In the past few years, both Islamist and Western activist groups have said over and over again that Jesus of Nazareth was “Palestinian.” This claim is not based on new historical evidence, but on current political needs. It projects a modern national identity backward onto the first century in order to recruit Jesus into a present-day anti-Israel narrative. The move depends on a series of confusions—between ancient geography and modern nationalism, between theology and activism, and between moral concern and historical truth. Its purpose is not merely rhetorical. It is theological. By recasting Jesus as Palestinian, this discourse functions to detach him from the Jewish people and to weaken the Church’s historic confession of Israel’s enduring significance.

It is necessary to distinguish intention from effect. Some deploy this language deliberately, aware of what it accomplishes. Some people say it again and again without thinking, thinking it’s a safe way to set the record straight or show support. But the effects of theology don’t depend on what you mean to do. The statement, despite its seemingly innocuous reference, surpasses historical context and engages with Christology, implicitly interrogating whether Jesus’ Jewish identity was essential or merely incidental—permanent or transient.

Not only is it wrong to say that Jesus was Palestinian, but it also denies who Jesus Christ is in history, theology, and the sacraments. The argument goes beyond Bethlehem and Golgotha. It moves forward into resurrection and ascension. What is at stake is whether Jesus’ identity remained unchanged after Easter or was subtly modified to fulfill contemporary ideological objectives. The inquiry pertains not solely to the identity of Jesus, but to his enduring essence.

This argument works only if a few theological ideas are quietly added in. It presupposes that bodies are ultimately inconsequential, that resurrection eradicates individuality, and that election serves as a transient mechanism rather than a lasting endowment. It presumes a post-ethnic eschatology in which covenantal identities are liabilities to be shed rather than glories to be transfigured. In effect, it relies........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)