I was on a radio show some years ago talking about, naturally, Bible prophecy. I woman called in and claimed that the land promises made to Israel had not been fulfilled. There wasn’t any more time on air to discuss the claim, but I took her call at the close of the show. I took her to Joshua 21 and read the following:
Thus, the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass (Joshua 21:43-45).
She resisted because her prophetic system would not allow her to interpret what I was reading to her because it did not fit with her system. I then took her to 1 Kings 4:20-21: “Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea. They ate and drank and were happy. Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the river [Euphrates] to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.”
A Beginner's Guide to Interpreting Bible Prophecy
With so much prophetic material in the Bible — somewhere around 25% of the total makeup of Scripture — it seems difficult to argue that an expert is needed to understand such a large portion of God’s Word and so many “experts” could be wrong generation after generation. If God’s Word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path” (Psalm 119:105), how do we explain that not a lot of light has been shed on God’s prophetic Word and with so little accuracy? A Beginner’s Guide to Interpreting Bible Prophecy has been designed to help Christians of all ages and levels of experience to study Bible prophecy with confidence.
Buy NowConsider the commentary by Old Testament scholar Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. “Oftentimes students of the Bible point to three passages that appear to suggest that the promise of land to Israel has indeed been fulfilled: Joshua 21:43-45; 23:14-15; Nehemiah 9:8. These texts assert that ‘not one of all the Lord’s good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled’ (Josh. 21:45; cf. 23:14).”[1]
So much for a literal interpretation of the Bible. Here’s how an emailer tried to explain the use of “all” in Joshua 21:43-45: “And of course, what Dr. DeMar again fails to realize is that using a ‘literal’ interpretive principle does not necessarily mean that the words of a given text or passage will be taken literally.”
This is a literalist saying this. I’m not interpreting what I think he is saying. When literalists are pushed to support their claim that they alone interpret the Bible literally, “literal” apparently takes on a less than literal meaning. He goes on to explain himself by using a contemporary example:
“I went to a professional basketball game not long ago. The score was extremely close and at one point in the game, it was a definite fight to the finish. After a great deal of effort, the home team won the game by one three-pointer. At that point, everyone was on their feet, shouting at the top of their lungs! Now, is my statement correct as written? Of course it is, because I was there, and it happened. I witnessed it.
But wait; what if there were a few people who were not on their feet, shouting at the top of their lungs? Does my statement then become false? Of course it doesn’t. Would someone reading my account or listening to me retell it believe that every single person who attended that game (including the workers at the arena), was on their feet and shouting at the top of their lungs? I can’t imagine it. Moreover, no one would accuse me of lying even if a decent sized group of people did not join in the revelry. This is called a generalization and quite acceptable. People simply understand the general meaning of what is being stated, including the fact that while not everyone did as I said, my statement is still considered truthful.”
Of course, there are times in Scripture where “all” does not mean everyone or everything without exception (Matt. 3:5; 24:14, 22; Acts 2:17; Rom. 11:26), but sometimes it does.
Let’s take a closer look at Joshua 21 and compare what it says to the description of the crowd at the basketball game. If we only had “So, the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it” (Joshua 21:43), then “all” might have less than an all-inclusive meaning. But we have verse 45: “Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.” “Not one … failed” defines “all.” If I had asked the emailer, “Did everyone stand up and cheer?,” and he said, “Not one failed to stand up and cheer,” I would have to assume that everyone stood up.
By the time we get to the end of the book of Joshua the land was in Israel’s possession even though there were nations dwelling in Israel’s midst (Josh. 23:4-7). Just because other nations resided in the land does not mean that Israel did not have full possession of the land. The nations are said to be “an inheritance for your tribes” (23:4). Notice the conditions of remaining in the land: “Be very firm, then, to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, so that you may not turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left” (Josh. 23:6).
Failure to follow this specific condition will mean that these nations “shall be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the Lord your God has given you” (23:13). This admonition did not annul what we read in Joshua 21 and elsewhere. God had issued a warning that Israel could be dispossessed.
What about Judges 3:1-4? While the land was possessed and was in the hands of the Israelites before Joshua died, some nations were left “to test Israel … to find out if they would obey the commandments of the Lord” (Judges 3:1, 4). It was Israel’s disobedience that put the land back into the hands of her enemies. God delivers Israel through Othniel, and then we read, “Then the land had rest forty years” (3:11): Not part of the land, but the land—the land occupied by Israel—had rest.
In 1 Kings 4:21, 24-25 we read: “Now Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River [Euphrates] to the land of the Philistines to the border of Egypt; they brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.… For he had dominion over everything west of the River, from Tiphsah even to Gaza, over all the kings west of the River; and he had peace on all sides around about him.… So, Judah and Israel lived in safety, every man under his vine and his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.”
Last Days Madness
In this authoritative book, Gary DeMar clears the haze of "end-times" fever, shedding light on the most difficult and studied prophetic passages in the Bible, including Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Matt. 16:27-28; 24-25; Thess. 2; 2 Peter 3:3-13, and clearly explaining a host of other controversial topics.
Buy NowHere’s how one dispensational writer tries to explain why this passage does not fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 15:18-20: “for not all the territory was incorporated into the geographic boundaries of Israel; many of the subjected kingdoms retained their identity and territory but paid taxes (tribute) to Solomon.”[2] What does Genesis 15:18 say when compared to 1 Kings 4:21 and 2 Chronicles 9:26: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates.”[3] Genesis 15:19-21 implies that other nations could still be living within Israel’s borders. This matches the borders attributed to Solomon’s dominion. Notice the statements that “Judah and Israel lived in safety” and “had peace on all sides.”
What is it about these passages and others like them that do not confirm the claim that Israel had been given all the land promised to her? Modern-day Israel does not have any “covenantal connection” with the land promises. Israel is like every other nation. The following comments from James Jordan are helpful in understanding the application of what we read in the OT about the land promises and other covenantal promises made to Israel:
I don’t think there’s anything special about the land of Palestine after AD 70. The ekklēsia, made up of Jews and Gentiles, is the fulfillment of the Holy Land motif found in the Old Testament. You’ve got major problems theologically if you say that the land of Palestine is still special. If true, that means a Jew who converts to Christianity as part of the blessing of the gospel, he gets to have the Holy Land. But a Gentile who converts to Christianity does not get a part of that package of blessings. That means that the blessings are coming in two categories, and since ultimately everything is in Christ, that means, in this view, Christ is divided theologically. That’s a monstrosity that most people haven’t thought through. People will claim that’s what the Bible teaches without intending to divide Christ, but that’s the effect of it. Some people in Christ get the promised land, and some people who are in Christ don’t. In biblical terms, you’re either in Christ or not. If you’re in Christ everybody is in the same position judicially speaking. So theologically, it’s a problem that ethnic Jews receive promises that Gentiles do not.
What about Romans 11? I’m well persuaded that most prophecies there took place in the years immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. If those passages point to a future conversion of Jews, if you took it that way, you would have to assimilate that to the fact that all nations are going to be converted. This means that God is saying that He hasn’t forgotten the Jews either…. Today’s ethnic Jews are like an Armenian or an Indian or an Iroquois or a Spaniard or any other group. That’s what I think the New Testament intends for us to understand.
Paul clearly explained how there are not two distinct people groups separated covenantally. While the gospel went to “the Jew first” (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; 13:46), it did not remain with the Jews. Gentiles were incorporated into an already Jewish ekklēsia (Acts 5:11). Paul’s letter to the Ephesians makes this forcefully clear:
Therefore, remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off 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, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (vv. 11-22).
[1] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), 111.
[2] Thomas L. Constable, “1 Kings,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press/Victor Books, 1985), 497.
[3] The “River” is a reference to the Euphrates River which is far north of Israel. The Philistines were to the east and, of course, Egypt was in the south.