Every Christmas, our attention turns to Bethlehem. We sing of angels and shepherds, and of God stepping into human history wrapped in humility and grace. The King of kings was laid in a lowly manger.
Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem was not coincidental. It was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Micah 5:2), and it was central to Gabriel’s announcement to Mary: “the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32).
These were not poetic words meant only to inspire; they were covenant promises rooted in God’s commitments to His people Israel.
But what do those promises mean today, two thousand years after Christ?
In recent months, renewed global focus on Israel has stirred intense discussion among Christians. Alongside political debate and cultural tension, a theological question has resurfaced with new urgency: Does Israel still matter in God’s plan? Or have the promises once given to Israel now been fulfilled by the church?
Two Views
Two broad theological approaches attempt to answer these questions. At the risk of oversimplification, the following definitions describe these positions, recognizing that each includes a wide range of interpretations.
Fulfillment Theology (sometimes called Replacement Theology) teaches that the church has fulfilled the covenants God made to Israel and thus replaced Israel as God’s covenant people. According to this view, the promises once given to Israel are now fulfilled spiritually in the church, and Israel no longer holds a distinct role in God’s redemptive plan. This view has historically been associated with Roman Catholic theology and with many Reformed denominations, though it is held with varying emphases and expressions.
Dispensational Theology teaches that God has distinct purposes for Israel and the church. While salvation has always been by grace through faith, the covenant promises made to Israel—including national and kingdom promises—were never revoked and will be fulfilled literally in God’s time.
I believe Scripture clearly teaches the second view—not because of current events, but because of the nature of God’s promises. Consider three reasons.
1. God’s Covenants Were Never Revoked
The clearest reason Israel still matters today is this: God’s covenant promises to Israel were never revoked.
Throughout the Old Testament, God established several unconditional covenants with Israel, most notably the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants. These covenants were not based on Israel’s faithfulness, but on God’s. He bound Himself by promise, not by performance.
God promised Abraham a land, a nation, and a blessing that would extend to all families of the earth (Genesis 12:1–3). He promised David an everlasting throne and kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12–16). And He promised Israel a New Covenant that included both spiritual renewal and national restoration (Jeremiah 31:31–37). Significantly, when God described the permanence of that New Covenant, He tied it to the fixed order of creation itself, declaring that Israel would cease to be a nation only if the sun, moon, and stars failed.
None of these covenants were annulled by Israel’s unbelief, nor were they redefined by the birth of the church. Delay in fulfillment does not equal cancellation. “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Romans 11:29). Scripture consistently presents a God who keeps His promises according to His timetable, not ours. After all, it was “in the fulness of time” that “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law” (Galatians 4:4–5). And it will be in His fullness of time that Jesus returns as King of kings.
2. Jesus Confirmed the Promises
Not only were God’s covenants never revoked, but Jesus Himself confirmed them.
From the beginning of His earthly life, Christ was presented as the fulfillment of Israel’s covenant hope. As just mentioned, Gabriel announced to Mary that Jesus would receive “the throne of his father David” and reign over a kingdom without end (Luke 1:32–33). These words echo God’s promise to David centuries earlier and point forward to a literal, future reign.
Throughout His ministry, Jesus consistently affirmed the reality of the kingdom rather than dismissing it. When He preached, He declared that the kingdom of heaven was “at hand” (Matthew 4:17). When He taught His disciples to pray, He instructed them to ask for the kingdom to come (Matthew 6:10). And after His resurrection—at the very moment when misunderstanding would have been corrected if necessary—the disciples asked, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Jesus did not rebuke the question or spiritualize the promise. Instead, He spoke of timing, not cancellation: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power” (Acts 1:7).
This distinction is critical. Jesus did not deny Israel’s future restoration; He deferred it according to God’s sovereign timetable. The kingdom was postponed, not replaced.
The New Testament consistently presents Christ as the heir of David’s throne who will yet rule over the nations (Luke 1:32–33; Acts 2:30). His first coming accomplished redemption; His second coming will establish righteous rule (Revelation 19–20). Between those two events, local churches have been given a mission to bear witness to the King.
Far from rendering Israel obsolete, Jesus’ ministry confirms that God’s redemptive plan is still unfolding—exactly as Scripture foretold.
Scripture also teaches that Israel’s future restoration will come through a period of profound testing. The prophets describe a coming time of tribulation—called “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7)—during which God will both judge the nations and bring Israel to national repentance and faith in her Messiah. This period is not a detour in God’s plan, but a prelude to the establishment of Christ’s millennial reign. Far from abandoning Israel, God will use this time to fulfill His promises, culminating in Israel’s revival and the visible reign of Jesus Christ from David’s throne (Revelation 7:1–8, 20:1–6).
3. The Church’s Role Is Distinct from Israel’s
The New Testament presents the local church as a unique body—formed after Christ’s resurrection and empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Its mission is clear: to proclaim the gospel to every nation and to make disciples of all people. This calling is global and urgent, but it is not identical to the covenant promises God made to Israel.
Jesus made this distinction clear in Acts 1. When the disciples asked whether He would restore the kingdom to Israel, He did not dismiss their expectation. Instead, He redirected their focus: “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me” (Acts 1:8). The church was given a mission of witness, not a mandate to establish the kingdom.
This distinction guards us from an unnecessary—and unbiblical—competition between Israel and the church. God does not abandon one people to make room for another. He works according to His own timetable, accomplishing multiple purposes without contradiction. Israel’s future restoration and the church’s present mission are complementary, not conflicting.
Understanding this helps preserve the integrity of Scripture. When we allow Israel to remain Israel and the church to remain the church, prophecy remains coherent, God’s promises remain trustworthy, and Christ’s return remains the blessed hope toward which history is moving.
What about Other Passages?
An in-depth discussion of every passage raised in this debate is beyond the scope of this article. It is worth noting, however, that several verses commonly cited in support of Replacement Theology address salvation and spiritual inheritance, not the national or covenantal promises made to Israel.
For example, Galatians 3:16–29 teaches that all who are in Christ—Jew and Gentile alike—share equally in the blessing of justification by faith. This glorious truth affirms unity in Christ and equal access to salvation, but it does not redefine or revoke the specific covenant promises God made to Israel as a nation.
Additionally, Romans 9–11 is sometimes cited in support of Replacement Theology, particularly because of its emphasis on God’s sovereignty and Israel’s unbelief. Yet the overarching purpose of the passage is to defend the faithfulness of God’s covenant promises, not to deny them. Paul explicitly asks whether God has cast away His people and answers emphatically, “God forbid” (Romans 11:1). He presents Israel’s present unbelief as temporary, anticipates a future national turning to Christ, and concludes that “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Romans 11:29). Read as a whole, Romans 9–11 affirms—not replaces—Israel’s ongoing role in God’s redemptive plan.
A Faithful God Who Keeps His Word
From Bethlehem to the Millennium, the Bible tells a unified story of a faithful God who keeps His Word.
Jesus was born in the city of David because He is David’s promised Son. His birth fulfilled prophecy, His life confirmed covenant promises, and His return will complete what God has pledged from the beginning. The church exists today not as a replacement for Israel, but as a testimony to God’s grace—calling people from every nation to faith in Christ until the King returns to reign.
Why does Israel still matter? Because God’s character matters. If His promises to Israel can be redefined or revoked, then no promise in Scripture is truly secure. But if God remains faithful to Israel—even through centuries of unbelief, dispersion, and opposition—then believers can rest confidently in His faithfulness to every promise He has made.
Bethlehem reminds us that God keeps His word. The Millennium will magnify it. And until that day, we proclaim the gospel with confidence, knowing that the God who began His work will finish it—exactly as He said He would.
