|
  Israel
and Iran: Peace in the Middle East? Floyd
Chappalear
There is neither the prospect of peace nor any hope for conciliation
in the middle east because of the unreasonable hostility of the
principles in that region. But at whose feet may we lay the blame
for the conflict that endures there? It would be very easy to charge
that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the primary voice for continued war that
may cover the region. The case made would be very compelling.
However, the strife did not begin with him, nor will it end with
him.
Many in the Islamic community, including Ahmadinejad, would point
the finger at Theodor Herzl. Most of us would likely respond, "who?"
Theodor Herzl, born in May of 1860 and who died in July of 1904 may
have contributed as much to the problem as any others who have lived
in the past couple of centuries. Let us see who this short-lived
fellow was.
Herzl was a Jew born in Pest (today the eastern half of Budapest,
then a separate city) to a German speaking couple from Bezum (an
Austrian community). Although ethnically a Jew, Theodor was very
much a secularist (more; an atheist) with no interest in Jewish
theology.
However, the Dreyfus affair impressed him greatly. (Alfred Dreyfus
was a Jewish officer in the French army who was accused and
convicted of treason in a most unfair and biased trial and sentenced
to Devil's Island in French Guiana. His innocence was established
due to the efforts of Emile Zola, a most renowned writer.) The anti-semitic
nature of the charges stirred up Herzl and changed both his life and
the course of history forever.
In the six years between Dreyfus' second trial and his death, the
energized Herzl became the leader of the modern Zionist movement. He
became convinced that anti-Semitism could not be "combated" but that
Zionism could be promoted. In Der Judenstaat he wrote: "The Jewish
question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers.
Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish
immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are
not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution.
This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in
highly civilized countries — see, for instance, France — so long as
the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The
unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into
England; they have already introduced it into America."
The only solution that he could conceive of was to reestablish the
Jewish homeland which was forfeited in 70 A.D. Try as one might,
however, this warring spirit did not originate with Herzl and will
not die out with Mahmoud. The problem preceded them both and will
continue long after the memory of them has faded.
The problem was stated prophetically in these words: (Gen. 16:10)
"And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed
exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the
angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and
shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael: because the LORD
hath heard thy affliction. 12 And he will be a wild man; his hand
will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he
shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."
The Hebrew word for "wild" is "pere" which is the descriptive given
of the wild ass of the book of Job. Notice the description of his
restless character: (Job 39:5-8) "Who bath sent out the wild ass
free? or who bath loosed the bands of the wild ass? 6 Whose house I
have made the wilderness, and the barren land his dwellings. 7 He
scorneth the multitude of the city, neither regardeth he the crying
of the driver. 8 The range of the mountains is his pasture, and he
searcheth after every green thing." His interests are his alone, he
does not regard others nor their aspirations.
When in history have the descendants of Ishmael not been in conflict
with their neighbors and with Jews in particular?
Thank God most Muslims are more peace loving than their ancestors
(perhaps because most Muslims are not Ishmaelites), but even so we
should never long for that which God said would never occur; that
is, the hand of the Ishmaelite not being raised against his brother.
~
Floyd Chappalear in Stand, Nov. 15, 2008. |
|
 If
the Jews Had Accepted Jesus
"The Wailing Wall" oil painting done by Gustav
Bauernfeind 1904,
public domain. Click the
photo for a larger view.
by David Padfield
Modern premillennial theory insists God had not anticipated the
rejection of Jesus by the Jews. They teach that one day Christ will
return to this earth and the Jews will then accept Him as their
Messiah. The Father in heaven knew all along how the Jews would
react to Jesus. God's plan was perfect, and "when the fullness of
the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born
under the law" (Galatians 4:4).
In John 6:15 we read that "when Jesus perceived that they were about
to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to
a mountain by Himself alone." I have often considered this verse to
be the death-knell of premillennialism. The Jews wanted to force
Christ to be a king like Saul, David or Solomon. However, Christ had
no intention of setting up a physical, earthly kingdom, for as He
told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of
this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be
delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (John
18:36).
Have you ever considered what would have happened if the Jews had
accepted Jesus as their Savior and King? Let's look at the
consequences:
First, there would have been no crucifixion, and hence no shedding
of blood. "And according to the law almost all things are purged
with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission"
(Heb. 9:22). Animal sacrifices could never remove the guilt and
consequences of sin. "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls
and goats could take away sins" (Heb. 10:4). The Hebrew writer tells
us that "Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with
the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that
is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves,
but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:11-12).
Second, the church of Christ would have never been established,
since it was purchased with the blood of Christ. Paul admonished the
Ephesian elders to "shepherd the church of God which He purchased
with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).
Third, there would be no gospel, since the foundation of it is the
death, burial and resurrection of Christ. "Moreover, brethren, I
declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you
received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you
hold fast that word which I preached to you-unless you believed in
vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also
received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day
according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). ~ |
