Pastor David B. Curtis


Media #1068 MP3 Audio File Video File

Zionism and the Land

Various Scriptures

Delivered 06/13/21

For the last five messages, we have been talking about Israel and Zionism. We are going to continue that study this morning. I’m not trying to beat a dead horse, but this is a very important subject. The church as a whole is very confused on this subject, so I want to try to make this as clear as I can.

This morning we are going to be looking at what Hebrews 8 adds to this argument on Christian Zionism. Hebrews 8 is probably one of the most fundamental chapters in all of the New Testament concerning this problem of the relationship between Israel and the Church.

In chapter 8 the author of Hebrews, who I believe was Barnabas, appeals to the covenant on which Christ's priesthood is based. His argument asserts that just as the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant, the priesthood of Yeshua is better than that of Aaron.

Chapter 8 can be outlined this way:

  1. Introduction, verses 1-5
  2. Thesis or Theme, Verse 6
  3. Evidence (to substantiate the theme), Verses 7-12
  4. Conclusion, Verse 13

1. Introduction, Verses 1-5

Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.  Hebrews 8:4 ESV

Why can't Yeshua be a priest on earth? Why is he excluded?

For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. Hebrews 7:13-14 ESV

Our Lord was not of the priestly tribe. Our Lord serves as a priest in Heaven, in the true Holy of Holies.

Verse 4 simply states that Christ was not qualified to be a priest under the Mosaic Law. We need to understand that. There are some Christians today who try to bring bits and pieces of the Mosaic Law into Christianity. They do not understand that if the Mosaic Law is in force today, Yeshua is not qualified to be our priest.

They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” Hebrews 8:5 ESV

This verse tells us that everything involved in the Levitical order was a shadow of the reality. The word "copy" is from the Greek word hupodeigma, which refers to a sign suggestive of something (sketch, outline, copy). The whole system of priests in the Old Covenant was only a copy of the real. Israel was a type! In the message that I gave several weeks ago, we considered The Typology of Israel, National Israel, and Bible Prophecy. If you missed it, please go back and listen to that. Wick Broomall tell us that

"A type is a shadow cast on the pages of Old Testament history by a truth whose full embodiment or antitype is found in the New Testament revelation" (Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 533).

There is a graduation from type to antitype, from the lesser to the greater, from the material to the spiritual, and from the earthly to the heavenly.

The word "shadow" is skia which means "a shadow or silhouette.” And the word "pattern" is the word tupos which means "a mark or imprint left by an engraving tool." A shadow or type presupposes a body or substance which cast a shadow. It exists only as proof of the fact that there is a reality somewhere. Physical Israel was a copy, a shadow, a type of true spiritual Israel which is all who are in Christ Yeshua.

2. Thesis or Theme, Verse 6

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.  Hebrews 8:6 ESV

3. Evidence (to substantiate the Theme, Verses 7-12

The question we want to ask and hopefully answer this morning is this: In whom is the New Covenant being or to be fulfilled? In and by whom are the promises of verses 10-12 fulfilled?

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neigh r and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” Hebrews 8:10-12 ESV

Verse 8 is the key phrase in the issue.

For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Hebrews 8:8 ESV

It is clear from this verse that the New Covenant was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The problem that emerges here is the fact that, apparently, our author is applying the New Covenant from Jeremiah 31 to the church.

The text of Hebrews 8 seems to be clear enough when you look at it. The New Covenant of which Yeshua is the mediator is NOW in force for believers, therefore, he argues why would you be tempted to revert to the Old Covenant and the priestly mediation of Aaron? It seems to be clear, and yet this presents a major problem for the school of theology called "Dispensationalism.”

The fundamental teaching of this system is that there is a distinction between Israel and the Church. According to dispensationalism, God has two differing peoples who respectively have differing covenant promises, different destinies, and different purposes. Membership in Israel is by natural birth. One enters the church by supernatural birth. Dispensationalists view Israel and the church as having distinct eternal destinies. Israel will receive an eternal earthly Kingdom while the church will receive an eternal heavenly Kingdom. Irrespective of anything else that may be found in the system, if one rejects the Israel/Church distinction, he ceases to be a dispensationalist.

Darby, the father of dispensationalism, stated the distinction in the clearest of terms. "The Jewish nation is never to enter the church." Ryrie considers this the most important dispensational distinction and approves the statement that "the basic premise of dispensationalism is the two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity."

Lewis Sperry Chafer, who is probably the most famous exponent of dispensationalism, defined it this way:

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes; one is related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism (the people of Israel). While the other purpose is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity (the church). Hence the distinction between Israel and the church and God's purposes and promises for each.

Charles Ryrie wrote that "This distinction is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive test." He then concluded, "The essence of dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church."

The problems that dispensationalists have with Hebrews 8 is clear, is it not? If Israel and the Church are two differing peoples of God, with two differing covenant promises, how can the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31, which is clearly made with Israel and Judah, be applied to or fulfilled in the Church? By teaching that Israel is "set aside" during the church age, dispensationalism clearly implies that the promises made to Israel are also "set aside" during that period.

Dispensationalism teaches that the Church is a parenthesis in God's dealing with Israel. It asserts that because Israel rejected Christ, God stopped His clock, so to speak, and is presently dealing with the Church. But He will in the future return to His dealings with Israel. This is how dispensationalists deal with all the time passages of his "soon" coming. God has stopped His time clock and will not start it again until He goes back to dealing with Israel. The spiritual root of Christian Zionism is dispensationalism whose themes have sadly fully permeated many American churches.

As I hope you know by now, I believe that the Bible teaches the essential continuity of Israel and the church. The elect of all the ages is seen as one people with one Savior and one destiny. As we saw several weeks ago, all Believers have been grafted into God's olive tree. God did not get upset with Israel and go out and plant a new tree as Dispensationalism teaches. He grafted us into Israel through Yeshua who is True Israel.

Ryrie wrote: "If the church is fulfilling Israel's promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then [dispensational] premillennialism is condemned." (Ryrie, The Relationship of the New Covenant to Premillennialism [unpublished Master's thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary 1947), p. 31])

So, let’s condemn dispensationalism according to Ryrie’s standard by looking at a few promises made to Israel that are fulfilled in the Church.

1.     Promised to Israel

“…and I will sow her for myself in the land. And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.’”  Hosea 2:23 ESV

2.     Fulfilled in the church

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua the Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Yeshua the Christ from the dead, 1 Peter 1:3 ESV

What I want you to see here is that Peter is writing to believers, the Church when he said,

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10 ESV

3.     Promised to Israel

“In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, Amos 9:11 ESV

4.     Fulfilled in the church

Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’ Acts 15:14-18 ESV

James’ argument here is that the salvation of the Gentiles agrees with what Amos said. What Peter has done, taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, was the fulfillment of what Amos said. Amos said that the Tabernacle of David would be restored "in order that" the Gentiles may seek after God. The Gentiles were now being saved. So, what does that tell you about the Tabernacle of David? It was at that time being restored. The "Tabernacle of David," spoken of by Amos, is used as a prophetic symbol of that "habitation of God."

There are many passages in the Tanakh referring to Israel that are in the New Testament applied directly to the church.

5.     Spoken to Israel

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls. Joel 2:28-32 ESV

Peter quotes this passage on Pentecost in Acts 2 and applies it to the Church.

6.     Spoken to Israel

…and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.  Exodus 19:6 ESV

7.     Applied to the church

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.  1 Peter 2:9 ESV

8.     Spoken to Israel

My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Ezekiel 37:27 ESV

9.     Applied to the church

What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  2 Corinthians 6:16 ESV

10. Spoken to Israel

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy. Leviticus 19:1-2 ESV

Applied to the church:

but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:15-16 ESV

11. Spoken to Israel

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, Jeremiah 31:31 ESV

12. Applied to the church

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.  Luke 22:20 ESV

The New Covenant is particularly problematic for the dispensationalist because Jeremiah 31 is undeniably addressed to Israel. The New Covenant is the very heart of the Gospel, yet, if the church is fulfilling the promise given to Israel under the New Covenant, dispensationalism is dead.

This is the force of the problem. If God has two differing peoples and Israel and the Church have differing covenant promises, how is it that the author of Hebrews applies the New Covenant and its blessings to the Church when those blessings are clearly declared to be with Israel in verses 8-10?

Paul Tells the Corinthian Church That They Are Ministers of the New Covenant.

Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:5-6 ESV

In verses 7-18, Paul engages in a lengthy contrast between the Mosaic Covenant and what it could not accomplish and the New Covenant and that which it has accomplished. Paul taught that, if we are believers, we are all ministers of the New Covenant. He is obviously referring to the New Covenant mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:25 which is the New Covenant mentioned in Luke 20:20. It is identical to the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31. Paul told the first-century Corinthian Christians that they were ministers of the New Covenant.

It is impossible to be ministers of a New Covenant that is not in operation. To be a minister or servant of the New Covenant simply means that we have the responsibility to proclaim to the world that this New Covenant is here, that it is operative, and that the blessings which it promises are available to those who have faith in the sacrificial death of our Lord Yeshua, who is its mediator.

In what sense can these Israelitish covenant promises be fulfilled in and by Christian believers if, in fact, God has two differing peoples and two differing purposes? This destroys the dispensational distinction between Israel and the church. As a consequence of this, dispensational scholars have suggested different ways to deal with this problem. I would like to look at a couple of them.

First of all, there is the suggestion of John Nelson Darby, the father of dispensationalism.  First of all, we need to understand that Dispensationalism originated among the Plymouth Brethren in the early 1830's. John Nelson Darby, educated as a lawyer and ordained an Anglican priest, was one of the chief founders of the Plymouth Brethren movement that arose in reaction to the perceived empty formalism of the Church of England.

Darby suggested that the New Covenant is not in any sense operative in this age and that the New Covenant will be fulfilled only in the future millennium to the restored nation of Israel. How he attempts to deal with Hebrews 8 is a very interesting study. He contended that, at most, there are some side benefits which accrue to the church from the New Covenant, but literally speaking, the New Covenant is future in its application and fulfillment. That is not a very popular view today even among dispensationalists.

The second view is called the "two covenant view.” This view holds that there are two New Covenants presented in the New Testament—one for Israel and one for the Church. L.S. Chafer appears to be the originator of this idea which was held by John Walvoord and once held by C. Ryrie. This view, essentially, would divide the references to the New Covenant in the New Testament into two groups. First of all, the references to the New Covenant in the Gospels and Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 10:29 and 13:20 concern the new covenant with the Church. Second, the references in Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:16 deal with the new covenant with Israel. This sounds like what partial preterists do to the second coming verses.

Why is it in reading Hebrews 8, someone would contend that there are two rather than one New Covenant? Why is this view in existence? What is the motive for its emergence? Listen once again to Chafer:

There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a "new covenant." It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application. (Here's the key DBC) To suppose that these two covenants - one for Israel and one for the Church - are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God's purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church.

The reason or motive for reading into this passage two New Covenants instead of one is the desire to keep separate God's purpose and promises for Israel, his earthly Old Covenant people, and the Church, his heavenly New Covenant people. I think this view was born of controversy rather than sound exegesis. It is not extremely popular today, but it is still held by some.

One modern, very popular preacher who holds this “two covenant view” is John Hagee. John Hagee is the founder and pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. The congregation consists of over 17,000 people.

Hagee is the President and C.E.O. of John Hagee Ministries which telecasts his national radio and television ministry carried in America on 160 T.V. stations, 50 radio stations, and eight networks. It can be seen weekly in 99 million homes.

Hagee is also the founder of Christians United for Israel, which Hagee describes as “a national association through which every pro-Israel church, Para-church organization, ministry or individual in America can speak and act with one voice in support of Israel in matters related to Biblical issues.”

Hagee preaches another way of salvation for the Jew, which is in direct violation of Paul’s warnings in Galatians 1:6-9.

Hagee’s web site states:

Commitment to Israel. We believe in the promise of Genesis 12:3 regarding the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. We believe Christians should bless and comfort Israel and the Jewish people. Believers have a Bible mandate to combat anti-Semitism and to speak out in defense of Israel and the chosen nation.

Israel and the Church, By John Hagee. The Jewish people were adopted by God as His own. They are a covenant people. They do not occupy the land of Israel, they own it. We stand with Israel because God Himself stands with Israel. Israel is not a political issue. Israel is a Bible issue. In God’s foreign policy, He says He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. The church has not replaced Israel. Christians owe a debt of gratitude to the Jewish people they can never repay. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!

Hagee says, CUFI intends to “interact with the government in Washington” and persuade it “to stop pressuring Israel to give up land for peace. Besides the fact that this does not work, Israel has a Bible mandate for the land.” [Source: Evangelicals to launch ‘Christian AIPAC, The Jerusalem Post, Israel, Feb. 2, 2006]

Christian Zionism takes the land promises of God in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 and applies them to the modern state of Israel. To Christian Zionists, this promise of land inheritance is permanent and unconditional. Therefore, despite Israel’s own declared intention of being a secular state (and despite Israelis’ low religious participation), modern Israel still benefits from a 4,000-year-old promise.

Let’s talk about the Land. Is the plot of dirt in the middle East a special place to God? th Dispensationalists and Zionists make much of the Land of Israel. They teach that Israel has to be restored because the land promises that God made to Israel were unconditional and forever.

We said last week that the physical land promise made to Abraham was fulfilled. There is no physical land promise yet to be fulfilled. Israel was removed from the Land because of their sin.

In Christian Zionism, 1948 is not simply a political marker in history. It is a theological marker. Israel has been restored to the land in fulfillment of prophecy, Zionists say. Therefore, the establishment of modern Israel is a theologically ordained event deserving of profound Christian respect and awe.

The birth of the modern State of Israel in 1948 had nothing to do with Biblical prophecy. As we have taught, there is no Jewish race today.

Do you remember from last week what I said the Land represented? The Land represented the presence of Yahweh. When they were out of the land they were away from Yahweh. The Land was a type and the anti-typical fulfillment came when the inheritance of the New Heavens and the New Earth arrived, where we "tabernacle there with God." The unconditional promises were to Abram and his seed, which was Christ. The Land was a type. It pictured the presence of Yahweh. Let me try to show you this from Scripture. In 2 Kings 5 we have the story of Naaman the leper. Naaman hears from a slave girl from Israel that he could be cured of his leprosy in Israel. So, he goes to Israel and is sent to Elisha.

After Naaman was cleansed of leprosy, following Elisha's instructions to wash seven times in the Jordan river, he came back to thank Elisha.

Then he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and he came and stood before him. And he said, “Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel; so accept now a present from your servant.” But he said, “As the LORD lives, before whom I stand, I will receive none.” And he urged him to take it, but he refused. Then Naaman said, “If not, please let there be given to your servant two mule loads of earth, for from now on your servant will not offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god but the LORD. 2 Kings 5:15-17 ESV

Naaman held an opinion that was common in the ancient world, that particular deities had power over particular places. We see this view expressed in 1 Kings 20.

And a man of God came near and said to the king of Israel, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Because the Syrians have said, “The LORD is a god of the hills but he is not a god of the valleys,” therefore I will give all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am the LORD.’”  1 Kings 20:28 ESV

They believed that particular deities had power over particular places. There were gods of the hills and gods of the valleys. In the ancient Near East, gods were generally considered as having defined territorial jurisdiction, just as political leaders would have. This jurisdiction could be divided up along national lines (each nation having its patron deities) or by topographical areas or boundaries (rivers, mountains, lakes, plains), as we see here. The fact that Israel was a mountainous country and that the capital cities, Samaria and Jerusalem, were th in mountain regions, would fuel the speculation that Yahweh's jurisdiction was in the mountains.

Because the Syrians said, “Yahweh is a god of the hills but he is not a god of the valleys.”—they will now be defeated in such a way as to show that Yahweh’s power is everywhere and that the multitude of a host is nothing against him. Yahweh is Lord of

all places, persons, and things.

This view of gods having defined territorial jurisdiction is supported in Deuteronomy 32.

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 ESV

Chapter 10 of Genesis, the table of nations, is the backdrop for Moses' statement here that Yahweh is responsible for the creation and placement of the nations and the gods over them. Man's disobedience at Babel caused Yahweh to divide them up and to give them to the lesser gods. “He fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.”

Back to our story of Naaman.

Then Naaman said, “If not, please let there be given to your servant two mule loads of earth, for from now on your servant will not offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god but the LORD. 2 Kings 5:17 ESV

Why did Naaman want dirt? Naaman’s request reflects a belief that Israel’s territory belonged to Yahweh, while other nations were under the dominion of other, lesser gods. Naaman now believes in Yahweh and wants holy ground (dirt from Israel) with him so that he can have Yahweh with him while outside Israel. He thought that if he took a piece of Israel back with him to Syria, he could worship the God of Israel.

So, the Land represented the presence of Yahweh. With that in mind, let’s look at what happened in the early Church. As the Gospels end, Yeshua has been rejected by the Jewish leadership, they have put Him to death. They killed their Messiah, so now what happens to all the promises made to Israel? Does God stop with Israel and turn to the Church as the Dispensationalists teach? No! Physical, national Israel was a type that found its fulfillment in Christ. The shadow is gone; the reality is here. Thus, the nation Israel and the Jewish people have no special significance in God's plan or purpose. It is all about Yeshua and those who trust Him. Believers, we are true Israel and inheritors of all of God's promises. The Church is the Kingdom of God.

With that said, look at Acts 4.

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Yeshua, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Acts 4:32-35 ESV

We see in this text that believing Israelites (those who had trusted Christ) were selling their land. We can see the spiritual lessons here, but we have to understand the culture to get the whole picture. There is an Old Covenant violation in this verse. Do you know what it is? Israelites were not allowed to "permanently" sell their land because it was not really theirs but God's.

“The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. Leviticus 25:23 ESV

The land was not supposed to be sold to strangers at all. When land was sold, it was to be sold on the basis of the Year of Jubilee, and, ideally, it was to be sold only to a family member (Leviticus 25). The "land" belonged to Yahweh, who let the Israelites use it as long as they were obedient to Him.

When you father children and children's children, and have grown old in the land, if you act corruptly by making a carved image in the form of anything, and by doing what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, so as to provoke him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you will soon utterly perish from the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess. You will not live long in it, but will be utterly destroyed. Deuteronomy 4:25-26 ESV

The land was Yahweh's, and He let Israel dwell in it as long as they lived in obedience to the Mosaic covenant. We see the significance of the land in Jeremiah 32. Just prior to the Babylonian captivity God told Jeremiah:

Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle will come to you and say, “Buy my field that is at Anathoth, for the right of redemption by purchase is yours.”  Jeremiah 32:7 ESV

Why was Jeremiah to buy land when Judah was about to be destroyed and taken into captivity by Babylon? Jeremiah tells us in verses 14-15.

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: “Take these deeds, th this sealed deed of purchase and this open deed, and put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for a long time.” For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: “Houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land.” Jeremiah 32:14-15 ESV

Jeremiah was to buy land because God was going to bring Judah back into her land after the Babylonian captivity.

Now, in Acts we see a very similar situation. Yeshua had taught His disciples that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed within their generation.

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.  Matthew 24:34 ESV

Part of the “all things” that was to take place before that generation passed was the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

Yeshua left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” Matthew 24:1-2 ESV

The disciples of Yeshua knew that Jerusalem and Judea were going to be destroyed! They knew that the Romans were going to desolate their city and lay their land waste. But this had happened before. Jerusalem was desolated in 586 B. C., and the Jews did not sell their land at that time. Jeremiah even bought land. So why sell it now?

In Jeremiah we find the promise of restoration to the land, but in the New Testament we do not have the promise of Israel ever being promised to return to the land! The type of "the Land" was now being fulfilled in the anti-type­ the Lord Yeshua the Christ. He is our inheritance. The land no longer had spiritual value, so the believers were free to sell it. In Don Preston's article, "The Land is mine,” he writes:

The land of Israel today has no special meaning. It is no longer "the holy land," and the people inhabiting the land are not Biblical Israel. The land never belonged to them exclusively in the first place. It belonged to God as a "loan" to them until His determinative purpose for the Messiah was fulfilled. The Jerusalem Christians knew that God was fulfilling His promises, and those promises are spiritual, not earthly.

If they were so willing to abandon their physical birthright in the capital city of Jerusalem, they surely believed that they were now about to receive the fulfillment of God's promises concerning the heavenly city and country (Hebrews 11:13f). The fact that Acts records that the Christians in Jerusalem were willing, so gladly, to sell their land allotments can mean only one thing, they knew that literal city was doomed, and they also knew they were now citizens of a greater, heavenly Jerusalem.

So, they were selling their land, which pictured their understanding that the old was passing away, and the New Covenant was about to be consummated. They were moving on with Christ to the New Jerusalem of ­the New Covenant. In contrast to this, Ananias, and Sapphira were hanging on to the old and thus received judgment. This pictures the judgment that was soon to come upon all who clung to the earthly Jerusalem.

4. Conclusion, Verse 13     
In conclusion, the type of the land has been fulfilled by the Lord Yeshua. Land does not matter at all anymore. God’s kingdom is spiritual, not physical. Whatever happens in Israel today has nothing to do with Bible prophecy. Yahweh ended the physical nation Israel and their Law, the Old Covenant, in A.D. 70 when He destroyed their Temple and city. Judaism under the Old Covenant has not been biblically observed since.

Today believers and only believers are the Israel of God. We have inherited all the promises through faith in Christ Yeshua, who is true Israel. 

Berean Bible Church provides this material free of charge for the edification of the Body of Christ. You can help further this work by your prayer and by contributing online or by mailing to:

Berean Bible Church
1000 Chattanooga Street
Chesapeake, VA 23322