The Revoked Promise: Land, Exile, and the Illusion of Modern Israel
Timothy P. Cotton
www.thruthandway.org
Introduction: Rethinking the Land and the Promise The land promise made to Abraham and his descendants is among the most significant theological motifs in the Hebrew Bible. It is traditionally understood as central to Israel’s identity and destiny—a divine gift with enduring implications. However, the biblical narrative itself complicates this assumption. While the land is promised, it is also conditional; while it is given, it is later taken away. This paper proposes that the biblical land promise was not only fulfilled historically but ultimately revoked by God as a form of judgment and redirection, reshaping His people’s identity away from territorial possession toward covenantal faithfulness and global mission.
Drawing from the theological vision of Jürgen Moltmann and other post-Holocaust thinkers, this study contends that the people of God are no longer defined by geopolitical claims but by their participation in the unfolding reign of God. The exile, the destruction of the temple, and the rise of a borderless church all suggest a divine movement beyond land and bloodlines. The modern state of Israel, while politically and historically significant, bears no theological continuity with biblical Israel as defined by covenant fidelity and divine calling. This paper thus critiques modern Christian Zionism and its sacralization of the Israeli state, arguing that such ideologies misunderstand the trajectory of God’s redemptive plan and the nature of His kingdom.
I. The Fulfillment of the Land Promise in the Hebrew Scriptures
The Completion of the Promise
The promise of land to Abraham’s descendants was specific and expansive: “To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates” (Genesis 15:18). This covenantal language is echoed throughout the Pentateuch, yet its realization is not portrayed as unending or unconditional. Rather, the land is given and later lost, received in grace but maintained through obedience.
The Book of Joshua contains one of the clearest affirmations of the promise’s fulfillment, “So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and lived in it. And the Lord gave them rest on every side, in accordance with everything that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord handed all their enemies over to them. Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; everything came to pass.” (Joshua 21:43–45)
This passage affirms that the land promise, as sworn to the patriarchs, was fulfilled in full during Israel’s early history. The fulfillment, however, does not imply perpetuity. The covenantal nature of the promise always implied conditionality, a point repeatedly emphasized by Moses and the prophets.
Conditional Possession and the Covenant of Obedience
In Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–30, the divine covenant includes both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The possession of the land is directly tied to the nation’s faithfulness, “But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments… I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out a sword after you, so your land will become desolate and your cities ruins.” (Leviticus 26:14, 33)
Here, the land is portrayed not as an unconditional inheritance, but as a space of divine dwelling dependent on Israel’s relationship with God. When that relationship is broken, the land becomes barren, and the people are exiled. This anticipates a major theme of the prophetic literature—that land without righteousness is not a blessing but a burden.
David and Solomon: Zenith and ForeshadowingUnder David and Solomon, the land promise appears at its zenith. The kingdom expands, the temple is constructed, and the people enjoy peace. Yet even in this time of abundance, cracks appear. Solomon’s idolatry and political compromises lead to division, and within a generation, the kingdom splits. The land becomes a space of contest and decline rather than blessing.
The narrative arc of the Old Testament does not idealize territorial permanence. Instead, it narrates a rise and fall, a journey of grace met with disobedience, culminating in exile. The fulfillment of the land promise is thus not a permanent status, but a stage in God’s historical dealings with His people. To argue that modern Israel represents a reactivation of that promise is to ignore the theological logic of fulfillment, judgment, and new creation embedded in the biblical narrative.
II. Exile as Theological Judgment and Transformation
Exile as Covenant Consequence
The exile of Israel and later Judah was not merely a geopolitical defeat—it was a theological crisis. From the biblical perspective, exile was not random but covenantal. It was the outworking of divine judgment upon a disobedient people who had forsaken their covenant obligations. The prophetic books are filled with laments, accusations, and calls for repentance, all centered on Israel’s failure to uphold the Torah. The Book of Jeremiah frames the Babylonian conquest explicitly as God’s judgment, “And I Myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and a mighty arm, and in anger, wrath, and great indignation. I will strike the inhabitants of this city, both human and animal; they will die of a great plague.” (Jeremiah 21:5–6))
Jeremiah makes it clear that the exile is not the result of Babylon’s might alone, but of Yahweh’s own deliberate action. God removes His presence from the temple (cf. Ezekiel 10) and allows the land to become desolate. In this view, the land is not eternal property but a place where covenant life is lived. When the covenant is violated, the land loses its theological function.
Exile and the Decentering of the LandThe exile also forced a dramatic shift in Israel’s theological imagination. Removed from the land and the temple, the people of God had to discover anew what it meant to be God’s people. Jürgen Moltmann emphasizes this in his theology of displacement. In his view, the exile marked the beginning of a theology not rooted in sacred geography but in hope beyond borders. He writes: “The people of the Exodus are always on the move. They are a people with a future, not a people with a territory. Their identity is formed not by the soil beneath their feet, but by the promise ahead of them.”¹
This movement away from land-centered theology prepares the way for the New Testament understanding of God’s people. The exilic period became a crucible for transformation: the development of synagogues, the codification of Scripture, and the cultivation of hope in the coming kingdom. The absence of land did not mean the absence of God; rather, it revealed that God’s presence was not confined to land or temple.
Prophetic Reorientation: A New Covenant
The exile also occasioned the prophetic promise of a new covenant. Jeremiah declared, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah…I will put my Law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” (Jeremiah 31:31, 33)
This new covenant does not involve a return to territorial centrality but a transformation of the people themselves. The land becomes secondary to the internal renewal of the people of God.
The hope of return, then, is not a simple reinstatement of geography. It is a redefinition of faithfulness. The exile opened the door for a more universal vision of God’s kingdom— one that transcended Israel’s borders and anticipated the inclusion of the nations. As Isaiah declared, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples” (Isaiah 56:7)
Theological Implications for Territorial Identity
If the exile was both punishment and theological pivot, it calls into question any claim that land possession is essential to divine favor. The very structure of Israel’s history undermines the notion of permanent territorial entitlement. God is not tied to land, and neither are His people. The exile reveals that divine presence is not confined by soil but follows the covenant people wherever they go.
This has significant implications for evaluating modern Zionist claims. If God Himself removed the people from the land and refashioned their identity in exile, then the attempt to restore territorial possession without covenantal transformation misses the heart of the biblical message. The promise was not annulled by exile, but it was transformed—from land to Spirit, from geography to mission, from national identity to covenantal belonging to the community of the Messiah.
III. The Destruction of the Temple and the End of Territorial Theology
The Temple as the Symbol of Landed Theology
The Jerusalem temple stood as the epicenter of Israel’s national and religious life. More than a place of worship, it embodied the covenant, the land, and the presence of God. To be in the land was to be near the temple, and to be near the temple was to be near God. Thus, the temple not only symbolized Israel’s theological geography—it secured it.
However, the prophets foresaw a time when this structure would be judged and destroyed. Jeremiah, speaking to a people who presumed safety because of the temple, rebuked their false security, “Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!’… Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I Myself have seen it,” declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 7:4, 11)
The people had sacralized a structure while abandoning the covenant it represented. God’s response was to withdraw His presence and allow the temple to be defiled and destroyed—first by Babylon and, centuries later, by Rome in A.D. 70.
Jesus and the Prophetic Judgment of the TempleJesus Himself pronounced judgment upon the temple, not as a mere political protest, but as a continuation of the prophetic tradition. His cleansing of the temple (Mark 11:15–17) and His lament over Jerusalem (Luke 13:34–35) underscore the temple’s failure to embody the covenant’s true spirit.
In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus speaks plainly: “Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” (Matthew 24:2) This prophetic act was not just about physical destruction; it was about theological dismantling. Jesus was ushering in a new order in which the presence of God would no longer be confined to a building or bound to a land. As He told the Samaritan woman, “The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father… true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.” (John 4:21, 23)
This decentralization of sacred space signals the end of territorial theology. The new covenant community, formed through the death and resurrection of Christ, becomes the new temple—the living body in whom God dwells.
From Temple to Spirit: The New Dwelling Place of God
The apostle Paul develops this theme in his letters. In Ephesians, he writes, “In Him you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:22) And again in 1 Corinthians, “Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16) Here, the presence of God is not tied to geography or architecture but to the community of faith. The people of God, indwelt by the Spirit, become His temple—mobile, spiritual, and universal.
This marks a radical departure from earlier Jewish territorial theology. As Jürgen Moltmann argues, “With the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit, the place of God’s presence is no longer the temple in Jerusalem, but the people of the new creation gathered in His name.”²
The destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, therefore, was not an unfortunate historical accident—it was theologically consistent with God’s redemptive trajectory. It signaled the definitive end of a land-based faith and the dawn of a universal, Spirit-driven people.
Implications for Modern Zionist Theology
If the temple, the priesthood, and the land were fulfilled and transcended in Christ, then any attempt to restore them as theological necessities constitutes a regression. The New Testament offers no support for a return to temple worship, national priesthood, or territorial theology. Rather, it proclaims that all of these have been fulfilled in Christ and are now embodied in His people.
Modern Zionism, especially when baptized by Christian theology, risks reversing this trajectory. It re-sacralizes land and nation in a way that contradicts the gospel’s expansive vision. Whether the Jewish people may have a historical or political claim to the land is a separate issue, but the church must not confuse that with a theological claim that the New Testament explicitly deconstructs.
The temple is no more, because the presence of God now dwells not in stone but in Spirit—within a people from every nation, called to live out God’s reign across the whole earth.
IV. The Lost Tribes and the Question of Identity
The Northern Kingdom: Scattered and Untraceable
The division of the united monarchy after Solomon resulted in two distinct entities: the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. The northern kingdom, composed of ten tribes, fell to Assyria in 722 BCE. The Assyrian policy of conquest included forced deportations and the resettlement of foreign populations in the land (cf. 2 Kings 17:6, 24). As a result, the northern tribes were dispersed throughout the Assyrian empire and intermingled with other peoples.
The Bible acknowledges this scattering, “The Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from His sight; none was left except the tribe of Judah.” (2 Kings 17:18) The fate of these ten tribes remains historically and genealogically uncertain. Despite centuries of speculation, there is no clear identification or restoration of these tribes in a coherent ethnic or national form. They were, in effect, dissolved into the nations.
Judah’s Survival and Transformation
In contrast, the southern kingdom of Judah endured for another 135 years before falling to Babylon in 586 BCE. Its population, though also exiled, retained its ethnic and religious identity more cohesively. Following the return from Babylonian exile under Cyrus (cf. Ezra1), Judah reconstituted a form of religious and communal life centered around the rebuilt temple and the Torah.
Yet this post-exilic community was not a restored Israel in full, but a remnant— predominantly of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The ten tribes remained lost. As such, the biblical term “Israel” after the exile often became a theological rather than an ethnic term, referring to the faithful covenant people rather than a precise tribal configuration.
This makes any claim to modern “Israel” as a restoration of the biblical twelve tribes highly problematic. The modern state may bear the name “Israel,” but it cannot genealogically represent the ancient collective. In fact, the name “Israel” in the post-exilic period became increasingly symbolic, referring to a people defined not by tribal origin but by covenant fidelity.
Jesus and the Reconstitution of Israel
The New Testament presents Jesus not as the king of Judah alone but as the one who reconstitutes Israel in a new, inclusive form. His choice of twelve disciples is a deliberate symbolic act, representing the twelve tribes and signaling the renewal of God’s people, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me… shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)
Yet the restored Israel envisioned by Jesus is not a national or ethnic restoration—it is an eschatological and spiritual people, gathered from both Jews and Gentiles. Paul makes this explicit, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel… it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.” (Romans 9:6, 8)
Israel, in Paul’s theology, becomes a designation for those who respond to the promise by faith. The boundary markers of geography, genealogy, and ethnicity are transcended by the work of Christ.
The Theological Irrelevance of Ethnic Lineage
With the ten tribes lost, the priesthood dissolved, and the genealogical records destroyed (especially after 70 CE), the notion of reconstituting a biblical Israel on ethnic or tribal grounds becomes not only impossible but theologically misguided. The early church understood this and shifted the focus from ethnic Israel to the church as the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), composed of all who are in Christ. Jürgen Moltmann affirms this transposition when he writes, “The old Israel was chosen for the sake of the new humanity; the particular for the sake of the universal. The church does not replace Israel; rather, it is Israel transformed—opened to the nations and renewed in the Spirit.”³
To cling to genealogical or ethnic definitions of Israel is to remain trapped in a shadow that the gospel has already overcome. In Christ, the dividing walls fall, and the people of God are defined not by birthright but by new birth.
V. The Emergence of Modern Israel and the Myth of Continuity
The Birth of Modern Zionism
The modern state of Israel was established in 1948, emerging from a complex interplay of historical trauma, nationalist aspirations, colonial legacies, and geopolitical interests. The Holocaust, in particular, generated profound sympathy for Jewish resettlement in Palestine. Yet the movement that led to this state—political Zionism—was primarily a secular nationalist project, rooted in 19th-century European ideologies rather than biblical theology.
Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, envisioned a Jewish homeland not as a fulfillment of messianic hope but as a political solution to European antisemitism. His seminal work, Der Judenstaat (1896), rarely invoked Scripture. The Zionist movement attracted secular Jews more than religious ones in its early phases, and many Orthodox Jewish leaders opposed it on theological grounds, believing that only the Messiah could restore the land.
Thus, from its inception, the modern state of Israel was not a theological restoration of biblical Israel but a political creation—a nation-state formed through human agency and diplomacy, not divine intervention.
The Theological Misappropriation of the Land
Despite its secular origins, modern Zionism was eventually infused with theological significance, especially by Christian Zionists. Drawing selectively from Old Testament promises, many evangelicals began to see the state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy and a necessary precursor to Christ’s return.
Yet this reading neglects the theological developments of the New Testament. The land promises to Abraham and his descendants were fulfilled (cf. Joshua 21:43–45) and later transcended by the expansion of the covenant to all nations through Christ. The writer of Hebrews makes this abundantly clear, “For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that… For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.” (Hebrews 4:8; 13:14) The Christian hope is not anchored in territorial possession but in the new creation—the heavenly city, the new Jerusalem. To re-anchor divine promise in a modern geopolitical entity is a theological regression.
Discontinuity with Biblical Israel
As shown in earlier sections, the ten tribes of Israel were scattered, and the biblical structures of priesthood, sacrifice, and temple worship were dismantled. The modern Israeli state does not—and cannot—reconstruct the biblical nation. Its citizens come from diverse ethnic backgrounds (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Ethiopian, etc.), many with no provable genealogical link to ancient Israel. The Law of Return, the legal basis for immigration to Israel, defines Jewish identity in broad ethnic or even cultural terms, not tribal descent.
Moreover, modern Israel is a secular democracy, not a theocracy. It has no Davidic king, no functioning Levitical priesthood, no temple, and no prophetic office. To conflate this modern nation with the covenantal Israel of Scripture is to ignore both historical discontinuity and theological fulfillment. As Moltmann writes, “The modern state of Israel cannot simply be equated with biblical Israel. It is not the kingdom of God, nor the fulfillment of messianic expectation. Rather, it is a secular state, subject to the same critique, hope, and judgment as all nations.”⁴
A Man-Made Project, Not a Divine Act
Far from being the reestablishment of biblical Israel, the modern state is a human project—complex, contested, and deeply political. While it may serve as a haven for Jewish people and a center of cultural identity, it does not fulfill the redemptive vision of Scripture. If anything, it distracts from it by re-sacralizing the land, drawing the attention of many Christians away from the crucified and risen Christ toward a national narrative foreign to the gospel.
Theologically, the locus of God’s activity is not found in a state, a military, or a flag— but in the body of Christ, scattered among the nations, bearing witness to the coming kingdom not built by hands (cf. Daniel 2:44–45; Hebrews 11:10).
VI. Exile as a Theological Category and the Purpose of Divine Withdrawal
Exile as Judgment and Mercy
Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, exile is not merely a historical consequence of military defeat; it is consistently portrayed as a theological act—God’s deliberate response to covenant infidelity. When Israel turned to idols, trusted in political alliances, and neglected justice, God’s judgment took the form of expulsion from the land. “And the Lord said, ‘I will remove Judah also from My sight, as I have removed Israel. And I will reject Jerusalem, this city which I chose, and the temple of which I said, “My name shall be there.’’” (2 Kings 23:27)
This act of removal is not just punishment—it is also purification. Exile becomes a crucible through which God reshapes His people, calling them back to Himself not through land or temple, but through renewed relationship. The prophets repeatedly envision restoration not as a return to political power, but to righteousness and divine presence. Jeremiah declares, “You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you… and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations.” (Jeremiah 29:13–14). God’s faithfulness does not depend on the land—it transcends it.
Temple Destruction as Theological Turning Point
The destruction of the temple in 586 BCE, and again in 70 CE, marked definitive turning points in biblical theology. The loss of the temple symbolized the end of a religious system based on sacrifice and territorial holiness. Jesus himself predicted the temple’s destruction and reoriented worship around his own person, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19) John’s Gospel clarifies: “But He was speaking about the temple of His body.” (John 2:21)
Jesus redefined the presence of God, no longer bound to a location but dwelling among and within his people by the Spirit (cf. John 4:21–24). This theological shift renders the physical temple—and by extension the physical land—no longer central to divine activity. Moltmann observes, “The Shekinah, the indwelling presence of God, no longer dwells in a house made by human hands, but in the crucified and risen Christ, and through him, in the community of the Spirit.”⁵
The finality of the temple’s destruction signals a divine shift away from national religion and toward the universal body of Christ.
The Church as the People in Exile
Following Christ’s ascension and the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost, the church emerges as the new community of God—defined not by land, race, or ritual, but by faith, Spirit, and mission. The early Christians understood themselves as a people in exile, awaiting a heavenly homeland (cf. Hebrews 11:13–16). Peter addresses the church as, “Aliens and strangers” and “those who reside as exiles” (1 Peter 2:11), echoing Israel’s experience yet pointing forward to a new eschatological identity. Moltmann develops this concept in his theology of the Exodus Church, “The church does not settle into this world as if it were its home. It is a wandering people, living in the hope of a kingdom that is coming, not yet visible.”⁶
This exile is not a curse but a calling. It prevents the church from identifying too closely with any nation or land, including modern Israel, and redirects its hope toward the kingdom of God.
God’s Presence Without a Place
The God of the Bible is not bound by geography. He is the God of exodus, the God who moves, calls, and sends. When God removes His people from the land, it is not abandonment but redirection. He meets them in Babylon, in Persia, in Rome—in exile and diaspora. The psalmist declares, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.” (Psalm 139:7–8)
God is not localized. The true land of promise is not a strip of territory in the Middle East, but the renewed creation in Christ, promised to those who love His appearing (cf. Romans 8:19–21; Revelation 21:1–5).
VII. The Kingdom of God Beyond Borders
Jesus’ Rejection of Nationalistic Religion
From the outset of His ministry, Jesus subverted the prevailing expectations of a national Messiah who would restore territorial Israel. He repeatedly distanced Himself from political nationalism and reframed God’s kingdom as something radically different: not an ethnic restoration, but a divine reign breaking into the world through grace, justice, and peace. “My kingdom is not of this world… But now My kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36)
Rather than reclaiming land or building a theocratic state, Jesus proclaimed the arrival of God’s reign in the poor, the broken, and the excluded (cf. Luke 4:18–19). His movement was not grounded in geography but in transformation. He called disciples not to fight for borders, but to lose their lives in order to find them (cf. Matthew 16:25). The kingdom of God is thus an eschatological and spiritual reality that transcends the nationalistic ambitions of all earthly regimes—including modern Israel.
The Global Scope of God’s People
After the resurrection, Jesus commands His followers not to reclaim the land but to go to the nations, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations.” (Matthew 28:19) Pentecost is the climactic reversal of Babel—not a consolidation of ethnic Israel, but the birth of a multinational, multilingual body of believers. The Spirit falls not upon a restored temple in Jerusalem, but upon a scattered people now unified in Christ.
Paul’s theology reinforces this universalism, “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:28–29)
Abraham’s promise, which included land, is reinterpreted by Paul not as a plot of territory, but as a blessing for all peoples through Christ (cf. Romans 4:13). The land was a shadow; Christ is the substance.
The New Jerusalem: God’s Eschatological Vision
The final vision of Scripture is not a restored Israel but a renewed cosmos. Revelation ends not with a return to Canaan but with the descent of the new Jerusalem from heaven— an image of cosmic redemption, not political reclamation, “And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God… And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them.’” (Revelation 21:2–3)
This city has no temple, no national boundaries, no military defense—only the light of the Lamb and the healing of the nations. It is a vision that renders obsolete all worldly claims to divine land rights. Moltmann writes, “The messianic kingdom is not the continuation of Israel’s nationalism by other means; it is the overcoming of all nationalism in the universal reign of God.”⁷
The Danger of Sacralizing the Nation-State
To conflate the kingdom of God with any modern nation is to commit a theological error of the gravest kind. When Christians sacralize the modern state of Israel, they risk turning the gospel into an ideology of empire and exclusion. The church’s mission is not to support one nation’s geopolitical claims but to witness to a kingdom not of this world.
As Karl Barth warned, “The community of Jesus Christ… cannot allow itself to be drawn into the conflict of nations, because its citizenship is in heaven.”⁸ To support justice for all people—including Jews and Palestinians—is a Christian duty. But to theologically privilege one nation as God’s chosen today is to resurrect the very ethnocentric system that Christ came to transcend and transform.
VIII. The Church as the Heir of the Promise
Redefining “Israel” in the New Testament
One of the most profound shifts in the New Testament is the redefinition of Israel—not as a nation bound by land and lineage, but as a people defined by faith in Christ. Paul, a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5), unambiguously teaches that true Israel is no longer ethnic or territorial but spiritual and universal.“For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants… That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.” (Romans 9:6–8)
Paul reorients the covenantal promises away from genetic descent and toward divine election through Christ. The church, made up of Jew and Gentile alike, becomes the living embodiment of God’s covenant with Abraham—not by bloodline, but by faith.
The Olive Tree Analogy
In Romans 11, Paul uses the metaphor of the olive tree to explain the continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church. Natural branches (ethnic Israel) were broken off due to unbelief, and wild branches (Gentiles) were grafted in by faith. “You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’ Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith.” (Romans 11:19–20)
This is not replacement but reconstitution. The church is not a Gentile invention—it is Israel reborn in Christ, not through Torah or territory, but through trust in the Messiah. The tree remains, but its composition is changed. Moltmann affirms, “The church is not a second people of God. It is the messianic renewal of the people of God, brought into being by the crucified and risen Lord.”⁹
A People Without Borders
As the true heirs of the promise, the church is a pilgrim people, defined not by boundaries but by mission. Like Abraham, they are called to journey in faith, “looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.” (Hebrews 11:10) The New Testament writers emphasize this posture of exilic identity, “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 3:20)
This means the people of God today are not tied to any national project—not to Israel, not to America, not to any kingdom of this world. Their identity is eschatological, rooted in the future of God, not in the past of any earthly state.
The End of Ethnic Privilege
The gospel deconstructs ethnic privilege and territorial entitlement. In Christ, there is no longer a favored nation, a holy city, or a chosen ethnicity. What remains is grace—grace for all who believe, grace that levels all distinctions and abolishes all barriers.“But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall.” (Ephesians 2:13–14)
The church is not a replacement for Israel; it is the fulfillment of Israel’s vocation: to be a light to the nations (Isaiah 49:6), a blessing to all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:3). This fulfillment, however, is not realized through land or law, but through the crucified and risen Christ.
IX. Conclusion: The Fulfillment of the Land
Promise in Christ, The End of Territorial Promises
The biblical land promise to Israel, while significant in the Old Testament, finds its ultimate fulfillment not in a specific territory but in Christ and the kingdom of God. The land itself was a temporary sign, pointing to a greater reality—a relationship with God that transcends geography. The promise of land was fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, who, through His death and resurrection, inaugurated a new creation and a new covenant, one that no longer depends on territorial possession or ethnic identity.
Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman in John 4:21–24 powerfully demonstrate this shift: “Believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father… but an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.” The true worshipers are not defined by a specific place but by their relationship with God in Christ. The geographic distinction between Israel and the nations has been abolished, as all people are now invited to partake in the blessings of the covenant through faith in Christ.
The Church as the Fulfillment of Israel’s Vocation
The church, as the body of Christ, fulfills the true vocation of Israel—to be a light to the nations (Isaiah 49:6). The mission of the church is to declare the gospel of the kingdom, not bound by national or ethnic identity, but marked by the universal call to salvation in Christ. Through the church, the promises made to Israel are extended to all who come to faith in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike.
Paul’s teachings in Romans 9–11 demonstrate that the church, comprised of both believing Jews and Gentiles, is the true continuation of the people of God. Israel’s role in God’s plan is not superseded by the church but transformed through the gospel. The people of God are no longer defined by ethnicity, but by their participation in the life of Christ.
This new understanding of Israel reveals the depth of God’s redemptive plan, which includes both the faithful remnant of Israel and the nations. Moltmann highlights, “The church does not replace Israel, but through Jesus Christ, the promises made to Israel are now fulfilled in a new way. The church is the inheritor of those promises, and it is through the church that the kingdom of God is proclaimed to the ends of the earth.”
Israel and the Kingdom of God
The modern state of Israel, while it may have significance in a historical and political sense, does not in any manner represent the fulfillment of the biblical promises to Israel. As a political entity, it is subject to the same dynamics of history, power, and politics as any other nation-state. The true fulfillment of the land promise and the kingdom of God is not found in territorial claims but in the reign of Christ over all creation.
Jesus, in His parables and teachings, consistently reoriented the expectations of His followers. The kingdom of God is not about earthly power, but about a new way of being in the world—one that is characterized by justice, peace, and grace. It is a kingdom that transcends borders and invites all people to partake in God’s redemptive plan, not through a physical land but through faith in Christ.
The ultimate hope for God’s people is not the restoration of a physical kingdom but the establishment of a new heaven and new earth, where God will dwell with His people forever. This is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel—not in the restoration of a nation-state but in the new creation that Christ has inaugurated and will one day bring to completion.
The Final Word
The land promise to Israel was a temporary and provisional reality, pointing to a deeper, eternal truth: the reign of God in Christ. The modern state of Israel, while having historical and political importance, does not represent the fulfillment of the biblical promises to Israel. The true Israel is the people of God, the church, which is defined not by ethnic or national identity but by faith in Christ.
As believers, we are called to live as pilgrims, not bound by land or territory, but defined by our citizenship in the kingdom of God. Our hope is not in a physical homeland but in the eternal kingdom of God, where we will dwell with Him forever. Until that day, we are called to bear witness to the coming of that kingdom, living as agents of reconciliation, peace, and justice in a world that desperately needs the message of grace“For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.”(Hebrews 13:14)
¹ Jürgen Moltmann, The Theology of Hope, trans. James W. Leitch (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 88.
² Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 65.
³ Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 212.
⁴ Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 329.
⁵ Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 62.
⁶ Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ, 118.
⁷ Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, 329.
⁸ Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/3.1, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961), 296.
⁹ Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 234.
Timothy P. Cotton
www.thruthandway.org
Introduction: Rethinking the Land and the Promise The land promise made to Abraham and his descendants is among the most significant theological motifs in the Hebrew Bible. It is traditionally understood as central to Israel’s identity and destiny—a divine gift with enduring implications. However, the biblical narrative itself complicates this assumption. While the land is promised, it is also conditional; while it is given, it is later taken away. This paper proposes that the biblical land promise was not only fulfilled historically but ultimately revoked by God as a form of judgment and redirection, reshaping His people’s identity away from territorial possession toward covenantal faithfulness and global mission.
Drawing from the theological vision of Jürgen Moltmann and other post-Holocaust thinkers, this study contends that the people of God are no longer defined by geopolitical claims but by their participation in the unfolding reign of God. The exile, the destruction of the temple, and the rise of a borderless church all suggest a divine movement beyond land and bloodlines. The modern state of Israel, while politically and historically significant, bears no theological continuity with biblical Israel as defined by covenant fidelity and divine calling. This paper thus critiques modern Christian Zionism and its sacralization of the Israeli state, arguing that such ideologies misunderstand the trajectory of God’s redemptive plan and the nature of His kingdom.
I. The Fulfillment of the Land Promise in the Hebrew Scriptures
The Completion of the Promise
The promise of land to Abraham’s descendants was specific and expansive: “To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates” (Genesis 15:18). This covenantal language is echoed throughout the Pentateuch, yet its realization is not portrayed as unending or unconditional. Rather, the land is given and later lost, received in grace but maintained through obedience.
The Book of Joshua contains one of the clearest affirmations of the promise’s fulfillment, “So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and lived in it. And the Lord gave them rest on every side, in accordance with everything that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord handed all their enemies over to them. Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; everything came to pass.” (Joshua 21:43–45)
This passage affirms that the land promise, as sworn to the patriarchs, was fulfilled in full during Israel’s early history. The fulfillment, however, does not imply perpetuity. The covenantal nature of the promise always implied conditionality, a point repeatedly emphasized by Moses and the prophets.
Conditional Possession and the Covenant of Obedience
In Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–30, the divine covenant includes both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The possession of the land is directly tied to the nation’s faithfulness, “But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments… I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out a sword after you, so your land will become desolate and your cities ruins.” (Leviticus 26:14, 33)
Here, the land is portrayed not as an unconditional inheritance, but as a space of divine dwelling dependent on Israel’s relationship with God. When that relationship is broken, the land becomes barren, and the people are exiled. This anticipates a major theme of the prophetic literature—that land without righteousness is not a blessing but a burden.
David and Solomon: Zenith and ForeshadowingUnder David and Solomon, the land promise appears at its zenith. The kingdom expands, the temple is constructed, and the people enjoy peace. Yet even in this time of abundance, cracks appear. Solomon’s idolatry and political compromises lead to division, and within a generation, the kingdom splits. The land becomes a space of contest and decline rather than blessing.
The narrative arc of the Old Testament does not idealize territorial permanence. Instead, it narrates a rise and fall, a journey of grace met with disobedience, culminating in exile. The fulfillment of the land promise is thus not a permanent status, but a stage in God’s historical dealings with His people. To argue that modern Israel represents a reactivation of that promise is to ignore the theological logic of fulfillment, judgment, and new creation embedded in the biblical narrative.
II. Exile as Theological Judgment and Transformation
Exile as Covenant Consequence
The exile of Israel and later Judah was not merely a geopolitical defeat—it was a theological crisis. From the biblical perspective, exile was not random but covenantal. It was the outworking of divine judgment upon a disobedient people who had forsaken their covenant obligations. The prophetic books are filled with laments, accusations, and calls for repentance, all centered on Israel’s failure to uphold the Torah. The Book of Jeremiah frames the Babylonian conquest explicitly as God’s judgment, “And I Myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and a mighty arm, and in anger, wrath, and great indignation. I will strike the inhabitants of this city, both human and animal; they will die of a great plague.” (Jeremiah 21:5–6))
Jeremiah makes it clear that the exile is not the result of Babylon’s might alone, but of Yahweh’s own deliberate action. God removes His presence from the temple (cf. Ezekiel 10) and allows the land to become desolate. In this view, the land is not eternal property but a place where covenant life is lived. When the covenant is violated, the land loses its theological function.
Exile and the Decentering of the LandThe exile also forced a dramatic shift in Israel’s theological imagination. Removed from the land and the temple, the people of God had to discover anew what it meant to be God’s people. Jürgen Moltmann emphasizes this in his theology of displacement. In his view, the exile marked the beginning of a theology not rooted in sacred geography but in hope beyond borders. He writes: “The people of the Exodus are always on the move. They are a people with a future, not a people with a territory. Their identity is formed not by the soil beneath their feet, but by the promise ahead of them.”¹
This movement away from land-centered theology prepares the way for the New Testament understanding of God’s people. The exilic period became a crucible for transformation: the development of synagogues, the codification of Scripture, and the cultivation of hope in the coming kingdom. The absence of land did not mean the absence of God; rather, it revealed that God’s presence was not confined to land or temple.
Prophetic Reorientation: A New Covenant
The exile also occasioned the prophetic promise of a new covenant. Jeremiah declared, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah…I will put my Law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” (Jeremiah 31:31, 33)
This new covenant does not involve a return to territorial centrality but a transformation of the people themselves. The land becomes secondary to the internal renewal of the people of God.
The hope of return, then, is not a simple reinstatement of geography. It is a redefinition of faithfulness. The exile opened the door for a more universal vision of God’s kingdom— one that transcended Israel’s borders and anticipated the inclusion of the nations. As Isaiah declared, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples” (Isaiah 56:7)
Theological Implications for Territorial Identity
If the exile was both punishment and theological pivot, it calls into question any claim that land possession is essential to divine favor. The very structure of Israel’s history undermines the notion of permanent territorial entitlement. God is not tied to land, and neither are His people. The exile reveals that divine presence is not confined by soil but follows the covenant people wherever they go.
This has significant implications for evaluating modern Zionist claims. If God Himself removed the people from the land and refashioned their identity in exile, then the attempt to restore territorial possession without covenantal transformation misses the heart of the biblical message. The promise was not annulled by exile, but it was transformed—from land to Spirit, from geography to mission, from national identity to covenantal belonging to the community of the Messiah.
III. The Destruction of the Temple and the End of Territorial Theology
The Temple as the Symbol of Landed Theology
The Jerusalem temple stood as the epicenter of Israel’s national and religious life. More than a place of worship, it embodied the covenant, the land, and the presence of God. To be in the land was to be near the temple, and to be near the temple was to be near God. Thus, the temple not only symbolized Israel’s theological geography—it secured it.
However, the prophets foresaw a time when this structure would be judged and destroyed. Jeremiah, speaking to a people who presumed safety because of the temple, rebuked their false security, “Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!’… Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I Myself have seen it,” declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 7:4, 11)
The people had sacralized a structure while abandoning the covenant it represented. God’s response was to withdraw His presence and allow the temple to be defiled and destroyed—first by Babylon and, centuries later, by Rome in A.D. 70.
Jesus and the Prophetic Judgment of the TempleJesus Himself pronounced judgment upon the temple, not as a mere political protest, but as a continuation of the prophetic tradition. His cleansing of the temple (Mark 11:15–17) and His lament over Jerusalem (Luke 13:34–35) underscore the temple’s failure to embody the covenant’s true spirit.
In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus speaks plainly: “Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” (Matthew 24:2) This prophetic act was not just about physical destruction; it was about theological dismantling. Jesus was ushering in a new order in which the presence of God would no longer be confined to a building or bound to a land. As He told the Samaritan woman, “The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father… true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.” (John 4:21, 23)
This decentralization of sacred space signals the end of territorial theology. The new covenant community, formed through the death and resurrection of Christ, becomes the new temple—the living body in whom God dwells.
From Temple to Spirit: The New Dwelling Place of God
The apostle Paul develops this theme in his letters. In Ephesians, he writes, “In Him you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:22) And again in 1 Corinthians, “Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16) Here, the presence of God is not tied to geography or architecture but to the community of faith. The people of God, indwelt by the Spirit, become His temple—mobile, spiritual, and universal.
This marks a radical departure from earlier Jewish territorial theology. As Jürgen Moltmann argues, “With the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit, the place of God’s presence is no longer the temple in Jerusalem, but the people of the new creation gathered in His name.”²
The destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, therefore, was not an unfortunate historical accident—it was theologically consistent with God’s redemptive trajectory. It signaled the definitive end of a land-based faith and the dawn of a universal, Spirit-driven people.
Implications for Modern Zionist Theology
If the temple, the priesthood, and the land were fulfilled and transcended in Christ, then any attempt to restore them as theological necessities constitutes a regression. The New Testament offers no support for a return to temple worship, national priesthood, or territorial theology. Rather, it proclaims that all of these have been fulfilled in Christ and are now embodied in His people.
Modern Zionism, especially when baptized by Christian theology, risks reversing this trajectory. It re-sacralizes land and nation in a way that contradicts the gospel’s expansive vision. Whether the Jewish people may have a historical or political claim to the land is a separate issue, but the church must not confuse that with a theological claim that the New Testament explicitly deconstructs.
The temple is no more, because the presence of God now dwells not in stone but in Spirit—within a people from every nation, called to live out God’s reign across the whole earth.
IV. The Lost Tribes and the Question of Identity
The Northern Kingdom: Scattered and Untraceable
The division of the united monarchy after Solomon resulted in two distinct entities: the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. The northern kingdom, composed of ten tribes, fell to Assyria in 722 BCE. The Assyrian policy of conquest included forced deportations and the resettlement of foreign populations in the land (cf. 2 Kings 17:6, 24). As a result, the northern tribes were dispersed throughout the Assyrian empire and intermingled with other peoples.
The Bible acknowledges this scattering, “The Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from His sight; none was left except the tribe of Judah.” (2 Kings 17:18) The fate of these ten tribes remains historically and genealogically uncertain. Despite centuries of speculation, there is no clear identification or restoration of these tribes in a coherent ethnic or national form. They were, in effect, dissolved into the nations.
Judah’s Survival and Transformation
In contrast, the southern kingdom of Judah endured for another 135 years before falling to Babylon in 586 BCE. Its population, though also exiled, retained its ethnic and religious identity more cohesively. Following the return from Babylonian exile under Cyrus (cf. Ezra1), Judah reconstituted a form of religious and communal life centered around the rebuilt temple and the Torah.
Yet this post-exilic community was not a restored Israel in full, but a remnant— predominantly of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The ten tribes remained lost. As such, the biblical term “Israel” after the exile often became a theological rather than an ethnic term, referring to the faithful covenant people rather than a precise tribal configuration.
This makes any claim to modern “Israel” as a restoration of the biblical twelve tribes highly problematic. The modern state may bear the name “Israel,” but it cannot genealogically represent the ancient collective. In fact, the name “Israel” in the post-exilic period became increasingly symbolic, referring to a people defined not by tribal origin but by covenant fidelity.
Jesus and the Reconstitution of Israel
The New Testament presents Jesus not as the king of Judah alone but as the one who reconstitutes Israel in a new, inclusive form. His choice of twelve disciples is a deliberate symbolic act, representing the twelve tribes and signaling the renewal of God’s people, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me… shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)
Yet the restored Israel envisioned by Jesus is not a national or ethnic restoration—it is an eschatological and spiritual people, gathered from both Jews and Gentiles. Paul makes this explicit, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel… it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.” (Romans 9:6, 8)
Israel, in Paul’s theology, becomes a designation for those who respond to the promise by faith. The boundary markers of geography, genealogy, and ethnicity are transcended by the work of Christ.
The Theological Irrelevance of Ethnic Lineage
With the ten tribes lost, the priesthood dissolved, and the genealogical records destroyed (especially after 70 CE), the notion of reconstituting a biblical Israel on ethnic or tribal grounds becomes not only impossible but theologically misguided. The early church understood this and shifted the focus from ethnic Israel to the church as the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), composed of all who are in Christ. Jürgen Moltmann affirms this transposition when he writes, “The old Israel was chosen for the sake of the new humanity; the particular for the sake of the universal. The church does not replace Israel; rather, it is Israel transformed—opened to the nations and renewed in the Spirit.”³
To cling to genealogical or ethnic definitions of Israel is to remain trapped in a shadow that the gospel has already overcome. In Christ, the dividing walls fall, and the people of God are defined not by birthright but by new birth.
V. The Emergence of Modern Israel and the Myth of Continuity
The Birth of Modern Zionism
The modern state of Israel was established in 1948, emerging from a complex interplay of historical trauma, nationalist aspirations, colonial legacies, and geopolitical interests. The Holocaust, in particular, generated profound sympathy for Jewish resettlement in Palestine. Yet the movement that led to this state—political Zionism—was primarily a secular nationalist project, rooted in 19th-century European ideologies rather than biblical theology.
Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, envisioned a Jewish homeland not as a fulfillment of messianic hope but as a political solution to European antisemitism. His seminal work, Der Judenstaat (1896), rarely invoked Scripture. The Zionist movement attracted secular Jews more than religious ones in its early phases, and many Orthodox Jewish leaders opposed it on theological grounds, believing that only the Messiah could restore the land.
Thus, from its inception, the modern state of Israel was not a theological restoration of biblical Israel but a political creation—a nation-state formed through human agency and diplomacy, not divine intervention.
The Theological Misappropriation of the Land
Despite its secular origins, modern Zionism was eventually infused with theological significance, especially by Christian Zionists. Drawing selectively from Old Testament promises, many evangelicals began to see the state of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy and a necessary precursor to Christ’s return.
Yet this reading neglects the theological developments of the New Testament. The land promises to Abraham and his descendants were fulfilled (cf. Joshua 21:43–45) and later transcended by the expansion of the covenant to all nations through Christ. The writer of Hebrews makes this abundantly clear, “For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that… For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.” (Hebrews 4:8; 13:14) The Christian hope is not anchored in territorial possession but in the new creation—the heavenly city, the new Jerusalem. To re-anchor divine promise in a modern geopolitical entity is a theological regression.
Discontinuity with Biblical Israel
As shown in earlier sections, the ten tribes of Israel were scattered, and the biblical structures of priesthood, sacrifice, and temple worship were dismantled. The modern Israeli state does not—and cannot—reconstruct the biblical nation. Its citizens come from diverse ethnic backgrounds (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Ethiopian, etc.), many with no provable genealogical link to ancient Israel. The Law of Return, the legal basis for immigration to Israel, defines Jewish identity in broad ethnic or even cultural terms, not tribal descent.
Moreover, modern Israel is a secular democracy, not a theocracy. It has no Davidic king, no functioning Levitical priesthood, no temple, and no prophetic office. To conflate this modern nation with the covenantal Israel of Scripture is to ignore both historical discontinuity and theological fulfillment. As Moltmann writes, “The modern state of Israel cannot simply be equated with biblical Israel. It is not the kingdom of God, nor the fulfillment of messianic expectation. Rather, it is a secular state, subject to the same critique, hope, and judgment as all nations.”⁴
A Man-Made Project, Not a Divine Act
Far from being the reestablishment of biblical Israel, the modern state is a human project—complex, contested, and deeply political. While it may serve as a haven for Jewish people and a center of cultural identity, it does not fulfill the redemptive vision of Scripture. If anything, it distracts from it by re-sacralizing the land, drawing the attention of many Christians away from the crucified and risen Christ toward a national narrative foreign to the gospel.
Theologically, the locus of God’s activity is not found in a state, a military, or a flag— but in the body of Christ, scattered among the nations, bearing witness to the coming kingdom not built by hands (cf. Daniel 2:44–45; Hebrews 11:10).
VI. Exile as a Theological Category and the Purpose of Divine Withdrawal
Exile as Judgment and Mercy
Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, exile is not merely a historical consequence of military defeat; it is consistently portrayed as a theological act—God’s deliberate response to covenant infidelity. When Israel turned to idols, trusted in political alliances, and neglected justice, God’s judgment took the form of expulsion from the land. “And the Lord said, ‘I will remove Judah also from My sight, as I have removed Israel. And I will reject Jerusalem, this city which I chose, and the temple of which I said, “My name shall be there.’’” (2 Kings 23:27)
This act of removal is not just punishment—it is also purification. Exile becomes a crucible through which God reshapes His people, calling them back to Himself not through land or temple, but through renewed relationship. The prophets repeatedly envision restoration not as a return to political power, but to righteousness and divine presence. Jeremiah declares, “You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you… and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations.” (Jeremiah 29:13–14). God’s faithfulness does not depend on the land—it transcends it.
Temple Destruction as Theological Turning Point
The destruction of the temple in 586 BCE, and again in 70 CE, marked definitive turning points in biblical theology. The loss of the temple symbolized the end of a religious system based on sacrifice and territorial holiness. Jesus himself predicted the temple’s destruction and reoriented worship around his own person, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19) John’s Gospel clarifies: “But He was speaking about the temple of His body.” (John 2:21)
Jesus redefined the presence of God, no longer bound to a location but dwelling among and within his people by the Spirit (cf. John 4:21–24). This theological shift renders the physical temple—and by extension the physical land—no longer central to divine activity. Moltmann observes, “The Shekinah, the indwelling presence of God, no longer dwells in a house made by human hands, but in the crucified and risen Christ, and through him, in the community of the Spirit.”⁵
The finality of the temple’s destruction signals a divine shift away from national religion and toward the universal body of Christ.
The Church as the People in Exile
Following Christ’s ascension and the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost, the church emerges as the new community of God—defined not by land, race, or ritual, but by faith, Spirit, and mission. The early Christians understood themselves as a people in exile, awaiting a heavenly homeland (cf. Hebrews 11:13–16). Peter addresses the church as, “Aliens and strangers” and “those who reside as exiles” (1 Peter 2:11), echoing Israel’s experience yet pointing forward to a new eschatological identity. Moltmann develops this concept in his theology of the Exodus Church, “The church does not settle into this world as if it were its home. It is a wandering people, living in the hope of a kingdom that is coming, not yet visible.”⁶
This exile is not a curse but a calling. It prevents the church from identifying too closely with any nation or land, including modern Israel, and redirects its hope toward the kingdom of God.
God’s Presence Without a Place
The God of the Bible is not bound by geography. He is the God of exodus, the God who moves, calls, and sends. When God removes His people from the land, it is not abandonment but redirection. He meets them in Babylon, in Persia, in Rome—in exile and diaspora. The psalmist declares, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.” (Psalm 139:7–8)
God is not localized. The true land of promise is not a strip of territory in the Middle East, but the renewed creation in Christ, promised to those who love His appearing (cf. Romans 8:19–21; Revelation 21:1–5).
VII. The Kingdom of God Beyond Borders
Jesus’ Rejection of Nationalistic Religion
From the outset of His ministry, Jesus subverted the prevailing expectations of a national Messiah who would restore territorial Israel. He repeatedly distanced Himself from political nationalism and reframed God’s kingdom as something radically different: not an ethnic restoration, but a divine reign breaking into the world through grace, justice, and peace. “My kingdom is not of this world… But now My kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36)
Rather than reclaiming land or building a theocratic state, Jesus proclaimed the arrival of God’s reign in the poor, the broken, and the excluded (cf. Luke 4:18–19). His movement was not grounded in geography but in transformation. He called disciples not to fight for borders, but to lose their lives in order to find them (cf. Matthew 16:25). The kingdom of God is thus an eschatological and spiritual reality that transcends the nationalistic ambitions of all earthly regimes—including modern Israel.
The Global Scope of God’s People
After the resurrection, Jesus commands His followers not to reclaim the land but to go to the nations, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations.” (Matthew 28:19) Pentecost is the climactic reversal of Babel—not a consolidation of ethnic Israel, but the birth of a multinational, multilingual body of believers. The Spirit falls not upon a restored temple in Jerusalem, but upon a scattered people now unified in Christ.
Paul’s theology reinforces this universalism, “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:28–29)
Abraham’s promise, which included land, is reinterpreted by Paul not as a plot of territory, but as a blessing for all peoples through Christ (cf. Romans 4:13). The land was a shadow; Christ is the substance.
The New Jerusalem: God’s Eschatological Vision
The final vision of Scripture is not a restored Israel but a renewed cosmos. Revelation ends not with a return to Canaan but with the descent of the new Jerusalem from heaven— an image of cosmic redemption, not political reclamation, “And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God… And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them.’” (Revelation 21:2–3)
This city has no temple, no national boundaries, no military defense—only the light of the Lamb and the healing of the nations. It is a vision that renders obsolete all worldly claims to divine land rights. Moltmann writes, “The messianic kingdom is not the continuation of Israel’s nationalism by other means; it is the overcoming of all nationalism in the universal reign of God.”⁷
The Danger of Sacralizing the Nation-State
To conflate the kingdom of God with any modern nation is to commit a theological error of the gravest kind. When Christians sacralize the modern state of Israel, they risk turning the gospel into an ideology of empire and exclusion. The church’s mission is not to support one nation’s geopolitical claims but to witness to a kingdom not of this world.
As Karl Barth warned, “The community of Jesus Christ… cannot allow itself to be drawn into the conflict of nations, because its citizenship is in heaven.”⁸ To support justice for all people—including Jews and Palestinians—is a Christian duty. But to theologically privilege one nation as God’s chosen today is to resurrect the very ethnocentric system that Christ came to transcend and transform.
VIII. The Church as the Heir of the Promise
Redefining “Israel” in the New Testament
One of the most profound shifts in the New Testament is the redefinition of Israel—not as a nation bound by land and lineage, but as a people defined by faith in Christ. Paul, a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5), unambiguously teaches that true Israel is no longer ethnic or territorial but spiritual and universal.“For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants… That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.” (Romans 9:6–8)
Paul reorients the covenantal promises away from genetic descent and toward divine election through Christ. The church, made up of Jew and Gentile alike, becomes the living embodiment of God’s covenant with Abraham—not by bloodline, but by faith.
The Olive Tree Analogy
In Romans 11, Paul uses the metaphor of the olive tree to explain the continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church. Natural branches (ethnic Israel) were broken off due to unbelief, and wild branches (Gentiles) were grafted in by faith. “You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’ Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith.” (Romans 11:19–20)
This is not replacement but reconstitution. The church is not a Gentile invention—it is Israel reborn in Christ, not through Torah or territory, but through trust in the Messiah. The tree remains, but its composition is changed. Moltmann affirms, “The church is not a second people of God. It is the messianic renewal of the people of God, brought into being by the crucified and risen Lord.”⁹
A People Without Borders
As the true heirs of the promise, the church is a pilgrim people, defined not by boundaries but by mission. Like Abraham, they are called to journey in faith, “looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.” (Hebrews 11:10) The New Testament writers emphasize this posture of exilic identity, “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 3:20)
This means the people of God today are not tied to any national project—not to Israel, not to America, not to any kingdom of this world. Their identity is eschatological, rooted in the future of God, not in the past of any earthly state.
The End of Ethnic Privilege
The gospel deconstructs ethnic privilege and territorial entitlement. In Christ, there is no longer a favored nation, a holy city, or a chosen ethnicity. What remains is grace—grace for all who believe, grace that levels all distinctions and abolishes all barriers.“But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall.” (Ephesians 2:13–14)
The church is not a replacement for Israel; it is the fulfillment of Israel’s vocation: to be a light to the nations (Isaiah 49:6), a blessing to all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:3). This fulfillment, however, is not realized through land or law, but through the crucified and risen Christ.
IX. Conclusion: The Fulfillment of the Land
Promise in Christ, The End of Territorial Promises
The biblical land promise to Israel, while significant in the Old Testament, finds its ultimate fulfillment not in a specific territory but in Christ and the kingdom of God. The land itself was a temporary sign, pointing to a greater reality—a relationship with God that transcends geography. The promise of land was fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, who, through His death and resurrection, inaugurated a new creation and a new covenant, one that no longer depends on territorial possession or ethnic identity.
Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman in John 4:21–24 powerfully demonstrate this shift: “Believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father… but an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.” The true worshipers are not defined by a specific place but by their relationship with God in Christ. The geographic distinction between Israel and the nations has been abolished, as all people are now invited to partake in the blessings of the covenant through faith in Christ.
The Church as the Fulfillment of Israel’s Vocation
The church, as the body of Christ, fulfills the true vocation of Israel—to be a light to the nations (Isaiah 49:6). The mission of the church is to declare the gospel of the kingdom, not bound by national or ethnic identity, but marked by the universal call to salvation in Christ. Through the church, the promises made to Israel are extended to all who come to faith in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike.
Paul’s teachings in Romans 9–11 demonstrate that the church, comprised of both believing Jews and Gentiles, is the true continuation of the people of God. Israel’s role in God’s plan is not superseded by the church but transformed through the gospel. The people of God are no longer defined by ethnicity, but by their participation in the life of Christ.
This new understanding of Israel reveals the depth of God’s redemptive plan, which includes both the faithful remnant of Israel and the nations. Moltmann highlights, “The church does not replace Israel, but through Jesus Christ, the promises made to Israel are now fulfilled in a new way. The church is the inheritor of those promises, and it is through the church that the kingdom of God is proclaimed to the ends of the earth.”
Israel and the Kingdom of God
The modern state of Israel, while it may have significance in a historical and political sense, does not in any manner represent the fulfillment of the biblical promises to Israel. As a political entity, it is subject to the same dynamics of history, power, and politics as any other nation-state. The true fulfillment of the land promise and the kingdom of God is not found in territorial claims but in the reign of Christ over all creation.
Jesus, in His parables and teachings, consistently reoriented the expectations of His followers. The kingdom of God is not about earthly power, but about a new way of being in the world—one that is characterized by justice, peace, and grace. It is a kingdom that transcends borders and invites all people to partake in God’s redemptive plan, not through a physical land but through faith in Christ.
The ultimate hope for God’s people is not the restoration of a physical kingdom but the establishment of a new heaven and new earth, where God will dwell with His people forever. This is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel—not in the restoration of a nation-state but in the new creation that Christ has inaugurated and will one day bring to completion.
The Final Word
The land promise to Israel was a temporary and provisional reality, pointing to a deeper, eternal truth: the reign of God in Christ. The modern state of Israel, while having historical and political importance, does not represent the fulfillment of the biblical promises to Israel. The true Israel is the people of God, the church, which is defined not by ethnic or national identity but by faith in Christ.
As believers, we are called to live as pilgrims, not bound by land or territory, but defined by our citizenship in the kingdom of God. Our hope is not in a physical homeland but in the eternal kingdom of God, where we will dwell with Him forever. Until that day, we are called to bear witness to the coming of that kingdom, living as agents of reconciliation, peace, and justice in a world that desperately needs the message of grace“For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.”(Hebrews 13:14)
¹ Jürgen Moltmann, The Theology of Hope, trans. James W. Leitch (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 88.
² Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 65.
³ Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 212.
⁴ Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 329.
⁵ Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 62.
⁶ Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ, 118.
⁷ Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, 329.
⁸ Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/3.1, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961), 296.
⁹ Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 234.
