Msg. to Christians: The Middle East from God's Perspective vs. the Humanist perspective

There is so much these days in all the media about the Middle East and in particular Israel. People are continually pouring forth views and opinions and proposed solutions, but all of them basically are from a human standpoint. I want to be bold and seek to present God's viewpoint on this situation.

One of the most powerful forces at work today is what we call humanism in which man actually views himself as the beginning and the end of his own life and problems. One of the features of humanism is that it views everything on a purely horizontal level. There is no vertical element in humanism, whereas the opposite point of view, the biblical point of view, pictures things primarily from a vertical perspective. This is an age old conflict which we are seeing in the world today: the conflict between the humanistic view of the world and of life, and of the divine view presented in the Bible.

I have raised up your sons , O Zion, against your sons, O Greece.....(and make you like a warrior's sword)".

Essentially Zion represents the divine perspective and Greece is really the main source of the humanistic view of life. Of the very first Greek philosopher recorded in history, named Heraclitis, (approx. 600 BC), only two statements have been left to us, that have survived.

But humanism is absolutely crystallized in them. They are:
l. Man is the measure of all things - that is the essence of humanism.
2. Everything flows, that is, everything is in a state of flux, which today is called relativism. In it there is nothing absolute; there is nothing established. This is illustrated by the fact that it can be said, "You cannot step twice in the same river". In other words, when you go back to the river the second time, new water is flowing past, and it is, therefore, not the same river.

These views represent a stream of thought that has flowed on through history from that time, more than 2400 years ago, especially in the history of Europe and those nations whose background is in Europe.

The Biblical perspective is beautifully and clearly summed up in the opening verse of the Bible; Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God...."

That is the opposite point of view, that the beginning of everything is God. He is the source, the judge, and the end of everything.

Now I want to try to present the situation in the Middle East, and especially as it concerns Israel, from the divine perspective, from a vertical viewpoint. This is obviously a very bold attempt, but I want to base it on the words God spoke in Isaiah 55:8. God says, and he is speaking to men : "for my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways", declares the Lord.

In other words, when we think and act on the normal plane (level), we are not thinking and acting in harmony with God, or as God himself thinks and acts. To emphasise the difference, God goes on to say:

9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" 10 "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return without watering the earth, and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seeds for the sower and bread for the earth, so is my word that goes out from my mouth"

In other words, God's word coming down from him brings his ways and his thoughts down from the heavenly level to our earthly level. And then God goes on to say about his word, 11 "It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it"

One of the great purposes of God's word is that it will reveal to us his ways and his thoughts. That is what the Bible gives us. If we will accept it in humility and faith, it gives us God's perspective. And I would like to say that, in my opinion, the Bible does not need editing or correcting. There is great tendency today, even in what we call the professing church, to suggest that some parts of God's word need to be edited out, and other parts need to be corrected. In particular there is a real tendency to correct God's ethics, and to suggest that some of what God says and does in the Bible is not ETHICAL BY HUMAN STANDARDS. Well, I disassociate myself totally from that viewpoint; ALMIGHTY GOD CANNOT BE CORRECTED ! !

When God appeared to Job, he asked him a question which is very relevant to our time:
Do you still want to argue with the Almighty? Do you, God's critic, have the answers? (Job 40:2)

Well, I would like to say that to God's critics today, "do you have the answers?" Frankly I have seen no evidence that they know the answers. I believe the answer is contained in the Scriptures, and that is where I look for them!

One of the great issues about the Middle East that is continually before us, particularly with regard to Israel, is the issue of justice or righteousness. "Where is true justice, who is just, who is unjust?" Basically various nations accuse each other of injustice, and claim themselves to represent justice. But all this is on the horizontal plain, as I have said. I want to suggest that you cannot ever get an accurate picture of justice unless you begin with the claims of God the Creator. If God is the creator of the world, then any true justice has to begin from his perspective, and not from man's. I think evidence that this is true, is that nations base their claim on justice solely on the horizontal perspective. Let's apply this to an issue that is absolutely paramount here in the Middle East, the territorial claims of nations.

It is obviously not a secret that groups of people are laying claim by justice to the same territory here in the Middle East. I want to ask, what decides what is just? Who is justly entitled to occupy land? Is it conquest , and I would suggest that in most cases military conquest has been the basis of claims to territory. For instance, under Joshua the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan. Was their claim to Canaan based on the fact of conquest? I would say, in the light of the Bible, no, their claim to the land of Canaan was based on the fact that God had assigned it to them.

However, as we go on into history, we find continually cases of nations who have conquered other territories, and then claim them as their right. And generally speaking, if a nation has occupied territory long enough, it somehow becomes assumed that it has a right to that territory, eg. in the 700th century of our era, the Arabs conquered most of the Middle East and North Africa by military might, and they put to the sword those who would not convert to Islam - of course, there were some exception to that statement.

Now, the fact that they have, as it were, occupied conquered territory for something like 12 centuries, does the length of occupation mean that their claim is just? Or, to take one of the famous dates in British history, in 1066, the Normans from France conquered England. Now, nobody today would normally question that those people occupy England by some kind of accepted right. Is it merely because they have occupied it for approximately 900 years? How long does a conquest have to continue before it becomes a matter of right?

I would like to suggest to you that all these questions miss the real point! The real point is that we must begin with God and his perspective. And apart from that, there can never be true or permanent justice. Obviously this is a very different perspective from that which we have in the media and in the world today. But I believe it is the right one and I think Psalm 24:1 explains why,
The earth is the Lord's and everything in it, the world and all who live in it.

The reason for this statement (claim) is then given in verse 2:
For the Lord founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.

In other words, as Creator, God has a total sovereign right to the whole earth. Ultimately it's God's decision that represents justice in the matters of territory occupied by the various nations.

Then, as we turn to Deuteronomy 32:8-9 we have a revelation from Scripture as to where and how God began allot territory to the nations.

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.

I think this is a very clear statement. When God began to determine which nation should occupy which territory, he began with the territory which he had set apart for Israel. And that became also his portion because Israel is his people. And so, ultimately, the claim of nations to occupy territory justly, must be based on the fact that God allotted territories to nations.

In Acts 17:26, in his speech to the men of Athens, Paul makes a statement which is general, in that it refers to the whole human race, and it casts great light on this issue of who justly occupies what territory:
From one man (Adam) he made every nation of men, that they inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

We have already seen that God allotted a certain territory to Israel, and this fact is also stated with tremendous emphasis in Psalm 105. I am always amazed at the enormous emphasis God places on the allotment of this very small piece of territory at the east end of the Mediterranean. When you consider that God is the Almighty Creator and the whole universe belongs to him and is under his control, it is somewhat amazing at first sight that he would be so concerned about one little piece of territory. However, it is a very interesting fact today that, basically, most nations are in some way involved in resolving the issue of whom does this little piece of territory belong to. And I believe the reason nations are occupied with it is in the centre of God's purposes and there are forces at work in the earth which are determined to resist God's purposes. So the conflict between the forces of God and, forces of Satan in some sense revolve around this little piece of territory.

In Psalm 105 God says this, and it all relates to this piece of territory which originally in the Bible was known as the land of Canaan.
7 He is the Lord our God! His Judgments are in all the earth.

In other words, when God makes an edict or a decree or a decision, it is enforced throughout the whole earth.

And then God goes on to say,
8 He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations, 9 the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac. 10 He confirmed it to Jacob as a statute (decree), to Israel as an everlasting covenant.

Look at the series of words that are used, all of which representing sovereign determination of God, which he will not revoke. In verse 8 it mentions, first of all, his covenant, and then to, "the word which he commanded". So we have here, a covenant of God, a word of God and a command of God. In verse 9 he confirms it with an oath, and the writer of Hebrews (6:18) tells us why God sometimes confirms his word with his oath. He says that, By two immutable (unchangeable) things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we should have strong confidence.

So when God wants to give particularly strong confidence concerning something, he first gives his word, and then he confirms it with an oath, which is what he does here.

And then he goes on in verse 10 and confirms it to Jacob in the form of a statute, (a decree, a law), and to Israel for an everlasting covenant. Look back over those words: The series of words that is used is really staggering. It's God's covenant, his word, his commandment, his oath, his statute, and finally, his everlasting covenant.

Now, what does it all relate to? The next verse, Psalm 105:11, tells us, saying,
To you I will give the Land of Canaan as a portion you will inherit.

In other words, this tremendous accumulation of statements indicating God's total sovereign commitment to a certain thing relates to the Land of Canaan. Furthermore, as God's speaks to those to whom he has allotted it, he is most precise in the language he uses. He speaks first of all to Abraham, then to Isaac, and then to Jacob. And notice, it's not Esau or Ishmael. He also uses the name Israel, which is the name of the nation which descended from Jacob.

Actually this passage in Psalm 105 is rather like a legal document stating the ownership of a certain piece of territory.

Now we've seen from Acts 17:26 that not only has God ordained the locations, the territory and the boundaries for the nations, but he has also determined the times in which they will occupy them. I want to suggest to you, and this is my view of history, that this century has been the time that God ordained for the Jews to return to the land to which he had committed himself to give them in Psalm 105 by an everlasting covenant.

If we consider for a moment all that was involved in beginning to get Israel back to this land, it's really a staggering and somewhat frightening thought. Much has been said and written about the Holocaust and I feel by no means qualified to make a lot of general statements about it, but I will make one simple statement. To me it is clear that it took the Holocaust to uproot the Jews from Europe and other nations and to turn their faces towards the Land of Canaan. I think anything less than the Holocaust would not have been sufficient. I believe that when God determines to do something, he is going to do it; absolutely, in a sense ruthlessly, but I don't think he uses more strength or more force than is necessary. I believe the Holocaust represents what was necessary to uproot the Jews from what was centuries of occupation in Europe and other countries, but primarily Europe and to turn them back to the land he has allotted to them by an everlasting covenant.

Why did it happen in this century? Because this century is the appointed time in God's prophetic calender for Israel to be restored to this land. Now, since Israel is just one amongst many nations, the implications of this are very serious and rather frightening. You see, there is a principle stated by Paul in Romans 2:9-10, There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew and then for the Gentile.

So there is an order in God's dealings. When it comes to bringing tribulation and anguish on the nations, God will begin with the Jews. But what starts with the Jews will pass on to the Gentiles. Similarly when God brings blessing, it starts with the Jews, but passes on to the gentiles. It raises the question in my mind, if it took the Holocaust for God to begin to get the Jews back to their land, to what lengths will God go to bring the Gentiles into line with his purposes for them. I would have to say, and this is personal impression, that if it is necessary, God would in due course be as ruthless with the Gentiles, the other nations, as he has been with Israel.

Now I would like to speak very briefly on God's program for Israel as it is revealed in Scripture. And I want to suggest to you that Israel in a certain sense was selected by God as a pattern to illustrate the way he deals with nations and individuals. So, although the focus is on Israel, many of the principles that are illustrated in Israel apply to other nations and individuals.

In the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, which is generally regarded by many people as the doctrinal basis for the New Testament and for the Gospel, Paul devotes three chapters, 9,10 and 11 to God's dealings with Israel. Now I've heard preachers, even preachers who are friends of mine, who call those chapters an excursus, a kind of digression, suggesting that somehow for a moment Paul strayed in his logic and in his thinking. Maybe, they say, it was because he was a Jew, and became too interested in God's purposes for the Jews. And so we have these three chapters in the middle of Romans that deal with the Jews. I have to say, frankly, to me that is a crass example of gentile arrogance!!

The Epistle to the Romans contains the doctrinal basis of the Gospel and of God's dealings with the whole human race, and Israel occupies a unique place in those dealings of God. Now if we just put this aside and say, well, Paul kind of slipped, his memory went or his concentration failed, we will get a very incorrect picture of the total Gospel. I want to suggest to you that God's program for the Gospel and for the human race can never be complete and fulfilled until God's program for Israel has been executed.

In Romans 9 we get what I consider to be the absolutely crucial and central issue in God's dealings with Israel. And it is one that provokes the fury of humanists. The key issue is that man's destiny is determined by God's choice. It all begins with God's choice.

That doctrine, as I've said, is anathema to humanism, but that does not mean it is wrong. It is what the Bible teaches and I personally find that in the present church, as I've encountered it today, there is a very serious lack of thorough understanding of God's dealings as it is portrayed in the Gospel. Generally speaking, the Gospel, as it is presented most places today, is man centered. It represents God as kind of existing for the benefit of man, and hardly deals with the fact that the whole beginning of God's dealings with any human being or with the human race as a whole, is in God's sovereign eternal choice, and that God made that before time began.

So let's look what Paul said in Romans 9 where he brings it out with the greatest possible emphasis, in a way that is almost deliberately controversial. He says this about Rebecca, and the two sons born to her: 10 Not only that, but Rebecca's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not of works but by him who calls - she was told, "The older shall serve the younger". (This was contrary to the normal cultural principles of that day). 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated".

In other words, the destiny of Jacob and Esau was not based on the way they acted, it was based on God's eternal sovereign choice. When people are confronted with this statement that God chose Jacob and his descendants, and in a certain sense rejected Esau and his descends, a common objection is heard almost daily today, that Jacob's descendants don't deserve what God has promised them because they are not righteous.

Now I would be perfectly willing to agree that generally speaking, as a nation, the Jewish people are not as righteous as they should be. That creates no problems. But, to say that God should not choose them because they are not righteous is to put the theological cart before the theological horse.

Now, this is the centre of the whole issue, and I want to state it this way, and it applies not merely to Israel, but also to every believer in Jesus the Messiah. God does not choose us because we are righteous! Our righteousness proceeds from God's choice. God's choice comes first, he chooses on the basis of his foreknowledge and his sovereignty. Then he commits himself to bring forth righteousness in those whom he has chosen.

So the argument that the Jews don't deserve this or that does not fit in with the theology of the Bible. God's choice is sovereign, he does not have to explain it, he does not have to account for it, but he guarantees its results.

Now I would like to take a chapter that very clearly predicts this regathering of Israel in their own land, and point out certain features from it. This is Ezekiel 36. It predicts stage by stage their regathering and restoration to God's mercy and favour.

22 "Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not far your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. 23 I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord declares the Sovereign Lord, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes'".

In other words, they don't deserve it, but God does it to restore the glory of his name which Israel had desecrated. God clearly states His intentions in these verses, and I once counted how many times he repeats the words, "I will". I think 19 times. What we, therefore, are confronted with here is a sovereign determination of God. He has made up his mind to do certain things, which are stated in the following verses:
24 'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land'.

Which is their own land? It is very obvious, the land which was originally called the Land of Canaan, which God committed by an everlasting covenant to give to Israel. And note, he calls it their own, whether they are in it or out of it.
25 "I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols".

Now again, people say the Jews have not repented, they don't deserve to be restored to their land, but God very clearly indicates here that they will be restored in filthiness and uncleanness. After they have been restored God will proceed to deal with their filthiness and uncleanness, as is shown in the next verses:
26 'I will give you a new heart and put, a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 You will live in the land that I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God'.

Again there is no doubt about the identity of that land. And God shows the ultimate purpose of all this is to bring about the situation where, once again, they will be his people, and he will be their God. And again, the reason for all this is given in the next verse:
32 'I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the sovereign Lord. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct O House of Israel'.

It is again emphasised that they are not brought back because they are righteous or because they deserve it, but because he has decided to do it. Now, as I said, again that is anathema to humanism. They can't bear the thought that God makes decisions they don't approve of; that God doesn't need their approval for his decisions or for carrying them out. I would like to read some words of Jesus in Luke 7:33-35 where he brings out the pragmatic principle connected to all of this. He is contrasting his own person and ministry to that of John the Baptist, and he points out how very different they were. But he says, God is responsible for the difference and God will take care of the consequences.
33 "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread or drinking wine, and you say, 'he has a demon'. 34 The Son of man came eating and drinking and you say, 'here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners'. 35 But wisdom is proved right by all her children."

So it didn't suit them that John the baptist did not partake in any worldly pleasures, but Jesus' lifestyle also didn't suit them because it was the opposite. But God's wisdom ultimately is justified by what he produces (verse 35); "These are the steps I am going to take, and these are the results". Concerning Israel he says, the result will be that they will be my people, and I will be their God. His wisdom is in that way justified by what he produces.

I have said that "wisdom is justified by all her children". In other words, what wisdom produces is the justification for the steps that wisdom takes to produce them. And as regards Israel, God has guaranteed the result of his dealings with them. He has absolutely committed himself. We need to see that in a few of many statements to this effect. There are two verses in Isaiah 45 where God absolutely declares that the result is going to be what he intends:
17 But Israel will be saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation; you will never be put to shame or disgraced, to ages everlasting. So God guarantees that Israel will ultimately come into an everlasting salvation. In the end of this chapter he also says:

25 But in the Lord all the descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exult.

Notice, he does not say they shall be just or righteous, but that they shall be justified, they shall be made righteous by God's dealings with them. And he says, "All the seed of Israel shall be justified and shall glory in the Lord". Again in Jeremiah 50:20, speaking about this same period of Israel's restoration, the Lord says this: "In those days, at that time, declares the Lord, search will be made for Israel's guilt, but there, will be none, and for the sins of Judah, but none will be found, for I will forgive the remnant I spare".

It is an amazing statement, people will be looking for something to bring against Israel, but won't be able to find a single thing. With my observation of human nature and the way nations behave, I would say they will be looking diligently for something to bring against Israel. But God says the iniquity of Israel shall be sought, but there shall be none, and the sins of Judah, but they shall not be found, and the reason: "for I will pardon those whom, I preserve or whom I reserve". In other words, that final nation that emerges will be that which God has preserved and reserved by his grace. The basis of their righteousness is in God's sovereign choice, and he guarantees the results.

To turn back to Romans 9, Paul brings this out in verse 27. He quotes Isaiah 10:22-33. Paul says: And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved"

That is the remnant whom God has preserved and reserved on the basis of his choice. Now lots of Christians get very upset about this way of God's dealing with Israel. The amazing thing is that the New Testament it is very, very, clear that God deals precisely the same way with Christians and the church. The basis of the church's righteousness is God's sovereign choice. Let's look at a few passages that apply to the church.

As I have said before, Israel is in a certain sense a pattern of the way God deals with individuals and all nations. He hasn't made an abrupt change in the New Testament from what he has been doing in the Old Testament. Listen for instance what Peter says in 1 Peter1:2, and note, he is writing here to Christians: We have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the father and were made a holy people by his Spirit to obey Jesus Christ and be purified by his blood.

God's foreknowledge is where it all began. It had nothing to do with human righteousness, or human decisions, or human morality, but it began in eternity with God's choice.

"Made holy by his Spirit", means that when God has made his choice, the Holy Spirit will work out the sanctification, the process of making holy. So it is God's choice to ultimately, through the work of the Holy Spirit, bring us to obedience. God does not choose us because we are already obedient, but we become obedient because he has chosen us.

Paul again states exactly the same principle in Ephesians l:3:
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

Now why has God blessed us, is it because we are righteous? No, and the next verse says why,
4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

I would like to say that if I am ever going to be holy and without blame before God in love, it is not going to be on the basis of my righteousness. It is going to be on the basis of God's eternal choice. That is the only hope I personally have of ever achieving that kind of righteousness. And it is not going to be because I deserve it. And then Paul continues :
5 He predestines us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his will

Again we see that everything begins with God's decision and God's will. And I believe that in actual fact, what God is doing now for Israel is a challenge to the thinking of most Christians to adjust their perspective of what their salvation is. We have a very man-centered picture of salvation. We don't really see that it begins in eternity with God's choice, and only God is responsible, as can also be seen in the next verse: 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

We have no other hope of ever becoming righteous before God if it is not on the basis of his eternal choice. We are confined to the same mercy and the same principle as Israel.

This can also be seen in Romans 8:28,
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

All of the latter is in eternity, for in him he predestined these he also called. That is where God's plan emerges from eternity into time at the time where he actually called us, (eg. to be preaching the gospel). And those whom he called, he also justified - by their faith in Jesus Christ. And those he justified, he also glorified.

These and many other scriptures in the New Testament show that, in principle, God deals with the church, and Christians on the same basis as he deals with Israel. And the basis is always God's sovereign choice and determination in eternity.

The comical thing really is that many Christians don't have a problem believing God chose them, but they have a terrific problem to realize God chose Israel. Some Christians don't know that the problem is also on the other side. Jews have a tremendous problem believing that God chose Christians, and they can give a lot of very cogent reasons for thinking that he could not have done it.

Now there is a teaching that has been prevalent in the church for centuries, on which there is a tremendous emphasis today. The teaching is that God has replaced Israel with the church, and I would like to say categorically, that as I understand Scripture, God has no plan to replace Israel and he never will replace Israel. ISRAEL IS ONE THING, THE CHURCH IS ANOTHER! There are at least a hundred different verses of scripture in which God emphatically declares that he will never totally and finally reject Israel and replace them by another group.

I am only going to read two of these scripture portions which are so clear. They are both from the prophet Jeremiah, chapter 32:37-41,
37 I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banished them in my furious anger and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety.

This is the end of God's purpose; then he goes on to say what he will do for them, and it is totally God's grace.
39 I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them.

It is not as if Israel has suddenly become righteous, it is because God in his sovereignty says he will give them a heart and a way to fear him forever.

40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them; I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul.

Again we know where this land is. My conviction is that God is going to plant Israel with all its heart and all its soul in this land, and there is no power, human or satanic that can ever uproot them again. God sums it up in the next verse:

41 This is what the LORD says: As I have brought all this great calamity on this people, so I will give them all the prosperity I have promised them.

World history reveals very clearly that God did bring on Israel every single judgment of which he has spoken, and that they all happened literally. They have not been metaphorical judgments, they have been very real historical judgments. And God says, in precisely the same way he will bring upon them all the good he has promised them. So there is no possibility of "spiritualising" the promise of God to Israel, or to make them purely metaphorical. These promises are going to be just as real and just as literal as the judgments that have come on Israel up to this time.

And then Jeremiah 33 which is still part of the same major portion of Jeremiah's prophecy, again returns to this theme and deals with the suggestion that God somehow finally rejected Judah and Israel. And I think in these words there is more than a hint that it angers God that people would ever suggest that he had done so, for in a sense it impugns God's faithfulness. We will read from the Living Bible:
24 Have you heard that the people are saying? - that the Lord chose Judah and Israel and then abandoned them! They are sneering and saying that Israel isn't worth to be counted as a nation.

This is God speaking, and I think it happens more and more today (that it is said that the Lord chose Judah and Israel and then abandoned them). I don't think there is any verse in the Bible that is more up to date at the present time than this one. So when you hear people saying that somehow God has decided to do away with Israel and replace them, one just needs to quote to them these verses which are so up to date.

In Romans 11:2 Paul returns to this theme and he says, GOD has not cast away his people whom he has foreknew.

I want to ask one final question which is pretty pertinent: "If Israel is to be replaced, why not also the church?" The destiny of Israel and the church are both determined by the same Bible, by the same God, the Lord, and with the same promises. So if God of the Bible can revoke and cancel his commitments and his promises to Israel, then why not to the church? I want to suggest to you that if you believe in the replacement of Israel by the church, and you are a part of that church, you should be looking over your shoulder to see who is going to replace you because, in my opinion, the church today is no more worthy of God's grace than Israel.

Let me just point out to you a couple of things that are stated about the church in the New Testament. In Matthew 1:18 Jesus said:

"On this Rock I will build my church, the gates of hell will not prevail against it".

In other words, "I am going to build a church that will storm the strongholds and citadels of Satan, break into them, defeat them and release their captives". And then in Ephesians 5:25-27 we have a picture of the church as God intends it to be when it is re-united with the Lord. It begins with a picture of how wives should relate to their husbands, but then it is transferred to the relationship between Christ and the church.

25 Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water and with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Now this is the church that Jesus is coming for. Let me just point out in these two passages some of the descriptions God envisages it to be:
(i) It will be united, it will be one church. Jesus is not a bigamist, he is not coming back for two brides.
(ii) It will be victorious, a church that conquers Satan and his strongholds.
(iii) It will be unblemished.
(iv) It will be holy and it will be glorious.

What is the state of the church today in many parts? Not all parts, but certainly in the USA, and in most of the Western world, I would say, and you can check to see whether this is a right description, the church, as we know it today, is riddled with pride, division, strife, competitiveness, luke warmness, worldliness, immorality and apostasy (an open denial of the basic truths of the Christian faith). Is this a fairly accurate picture of the contemporary Christian church? How can that church ever dare to point a finger at Israel!! Let me read some words of warning Paul writes to the gentile church in Romans 11, and I think these words apply exactly to the contemporary situation:

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot (Gentile church) have been grafted in among the others and not share in the nourishing sap of the of Olive root, 18 do not boast over those branches (Jews). If you do, consider this: you do not support the root, the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 Granted, but they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. 22 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Surely that is the clearest possible warning to gentile Christians against any kind of attitude of superiority or selfrighteousness or criticism toward the Jewish people.

I believe it is tremendously relevant to make this comment: Living in Israel, I think Ruth and I are more aware of the many serious problems of Israel than people living in other countries. And sometimes I ask myself, as I view God's promises to Israel "Could God ever really produce an Israel that answers to the description of the Bible?" And then I look at the church, and I say, "Well if He can do it for the church, then he can do it for Israel" . . . . . . . . . . And sometimes when I am discouraged with the church, and I look at Israel, I say, "well if God can do it for Israel as I see Israel, then he can do it for the church".

I think the bottomline is this, and it is most important: both Israel and the church have one desperate need, and that is,

I'd have to say the church as You call it being the institution and not the physical Christians who can gather in His Name, has been corrupt for many years.

Constantine brought corruption into the Catholic Church when in 323 he started offering favors to pagans to convert to Christianity. Doing this in order to increase numbers he also allowed pagan idols to be brought into the Church.

To me, that is where the State started trying to separate us from God, and it continues today in "incorporated churches" Hush Money

I would like to discuss some things with You, if You don't mind.First off know I don't hate Jews. But some things bother me and they can't be discussed without saying Jewish names.

I can't quote the Bible, so I won't try to battle with scripture. But will instead present some history of some people.

There's something God says in the Bible about killing all the Canaanites and never letting them live among His people, because the Canaanites would destroy them. Now there have been people who make money off of Wars, including Popes who have loaned money to the likes of Hitler and Vlad the Impaler.

I think it would be safe to assume that Gods' People would have nothing to do with this kind of venture.

Now one of the familes I've read history on is the Rothschilds who started in the German ghettos. Meyer Amschel, Founder of the firm died when his son Amschel Meyer was 14.

Amschel was good at collecting rare coins and presented the Elector of Hesse with gifts of rare coins, which he too collected.

(The Elector of Hesse was in line to the Throne of England, and is who rented the Hession troops to England during our Revolution.)

This led Amschel into his fathers business. He needed the Elector to get a title so he could he could go international.

After many favors from Amschel the Elector bestowed the title of Baron on him.

Amschel who headed the Frankfort Bank had five sons, which were brought into the business.I'll skip a lot of time and just say his eldest son Salomon Meyer headed the Bank of Vienna.

His son Nathan Meyer headed the Bank of London.

His son Carl Meyer headed the Bank of Naples.

His son James headed the Bank of Paris.

Because of their locations they were able to safely transfer monies for the aristocracies and rose quickly above the other moneychangers.

This family is woven into our history even if it's not taught in our schools.They are presently listed as one of the major stockholders of America's central bank, known as the federal reserve. This family also financed both sides of our Civil War and others around the world.

Some say along with other families they have actually caused the wars so they could profit from them. Even without that, I think You would have to agree they live a life far from God. Now they call themselves Jews and hide behind the shield of "Anti-Semetism" even though they themselves have financed governments which have slaughtered Jews.

Jews having been persecuted since 400 BC, it's obvious that the Rothschilds aren't responsible for all of their suffering. But I can't escape the fact that Gods' people grew weary of war against the Canaanites and once again let them live among Gods' people.

I do not view the Holacaust or all the other mass murders as part of war, I see it as a sacrifice of Jews with others thrown in to hide the agenda of destroying Gods' people.

I have an Atlas of Jewish History, written by a Jew which shows their travels and tells of their persecutions or sacrifices as I see it.

I try to not be "horizontal" as You call it, and my view can change as I learn more. That is what I try to do here, share information and learn from discussion.

But as soon as I bring up some family names, the accusations start to fly.

Rothschild's sent Paul Warburg to America to get control of our economy (which is supposed to be controlled by Congress, to protect us from central banks). Paul Warburg and his minions tricked the opposition into going home for Christmas on December 23, 1913, saying that it would take weeks to settle their differences. The very next day the Act was passed unopposed, and American's have been their economic slaves ever since.Paul Warburg's son James Paul Warburg boasted confidently on February 17, 1950 before the U.S.Senate: "We shall have World government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

The federal reserve is a privately owned central bank and not part of our government like they want You to believe.

The Truth

Some brave America's fought these families. Charles Lindbergh Sr. wrote a book called "Why is Your Country at War?"

Our government burned his books and destroyed his political career. I put a book search out for a copy and found one, for $500, a little out of my league.

Another American, Congressman Louis T. McFadden brought Congress up on charges for selling American's out.His charges against Congress are on the internet, I don't have an address right now but will try to post it later.

Congessman McFadden was killed after three tries.

Another American, Louisiana's Governor Huey Long, a little extreme ran against FDR, bad mouthing the banksters. He was also murdered.

It's kind of funny this has been taken out of our schools over the years.

I don't have the history of it but Lincoln printed the "Debt Free" Green Back Dollar and was murdered. All money we have from the central bank is based on Debt.

"The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. I am an enemy to all banks, discounting bills or notes for anything but coin. If the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

President Kennedy also printed some debt free money, remember the $2 bills.

"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizens of this plight."

John F. Kennedy (at Columbia University, 10 days before his murder)

Now there's not one bone in my body that blames the Jewish people for these assaults. Or any part of me that hates Jewish people.

But I can't understand how any people of God can come to the defense of people like these, that would use war for profit and hide behind the deaths of so many innocent people.

I think it's safe to assume that this is what God meant by "The love of money is the root of all evil."

It's also in the Bible where Christ threw the moneychangers tables over that were in front of the Temples of Judah and denounced them.

It appears that we have never escaped their grip.......

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.