Joshua 23:16
16 When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.
Was God’s promise of the land to Israel conditional or unconditional?
PROBLEM: When God gave the Promised Land to Abraham (Gen. 12–15), Isaac (Genesis 26), and Jacob (Genesis 46), there were no conditions. It was an unconditional covenant (“I will bless you”) with no conditions (“If you do such and such”) in which God swore by His own unchangeable nature (cf. Hebrews 6:13-18). However, later both Moses (Deuteronomy 31:16-17) and Joshua (23:16) speak of God expelling Israel from the land if they sinned against God.
SOLUTION: There are two ways Bible scholars attempt to respond to this criticism: spiritually and literally.
Spiritual Fulfillment in the Church. Some claim this promise does not find any fulfillment in literal Israel, but in spiritual Israel, the church. They appeal to the verse which calls believers the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) and the spiritual “seed” of Abraham (Galatians 3:29). They point to Romans 11 which says that Israel was “broken off” because of their rejection of their Messiah (v. 17). Thus, while literal Israel sinned, God nevertheless will keep the Abrahamic covenant with NT believers who were unconditionally elected in Christ (Ephesians 1:4).
Literal Future Fulfillment in Israel. Other Bible scholars take the eternal land promises to Abraham’s descendants literally, pointing to a future fulfillment of these when Christ returns to earth to reign (cf. Matthew 19:28; Rev. 19–20). In support of their position they note the following points.
First, the promises of possessing the land of Palestine “forever” (see Genesis 13:15) have never been fulfilled.
Second, unlike the Mosaic covenant (Exodus 19:1-8), this was an unconditional covenant based on God’s unchangeable character (cf. Galatians 3:18; Hebrews 6:17-18). Thus God must literally fulfill it to the very people to whom He promised it, or else God would have reneged on an unconditional promise—in which case, He is not God.
Third, the NT church does not fulfill the literal land promises to Israel, but only the promises to receive the spiritual blessings of salvation through the seed of Abraham, who is Christ (cf. Galatians 3:16; Galatians 3:29).
Fourth, the NT could not be the fulfillment of these unconditional promises to Abraham’s descendants because they speak of them as yet future. Paul not only spoke of the nation Israel being cut off, but of their being “grafted in again” and being “saved” (Romans 11:23; Romans 11:26). Indeed, the Book of Revelation speaks of “one hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of … Israel” being reinstated in the end times (Revelation 7:4). Those who advocate this position also note that the word “tribe” is never used in a spiritual sense in Scripture.
Finally, Scripture makes a clear distinction between covenants that are unconditional (e.g., the Abrahamic) and those that are conditional (e.g., the Mosaic law). Paul told the Galatians clearly that “if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (Galatians 3:18). In view of this literal interpretation, all threats of non-fulfillment of a covenant refer either to the conditional covenant made with Moses (Exodus 19) or else they are merely exhortations about relating to temporary delays in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (Joshua 23:16).