the Father asks His sons to perform is the will of God. The first are the Jews, who were given the first opportunity to do the will of God, but ended up disregarding it. “The second son represents the Gentiles, who were not originally chosen by God but would come to Him through Christ after Israel’s falling away.” . Therefore, Christ says, sinners who originally rejected the will of God would enter into salvation ahead of those who seem blessed and who say the right things but who are not who they proclaim to be.
The Lord continues with another parable that cuts even deeper into the presumption of the Jews and religious leaders. He describes a man who set up a vineyard and equipped it to produce wine. He leased it to workers who were to cultivate it. Doing this he left the country. When it was time for the fruit to be harvested, He sent three servants to collect it. However, the workers killed all the master’s servants instead of giving them the fruit of their labors. After this, the Master sent more servants to the vineyard but the tenants killed them also. Finally, He sent His own son, thinking the tenants would surely respect him, but him they also stoned. Concluding the parable, Jesus asks the Pharisees, “when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” They said to Him, ‘He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons (NKJV Matt. 21.41)’” Hearing their response, Jesus prophesies to those servants plotting to kill the Son of God, “the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” (NKJV Matt. 21.33-43). The Vineyard is Israel. The workers of the vineyard are the leaders. The servants sent before the son are the prophets. The Father sends them to give the workers chances to do right by Him. Finally, the master, who is God the Father, sends His Son to them to afford them one last chance to do the right thing. They reject Him. Because of this rejection, because they killed him, the kingdom is taken away from them. Why then do so many say the Jews are still God’s chosen people?
This was a question even in the days of the early Church, and the Apostle Paul vigorously addresses this issue in many of his epistles. In fact, this topic is so important that about one-fourth of his letters cover it. This issue is significant, and must be explained meticulously and with great effort. In fact, the first Churchwide counsel found in Acts 15 was held to discuss this topic. Confusion is not something to be taken lightly, because the Church needs to be of one mind. The central claim St. Paul refutes in these Epistles is the assertion that Gentile Christians need to be Judaised: that they need to be circumcised, etc. After firstly explaining that God’s law is written on the heart of all people in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans, the Apostle proves that the Old Covenant law in and of itself does not save a man, but how he responds to the truth written on his heart; “For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law” (NKJV, Romans 2.12). He goes on to say that “circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (NKJV, Romans 2.25). If one knows the law, he must keep the whole law. If he is circumcised, he must also respect his parents and love his neighbor as himself. And so, if he knowingly breaks the law while circumcised, what did his circumcision profit him? Therefore, St. Paul says, “if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?” (NKJV, Romans 2.26-27). So with all of this established, that an uncircumcised man who keeps the law is better than a circumcised breaker of the law, the Apostle states that “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” (NKJV, Romans 2.28-29). So the true Israel is not defined by outward appearance or history, but by faith, which is found in God’s Messiah. Are the ethnic jews still the people of God? How can one be faithful to God if he denies that Christ is Lord? Faith does not confuse, but clarifies. In very truth the Israel of God are those who walk according to the teachings of Christ! Consider Abraham: was he justified when he was circumcised, or when he had faith and acted accordingly ? As Ambrosiaster, a commentator on St. Paul’s epistles notes, “It is the circumcision of the heart which is praiseworthy before God.” This is what Christ came to reveal to us: that he does not keep the law who fulfills its letters, but who keeps it spiritually, with divine love.
With this said, St. Paul has established that a true Jew is one who is circumcised mystically. So then what about the Jews who do not believe in Christ? The Apostle explains in Galatians Four.
Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all (NKJV, Gal. 4.22-27).
Abraham’s two sons were Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac was born of God’s promise to Abraham, but Ishmael of man’s devisings. The Women represent the Old and New Covenants. Hagar represents Mount Sinai, the mount of the Old Covenant, which Paul says correlates with the earthly Jerusalem, which he says is in bondage with her children. So, to clarify, Paul says the unbelieving Jews are the sons of Hagar. Israel would be most surprised if they knew they were fighting against their brothers! This is not a man made idea. This is St. Paul speaking in the Holy Bible, the Word of God. He continues, saying, “we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise” (NKJV, Gal. 4.28). The brethren are the Christians. They are to whom the promise applies. “So then,” he says, “we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free” (NKJV, Gal. 4.31). In short, the earthly Jerusalem gives birth to slaves, but Heavenly Jerusalem, which is not in the middle east, gives birth to free men. Accordingly, the promise no longer applies to those who do not believe in Christ. As has been said before, to truly follow the law is to follow Christ. Paul concludes by exhorting the Christians to do away with those Jews who still want to follow Moses instead of Christ just as Abraham sent away Hagar.
So then, who are the true children of the promise if not unto the sons of Abraham, unto whom the promise was delivered? Moving back into the letter to the Galatians, the great Apostle explains this also. Speaking in a manner of men, he writes that: to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He”, meaning God, “does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ (NKJV, Gal. 3.16). So Christ, who is the seed of Abraham, is to whom the promise is directed. See what he does starting in verse twenty six: “For you”, speaking of Christians, “are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (NKJV, Gal. 3.26-27). He who enters the church puts on Christ by being submerged into the water of his death, and coming out of the water into His resurrection. As he says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (NKJV, Gal. 3.28). They have all been made the same in Christ. Remember how the law is written on people's hearts? Scripture is so continual. Therefore, “if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (NKJV, Gal. 3.29).
The temple means God’s presence with Israel. More can be gleaned from this. The concept of the heavenly Jerusalem changes everything for those who call themselves followers of Christ. It shifts focus from earth to Heaven, from physical to spiritual, just like St. Paul’s argument about circumcision. He expounds on this reality in Hebrews twelve. There is debate whether he wrote this book, but if he did not it ratifies his argument even more since there is outward testimony of his teachings. He writes that Hebrews who believe in Christ “have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (NKJV Hebrews 12.22). The city of God is the Jerusalem of Heaven, not of earth. God is concerned not for earthly Zion, but Zion in Heaven. The Lord said the kingdom would be taken from the Jews and given to another nation. As a sign of this, the temple would be destroyed. Christ prophesied that “not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (NKJV Matt. 24.2). God dwelt in the temple. Because the temple was destroyed, it was made clear that God no longer dwelt with the Jews. This happened before too. In the Old Testament the temple was destroyed after Israel refused to repent of their wrongdoings. It is a sign of their departure from God’s favor.
The Bible holds nothing to suggest that Israel needs to be supported, on the contrary it says the earthly Jerusalem produces people under bondage, but besides this Biblical argument, another reason exhibiting this fact is the fact that the secular state of Israel looks nothing like the state of Israel before and during the time of Jesus. This was touched on somewhat before, but one of the most palpable examples of this is the Temple. It was destroyed in 70 AD and has not been rebuilt since. This is of utmost significance. The temple was where God dwelt and where his presence was most fully, so much so that sometimes “the priests could not continue ministering” because His presence was so intense (NKJV 1 Kings 8.11). Where the temple was, there was Israel also. When it was first built by Solomon, God made a promise that “if you walk in My statutes, execute My judgments, keep all My commandments, [...] I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake My people Israel” (NKJV, 1 Kings 6.11-13). The Jews themselves say the destruction of the temple was because of the people’s sins; because they did not keep God’s commandments. A better way to say it though, is that they did not keep His Word, Jesus Christ, who is himself the fulfillment of the law. As learned from St. Paul, the law cannot be followed while Christ is rejected. This is exactly what they did in Jesus’ time and this is what they do now. Not only do they persecute Jesus, but they harass His people, which is known to be an act against Christ Himself. In any case, without the temple, the modern state of Israel cannot claim to have any real association with the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel besides that their people share some blood between them.
Furthermore, the modern state of Israel does not follow even the law of Moses. It has replaced the law given to it through an intimate relationship with God with laws made by man. This would be unheard of in the 2nd temple era. Israel and the Torah were synonymous. The Torah says do not steal, yet Israel steals land from its neighbors. The Torah says to love thy neighbor, yet Israel maintains an apartheid of religion and race amongst its residents. It withholds rights from whom it wills. It starves children and steals from its allies. It is racist, it is in opposition to Christ, and it is without excuse. God literally handed its inhabitants’ ancestors the blueprint for moral conduct and over and over again throw it away without thought. Israel is not a Jewish state. A Jewish state abides by the tenants of Judaism and that is that (Amnesty International). Without the religious part of the equation it is nothing more than an ethnostate, distributing rights based on the color of skin and creed of faith.
Many use the book of Romans to object to the assertion that the Church replaces Israel. Paul writes: “I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not!” (NKJV, Rom. 11.1). First of all, this statement in no way contradicts the idea that the Church replaces Israel. The Jews can be beloved and not be the focus of God’s plan. God can not reject the Jews, and at the same make a new covenant with the Church. Secondly, this assertion grievously misunderstands this saying, and those who make it obviously glaze over the rest of the chapter where Paul explains that this opening of the New Covenant to the Gentiles is so that “through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles (NKJV, 11.11). God allowed some of the Jews to fall away so that the whole world might be saved. This is a great blessing! It should be noted that this is not to say that the Jews can never be saved, just to state that they must be saved under Christ. It is the collective teaching of the early church that many Jews will come to faith in Christ, but it is this faith that redeems them, nothing else.
St. John Chrysostom, just about the most powerful preacher in Christian history writes that “To show therefore that [Elijah] the Tishbite comes before that other [second] advent [...] That when He is come, He may persuade the Jews to believe in Christ, and that they may not all utterly perish at His coming. Wherefore He too, guiding them on to that remembrance, saith, ‘And he shall restore all things;’ that is, shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being” (Justinianius). The second advent is Christ’s second coming. It was even the belief of the Jews that Elijah would come back, which is why some thought Jesus was Elijah. Now is known the reason for the descent: to preach to those unbelieving the resurrection from the dead, and the salvation of the Lord. This is not the view of a single figure in church history, but the consensus of the Church from the beginning.
Another misunderstood part of Romans 11 is when Paul says that “I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved” (NKJV, Rom. 11.25-26). Many understand this to mean that all ethnic Jews will be saved because they are of the line of Israel. Yet, this misunderstanding is asserted without the understanding which has been made apparent in Hebrews and Galatians: that Israel, which will all be saved, is the body of believers in Christ. Ephesians 1.10 says that in the dispensation of the fullness of time God will “gather together in one all things in Christ” (NKJV, Eph. 1.10). All things in Christ. Someone who rejects Christ is not in Him, but Jesus says those who believe are in Him and He in them. This argument falls on its face when one simply reads a few verses in context and does not take a verse and apply it to their already biased viewpoints.
Think of the times Israel was in exile. It was because of their sins, and for a certain time, they were given over to their enemies. But when the time was right, and they had come back to God, they were brought back to their home, in the presence of God (Bronkhorst) This is a spiritual metaphor. Humanity does not strive against flesh and blood but against the spirits of darkness: these are the enemies. The Jews have been given over to their enemies for a little while, so that they might repent and come back to God, who is Christ. Furthermore, God no longer rests only in the temple but can be accessed anywhere. Even the body of the believer is “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (NKJV, 1 Cor. 6.19-20). Therefore this “coming home” is to right belief and to the Church. In a way, it is a coming back to themselves.
Another common objection to the idea of the Church replacing Israel is that never in the New Testament does it say the word “New Israel”. This is the argument from silence fallacy and, to be honest, is quite injudicious. By this logic, everyone should abandon Dispensationalism because the Bible never says to read itself literally. Never in the New Testament does it say the word “Trinity”, or, “hypostatic union”, yet they are terms agreed to because they are taught in the New Testament, even if those specific terms do not appear. Therefore, just because the Bible never explicitly says “The church is the new Israel”, does not mean that it is a valid claim to make based on its teachings. This argument also ignores the multitude of lines spent in Scripture redefining the meaning of Israel around Christ. The book of Romans, which they love to quote so much, says that “not all those of Israel are from Israel” (NKJV, Rom. 9.6). There is a distinction between True Israel and Israel by blood. Never will you ever see in the New Testament that anyone will be saved by their blood, but as Galatians 3 says, the descendants of Abraham are those who live by faith in Jesus Christ.
War in Gaza–a war that was sparked over two years ago and still smolders today is defined by the deaths of those seemingly uninvolved in the conflict, and emphasized ceaselessly on social media. The world has had a front row seat to a seemingly never-ending saga of destitution and bloodshed. It is a war defined by the annihilation of thousands of innocent civilians on both sides. A war in which the fighting was not conducted against soldiers or servicemen, but against people such as you and I. It was a war enacted upon mothers and children, upon bellies, hospitals, and religious institutions; a war in which each side might be called a terrorist group. It was a war delivered even against Christian Churches erected from antiquity to glorify our most beloved Lord Jesus Christ. It was a war delivered without discernment, without prejudice. No distinction was made between the innocent and the guilty. No favor was shown to those who lived in apartments or those conspiring in tunnels. In fact, it may be said that there was favor shown to those in the tunnels! Four out of every five persons killed in the Gaza war were civilians, and those not on the side of Israel were 50 times more likely to die than those who attacked them. Objectively, that is a massacre. Any time casualties on one side are that high, it is without a doubt a complete rout. Yet Christian Americans seem reluctant to call the war in Gaza what it is. Because of some vague notion in the back of their minds, they feel compelled to support Israel without hesitation, rather than recognizing the war for what it is: a conflict in which neither side is righteous and both stand in opposition to Christ.
Five Americans, though they were the first instigators, were killed in Boston in 1770 and are now heroes of what is called today the Boston Massacre. How is it that Americans, with seemingly no skin in the game, cannot denounce the occurrences in Gaza as un-Christian and evil? How is it that they are less comfortable calling Gaza a massacre than Boston? It is through the conditioning of second rate theology, originating separately from the Church of Christ, being massaged into the psyches of Christians in America for centuries. It is the memories of previous travesties impeding their ability to delineate right and wrong. It has been propagated and sustained by such influential people as Abraham Lincoln and George Bush, to name a couple. It is from a similar spirit and mentality that says white people should recompense African Americans for slavery. It stems from misunderstanding and ignorance of Scripture and history. The apostle Paul makes clear that the Church is “the Israel of God.”
Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him. And no one comes to Christ except through His Body, the Church. Those joined to His Body are God’s chosen people, the new Israel. As communicated in Holy Scripture, this grace was taken from the collective Hebrew people, Mount Sinai, and given to those who believe in Christ, Mount Zion. Christianity is the completion and fulfillment of Second Temple Judaism, not a separate offshoot or sect. It has stayed true, while Judaism, reacting against its fulfillment, has morphed into something very much different than before the time of Jesus. But besides this, Israel has always been a principally spiritual term. It is for this reason that support for the state of Israel is not obligatory.
So instead of going along with the crowd and letting your opinions be tossed about by the churning tides of American media, think for yourself. Do the research, and above all take into account the inspired Scriptures of God.
Works Cited
Ahuvia, Mika. “Who Are Jews? An Overview of Jewish History from Ancient Times On, and the Origins of Antisemitism.” UW Stroum Center for Jewish Studies, University of Washington, 2016, https://jewishstudies.washington.edu/who-are-jews-jewish-history-origins-antisemitism/
Bronkhurst, Hildert. “Why Did God Send the Israelites into Exile (Captivity)?”
www.biblword.net/why-did-god-send-the-israelites-into-exile/.
Comstock, Frannie. “Christian Zionism | History, Biblical Interpretations, America, England, & (Evangelicalism.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Jan. 2025, www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-Zionism.
Ice, Thomas. Scholars Crossing Scholars Crossing a Short History of Dispensationalism a Short History of Dispensationalism. 2009.
---. Scholars Crossing Scholars Crossing What Is Dispensationalism? What Is Dispensationalism? 2009.
Justianius, Codex. “The Fathers on the Salvation of Israel.” Ancient Insights, 6 Apr. 2021, ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2021/04/06/the-fathers-on-the-salvation-of-israel/. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.
New King James Version. Kenneth O. Gangel and Stephen J. Bramer. Nashville: Holman
BiblePublishers, 1982.
“Semite.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/Semite.
Shanbour, Fr. Michael. Know the Faith. Ancient Faith Publishing, 10 Oct. 2016.
“Strong’s Greek: 473. ἀντί (Anti) -- For, Instead Of, in Place Of, because of.” Biblehub.com, 2026, biblehub.com/greek/473.htm. Accessed 18 Apr. 2026.
“Antisemitism Explained.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2024, www.ushmm.org/antisemitism/what-is-antisemitism/explained.
Create Your Own Website With Webador