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. And the Lord gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. – Joshua 21:43-45

I have on more than one occasion heard Bible teacher Chuck Missler say that there is only one piece of real estate on planet earth where God has specifically said that it belongs to a specific people and that is Israel. Yet, that specified land is the most contested on the entire planet. This is true because God has spoken specifically on the matter. The fact that God’ s clear Word is contested by so many means that Satan is behind such a consensus.

The arrival of the modern state of Israel on the world scene in 1948 was a big boon to the premillennial understanding of the Bible. This vindicates- in history- our biblical belief that God has a future plan for the land of Israel and the Jewish people. In spite of these developments, there are a group of evangelicals who think that the current state of Israel has nothing to do with God’ s biblical promises. How could anyone who claims to believe the Bible hold to such error?

Some Believe That Israel Is Finished

An increasing number of anti-Zionists, usually advocates of some kind of replacement theology, have been using a misinterpretation of Joshua 21:43- 45 as a prooftext, which they believe nullifies God’ s land promises to Israel. They present God as Someone who is looking to discharge promises, in a legalistic way, by, in essence saying, ” I have fulfilled the letter of the law on that one, now I can mark it off of my list of obligations.” They claim that God has discharged all His promises to Israel regarding the land because of the statement in Joshua 21.

In the process of making this claim, they either ignore or claim that God’ s eternal and perpetual promises to Israel about her land are no longer in force today. They want to do away with Israel and they think they have found a biblical passage that supports their un-biblical notion. At least, that’ s what they think.

It is not surprising that Gary DeMar is one who believes as such. He says concerning Israel’ s future: ” the text says nothing about the restoration of Israel to her land as a fulfillment of some covenantal obligation. All the land promises that God made to Israel were fulfilled (Joshua 21:43-45).” [1] DeMar’ s perspective should not surprise us since he believes that virtually all prophecy has already been fulfilled. He believes on that basis that the modern state of Israel has no legitimate biblical basis.

Anti-Zionist, Stephen Sizer, also believes that the Joshua 21 passage ends any future claims by the Jews to the Land of Israel. Sizer says, ” To the claim that certain promises have yet to be fulfilled, Joshua is emphatic, ‘ Not one of all the Lord’ s good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.’ ” [2]Replacement theologian, Keith Mathison, declares, ” Joshua 21:43- 45 explicitly declares that all the land that God promised Israel was given to them.” [3] So have the land promises to Israel been totally fulfilled so that there is no hope at all for national Israel? The answer is NO!

So What Does It Really Mean?

A survey of commentaries reveal, that virtually no one takes such an understanding of this passage in the way outlined by the above anti-Zionists.[4] That all of Israel’ s land promises have forever been fulfilled in Joshua make not sense. Instead, most commentators see the opposite problem, as noted by John Calvin who says, ” How then can these two things be reconciled, that God, as he had promised, gave possession of the land to the people, and yet they were excluded from some portion by the power or obstinate resistance of the enemy?” [5] Calvin does not see this fulfilling God’ s land obligations to Israel instead he sees the opposite problem. Calvin offers the following solution:

In order to remove this appearance of contradiction, it is necessary to distinguish between the certain, clear, and steadfast faithfulness of God in keeping his promises, and between the effeminacy and sluggishness of the people, in consequence of which the benefit of the divine goodness in a manner slipped through their hands. . . . The whole comes to this, that it was owing entirely to their own cowardice that they did not enjoy the divine goodness in all its fullness and integrity.[6]

Such a view is even supported by outspoken, anti-Zionist, Colin Chapman, who says, ” There are many indications in the, however, that the conquest of the land was never complete (e.g. Joshua 13:1- 32; Judges 1:1- 36), and that many of the original inhabitants continued to live alongside the Israelites (e.g. Joshua 9:1- 27).” [7]

The emphasis of this summary statement in the book of Joshua (21:43- 45) must be seen against the backdrop of the Lord’ s overall charge and promise to give them the land in 1:2- 11. Joshua is recording the historical facts that God was faithful, even when the tribes of Israel were only partially true to their word. Keil and Delitzsch explain this aspect to us as follows:

Notwithstanding the fact that many a tract of country still remained in the hands of the Canaanites, the promise that the land of Canaan should be given to the house of Israel for a possession had been fulfilled; for God had not promised the immediate and total destruction of the Canaanites, but only their gradual extermination (Ex. xxiii. 29, 30; Deut. vii. 22). And even though the Israelites never came into undisputed possession of the whole of the promised land, to the full extent of the boundaries laid down in Num. xxxiv. 1- 12, never conquering Tyre and Sidon for example, the promises of God were no more broken on that account than they were through the circumstance, that after the death of Joshua and the elder his contemporaries, Israel was sometimes hard pressed by the Canaanites; since the complete fulfilment of this promise was inseparably connected with the fidelity of Israel to the Lord.[8]

Joshua 21:43- 45 must be understood within the overall context of the entire book, not simply trotted out as prooftext, which if not examined within the broader context of Joshua, appear to the ignorant as an argument of disinheritance of the land from Israel. Adrian Jeffers set the broader context of Joshua:

The Book of Joshua clearly shows that Israel conquered the land in Canaan in two major campaigns (Joshua 10, 11). At the end of these campaigns a summary is given (” So Joshua took all that land, the hill-country . . .” 11:16-20) which indicates that his work was done, the Conquest was completed. That this also is somewhat ideal is seen in that chapter 13:1-6 says ” there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed . . .” and describes the various areas remaining with a list of unconquered cities (cf. Judges 1:27ff.). A similar example is given near the end of the book (Joshua 21:43-35- Israel possessed all the land, all their enemies were delivered, and all that Jehovah promised came to pass). Yet the Book of Judges makes it plain that this was not the case. Again the command to dispossess all the enemies in the land and to occupy their territory (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 23:23-31, Numbers 34:2, Deuteronomy 1:7, 8, etc.) has a similar implication. Ideally Israel was to dispossess all their enemies, but in actual fact many were left behind, and these became a snare to them. In fact it is indicated that this was part of the will of God- in order to, discipline them (Joshua 23:12, 13, Judges 3:1,2).[9]

God is Faithful Even When Men Fail” The theme here is the faithfulness of God in fulfilling his promises. God did his part,” explains Trent Butler. ” No matter what the political situation of Israel in a later generation, be it the division of the kingdom, the fall of the northern kingdom, or the destruction of Jerusalem and the Exile, Israel could not blame God. God had faithfully done for Israel what he promised. Blame belonged on Israel’ s shoulders, not God.” [10] John Walvoord echoes this understanding and says, ” The Lord had not failed to keep His promise even though Israel had failed by faith to conquer all the land.” [11] Donald Campbell speaks clearly to the issue in the following:

Some theologians have insisted that the statement in Joshua 21:43 means that the land promise of the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled then. But this cannot be true because later the Bible gives additional predictions about Israel possessing the land after the time of Joshua (e.g., Amos 9:14- 15). Joshua 21:43, therefore, refers to the extent of the land as outlined in Numbers 34 and not to the ultimate extent as it will be in the messianic kingdom (Gen. 15:18- 21). Also though Israel possessed the land at this time it was later dispossessed, whereas the Abrahamic Covenant promised Israel that she would possess the land forever (Gen. 17:8).[12]

In fact there are a number of passages written after the time of Joshua that promises a future for Israel (Isa. 60:18, 21; Jer. 23:6- 6; 24:5- 6; 30:18; 31:31- 34; 32:37- 40; 33:6- 9; Ezek. 28:25- 26; 34:11- 12; 36:24- 26; 37:1- 14, 21- 25; 39:28; Hosea 3:4- 5; Joel 2:18- 29; Micah 2:12; 4:6- 7; Zeph. 3:19- 20; Zech. 8:7- 8; 13:8- 9). In addition, Deuteronomy 30:3- 6 speaks of a still future restoration in belief. I believe that this will take place just before the second coming of Christ. Look at Amos 9:14- 15, it is one of the clearest, future restoration passages.

” Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, and they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them, they will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, and make gardens and eat their fruit. I will also plant them on their land, and they will not again be rooted out from their land which I have given them,” says the Lord your God.

Conclusion
The Bible is clear that Israel has a national future in which she will dwell in blessing in her land. This will be after she has been converted to Jesus as her Messiah. However, in the mean time, the current regathering of Israel in unbelief is for the purpose of putting God’ s covenant people through the fire of tribulation, which will result in the salvation of the remnant. If one misses the clear message of this biblical teaching it is only because their have a bias against this view. This explains why anti-Zionists evangelicals have abandoned the normal, literal interpretative approach of Scripture and are guilty of reading back into the text their a priori replacement theology. They have exchanged proper exegesis of Holy Writ for a false theologizing. In the process of developing their anti-Zionist doctrines, their rhetoric is increasingly sounding like Muslim Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. I would like to ask them, ” What biblical texts speak specifically of this people?” Maranatha!

 

Endnotes
[1] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), p. 332.

[2] (Italics original) Stephen R. Sizer, ” Whose Promised Land: Israel and Biblical Prophecy Debate between Neil Cornell (CMJ & ITAC) and Stephen Sizer,” Guildford Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship St John’ s, Working. Surrey, 18th March 1997. Taken from the internet at www.christchurch-virginiawater.co.uk/articles/debate.html, n. p.

[3] Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?(Phillipsburg, PA: P & R Publishing, 1995), p. 27.

[4] See for example Reformed commentator M. H. Woudstra who would be expected to raise such an issue, but does not in The Book of Joshua (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 314- 15.

[5] John Calvin, Commentaries on The Book of Joshua (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 248.

[6] Calvin, Joshua, p. 248.

[7] Colin Chapman, Whose Promised Land? The Continuing Crisis Over Israel and Palestine (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), p. 119.

[8] C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, 10 vols., (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), Vol. II, p. 216.

[9] Adrian Jeffers, ” Ideal Versus Real History in the Book of Joshua,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Summer 1969), p. 183.

[10] Trent C. Butler, Word Biblical Commentary: Joshua, Vol. 7 (Waco: Word Books, 1983), p. 235.

[11] John F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook: All the prophecies of Scripture explained in on volume (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), p. 44.

[12] Donald K. Campbell, ” Joshua,” in John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck,The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), pp. 364-65.

1996 marks the 6000th year since creation, according to the calculations of British Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656). In 1701, Ussher’s chronology was taken into the margin of the King James Version of the Bible and is still included in many editions today. It has been noted that Ussher was motivated to study past chronology because of his interest in dating the future second coming of Christ.

Even though Ussher’s approach to biblical chronology is usually disdained in our day, I believe that he is basically correct in his approach and conclusions. I think a few calendar adjustments should be made that would begin creation at 4000 b.c. instead of Ussher’s 4004 b.c. Thus, a.d. 2000 is more likely the 6000th year since creation. If I believed that it were possible to date the second coming of Christ, it is not possible, then the theory teaching that man has 6000 years before the second coming of Christ would make the most sense.

The 7000 Year Theory

One of the most widely held beliefs of the first 400 years of the early church was that Christ would return after 6,000 years of history and that He would reign on earth for an additional 1,000 years. This view was based upon the six days of creation with the seventh day of rest (Gen. 2:2), and the belief (developed from Ps. 90:4 & 2 Pet. 3:8) that each day was to be reckoned as representative of a thousand years. Thus, just as man’s work week (Ex. 20:8-11) is six days followed by the Sabbath rest, so the scope of history follows the pattern of six thousand years for man’s history followed by the seventh thousand years of millennial rest (Heb. 4:9). This whole scheme is referred to as the sex- or septa-millenary theory.

Early church proponents believed that the end of the world would come around a.d. 500, because they followed the inflated chronology of the Septuagint. Ussher and later proponents of the septa-millenary tradition followed the more accurate numbers of the Hebrew Masoretic Text which produced Ussher’s 4004 b.c. date for creation with the 6000 years of man’s week ending in a.d. 1996. Others see a 4000 b.c. creation date with a focus on a.d. 2000.

Some have noted the panic and great concern throughout Christendom that surrounded events leading up to a.d. 500 and speculated that we may expect similar behavior as the year a.d. 2000 approaches. This is highly unlikely, because of the secular dominance of modern culture. Occasionally, some may be curious about a biblically related viewpoint, but never is society as a whole fearful of anything relating to the God of the Bible. But does the Bible support or allow for date-setting?

What About Date-Setting?

At least six passages (eight if parallel passages are included) specifically warn believes against date-setting. It is enough for something to be stated only once in the Bible for it to be true, but when God says something many times the emphasis should make such assertions even clearer. I am listing the specific passages below so that we can readily see these important biblical admonitions:

• Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Mark 13:32 is an exact parallel.

• Matthew 24:42 “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.

• Matthew 24:44 “For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.

• Matthew 25:13 “Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.Mark 13:33-37 is a parallel passage.

• Acts 1:7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;

• 1 Thessalonians 5:1-2 Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.

These passages are absolute prohibitions against date-setting. They do not teach that it was impossible to know the date in the early church, but in the last days some would come to know it. They do not say that no one knows the day or the hour, except those who are able to figure it out through some scheme. No! The date of Christ’ s coming is a matter of God’ s revelation and He has chosen not to reveal it even to Christ in His humanity during His first advent (Mt. 24:36).

As 1996 progresses toward the year 2000 Christians may come under increasing pressure to speculate about the return of Christ, especially since God appears to be setting the stage for end-time events. However, such a temptation must be resisted. The Bible is clear that date-setting is wrong and the further implication of an any-moment rapture makes it doubly wrong. Our hope is that Christ could come at any moment. “And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure” (1 John 3:3).