When God Says Israel, He Means Israel

When pastor and Bible commentator John MacArthur was once asked why he held a dispensational, pre-millennial eschatology, his answer was remarkably simple: “That’s easy. Israel.”

That response might seem overly simplistic to some, but MacArthur understood something profound—Israel is the linchpin of biblical prophecy, a test case for God’s faithfulness, and one of the measuring sticks by which we determine whether God means what He says.

Yet today, a growing number of Christians are abandoning this view. From theological seminaries to social media influencers, from conservative commentators like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens to an increasing number of pastors and church leaders, there’s a movement away from seeing Israel as central to God’s prophetic plan. The doctrine gaining ground is often called “Replacement Theology,” “Covenant Theology,” or “Fulfillment Theology”—and while I don’t believe this is a salvation issue, I do believe it’s a significant interpretive issue with real-world consequences.

The Miracle That Shouldn’t Exist

Let me start with the undeniable facts. Israel has the most unique and longest-standing ethnic history of any people group on earth. No other nation has been conquered, divided, scattered across every continent, persecuted for millennia, and yet survived to return to their ancient homeland and reestablish themselves as a nation.

Think about that for a moment. For nearly 2,000 years following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, the Jewish people existed as a diaspora—pockets of communities scattered throughout the world, speaking different languages, adopting different customs, yet somehow maintaining their ethnic identity. Throughout history, satanic agendas have sought to destroy them, culminating in the horror of the Holocaust, where six million Jews were systematically murdered in Nazi Germany.

Who would have imagined that out of the ashes of such devastation, God would orchestrate the fulfillment of ancient prophecy? On May 14, 1948, the Israeli Declaration of Independence was proclaimed, establishing the first Jewish state in nearly two millennia. At that time, the Jewish population of Israel represented just six percent of all Jews worldwide. Today, Israel’s population has grown nearly twelve-fold, with over 7 million Jews making up approximately 73.5 percent of the nation’s population.

But here’s what makes Israel’s rebirth even more remarkable: Hebrew, which had not been spoken as a daily language for 2,000 years, was revived and is now the only successful large-scale example of linguistic revival in human history. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, often regarded as the “reviver of the Hebrew language,” pioneered this unprecedented achievement, and Hebrew became one of Israel’s official languages after independence in 1948. No other dead language has ever been brought back to life as a spoken, thriving, modern language. This is nothing short of a divine miracle.

Since 1948, this piece of real estate—smaller than New Jersey and located in one of the most contested regions on earth—has been the epicenter of global attention, a thorn in the side of hostile regimes, and the most prosperous, innovative, and blessed nation in the Middle East. Yet despite all this—despite the obvious hand of God in history—many within the church now see Israel as nothing more than a geopolitical anomaly, a nation that no longer holds any unique place in God’s heart or prophetic plan.

The Dangerous Drift Toward Replacement Theology

Let me be clear from the outset: I’m not suggesting that everyone who holds to Covenant Theology is antisemitic. That would be unfair and untrue. Many godly, Bible-believing Christians hold this view with sincere conviction. The Lutheran church itself has denounced the horrific antisemitic writings of Martin Luther, the great reformer to whom we owe so much for bringing the church back to the principles of sola scriptura and salvation by grace through faith alone.

However, Luther’s story serves as a sobering warning. Having fully adopted replacement theology—the belief that the church had replaced Israel in God’s sight and that Israel has no place within God’s covenants—Luther wrote some of the most vitriolic antisemitic literature in existence. His writings were so venomous that the Nazi party later used them as propaganda to justify their treatment of Jews. Some suggest that Luther was plagued by disease that caused him to lose his mental faculties at the end of his life. Regardless of the explanation, the enemy clearly got hold of him.

The point is this: there is a concentrated spiritual attack from the great despiser of God’s covenants to dismiss, devalue, and destroy the heritage of the Jewish people and the promises afforded to them by God Himself.

Why? Because Satan knows that prophetically, his demise is directly correlated with Christ’s return. Christ’s return is directly correlated to events that require an existing nation of Israel. He has been on a mission to destroy those people and that nation from the beginning, and he continues that mission today—sometimes through overt persecution, and sometimes through theological drift that undermines the significance of Israel in the minds of believers.

Why Should We Care? The Reliability of God’s Covenants

Dr. John Walvoord raised a question in 1962 that remains just as relevant today:

“God made promises to Israel—to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—that are unconditional and eternal. If God’s promises to Israel can be broken, what hope does the Church have?”

This isn’t merely an academic theological debate. This is about whether God means what He says.

Many within Covenant Theology circles claim that God’s promises weren’t broken but were transferred spiritually to the church. While this might sound reasonable on the surface, there are serious interpretive and practical dangers in this framework.

First, the danger of allegorization. The more literal statements God makes, the more you allegorize or spiritualize them, the shakier the ground you stand on regarding biblical interpretation. Where do you draw the line between what’s literal and what’s figurative? I’ll admit that some passages in Scripture are difficult to understand, and determining their literal or figurative nature requires careful study. However, typically when the Bible intends to be metaphorical or allegorical, it explicitly indicates that intention. When it wants to be literal, we need to trust the factual statements it makes.

When God makes literal, physical promises to the ethnic people of Israel, it’s dangerous to pick and choose which ones are now merely spiritual or which ones are now void.

Second, real-world implications. There are contemporary consequences about the real estate in the Middle East—who has a legitimate claim to it and what political strategies should be implemented to secure peace. These aren’t abstract theological musings; they affect real people, real borders, and real conflicts.

I recently heard a proponent of covenant theology assert that “God’s covenant with Israel has nothing to do with land, property, or the establishment of any physical kingdom of Israel.” Considering the plain reading of the Bible, I would tremble to make such a statement.

Let’s look at what God actually says and follow the thread woven throughout these chapters:

Genesis 12:1-3 – God tells Abraham: “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Genesis 17:7-8 – “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

Notice the language: everlasting—meaning unbroken throughout time. The covenant is made with Abraham and his descendants—the ethnic line of the Jewish people. And it explicitly includes land—a physical, geographical territory.

Psalm 105:8-11 reinforces this: “He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, and confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant, saying, ‘To you I will give the land of Canaan as the allotment of your inheritance.'”

Jeremiah 32:37-41 speaks of a future restoration: “Behold, I will gather them out of all countries where I have driven them in My anger, in My fury, and in great wrath; I will bring them back to this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely. They shall be My people, and I will be their God… And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me. Yes, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will assuredly plant them in this land, with all My heart and with all My soul.”

God’s promises to Abraham were not spiritual only but had a literal national and territorial component. Charles Spurgeon himself, in his sermon “The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews” delivered on June 16, 1864, stated regarding his reading of Romans 9-11 and Jeremiah’s prophecies: “The meaning of our text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality; and then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel.”

The Church and Israel: Distinct Yet Connected

Another key assertion of Covenant Theology is that there’s a spiritual continuity between the Abrahamic covenant to the ethnic Jews and the church, requiring acceptance that the church is the “new Israel” and that the old physical promises are now spiritual or allegorical promises to the church rather than ethnic Jews.

But the Bible reveals something different—a profound truth concerning the relationship between Israel and the church. While both are encompassed within the covenant of God, they retain distinct and complementary identities.

In Christ, a new entity has been born. This entity is never referred to as “the new Israel” in the New Testament but rather as “the Body of Christ, the church,” comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who have received Christ as Messiah. However, this does not erase their ethnic distinctions or the unique prophetic promises made to the ethnic Jewish nation.

As theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote in his Systematic Theology (1947):

“The Church is not spiritual Israel. It is a new organism, the body of Christ.”

Some will counter, “But Galatians 3:28 states there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ.” Yes, in the sense of justification, that’s absolutely true. No matter our national identity, justification comes the same for all. But Paul also says there is neither male nor female—yet he certainly wasn’t erasing gender identities or distinctions. The creation of one new body in Christ doesn’t erase the distinction of ethnic Israel or the promises made to them.

Paul makes this crystal clear in Romans 9-11. Some suggest that when Paul uses the term “Israel” in Romans 11, particularly regarding “all Israel shall be saved,” he’s talking about the new spiritual Israel—the church—not ethnic Israel. But let’s examine whether this interpretation holds up under scrutiny.

Romans 9:1-4 – Paul writes with deep emotion: “I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.”

Paul is clearly speaking of ethnic Israel here, not the church.

Romans 9:30-31 – “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.”

Again, Paul distinguishes between Gentiles and Israel.

Romans 10:1-2 – “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.”

Why would Paul pray for “Israel” to be saved if Israel is the church that’s already saved?

Romans 11:1 – “I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.”

Paul identifies himself ethnically as an Israelite.

Romans 11:25-27 – “For 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, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.'”

This passage makes no sense if Paul is talking about the church. The church isn’t partially blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in—the church includes the Gentiles!

Romans 11:28-29 – “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

The promises God made to the fathers—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—are irrevocable. God doesn’t take back His covenant promises.

Even the early church father Irenaeus wrote around 180 AD: “The promises (to Israel) were not annulled, but they remain in full force.”

Jesus Himself Confirms Israel’s Future

Perhaps most significantly, Jesus Himself spoke of Israel’s future role in His kingdom. When His disciples asked Him in Acts 1:6-7, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus responded, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.”

Notice what Jesus didn’t say. He didn’t correct their belief that the kingdom would be restored to Israel. He only corrected their misunderstanding about the timing. The disciples’ expectation of a restored kingdom for Israel came directly from Jesus’ own teaching.

In Matthew 19:28, Jesus explicitly told them: “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Jesus wasn’t speaking in parables or allegories here. He was speaking of a true future reality in which His disciples would rule with Him over a physical kingdom established in the land of Israel. When the disciples asked about this future kingdom in Acts 1, Jesus affirmed their expectation but clarified the timing was in the Father’s hands. Until that time, they would receive power to be witnesses of Christ so that the future kingdom could be open to all people who would receive Him as King.

Clearing Up Common Misconceptions

Before we conclude, I need to address several misconceptions about dispensationalism and the view that Israel still holds a unique place in God’s plan.

Misconception #1: All Jews Are Automatically Saved

This is absolutely false. Romans 10:9 is clear: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe… you will be saved.” Salvation is always by faith in Christ—for Jew and Gentile alike. Being born a physical Jew does not ensure eternal salvation.

Romans 11 does state that at a future time, there will be national repentance and acceptance of Jesus as Messiah among the Jewish people. Zechariah 12:10 prophesies: “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son.” But this future salvation will be based on faith in Christ, just like everyone else’s.

Misconception #2: Supporting Israel Means Approving Everything Their Government Does

Proverbs 14:34 reminds us: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

Regarding Israel’s claim to the land God promised them, it’s essential that we support their right to exist. The everlasting covenant that promised them the land is irreversible. Their ability to fully enjoy that land in peace is conditional upon their obedience, but that relationship is between them and God.

However, supporting Israel’s existence and acknowledging their place in God’s prophetic plan does not equal carte blanche approval of everything the secular government of Israel does. If Israel allows abortion, Christians should stand against it. If Israel creates immoral or unethical laws, Christians have a moral obligation to stand for righteousness. Supporting Israel biblically is not the same as uncritical political endorsement.

Misconception #3: Supporting Israel Means Supporting Judaism

Let me be perfectly clear: ethnic Jews who still practice Judaism as their form of worship to God do not know God and are spiritually incomplete without Christ.

Jesus Himself rejected the false worship of Judaism according to Pharisaical practices and the pursuit of righteousness through the law. Paul was grieved by the Judaizers who tried to bring Christians into the religious system of Judaism as a requirement for salvation. Read the book of Hebrews, and you’ll discover that moving to Judaism from Christianity is stepping backward from God’s redemptive plan.

Christians should not support the building of a Jewish temple as if it represents true worship (though it does have significant prophetic implications), nor should we act as though Jews are worshipping God in truth without Jesus. That would be biblically dishonest and spiritually dangerous.

Misconception #4: Dispensationalism Is a Modern Invention

Some critics claim that dispensationalism was invented by John Darby in the 1800s. While Darby did systematize dispensational and pre-tribulation rapture theology in a comprehensive package, he didn’t invent these concepts. Darby was a preacher deeply committed to the gospel and the authority of Scripture. Unlike cultic figures like Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell, Darby’s views rested on the complete authority of the Bible. Additionally, he wasn’t the first or last to postulate that Israel and the church are distinct entities or that the rapture would occur before the tribulation.

It’s also worth noting that Replacement Theology’s dominance rose significantly after 70 AD. Following the destruction of the temple and the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 AD, Jewish life in Israel diminished dramatically. Church theologians like Origen and Augustine began interpreting prophecies allegorically. Augustine’s City of God (early 5th century) spiritualized the millennium and the role of Israel, laying the groundwork for amillennialism. But much of this interpretation was influenced by the nonexistence of a physical nation of Israel at the time.

Now that Israel exists again—against all odds—we should reconsider whether those allegorical interpretations truly do justice to the plain meaning of Scripture.

Conclusion: When God Says Israel, He Means Israel

“For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29)

When God says “Israel,” He means Israel. The Church is precious, redeemed, and called—but she is not Israel. These are two distinct groups with overlapping participation in God’s redemptive plan but with unique identities and promises. The way some Christians talk about Israel, with angry words and unfounded accusations, sounds nothing like the heart of Paul, who said, perhaps with tears in his eyes, “for my people, my Jewish brothers and sisters. I would be willing to be forever cursed—cut off from Christ!—if that would save them.” We should be careful to let God deal with Israel and do our part in praying for their peace, preaching the gospel that they might be saved, and defending God’s everlasting promises to them.

A proper understanding of these truths magnifies God’s covenant faithfulness, affirms Christ’s future reign, and upholds the reliability of Scripture. If God can keep His promises to Israel despite millennia of dispersion, persecution, and near extinction, then we can trust that He will keep His promises to the Church.

As Dr. Chuck Missler eloquently observed: “We have seen the dry bones of Israel come together. We are watching them receive breath. The King is coming.”

The re-establishment of Israel isn’t a political accident or a geopolitical coincidence. It’s the fulfillment of prophecy, the unfolding of God’s eternal plan, and a signpost pointing toward the return of Christ. Whether we recognize it or not, Israel matters—not because of their political perfection or spiritual completeness, but because God made them promises that He refuses to break.

And if we believe God keeps His word to Israel, we can trust He’ll keep His word to us.

---

What are your thoughts on Israel’s place in God’s prophetic plan? This conversation is more important now than ever.