Debunking Replacement Theology Part 5

How Replacement Theology’s problem with the Land has turned Christians against Israel

Four attitudes in Christianity caused by Replacement Theology

The Bible is clear: the Land of Israel has been given to the Jewish people as an everlasting inheritance. In Genesis 17:8, the LORD told Abraham, “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.” Deuteronomy 32:9, says, “For the LORD’s portion is His people; Jacob is the place of His inheritance.” Deuteronomy 30 describes how the Jewish people, scattered to the uttermost parts of the world, will be brought back into the Land. Meanwhile, Amos 9:15 reveals this wonderful promise: “’I will plant them in their land, and no longer shall they be pulled up from the land I have given them,’ says the Lord your God.”

Everlasting means everlasting. How, then, can so many within the Church be deceived into believing that the Land of Israel is no longer part of God’s promise to the Jewish people. In this article, we describe four differing attitudes in mainstream Christianity towards the Land that are caused by Replacement Theology, the destructive false teaching that the Church has replaced Israel.

The Literal-Religious Approach

This characteristic takes the false doctrine that the Church has replaced Israel and assumes that the Land of Israel is now Christianized. This goes a step further than simply appreciating the Christian connection to the Land, and instead imposes a view that Jews have forfeited the Land through unbelief. In this view, if the Church has adopted the full scope of the Abrahamic Covenant in place of the Jews, it must therefore by implication include the physical Land. This was a major theme of the Crusades, which regarded the Holy Land as Christian and no longer Jewish, and the same spirit is today sometimes recognisable in the Middle East in some sections of Catholic and Christian orthodoxy.

Muslim leadership in the Palestinian territories has exploited this attitude by adopting language that seems favourable to Christianity, whilst overseeing a decline in the number of Christians due to radical Islam. The invention of phrases like ‘Jesus was a Palestinian’ seems to roll comfortably off the tongue of Palestinian Muslims, who do not have the slightest interest or authority in Christian theology, and the Church is too deceived by Replacement Theology to challenge it. Some Palestinian Christian leaders have even warmed to this erroneous appeasement. It is even celebrated.

For example, who holds the key to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? The church is on the site of where many in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church believe Jesus was buried. Since the 12th century to this day, the key is held by a Muslim family to prevent Christian denominations that share the church from having a control dispute. Even though this is a long-standing tradition, it is symbolic of how the freedom of Palestinian Christians is subjugated to Muslim control.

Others might contend that this is simply a proven example of coexistence. But coexistence between Palestinian Muslims and Palestinian Christians without the embracing of Jews is not coexistence at all. It could even be described as apartheid. In contrast, the State of Israel is a place where coexistence between Jews, Arabs, Christians and Muslims actually exists. Christians are able to enjoy life in Israel securely, in contrast with the Palestinian territories where many are compromised by the Palestinian allegiance.

The literal-religious approach undermines the Jewish ownership of the Land. This isn’t to deny how special the Land is to Christians, but it should not replace the Jewish people’s land inheritance. Imagine someone who rents a house. The person renting the house is allowed to make the house a home; call it home; love it as home; enjoy it as home; treat it as home. There is no denying the person renting has a shared interest and care for the property. But the title deeds determine that there is a leaseholder and a landlord. Legally, the landlord owns the property and has full entitlement to the property. This isn’t a perfect comparison, but here is the main principle: Christians might share in the joy of the Land of Israel and love it like their own; but the title deeds show ownership belongs to the Jewish people.

The Super-Spiritual Approach

This characteristic takes the false doctrine that the Church has replaced Israel and over-spiritualises the implications. It is more common in some Evangelical and Charismatic movements that embrace Replacement Theology. It is completely the opposite end of the spectrum to the Literal-Religious Approach, because unlike the former that tries to Christianize the Land through religious practice, the Super-Spiritual Approach doesn’t think the State of Israel is of any specific theological importance to Christians, except maybe for Bible-history significance.

This view suggests that if Jews have forfeited the Land because of unbelief, and if the Church is now Israel anyway, then the State of Israel in the present doesn’t really have any Biblical relevance. Israel becomes as a spiritual-only metaphor for Christians, and a geographical Land is not applicable for the Christian faith.

Also, the formation of the State of Israel loses its prophetic weight if the Jewish people’s connection to the Land is severed. The Land itself might still be valued as the Land of the Bible, and therefore maintains historical importance; but it becomes very difficult to Biblically justify support for the idea of the State of Israel if one thinks that the Church is now Israel.

This view results in a generally passive attitude towards Israel-related issues, seeing them as only political, and doesn’t necessarily recognise the Biblical significance. It isn’t necessarily swayed by the pro-Palestinian movement, but it doesn’t feel the need to teach about Israel and tries to avoid division. It might not set out to be anti-Israel, but it can easily default to becoming as such, owing to the lack of solid teaching about Israel.

This over-spiritualising of ‘the Church is now Israel’ makes Israel’s present challenges seem earthly and unresolvable in the natural – especially in comparison with the ‘New Jerusalem’ that the Bible speaks of. It is true that our hope is in the things above, but to think that God has finished with earthly Jerusalem is disproven by Scripture. After all, Jesus is returning to Jerusalem as a Jewish city, not a Christianized one, or a Muslim one. Likewise, to regard the State of Israel as a man-made creation completely ignores the miraculous and the prophetic.

The Conditional Approach

There is a ‘Lite’ version of Replacement Theology that is present in many churches in the West. This view might agree with the Biblical view that there is a distinct difference between Israel and the Church. It might also recognise that God has a future purpose for Israel. However, at this present time they regard the Jewish people’s presence in the Land as entirely conditional upon their spiritual restoration, contending that it has yet to be fulfilled. They say that until this spiritual restoration happens (usually meaning Israel’s recognition of Jesus as Messiah), there cannot be a physical restoration in terms of the Land. Well, here’s the bombshell – Israel IS in the Land, re-established and thriving in their ancestral homeland. Therefore, holding this view implies that Israel doesn’t have a current right to exist, even though Israel very much does exist.

The result of this predicament leaves support for Israel at the behest of the State of Israel’s behaviour. Those who hold this view tend to take a more critical view of the State of Israel – holding it to a higher standard than any other country. It undermines God’s grace and ignores the Church’s ‘plank in its own eye’. The Apostle Paul warned about this kind of attitude in Romans 11:18, saying, “Do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.”

Many with this view contend that the State of Israel is not the Israel of the Bible. Of course, technically speaking the ‘State’ of Israel in its current form as an independent, democratic state is not in the Bible! Does that delegitimise it? No. Israel in the Bible is a nation. It is a people – the Jewish people – and the Land of Israel was given to them as an eternal inheritance; to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all their descendants in an everlasting Land contract. It has more historical and legal validation than most existing modern states in the world. To deny that Israel today is not the same as Israel in the Bible is completely flawed. Not only is the nation of Israel in the Bible facilitated today by the State of Israel, but Israel is also spoken of prophetically in the Bible in the context of the future, both in the Old Testament and likewise in the New Testament.

Placing spiritual-attainment conditions on supporting Israel and their right to the Land is a religious spirit of superiority. It ignores God’s compassion for His people and the promises that He has made in His Covenant, including the possession of the Land. It is also uncomfortably judgemental of the Jewish people and their faith. In fact, it is not dissimilar to the basis of much of the antisemitism done in the name of Christianity over two millennia. For example, during the time of the Spanish Inquisition, it was the Catholic Church in Spain and Portugal that persecuted the Jewish people for refusing to convert to Christianity. God-fearing Christians today rightly insist this sinful act was not practised in the name of true Biblical Christianity; but it was not the only instance of antisemitism carried out by the church at the time, and it remains in the consciousness of the Jewish people. Just as this historic wrong should be condemned by Christians, the same vigorous rebuke of conditional attitudes towards the Jewish people today should likewise be rejected.

Nativity scene with Baby Jesus’ crib draped in a Palestinian keffiyeh, Vatican, Dec. 7, 2024.

The Palestinianization Approach

There is a deeply distressing movement among some churches in the West that have adopted Replacement Theology and are actively pro-Palestinian. Unlike the previous three attitudes that do not necessarily attempt to be anti-Israel, but stumble into being so through the misinterpretation of Scripture, there are churches in our midst that have been infiltrated by a rebellious, antisemitic spirit. Their view isn’t necessarily based only on a misinterpretation of the Bible – rather, they have chosen to turn against the Bible. They begin with the fundamental belief that Israel is evil, and Replacement Theology conveniently accommodates their worldview.

Israel is rarely the only topic that these churches are misguided in. Palestinianism has become part of their manufactured identity. This identity has been placed above the Bible and is idolatry. Their favourite verse is “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free,” which incidentally cannot be found in the Bible.

For many years, these churches were engaged in supporting Palestinian humanitarian work in the seemingly palatable context of ‘social justice’. Their efforts might have been sincere and not intentionally antisemitic, but they would conceal their deep-rooted replacement theology with “What about the Palestinians?” and rarely asked, “What about the Jews?”

Indeed, Arab people need our prayers also, but these churches would more happily blame Jews for the plight of Palestinians rather than blaming Palestinian terrorists. Rather than pray for Israel’s enemies to repent of their wickedness and turn to Jesus, the Palestinianized Approach has never seemed to prioritise the need of the Gospel for the Palestinian people.

The actual oppressors of the Palestinian people were never truly condemned by these churches – it didn’t fit the narrative. It was simply ‘social justice’ used as a mask for antisemitism. To take a scripture out of context, they have made Jews ‘enemies of the Gospel’. Some of these churches would reasonably sympathise with Christians in the Palestinian territories, but their arguments would often be conflated with the mainstream anti-Israel narrative perpetuated by political Palestinian leadership.

Palestinian Liberation Theology has had an influence in some of these social justice efforts. Coined by Palestinian leaders in a deliberate propaganda attempt, it takes the false identity of a ‘Palestinian Jesus’ and draws parallels between the ‘treatment’ of Jesus by Jews and the ‘treatment’ of Palestinians by Israel (they mean Jews), suggesting that Palestinians are victims of a similar nature. There is a lot to unpack here, but Jesus was a Jew not a Palestinian, and he was born in Judea not Palestine. But it doesn’t stop them from drawing theoretical absurdities such as this common expression: ‘Jesus’s parents would not have been able to travel to Bethlehem today because of the check-points’. This has astonishingly resonated with many gullible Christians stoked by the Palestinianization Approach.

In the past few years, these same churches have shifted a gear. They have become activists. They have given themselves over to the pro-Palestinian movement and actively participate in the ungodly indoctrination that is leading Christians astray. They are lost inside an echo chamber of propaganda and lies against Israel, blinded to the truth of the Bible. They have not heeded the Biblical warnings and are on a slippery slope. They joined in the antisemitic boycotts of Israel and are now standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Islamists, the Far Left and others who not only hate the Jews but want to see the Church destroyed also. They are siding with the enemies of God. This might sound strong, but it is happening. The spirit of Amalek has infiltrated a compromising church. They failed to defend the gates. They didn’t even know there were gates to defend. It might be too late for these churches that have given in to reprobate minds.

The Palestinianization Approach allows no room for the Land being part of Israel’s everlasting possession. It has subscribed to the mainstream pro-Palestinian narrative that Israel is ‘occupier’ of the Land. The worry is that this anti-Israel slur that is commonplace in pro-Palestinian protests is in fact being taught in churches across the world. This is in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches. Joel 3:2 warns nations about dividing up the Land; Zechariah 12:2 warns that He will make Jerusalem a heavy stone, and that all those who try to heave it out of the way will be cut into pieces. The challenge for churches in this nation is to have no association with this wicked belief that the Jewish people have no right to the Land promised as an eternal inheritance.

The Bible says that there is blessing and cursing in how we treat the nation of Israel, and this includes the Land. Replacement Theology is a misinterpretation of Scripture. Rejecting it is key to the future of the Church in this nation.

Next time: The spirit behind replacement theology