S&R Unplugged: Election Day - Ep. 1005 - October 29, 2026

Replacement Theology and the Church's Israel Debate

Our position is that God's promises to Israel still stand, and the church hasn't taken Israel's place. That conviction shapes our understanding of God's faithfulness, Bible prophecy, and the political choices Christians face.

On the October 29, 2026, episode of The Smith and Rowland Show, we connect the debate over Israel to questions about the rapture, pastoral leadership, and Election Day. The discussion begins with a disagreement that we believe churches can no longer ignore.

The battle over Israel is inside the church

The episode opens with sports banter about baseball, the Carolina Panthers, and the football games ahead. Then Alan turns the conversation toward a different kind of contest: the battle over Israel within the church.

A Prophecy News Watch article, "The Battle for Israel Is Now Being Fought Inside the Church," provides the starting point. It describes a dispute familiar at the United Nations, on university campuses, and in city streets that also divides Christian congregations.

Our argument goes further. We believe church teaching helped create the conditions for some of the hostility toward Israel in public life.

Christianity's Jewish roots

Alan begins with what he considers an obvious foundation: Christianity is rooted in Jewish history and Scripture. Jesus is Jewish, the Bible has Jewish origins, and Abraham is central to the biblical story.

That makes the church's disagreement over Israel difficult for him to understand. If Christians receive a Jewish Savior and believe the biblical account of God's dealings with Israel, how can Israel's place become something the church discards?

Jeff's answer centers on theology. He argues that once a church adopts an interpretation that removes Israel's continuing role, its understanding of the rest of Scripture changes with it.

What we mean by replacement theology

In this conversation, we use replacement theology to describe the teaching that the church takes Israel's place in God's promises. Jeff describes it as replacing Israel with the ecclesia, or church.

Our objection concerns the promises themselves. If God made promises to Israel, we don't believe the church has the authority to declare that those promises no longer belong to Israel.

Jeff argues that this teaching has roots in early church history and has remained part of church disputes for centuries. He also connects it to attitudes outside the church, contending that removing Israel's biblical significance gives people greater permission to oppose Israel politically.

That connection is part of our argument about the influence of theology. We see what churches teach about Israel as a factor in how Christians understand the Jewish people and the modern nation.

The discussion also has a spiritual dimension. Jeff points to the repeated division and reinterpretation surrounding Israel as reasons to consider Satan's involvement. Alan describes replacement as a recurring strategy of the enemy: substituting something else for what God has already established.

Our conviction is that God doesn't need to replace His original purposes because He made a mistake. We believe those purposes remain intact.

Why Israelology belongs in biblical teaching

Jeff recalls hearing Chuck Missler discuss the subjects commonly included in systematic theology. According to Jeff's recollection, Missler identified a major omission: Israelology, the study of Israel's place in Scripture.

Missler's description of that omission was striking. Jeff remembers him saying that what was missing amounted to "5/6 of the Bible."

The point of that recollection is the amount of biblical material churches overlook when they fail to teach Israel's role. Without that foundation, congregations are left to decide what to do with Israel without a clear understanding of its place in the biblical account.

Jeff argues that replacement theology fills that gap with an answer he rejects: the church is now Israel.

For us, Israelology belongs within serious Bible teaching because the question affects much more than a position on Middle Eastern affairs. It affects how Christians understand God's promises and the church's identity.

God's promises to Israel remain in force

The article raises a central question: Does the Jewish people's return to their ancient homeland fulfill biblical promises, or does the coming of Jesus change how Christians should understand those promises?

Our answer begins with the continuing authority of what God has said.

"If God said it, it still stands."

That is the foundation of our position. The passage of time doesn't cancel a divine promise, and the church can't revoke one.

Covenant includes the authority of God's word

Alan cautions against treating the word covenant so narrowly that other statements from God appear less binding. He affirms that covenant matters, but he also argues that everything God says carries covenantal truth.

In his framing, God doesn't have to use the word covenant every time He speaks for His word to remain trustworthy. A promise doesn't lose its force because someone places it outside a preferred theological category.

Jeff applies that reasoning directly to Israel. If God promised something to Israel, declaring that promise invalid raises a question about God's truthfulness.

The dispute over Christian Zionism

The article contrasts church leaders who condemn Christian Zionism as dangerous with those who believe abandoning Israel's biblical promises undermines confidence in God's faithfulness. We agree with the second position.

Alan also challenges the biblical basis for transferring Israel's promises to the church. He says he hasn't been shown a passage declaring that everything God promised Israel now belongs to the church instead.

That is the evidence he wants the discussion to address: a clear biblical statement that authorizes the transfer.

Israel's place affects views of the rapture and tribulation

We connect the Israel debate to the wider interpretation of Bible prophecy. Once someone changes Israel's place in Scripture, that change affects how they understand the church and the end times.

Jeff mentions several questions that follow: whether Jesus comes for the church before the tribulation, whether the tribulation has already happened, and how postmillennial interpretations fit into the discussion.

Alan makes a strong claim about that connection. He says that when people struggle to accept the rapture as we understand it, he often finds replacement theology underneath their objection. Jeff agrees that confusion about Israel can prevent someone from seeing the prophetic sequence they believe Scripture teaches.

That is our interpretation of the relationship between these doctrines. In the episode, we argue that the disagreement about Israel has to be addressed before a productive discussion of the rapture can follow.

We also make a distinction between believing in the rapture and participating in it. Our position is that Jesus initiates the rapture; it doesn't depend on a Christian correctly understanding it.

The conversation turns humorous when we imagine recording a Smith and Rowland podcast on the way up and reminding everyone that we had talked about it beforehand.

We believe Israel has a future prophetic purpose

Our support for Israel rests partly on the conviction that God still has a purpose for the nation in the end times.

Alan says that purpose remains ahead and includes Israel's future conversion. Jeff describes the revival he expects in Israel as the greatest the earth has seen.

That expectation explains why we resist treating Israel as a finished chapter in the biblical story. We believe its future belongs to the promises and purposes God has already declared.

Support for Israel isn't agreement with every Jewish voter

The conversation also distinguishes support for the nation of Israel from agreement with every Jewish person's political choices.

Both of us sharply criticize Jewish voters in New York who support candidates we regard as hostile to Israel. We see a contradiction between those political choices and the security of the nation.

Jeff compares that contradiction to Christian leaders who claim to uphold the Bible while rejecting Israel's statehood and continuing biblical role.

Our stated commitment is to Israel and the promises we believe God has made concerning it. That doesn't amount to a blanket endorsement of every individual, organization, or political decision associated with Jewish identity.

Sovereignty, personal choice, and church leadership

The discussion of replacement theology leads into a related disagreement about sovereignty and human choice.

Jeff associates replacement theology with some parts of the Reformed world, while making clear that he isn't describing every Reformed Christian. He objects to teachings that, in his view, leave people without a meaningful choice.

He affirms God's sovereignty. However, he understands God's work in individual lives alongside His foreknowledge, and he argues that God doesn't violate a person's choice in salvation or service.

Following Jesus, in Jeff's explanation, involves a continuing decision. A person must choose to follow and to die daily.

Leaders can't make decisions for other people

Alan illustrates the point with an observation about Jeff's leadership. When people oppose his direction, Jeff sometimes steps back and lets them pursue their own decision.

If the decision fails, Alan says, Jeff returns to help repair the situation and continue the work. Alan respects that response because it recognizes the limits of leadership: a leader can't force people to go where they refuse to go.

Jeff connects the same principle to preaching. Strong leadership requires an unapologetic, uncompromising message, but listeners still have to decide whether to follow.

Both of us believe churches have suffered when people stopped following clear biblical teaching. We describe the result as a lukewarm condition that stronger organization alone can't correct.

Why we connect church teaching to politics

Jeff's central argument about public life is that the political climate reflects what the church teaches and tolerates.

He briefly points to Barack Obama while discussing political hostility toward Israel, then returns to what he considers the earlier cause: theological failure inside the church. His conclusion is that responsibility begins with God's people.

That is why the discussion includes the biblical statement that judgment must begin at the house of God. We place responsibility on churches and pastors before treating the problem as something entirely outside the faith.

Clear preaching comes before political change

Jeff argues that political discussion alone won't produce the change he wants to see. He believes that change begins when pastors take the Bible literally, let it say what it says, and preach it plainly.

"The political climate is merely a reaction to what the church is doing."

That statement summarizes his view of the church's public influence. If churches change what they teach, or avoid teaching difficult subjects, their members carry those convictions and omissions into public life.

Alan's joke about needing an elders' meeting before correcting the problem gives the discussion a lighter moment. Behind the joke is a serious concern: churches can become slow to act even when their leaders recognize a problem.

Our appeal is for pastors who believe Scripture, stand by it, and speak clearly about what they understand it to teach.

How we connect Israel to election choices

With an election approaching, Alan asks how many pastors will address voting from the pulpit. He wants churches to acknowledge the election and connect participation to biblical convictions.

He says he isn't telling listeners that a party label alone determines their vote. At the same time, he states his judgment plainly: he considers Republican policies more conservative and more biblical than policies on the liberal side.

Jeff also makes a partisan argument. He says he sees one side of American politics as willing to abandon Israel, and he criticizes Democratic politics on that basis. He names Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Abdul El-Sayed during that criticism.

These are our political judgments in the episode, rather than neutral descriptions of every candidate.

Jeff describes Israel as America's greatest ally in the Middle East and stresses its democratic government. For him, abandoning Israel would betray an ally and leave it exposed to enemies seeking its destruction.

He also compares hostility toward America and Israel with Iran's rhetoric about the "big Satan" and "little Satan." His concern is that voters are helping elect people whose positions he believes threaten both countries.

Election Day begins with knowing the ballot

The episode's practical election discussion centers on informed participation. Jeff's immediate response to Alan's question about the election is to urge people to vote and first find out whom they are voting for.

Our recommendations in the conversation include:

• Reviewing the candidates before casting a ballot.
• Considering which positions most closely align with one's understanding of Scripture.
• Studying county-level races and local ballot issues.
• Obtaining a sample ballot through the county website and printing it for review.

Alan mentions the printed ballot as a way to examine the choices before arriving to vote. Jeff adds that local issues deserve attention alongside the races that receive wider coverage.

Pastors shouldn't ignore participation

We also argue that pastors should speak about the responsibility to vote. Alan wants them to address the election openly, while Jeff warns against remaining passive as others determine the nation's direction.

Jeff invokes the blood shed to preserve the right to vote as a reason to take that responsibility seriously. His criticism of political leadership returns to the pulpit: he believes some pastors have failed to prepare their congregations to recognize what is at stake.

The conversation closes as it began, with a mix of conviction and humor. We call the episode "unplugged," joke about whether that description fits, and acknowledge how freely the discussion has moved.

God's faithfulness is the central issue

The strongest claim in this conversation is that God keeps His promises. Our understanding of Israel, the church, and the end times rests on that conviction.

We believe those promises should shape biblical teaching and the convictions Christians bring into public life. The church's responsibility begins with taking God's word seriously and teaching it clearly.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), S&R Unplugged: Election Day - Ep. 1005 - October 29, 2026"