5 Partially fulfilling the promise: Joshua–Kings
5
Partially fulfilling the promise: Joshua–Kings
Joshua: the possession of the land
The book of Joshua begins where Deuteronomy ends. It is important, therefore, to see how the theme of land progresses. A major portion of the book of Joshua is devoted to detailing the allotment of inheritances to families and tribes (chs. 13–21). Divorced from its canonical context, these chapters are viewed as an unfortunate break in an otherwise exciting literary narrative that progresses from crossing into the land (chs. 1–5) to taking the land (chs. 6–12) to finally worshipping God in the land (chs. 22–24). However, these chapters clearly demonstrate the fulfilment of God’s promise of land in substantial ways.
Three important themes emerge from the text. To begin, there is indication in Joshua that the initial conquest of the land resulted in the fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises. While Deuteronomy anticipates rest from enemies, Joshua concludes with its having been achieved. For example, Joshua 11:23 and 14:15 state that ‘the land had rest from war’. This rest was in accordance with all that the Lord had spoken to Moses (11:23). Furthermore, the Lord gave rest to Israel from all their surrounding enemies (Josh. 21:44–45; 22:4; 23:1). Thus the fulfilment of the promises appears to be complete, for ‘Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass’ (Josh. 21:45; cf. 23:14–15). It appears that God’s promise of land has finally been fulfilled.
However, signposts throughout the book of Joshua indicate otherwise. That is, while some texts speak of conquest and rest, others indicate that the land was not fully and finally possessed. As a result, writes Williamson, ‘the rather idealistic statements of complete fulfilment are tempered with the more realistic picture presented elsewhere’. That is, from a broader perspective there was substantial victory over the Canaanites that broke their power and gave Israel the initiative to inhabit the land. However, the details of the conquest concerning every last city and person were left open.
Thus two ‘parallel realities’ in Joshua regarding the nature and scope of Israel’s occupation of Canaan are simultaneously presented, which Waltke labels as both already and not yet. Simply put, a degree of fulfilment had been achieved under Joshua’s leadership, yet at the same time it was not finally fulfilled. Walter Kaiser writes:
[The] promise of the ‘seed’ to Abraham is ‘fulfilled’ when Isaac is born and the promise of ‘a place’ is ‘fulfilled’ when Joshua takes Canaan. Fulfilled, yes, but only as ‘pledges’ of the one who can gather up all of the manifold parts of the one promise in himself in their ultimate fulfillment.
As a result, writes Waltke, ‘Israel’s possession of the Land and rest are expandable themes, for the land was taken “little by little” (Exod 23:30) but never consummately (Heb 4:1–11; 11:39–40).’ Furthermore, as one moves from Joshua to Judges, it becomes clear that the comprehensive rest did not last long. Judges describes how the enemies of Israel regain power, bringing an end to the rest that was temporarily achieved under Joshua. Thus, as long as there were pockets of resistance, there could be no final rest. Waltke makes an insightful observation regarding the already–not yet fulfilment presented in Joshua when he writes:
Future generations must play their part (Judg. 3:1–4). The Chronicler (1 Chron. 13:5) uses Joshua 13:1–7 to present David as greater than Joshua because he rules from Shihor of Egypt to the entrance of Hamath. . . . At any given point along the continuum of fulfillment, it can be said that God fulfilled his promise. Moreover, each fulfillment was a part of the ultimate fulfillment and could be reckoned as such. Isaiah saw the fulfillment of the ideal limits in the messianic age (Is. 11:12–16). The New Testament presents the same tension regarding the kingdom of God: it is here ‘already’ but in its fullest sense ‘not yet.’
It appears, then, that there remains a greater fulfilment of the promise in the future.
Finally, although the second generation did not obtain ultimate fulfilment of the promise, the text does present their conquest and settlement as an advancement of the Edenic mandate (Gen. 1:28). As some scholars have noted, the structure of Joshua is largely about taking dominion of a piece of land, and in this structure Joshua 18:1 is a central text: ‘Then the whole congregation of the people of Israel assembled at Shiloh and set up the tent of meeting there. The land lay subdued before them.’ This text brings together two important themes: the subdued land and the setting up of the tent of meeting. It is important to observe in this passage the relationship between rest and the tabernacle. More specifically, the dwelling place of God is set up after rest has been achieved. Beale insightfully notes:
God’s rest both at the conclusion of creation in Genesis 1–2 and later in Israel’s temple indicates not mere inactivity but that he had demonstrated his sovereignty over the forces of chaos (e.g., enemies of Israel) and now has assumed a position of kingly rest further revealing his sovereign power. Similarly . . . the building of a shrine for divine rest occurs only after the powers of chaos have been defeated.
Thus if the tabernacle is patterned after Eden, signalling another instalment of God’s dwelling with his people, then Joshua 18:1 and subsequent fulfilments recall the original Edenic bliss. That is, the setting up of the tent signifies not just the fulfilment of the promise to Israel that God will dwell with them in the land, but also the recovery of the Edenic mission. Israel, then, as God’s son, assumes the role of Adam in exercising dominion over creation in fulfilment of the function of the image of God. Thus this event is a significant fulfilment of God’s purposes for his people.
In conclusion, the promises to Abraham respond to the failures of Genesis 1 – 11. Abraham’s ‘seed’ will reign over the earth as God’s viceregent, thereby reversing the curse(s) of Genesis 3 and bringing about both a place for God’s people and worldwide blessing. The exodus is the means through which God will fulfil his promises to the patriarchs and bring his people into a land to call their own. Deuteronomy and Joshua significantly advance the promise of land and mark how it will be fulfilled. After the wilderness generation, Deuteronomy describes the land as a gift, a new Edenic creation and an inheritance, in which rest will be experienced. Joshua then stands in continuity with Deuteronomy and marks a new beginning that results in conquest, occupation and possession of the land. These results demonstrate further fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises and anticipate a greater fulfilment that will bring Eden-like rest. This fulfilment, therefore, displays a pattern of partial fulfilment, followed by dispossession and subsequent repossession. In other words, God fulfils his promises, but the need for further (re)possession indicates that there was still much work, or obedience, to be done.
David and Solomon: dwelling in the land
A significant advance in God’s purpose to plant his people in the land is the arrival of his anointed king, David. Indeed, ‘David is seen as the solution to all the problems of Israel’s rebellious ways. This can only express an eschatological hope.’ In a climactic scene in the book of Samuel after the ark has been brought to Jerusalem, 2 Samuel 7 opens with David in his house enjoying ‘rest from all his surrounding enemies’. It is this aspect of the promise ‘that provided a key link between the end of the book of Numbers and the time of David’. God’s covenant with David involves giving him a great name on an international scale (7:9), appointing a place for his people and securely planting them in it (7:10), and giving him rest from all his enemies (7:11). Furthermore, God promises David a future offspring whose kingdom he will establish (7:12–13) and who will be to God a son (7:14). In sum, ‘the Davidic covenant contains a total of ten blessings: three fulfilled in David’s lifetime, four in the lifetime of his son Solomon, and three in his remote future’. These numerous parallels between the Abrahamic promise and 2 Samuel 7 demonstrate that the Davidic covenant is linked to the Abrahamic covenant in goal and purpose. At this point in Israel’s history, then, it appears that God’s kingdom is beginning to irrupt centrifugally from the nation of Israel and her land through David and his dynasty.
Furthermore, the exaltation of David as king and the blessing of Israel under his rule marked significant progression in the possession of the land. In fact, for the first time under David, Israel exemplified the people of the Lord living under his lordship in the land. In other words, through David God was continuing to lead his people into the future. For example, 2 Samuel 7:1 echoes the rest God promised to give the second generation (Deut. 12:9–10) and the rest given to Israel under Joshua (21:44; 22:4; 23:1). Moreover, David’s final charge to Solomon, like Moses’ charge to Joshua to be faithful to Yahweh, reminds the reader that with David there is a return to, as well as a development beyond, the Mosaic era. In fact, David appears in a Joshua-like role and will finally defeat Israel’s enemies and give the people rest in the Promised Land. It appears, therefore, that through David’s leadership Israel will finally inherit and dwell peacefully in the land.
However, the succeeding narrative blazes an ignoble trail of sin both inside and outside the Davidic house. In David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the deceitful and despicable removal of her husband Uriah (2 Sam. 11), and the tumultuous family and national turmoil that ensues (2 Sam. 12 – 20), there is little evidence of the promised divine blessing. Furthermore, David did not have comprehensive rest from his enemies, for he continued to conquer and drive out enemies that remained (2 Sam. 8). Nevertheless, David’s desire to build a house for God is monumental because it follows the attainment of rest. In David, still, there is a further advancement and escalation of the fulfilment of the land promises. These promises will find eventual fulfilment in the Davidic dynasty, which Solomon inaugurates. Hence an important question is raised concerning the fulfilment of God’s promises after David: Will šālôm come with the arrival of šĕlōmōh (Solomon)?
Without question, the succession of Solomon to the throne covers the golden age of Israel, which marked a more comprehensive fulfilment of the territorial promise. To begin, there was a superior quality to Solomon’s kingship that provided the kind of rule that God promised would come through the seed of Abraham. Furthermore, multiple promissory threads from the Abrahamic narrative are picked up in Solomon. For example, Solomon’s dominion encompassed the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham, and Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea. Dumbrell points out that the Promised Land is secure in Israelite hands, with the very small exceptions of Tyre and Sidon. The prosperity of God’s people (1 Kgs 4:20), together with the growth of the kingdom (1 Kgs 4:21), illustrates Solomon’s reign as an ideal fulfilment of the very promises to Abraham.
Moreover, in Solomon there is a recovery and advancement of the Adamic commission. When Solomon assumed the throne of his father David, ‘his kingdom was firmly established’ (1 Kgs 2:12). Solomon possessed superior wisdom, for the Lord gave him ‘a wise and discerning mind’ according to his request (1 Kgs 3:12). In contrast to Adam, he did not want to know good and evil in order to become like God (Gen. 2:16–17; 3:1–7). Rather, he had a ‘proper desire for wisdom, to discern an already existing reality (not to create it) for the purpose of fulfilling the human task of subduing and controlling the creation (Gen 1:26–28)’. In other words, he desired to govern the people of God in order to do justice (1 Kgs 3:9, 16–28). Moreover, the image of vines and fig trees (1 Kgs 4:25) further suggests that Solomon’s empire represents a restoration of Eden. Lastly, Solomon acknowledges in his dedication speech that ‘Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant’ (1 Kgs 8:56). Similar to Joshua 21:44–45, then, these fulfilments demonstrate that there was still further advancement of the promises from the time of Joshua to Solomon.
Furthermore, evidence for comprehensive fulfilment of the land promises is seen in Solomon’s use of ‘rest’. ‘Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant’ (1 Kgs 8:56). Under the kingship of the Davidic son, the nation of Israel had achieved rest in the land sworn to the fathers, spoken of through Moses and advanced in Deuteronomy, Joshua and David. David desired to build God a house, purchased the site and built the altar, but Solomon executed the plan and built the temple. Just as the building of the tabernacle involved meticulous detail, so also did the building of the temple (1 Kgs 6:1–38; 7:13–51). But the importance of the temple went beyond the national borders of Israel. Solomon declared that it was designed to be a place where ‘all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house that I have built is called by your name’ (1 Kgs 8:43). That is, this temple was to be a conduit of blessing to the entire world (cf. Gen. 12:3).
Finally, the temple was a permanent and visible reminder that the presence of God was in their midst, which demonstrates advancement since Eden. The connection between creation and the temple should not go unnoticed. In fact, Ezekiel explicitly calls Eden the first garden-sanctuary because it is the archetypal temple that will later become central in the life of Israel (28:13–14, 16, 18). The correlation between the land and the temple is important, for the latter is depicted as the dwelling of God ‘in a more intensive sense’. Thus the cleansing or defilement of one corresponds to the cleansing or defilement of the other (e.g. Num. 35:33–34). For Solomon, the temple represents a new Eden for the kingdom of God. The subdued land under his reign typifies the incomplete task of Adam to subdue the earth, in Genesis 1 – 3, and the advancement of the Abrahamic promises. Therefore the achievement of the construction of the temple and, consequently, rest, indicate significant advancement of God’s promises to dwell with his people in his place.
Life after Solomon: decline and the dispossession of the land
However, troubles soon broke out after the prestige and glory of the reigns of David and Solomon. The narrative immediately moves from the construction and dedication of the temple to Solomon’s turning away from the Lord (1 Kgs 11). Moreover, the place where Yahweh had chosen to put his name is no longer part of the story. Hamilton writes:
Eighteen chapters with no mention of the temple is all the more startling when we realize that the dedication of the temple, with the glory of God filling the temple just as it had done the tabernacle, was the apex of Israel’s national prowess. The author takes the reader to the summit of a great mountain at the dedication of the temple, only to drop the reader down the sheer precipice of Israel’s plummet into idolatry.
To be sure, the history of the monarchy in Israel had some high points, but on the whole it was short-lived.
In sum, the picture of Solomon that the book of Kings provides is of an Adam-like figure who on the one hand typifies a restoration to Edenic conditions, while on the other hand being responsible, through his disobedience, for the second expulsion from the sanctuaryland and the end of the monarchy. The subsequent chapters of Kings demonstrate ‘echoes of exodus’, for stunning victory is followed by the idolatrous act of setting up golden calves (1 Kgs 12:25–33). It appears, then, that the path was paved for one of the most traumatic events in Israel’s long history.
The death of Solomon and the effects of his disastrous sin eventually lead to the rupture of the kingdom into two parts. In narrative terms, the move from unity to division takes all of one chapter (1 Kgs 12:16–20). Christopher Wright states, ‘In the centuries after Solomon the land becomes the focus of constant struggle between the forces of dispossession, greed, exploitation and land-grabbing on the one hand, and the protest of the prophets on the other.’
As the rest of Kings narrates, Israel repeatedly disobeys Yahweh’s commands and as a whole is characterized by covenant failure. Furthermore, just as the nation is characterized by unrighteousness, so also the majority of her kings, with few exceptions, show themselves to be covenant-breakers. The focus of these books, therefore, ‘shifts from the glories of David and Solomon to the free fall into depravity orchestrated by their progeny’. This vexing problem is what makes the writings of the prophets so important in the fulfilment of God’s promises.