AssemblyBoard

Last night in class (a graduate level public policy class) we got to talking about the current situation in the Middle East.  As we talked the general concensus was that one can't talk about the situation separate from 'religion' b/c so much of the dissention is due to differeing religious beliefs.  

However, I made a comment that started with "from a Biblical perspective..." and was immediately shot down.  Ashamedly, I am not well enough versed scriptually to debate with non-believers the biblical implications of what has, is and is to come in the Middle East and am hoping we can discuss that here.  

That being said, educate me!

Thank you!

VBeers-

I find it shocking that anything you would ever say would be shot down!  With the amount of time you spent listening to the great teachers of the assembly, your arsenal should be full.  You need a consequence!!!

Come on now.  Be nice.  I am serious.  One student recently told me that according to the Bible, there would never be peace in the Middle East and anyone who said that they had the answer to peace in the Middle East is the Anti-Christ.  Now then, can this be substantiated biblically?

Vbeers---

What I had always understood was that Israel once they returned as a nation will never be removed again. They will be surrounded by their enemies and will never have peace until Jesus Christ returns. In fact it says that when they declare "peace and safety" then "cometh sudden destruction". When Isael will know total peace is when they accept the returning Jesus Christ and the nation repents in one day.

--Joe

Thanks, Joe.  Another student just pointed me to the book of Daniel...I appreciate the insight though...keep it comin'!

Here's a disertation that may be of interest:
http://www.levitt.com/essays/dh.html (http://www.levitt.com/essays/dh.html)

if you can get past some of the extreme statements in bold that I think he throws out for shock value but then qualifies the thought in the surrounding context.

Here is another concise article.  Again, take with a grain of salt.  

http://www.stsaviourscc.org/features/middleeast.htm (http://www.stsaviourscc.org/features/middleeast.htm)

And here is another.

http://www.bible411.com/peaceprocess/chapter4.htm (http://www.bible411.com/peaceprocess/chapter4.htm)


And another
http://www.khouse.org/articles/currentevents/20020601-416.html (http://www.khouse.org/articles/currentevents/20020601-416.html)

Also, Chuck Missler has a lot of documentation and lectures on this subject. www.khouse.org and search for middle east or israel.

Some of these articles mention that the conflict goes back to Isaac and Ishmael--two of the sons of Abraham.  I have heard somone else say that not all of the modern day Arabs are decendants of Ishmael, though.  I dunno, but it would make it a neat and tidy closed loop if the Israel - PLO battle is a direct continuation of Isaac and Ishmael.  In any event, one can definitely see how a tie-in is made to Galatians 4:22-31, even though this passage is not talking about the Israel-PLO conflict.  Rather the passage is using an example from the O.T. to explain the spiritual reality that Christians face today. However, it may indeed be extended to God's earthly people Israel. I guess we'll see.  Maybe someone has a more definitive answer on this.

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Hagar. 25 For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Hi you guys

Arabs are not all decendants of Ishmael, but they are all decendants of Shem, as are the Hebrews who are named after Shems's decendant, Eber.

I do think it is possible to have a temporary peace in the Mid-East.  While I understand what one student said,  "Anyone who had the answer to peace in the mid-east is the Anti-Christ,"  I do not agree with that totally.  Certainly, Anti-Christ will have a great peace plan, and will have the political leadership and charisma to implement it, but that doesn't mean that it is going to happen at once.  There could very well be a generation of peace, or even a thousand years before the end comes, although it sure doesn't seem like it.

I think peace is possible in the Mid-East, but it would have to come about after massive, decisive victory over Islam.  We had a thread somewhere about this, but basically, I advocate nuclear war.  (Seriously)

If we are going to have peace in the Mid-East, it only requires having a perspective of Freedom, and a clear definition of what constitutes an enemy.  If we conclude that the cause of Freedom is a just one, worth shedding blood for,  (Read Patrick Henry, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death)  AND we conclude the obvious---Islam calls us the Great Satan, and shouts Death To America, along with God is Great---and deal with them as an enemy, which means killing them before they kill us, then peace is possible in the mid-east.  

It has happened before.  However, we all know how the last chapter ends.  The question is,  where are we on the prophetic timeline?

Brent

The fact that Israel is a nation once again after 2K years of dispersion sure seems like a unmistakable sign.

BTW, maybe some people in the middle east are decendants of Edom (I think it was Chuck M. who said they live in modern-day Jordan, hmm), and some decendants of Abraham's other sons, and there were a lot of other people alive when Abe went forth not knowing whither which yeah, were all from Shem.

Yep, it sure does.  However, there are those that say the original borders must be established, the temple built, etc.  I tend to agree with the srowd that says,  "It is near."

Brent

NUCLEAR WAR?!?  :o

  Hey, guys, I know that Islamic leaders say nasty things about us, but then. . . There are always kooks saying weird and nasty things. The Raelians want to issue in a new era by human cloning. White supremacists want complete segregation. Others want to violently overthrow our American government. What's different in the Islamic world is that the kooks are being listened to by the general people. I don't think that the super-fundamentalist Islamic "kooks" would have popular support if U.S. policy was a little kinder toward their countries. I think that a combination of our capitalism and our support of Israel in spite of their own blatant terrorism is what's done the real damage. The extreme religious leaders are just using the situation to their advantage.
  I've never been to an Islamic country, but I've known a few Muslims, and I'm sure that not all Muslims are terrorists and killers. If we, as a country, showed real kindness toward the Islamic nations, I think that the people would cease to support violent, terrorist leaders. True, the Koran may have a few lines about killing unbelievers, but doesn't the Bible advocate stoning people who wear fabric made from two materials (cotton and wool)? But that's out of context! That's the OT law! you say. Well, maybe we've taken mainstream Islam out of context too.  ???
  I find it remarkably difficult to find out the facts in these sorts of situations because of our woefully inadequate American press. Fortunately, since I read German, I can get some of the world news that we Americans miss out on. Based on what I know, I don't think we should go off half-cocked on Islam. Didn't Jesus restrain His disciples from trying to call down fire on the unbelieving towns? (Gotta love that merciful Savior!   :D)

Heather

Hi Heather

Your view on this is certainly the more popular view.  I am well aware that most people think of my idea of Nuclear war as being more than a little over the top.  The reason I feel this way is expressed elsewhere on the website, but it boils down to this:

A large percentage, (the part that is growing) or Islam, has stated quite clearly, "Death to America."  These aren't just a few splinter groups, this is a very large group of people.  These people are willing to blow themselves up in order to kill infidels, namely us.

History has other examples of this sort of fanaticism, which clearly demonstrate that you can't treat these people as rational, and you can't give them moral equivalence.  We defeated Imperial Japan, which is the most recent example of suicide bombers prior to Islam, with Nuclear bombs.  It worked great, and got their god---Emporer Hirohito---to sign surrendur papers.  This caused a massive, instantaneous paradigm shift in the Japanese religious psyche.

I know that most people don't agree with me, and that's OK.  This is hardly an issue of fellowship.  I won't even attempt to say that you are wrong,  you very well could be right,  and most people would certainly say that my idea is whacko!

However, I do know that something even more catastrophic than nuclear war is going to occur someday, namely at the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Why is He going to come in wrath, and visit destruction on His enemies?  Isn't there a more moderate approach that could be taken in order to make peace?

(I am fully aware that my ideas are in no way analagous to the second coming.  My point is not to defend my position, but simply to ask the question, "How come God is not more moderate?"

Brent

Brent,

  I've been thinking about your question, "Why isn't God more moderate?" Then I think about another question people often ask, "Why does God allow evil and suffering in the world? Why does God, for example, allow child abuse?" Most people respond to that question with something like, "God is patient," or "God's heart breaks for the little ones, but He's given us free will for now."
  God is awfully complicated. His reasons and thoughts are definitely beyond my comprehension. Sometimes He's patient. Sometimes He's violent. He's not just one way. He's beyond me. In fact, I think even regular, plain ol' human politics are often beyond me, but I do my best. All I can say is that God absolutely knows the time to be stern and the time to be patient. For myself, all I can do is try my best to get as much information as possible and act according to my conscience. I'll make mistakes and be wrong sometimes, but I pray that whatever I do or don't do, God's will will ultimately be accomplished. The middle east is definitely an area I feel uncertain about.

H

Hi Heather

I guess I feel uncertain about it as well.  I just don't feel uncertain about Israel, or America.  I don't view choosing sides as a bad thing to do, mostly.

I really enjoy your thoughts, Heather.

Brent

Thanks, Brent.

I don't think choosing sides is a bad thing either. I think that it is our responsibility, being "in the world," to take the actions we believe God would want. To sit back and say, "I don't know. I'll let God sort it out," is laziness and maybe even a form of idolatry (the god who handles all difficulties for me). I don't want to make the laziness statement absolute, though. Of course, God can also lead us to "sit one out."
For my part, I've joined a "media task force" to call senators, etc., in order to promote better coverage of the war. More information is always a good thing.  :) Darkness (of whatever sort) has to flee the light, right?

G'day!

Heather