A Touchy Subject - Hand-holding, Hugging, Kissing and More...

From http://www.el-paso.ucg.org/

A Touchy Subject - Hand-holding, Hugging, Kissing and More...
The time to make decisions about physical contact is before you get in a touchy situation. Making a decision on the fly with no forethought is a recipe for going too far.
by David Treybig

What to say when you're uncomfortable with someone's advances...
• "I'm not interested in doing that. I don't think that is a good idea."
• "I don't believe in doing this before marriage. Why do you?"
• "Whoa . . . Easy on the touchy-feely."
• "Stop that!"
• "I gotta go. Excuse me." Then leave the room for any reason you can think of.
• Back off (put physical distance between you) and say, "That is too much."
• "I'm flattered that you feel that way, but I think if you and I both take a step back, we will see that this is not a good idea and is against God's law."
• "I'm not ready for that yet, but I may be one day. Let's take it easy on that stuff until then, OK?"
---------------------------
Find Out More...
What's Going On Under the Skin: What Touch Can Trigger
Biologically, it is called the sense of touch. For those dating, it can be exhilarating—actual, real-live, skin-to-skin contact with someone of the opposite sex. And while it isn't sexual union, it can definitely be sexy. Just ask any red-blooded male or female who has had a close encounter with Miss Good Looking or Mr. Hunk.
Hand-holding, hugging, kissing or any other similar contact can be oh so delightful.
But is all this contact good, upright and moral? Is it in our best interest to engage in these practices prior to marriage? How does one decide? For those who have adopted the standards of behavior endorsed by today's entertainment industry, these are stupid questions. In fact, they are non-questions—meaning they just aren't asked. When people believe it is OK to have sex before marriage, a little (or a lot of) touching doesn't really mean anything.
Consider the blockbuster movie Titanic. Two young people fall in love and, before they are married, they decide to have sex. Even though current stats show that the majority of high school students don't have sex, many movies like this present this scene as the norm for young people before they say "I do." The way it unfolds is true to life. It all starts with physical contact—touching, hugging and kissing. And then comes full sexual intercourse. But this isn't what the Bible teaches.
In Genesis 2:24, God explains how and when a sexual union between a man and a woman should take place: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (emphasis added throughout).
"One flesh" means to have sexual intercourse (1 Corinthians 6:16) and, according to God's instructions, this is to take place after a man and woman have been joined together in marriage. Having sex prior to marriage is immoral and, according to God's Word, we are supposed to "flee sexual immorality" (1 Corinthians 6:18). Flee means to run away from or avoid. So we're supposed to run away from premarital sex and things that could entice us to be immoral.
An important point to note in God's instruction is that abstinence doesn't have to be forever. It just must wait until two people are married. Then, God says, sex is good (Hebrews 13:4). Because abstinence has been described in such negative terms, some educators are now choosing to use the word postponement to describe the process of delaying sex until marriage.
How to decide
Many of you reading this have already decided that you are going to wait to have sex until you are married. That's great! You've made a good decision. But what about this touchy stuff? Are you going to hug, kiss, hold hands or more? The Bible doesn't specifically address these areas. It does clearly say that we aren't to have sex prior to marriage (1 Corinthians 6:18) or to even lust after another person (Matthew 5:28), and that love is not to be awakened until the appropriate time (Song of Solomon 2:7, New Revised Standard Version). Human history shows that these "touchy" activities often lead to lustful desire and sex. Unfortunately, many young people have engaged in these forms of physical contact and then lost their virginity because their emotions overwhelmed their sense of judgment. They just couldn't stop because it felt so good.
So how can you decide what you will do? Some have asked, "Just how far can a Christian go without sinning?" The time to make decisions about physical contact is before you get in a touchy situation. Making a decision on the fly with no forethought is a recipe for going too far.
To help you establish godly standards, consider the following advice given by a panel of young American Christians between the ages of 20 and 30. Some are married and some aren't. While the names are changed to preserve each person's identity, the comments are genuine.
Should you hold hands?
Hand-holding according to 20-year-old Sarah K. is "OK if you plan to marry him or her, when you both feel like the other is the right one for you." Continuing, she said, "I wouldn't hold hands with someone who I felt to be 'just a date' or someone I was mildly interested in, or even just plain had a crush on. I think holding hands is a sign that 'this is the one for me' to all the world, and that is just not something I want to do with just anyone."
Bill, 28 and married to Sue, said that he didn't have a rule about holding hands before he was married but realized that "those first thrilling physical touches when one is young can often open the door to premature intimacy and big life mistakes." Continuing, he remarked, "If I could do it all over again, I would refrain from hand-holding until becoming engaged (and then make sure the engagement was brief enough so as to minimize any potential problems). Individual tolerances to holding hands or other touching may vary, so there's no hard-and-fast rule. But I would have done better erring on the side of strict conservatism in this area."
Kate, 28, who is married to Luke, wrote: "We didn't hold hands till almost a year after we started dating. (We started dating a year or more after we had known each other as friends with the understanding that we were potentially interested in marriage and wanted to spend time together to find out.) Luke asked me if he could hold my hand initially. Looking back, it was a good thing, even though I questioned it at one point because it became a distraction for me for a short time—either wanting him to hold my hand, or having a difficult time reigning in my thoughts when he did. However, he explained to me that he felt like it was important that there be a physical means of communicating with each other and expressing the closeness that we felt. I think that he was right.
"One thing that both of us learned was that before marriage, if you are pursuing marriage with a person, anything has the potential to be physically exciting and distracting. In the midst of the excitement, you have to take your thoughts captive and make decisions about enjoying emotional closeness and small amounts of physical contact based on whether the relationship is deep and solid enough to benefit from these added dimensions, or whether it will only serve to cover up a lack of real communication. For Luke and me, hand-holding was a positive thing that physically manifested some of the feelings and ideas that we had already verbalized."
What about hugs?
Once you become good friends with someone, it seems as though hugs become part of the way many people say good-bye before long intervals apart or hello when they reunite. While the majority of this panel felt these kind of short hugs were appropriate, they did offer a few cautions about regular and lengthy hugging with the opposite sex.
Sarah K. said, "I think the thing is, the longer two people of the opposite sex hug, the more tendency there would be to kiss. So if that sort of thing is affecting your mind, where it's like you've been hugging this person and all of a sudden you just have to kiss them, then uh-oh! You'd better rethink your actions, because the godly way is to go in the direction of 'flee from immorality,' not see how close you can come to it!"
Bill agreed with Sarah K., saying, "Hugs between two people who know they are attracted to one another should be brief ... Hugs involve even more physical contact and can be misused if one is not careful and/or has a weakness in this area."
Cheryl, 23 and married, said her "main concern was finding the person that I could continue a relationship with until the end (marriage). If he didn't meet my qualifications enough to that end, I would remain friends but never make any more physical contact than a hug here or there."
Before Kate and Luke married, they said, "We got into the habit of giving each other a brief hug coming and going sometime during the first year of dating. It was good to acknowledge the way we cared for each other with something warmer than a 'Hi.'
"It felt a bit stiff to us both as we grew to care for each other more, but anytime you are holding back feelings for the right time, things can feel awkward. "We liked to sit close to each other, but it was not until a few months before we were engaged that we sat together with his arm around me. At first, we only did this in my [Kate's] parents' home when they were near. A little later we also sat like this when we were alone as well—often in the context of a conversation that was on a deep emotional level, and especially after we were engaged and began talking through more personal things ... We didn't 'bear hug' until a month before we were engaged, and we were careful with that."
And kissing?
Kissing, according to our panel, is definitely more intimate than hand-holding or hugs and should be avoided prior to engagement. After you are engaged, a brief kiss seems appropriate.
As Sarah K. put it, "I know it is hard to resist kissing someone, especially if they mean a lot to you, or are very attractive. But you have to remember, if God hasn't picked this person for you, your lips are on another person's mate. If you were married already and someone kissed your wife/husband, you'd be pretty mad! So think 'fourth dimensionally,' as Doc Brown would say, and know that this other person is not your mate."
"One can argue that the former two items (holding hands and hugging) can be shared in a more casual and 'harmless' way," said Bill. "However, mouth-to-mouth kissing is actually one of the beginning stages of sexual intimacy and is an easy way to fast-forward to more explicit sexual contact. Young, single people should avoid mouth-to-mouth kissing at all costs except maybe just prior to marriage (even then they must be careful to avoid lustful behavior)."
Explaining how they first kissed, Kate said, "I had told Luke what a kiss meant to me as we started to grow closer. He honored that understanding and never took advantage of any vulnerable moment. I respected him deeply for that and still do, even as I sometimes wanted him to kiss me. To me, a kiss meant, 'I love you. I want to be your husband.'"
Continuing, she recalled, "I had asked my mother when I was young if it was all right to kiss before you were married. She said that it was as long as you both understood what that kiss meant. As I thought about that, I began to feel that I didn't want the memory of any man's kiss except my husband's, and that for me (very cautious and slow to give myself), a kiss was a seal of love and possession. Hand-holding is like that to an extent—it implies exclusivity and mutual ownership to a degree.
"To me, a kiss on the lips between a man and a woman implies this ownership in a sexual way that is beautiful and powerful. Luke asked if he could kiss me a month before we were engaged. Because I knew his character and because he was aware of what that meant to me, I knew that he wanted to marry me ... We did have to limit our kisses, because it is fun and intoxicating—meant to lead to more. We limited our kisses to coming and going so that they did not take over our time together, or prevent our growth in communication. This was a good decision. It did get harder and harder to finish our good-byes!!"
More?
Physical contact that is more intimate than the above is often described as petting. According to our panel, this category of conduct clearly exceeded the safe boundaries Christians should maintain.
As for petting before marriage, Kate wrote: "With exceptions only of his hands on my hair or face and vice versa, we didn't go here. I think that the temptations would not have been fair to either of us. As well, we had resolved that we did not want to feel guilt for anything that we did with or to each other in this area, so we kept away."
Concluding advice
Summarizing her thoughts, Sarah K. said, "The decision to stay totally pure before marriage is ... hard because of all the feelings humans have, but try to look at it in a big sense...
"Do you want to be guilty of defiling someone else's special person? Do you want to feel guilty that you are defiled? Do you want your mate to have been close to sex with lots of others before you? The Golden Rule is 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.' So put it into practice, and not only will you be happier for it, but God will bless you!"
Sometimes being godly is the most challenging when you meet the person you plan to marry. According to Cheryl: "When I did find the person that I felt I could marry someday, it was then that I had to be very careful. Small things can turn into big things very quickly. Comfort zones are quickly reached and expanded when you are with someone you love and trust. My best advice is not to date exclusively until you find that person. Group dates with trusted friends can be a very fun way to get to know and spend time with someone you are interested in but with less pressure or temptation."
Continuing, she said: "And when you are on a date with someone alone, it really helps to be careful not to put yourself in a situation where you are alone and unseen for a long period of time. If you [stick to] lighter environments, you don't have to come up with reasons to be uncomfortable if your physical limits don't match up with his."
Offering concluding advice to singles, Bill wrote: "Do not allow yourself to be alone, or at least alone in situations where sexual contact is possible and the privacy necessary to engage in it exists (i.e., parked cars, in a house or secluded room alone, in the woods or a wooded park, etc.). The temptation may just be too great ... Think of physical contact the same way you might think about virginity. Once the line is crossed, there's no going back. You cannot reverse the current 'touch status' you have with someone else (i.e., we've held hands, we've kissed, we've slept together, etc.)."
Kate put it this way: "Know yourselves and set limits wisely with this knowledge. Involve your parents if you can by asking them their opinion and/or letting them know your limits. Follow the limits that your parents set or advise. God gave them to you for a protection and commands you to honor them. If you disagree with their ideas, discuss this with them in a respectful way.
"Don't let physical contact take over or lead in communication—it can feel good and when this happens, you may not know what it meant to either of you in the end ... Use common sense. Don't let feelings control your actions. Acknowledge feelings without serving them, or you will make miserable mistakes. Don't be engaged too long—it gets harder [to refrain from premarital intimacy] after you are more committed—but take enough time to talk about things that were too personal before ... Physical contact is powerful. God made it so. Respectfully use it as a tool in His service." VT

David Treybig is the managing editor for Vertical Thought

When Do I Get a Break?

From http://www.el-paso.ucg.org/

When Do I Get a Break?
Are you working more and relaxing less? Doing more but never getting everything done? Running here and there but only running yourself down? Maybe it's time you took a break!
by Les McCullough
In today's world of rush here, hurry there, a haggard lament often arises with a weary sigh: "When do I get a break? I never have any time for myself. I'm up before dawn getting ready for work, commute an hour or more, work at least eight hours, commute home arriving after dark—and I'm beat."
Family responsibilities add to the load. Many a mom tells the same story:
"I was up at 3 a.m. to comfort a child with an upset stomach, then got out of bed at 5 a.m. to make lunches for everyone, put a load of clothes in the washer, fix breakfast, get the children dressed and off to school, and get ready for work. I leave from work to pick up the children after school and go home. Then I take the clothes out of the washer, put them in the dryer and prepare dinner. After dinner, I do the dishes and get the children ready for bed.
"That doesn't include doing the ironing and cleaning the house. I don't have time to be exhausted, but I am. Just after midnight one of the children is having a nightmare and needs comforting. Finally I get back to bed and start the whole thing over again at 5 a.m."
Working more, relaxing less
It seems there's never time to sit back and relax—and if we do, we feel guilty. What's the answer? Life is much more than the 40 hours a week on the job. How in this complicated 21st century (filled with time-saving devices!) can a person find time to take a deep breath and just sit down? Is it possible?
The calendar has Presidents' Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and others. It seems there is a day for everything—but where is your day? Many people don't even have time for a vacation!
Sound familiar? One of the major complaints people have is about finding time for themselves or their family. Historically, after World War II, Americans had the shortest working week in the world. Now, according to Boston College professor Juliet Schor, they have the longest. Her comment is that the average American worker now puts in 200 hours per year more than in 1973.
Astonishing, isn't it? People are so desperate for some free time that, states the Center for a New American Dream, half of the work force would trade a day off for a day less pay.
All these things are complicated by the fact that as soon as a tiny break presents itself, a compulsion to fill it takes over. We immediately rush to surf the net, talk on the cell phone, play a computer game, take one of the kids to soccer and another one to tennis or something. We find it nearly impossible to sit still.
That is a part of the problem. Most people aren't comfortable unless something is going on. Society has convinced us that we should never just sit without something happening.
Sitting quietly and contemplating a beautiful sunset is almost a lost art, as is staring deeply into a crackling fire. It's sometimes joked that those who practice yoga sit and contemplate their navel. I'm not recommending that, but we do need to learn how to rest or enjoy free time without something being scheduled to fill every minute of every day.
What's the answer?
Do you need a break enough to take advantage of such a time? Do you want to hear about it? How badly do you want that break? Is it enough to trade a day of pay for a day off? Are you sure?
Oddly enough, there is a time expressly made for just that. It's a time for a person to take a break—designed for all men and women, regardless of how busy their week may be.
You may be thinking, "I'm always behind and can't get everything done as it is." If that's the case, making some time for yourself isn't going to make that much difference. You'll still be behind, but you will have had a break—and maybe now you can get more done in the remaining time than you would have otherwise.
Every one of us has 24 hours in our day. We all have seven days in the week, totaling 168 hours. You might say, "And I still don't have any free time!"
Yet 24 of those 168 hours are intended specifically to give you the break for which you long. They are designed to be a special time for the whole family. Parents think of their working week, but children need a break as well. Many of them won't slow down long enough to take time for an appropriate meal. If they do, it's usually to gulp it down and rush off to something else.
Starting at the beginning
Could you handle a time to relax? What would it be worth to you?
Let's start at the beginning. A supreme Creator exists who made all things, including you and me. He fully understood the mind of man and knew men and women would crowd the week with their own activities. He also knew the tendency of humanity to ignore personal health and welfare in favor of keeping busy.
So He created a day and set it apart as a rest day. He actually commanded that man take a break each week. You can read it for yourself in His instruction book for us, the Bible.
After six days of creating a wonderful world for man to dwell in (as well as creating man himself), we find that God rested from all His work. "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made" (Genesis 2:1-3).
Did He bless it and sanctify it for His own use? The answer is a resounding no. God doesn't need to rest. This is simply telling us He ceased the work of the physical creation. Why, then, did He set apart the seventh day? He was setting us an example that we need a break from physical activity.
Jesus Christ spelled this out in Mark 2:27-28: "And He said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.'" He plainly says that the seventh day, also called the Sabbath, was made for man as a time to take a break from our everyday routine as well as a time to worship God.
There is your break. There is a 24-hour period every seven days in which you can renew your energies, both mentally and physically. Stress and overwork is a major health problem today. Hypertension results from never making the time to relax. These 24 hours were made to relieve that problem, among many others. It gives us a specific "break time" every week.
When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, one of those commandments dealt directly with the Sabbath: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work . . ." (Exodus 20:8-10).
This is not an idle comment. The day God made for man—the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week—is intended to be acknowledged by man by using the time differently from the normal workday. Most of humanity has ignored this particular commandment down through the ages.
God concerned for His creation
God the Father is a patient and loving individual. He is concerned about the welfare of His creation. He has given humanity time to accept His commands, but eventually He does run out of patience.
Reread Exodus 20:9-10. His instruction is very specific: "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work . . ."
The question is why? Why is it so important to take a day off from all work, regular and otherwise? If this is a day made for man, why not just do as you please? It is made for man, but it is a special time that has been set aside—hallowed—by God not only to rest but to be reminded of the Creator of all things.
Here is what He told the ancient nation of Israel: "Speak also to the children of Israel, saying, 'Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you'" (Exodus 31:13-14).
Then in verse 17 He adds: "It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed."
A blessing waiting for you
This statement was made to the nation God had chosen to be His special people, but it applies to all humanity. Jesus isn't just the God of the Israelites. He is the Savior of all humanity. That is clearly shown by His comment that "the Sabbath was made for man." We see it is more than only a day of rest. It also identifies the one keeping it with the Creator God who made it.
In society today, people wear all manner of identifying signs or symbols. Each nation has its own flag. Some wear a jacket, shirt or hat displaying the name of their favorite team, player or political party.
This verse says that keeping the Sabbath is an identifying sign, too. The Sabbath day identifies those who wish to truly honor the Creator. It also says to all who see, "I belong to and worship the God who made all things. My loyalty is to Him above all else." It also gives a much-needed break every week.
Someone might say, "I'm just not interested in religion." He or she still needs a break, so why not use the day that was created for that purpose? It is important. The Sabbath is a break for you, and it's also a time to learn about the Father of mankind.
The truth is there are great blessings in learning to "take a break." It helps to fight stress and gives the body a chance to recuperate from the toils of the week. The pressure is off.
It gives you an opportunity to sit back and relax, and even to have the chance to watch a beautiful sunset without feeling guilty. It is an opportunity to read to the children or to simply sit and talk with them, tightening the bond of love and respect between a parent and child and their God.
You need a break. You need a time when the pressures of work are set aside. Whether you're a man, woman or child, you need a chance to take a deep breath and just relax. Now the question is, do you really want a break? Are you willing to accept the time God made for you to have a break? It is important to you. It is important to identify yourself with the Creator of the universe.
Will you do it? Will you finally learn to "take a break"? It's in your hands. Do it! GN

Related Resources
Sunset to Sunset: God's Sabbath Rest Is the Sabbath relevant at all for us today? Does it make sense in today's world?
Why We Need a Weekly Rest Day Why the seven-day week and the continual cycle of day and night? Is there a message for modern men and women in the way our planet was designed to operate?
God's Test Commandment God described one of His commandments as a "test" command. Which command is that? What was he testing? How has mankind fared with that test —and what about you?
From Sabbath to Sunday In the New Testament we see Jesus Christ (Luke 4:16), His closest followers (Luke 23:56) and the apostle Paul (Acts 13:42-44; 17:1-4) continuing to honor and uphold the Sabbath. We find no record of the Sabbath being abolished or changed in the New Testament.
The Rest of the Story: The Story of Rest Why did God command the Sabbath to be observed? And why is it almost universally misunderstood? Read on to get a biblical view of this subject.
The Sabbath in the Scriptures Most people have given little thought to what God says about the Sabbath in His Word. Here are some highlights.
The Fourth Commandment: Key to a Relationship With Our Creator The Fourth Commandment, to remember the Sabbath, concludes the section of the Ten Commandments that specifically helps define a proper relationship with God—how we are to love, worship and relate to Him. It explains why and when we need to take special time to draw closer to our Creator.

Always on Sunday: Europe's Official Day of Rest?

From http://www.el-paso.ucg.org/

Always on Sunday: Europe's Official Day of Rest?
Labor organizations and mainstream churches have united in an effort to promote EU legislation enforcing Sunday as Europe’s official day of rest.
by Paul Kieffer
Some 30 years ago my wife and I had neighbors with a son about the age of ours. The husband worked as an engineer for the German defense ministry and spent a year with his wife and son in the United States on an assignment at a U.S. military installation. One time in a conversation the couple made an observation about life in the United States that made me think. They said, "Life never slows down in America, because you do not have a real weekly day of rest."
Their comment was based on retail sales on Sunday, since shopping centers and stores are open for business on Sunday in the United States. That confused and irritated them, since they were not used to commercial activity on Sunday in their own country, Germany.
There are many Europeans who have similar sentiments as our former neighbors from Bonn. The European Union's Lisbon Treaty, which took effect on Dec. 1, 2009, gives its citizens an unprecedented opportunity to petition the European Commission directly with a request for action on a particular agenda item.
Article 11.4 of the new treaty says: "Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties."
In what might be the first petition to be submitted under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, concerned EU citizens are collecting signatures for an initiative to have Sunday declared the European Union's official day of rest. What began as a small group meeting at the end of December 2009 has mushroomed into a network of 72 different organizations, including 35 labor unions representing all EU member states and "all relevant churches" in the EU, according to a spokesman for the initiative.
Family and social concerns first
Supporters of the initiative have emphasized the social and labor benefits of a work-free Sunday on Web sites like www.free-sunday.eu, "The work-free Sunday is an essential pillar of the European Social Model and a part of the European cultural heritage."
A set day of the week provides time for families to be together, for social interaction with others in clubs and associations, and even for volunteer work with social agencies. Supporters of a work-free Sunday also point out that despite various religious, cultural and ethnic backgrounds within the EU, schools and public institutions like government offices are not open on Sunday and do not plan to be open on Sunday in the future.
Emphasizing social and labor benefits of a work-free Sunday is in large part a reaction to a ruling made by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in November 1996 on an earlier EU Council Directive (93/104/EC from Nov. 23, 1993) regarding "certain aspects of the organization of working time."
The Council Directive from 1993 declares in Article 5 concerning a weekly work-free day: "Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, per each seven-day period, every worker is entitled to a minimum uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours plus the 11 hours' daily rest referred to in Article 3. The minimum rest period referred to in the first subparagraph shall in principle include Sunday" (emphasis added).
In its 1996 ruling, the European Court of Justice overturned the Sunday provision of the directive. The court found that "the Council has failed to explain why Sunday, as a weekly rest day, is more closely connected with the health and safety of workers than any other day of the week."
Supporters of the current work-free Sunday proposal maintain that the 1996 ruling does not rule out protection of Sunday as a work-free day. Since then, several studies have been done supporting a work-free Sunday as providing the greatest health benefit for workers. The European Commission will look at those studies as part of a new review of the working time directive.
Forging an alliance for a work-free Sunday
On March 24, 2010, a special plenary conference was held at the seat of the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, to promote forging an EU-wide alliance for a work-free Sunday. The organizers of the conference were European Parliament member Thomas Mann from Germany along with the German "Konrad Adenauer Foundation." (The Konrad Adenauer Foundation is a German research foundation linked with Germany's conservative Christian Democratic Union party. The CDU traditionally supports Catholic social and family policies.) A total of 67 different labor organizations and churches were listed as supporters of the conference.
Thomas Mann served as the moderator for the conference and introduced the guest speakers, among them László Andor, the new EU commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, and Roman Catholic Bishop Dr. Ludwig Schwarz, who was a professor of classical and Christian literature at the Salesian Pontifical University in Rome from 1985 to 1999. Following the short presentations by each speaker, questions and comments from the 400 conference attendees were presented.
In his address EU Commissioner Andor emphasized the European Commission's intent to reexamine the working time directive and modify it as needed. He said this issue is currently the most important item on his agenda as the EU's new commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs. Mr. Andor was careful not to make any commitment concerning Sunday becoming an EU-wide day of rest from work, but he welcomed input from the conference, including the submission of research data on the benefits of having a common day of rest for all of Europe.
One consequence of the European Court of Justice's 1996 decision is that each EU member state decides whether it will legally mandate a work-free day of the week. Sixteen of the EU's 27 members have already provided legal protection for Sunday as a work-free day.
However, a conference participant from the German city of Aachen highlighted the difficulties the current situation causes with its national determination of a work-free day. Aachen is located in one of Europe's "three country corners" where the national borders of several countries meet and is just a short drive from both Belgium and the Netherlands.
Late last year Germany's Constitutional Court upheld a legal challenge made by the Catholic and Lutheran churches. The two churches sued the city of Berlin for its liberal practice of permitting an increasing number of "shopping Sundays." Based on a clause in the German constitution, the court ruled that Sunday should be a day of rest and "spiritual elevation." Germany's major labor unions also supported the successful legal challenge.
Aachen, located in a predominantly Catholic region, then banned "shopping Sundays" for the year 2010. However, just a half hour drive from Aachen, the Dutch city of Maastricht will have 16 "shopping Sundays" this year. The conference representative from Aachen emphasized the need for EU uniformity on the issue.
A couple of speakers included brief references to minorities who might want to have a different day of rest instead of Sunday. When the Muslim community in the EU was mentioned, conference moderator Thomas Mann responded by saying that the emerging work-free Sunday alliance had friends from Turkey—a predominantly Muslim country—who fully support implementing Sunday as a work-free day. Two questions from the floor were also asked about the protection of religious freedom for those who preferred to have a different day of the week as their work-free day. Those questions were not answered by any of the panel speakers.
The March 24 meeting on the initiative was the first in a series of conferences to be held at the European Parliament in Brussels. At the end of March—just three months after a small group had met to discuss the feasibility of promoting an EU-wide work-free Sunday—100,000 signatures had already been gathered in support of the petition.
The "order of creation" and Sunday as a weekly day of rest
In his written statement for the conference, Austrian Bishop Schwarz emphasized the religious importance of Sunday. "The churches are not just supporting making church attendance possible on Sunday. They see the Bible's third commandment—'Thou shalt keep the day of the Lord holy'—as being what it has always been: the determination of a period of rest in harmony with the order of creation. That makes this ancient commandment the first social legislation of society formed by Jewish-Christian influence."
(Note: In predominantly Catholic areas the Sabbath commandment is counted as the Third Commandment of the Ten Commandments, though in many Protestant areas it is counted as the Fourth Commandment.)
The majority of speakers at the "Protection of a Work-Free Sunday" conference were representatives of labor unions and organizations. However, even some of them referred to Europe's religious heritage of Sunday as a day of rest, dating back 17 centuries to Roman Emperor Constantine and his decree supporting Sunday worship in A.D. 321. In his opening remarks, conference organizer Thomas Mann included the "spiritual aspect" of life as an important part of a weekly day of rest, including attendance at worship services.
Comments made from the floor referred to Sunday as the "seventh day of the week" and even as the "biblical seventh day."
But is that what the Bible says? Let's look closely.
At the end of creation week God did not rest on the day called Sunday by today's world. Sunday is also not the "biblical seventh day." A glance at almost any dictionary, encyclopedia or calendar will show you that Saturday is the seventh day of the week, while Sunday is the first day of the week. According to God's calendar, the seventh day is—and always has been—the Sabbath day. Although humanity has modified calendars through the centuries, the seven-day weekly cycle has remained intact throughout history. The days of the week have always remained in their proper order, with Sunday as the first day of the week and Saturday as the seventh.
Jesus Christ also kept the Sabbath on the same day of the week as His fellow Jews. Although Jesus had disputes with the Jews about how to keep the Sabbath, He was never accused of keeping the wrong day. Two thousand years ago Jesus kept the Sabbath on the same day that God had instituted as a day of rest in Genesis 2.
No serious calendar authority will argue that the sequence of the days of the week has been altered in the last 2,000 years. That means that the Jews today keep the same day of the week that Jesus did 2,000 years ago: Saturday. That day—actually from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset—is the only correct "biblical seventh day." It is the only day that reflects Jewish tradition regarding the Sabbath commandment, Bishop Schwarz's comments notwithstanding.
So why do European church leaders and labor union representatives say that Sunday is the Christian day of rest and worship? The change from Sabbath to Sunday is not found anywhere in the Bible. It was made long after the writing of the New Testament. How and when was the change made?
Initially, Christianity was viewed as simply a sect of Judaism. However, after Jewish revolts in Judea in A.D. 67-70 and A.D. 132-135, Jewish religious practices—many of which continued in the early Church—came to be viewed with hostility throughout the Roman Empire. Many among the Church began to abandon these practices, including observance of the biblical Sabbath and Festivals.
No clear references to Sunday as a day of Christian worship are found until the writings of Barnabas and Justin, around A.D. 135 and A.D. 150, respectively. Observance of Sunday as the primary day of worship appears to have begun to solidify during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (117-135), who harshly persecuted Jews throughout the Roman Empire. Hadrian specifically prohibited practices of Judaism, including observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.
These oppressive measures apparently influenced many early Christians in Rome to abandon the seventh day and turn to Sunday, the day for honoring the sun god among the Romans and other peoples of the ancient world. When Christianity was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, the process accelerated.
Constantine's anti-Jewish prejudice
Roman Emperor Constantine, although a sun worshipper, was the first emperor to profess belief in Christianity, but the "Christianity" Constantine endorsed was already considerably different from that practiced by Jesus and the apostles. The emperor accelerated the change by his own hatred of Jews and religious practices he considered Jewish.
For example, at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), church authorities essentially banned the biblical Passover observance. Endorsing this change, Constantine announced: "It appeared an unworthy thing that...we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul...Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd" (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 1979, Vol. 1, pp. 524-525).
In a bid to unify his empire, Constantine established the first laws making Sunday the official day of rest. His A.D. 321 law, for example, stated: "On the venerable Day of the Sun [Sunday] let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed."
Several decades later, the Council of Laodicea decreed: "Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord's Day [Sunday]… But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."
Considering the emerging changes within the early Christian church and the proclamations of Constantine, we see that anti-Semitism is not confined merely to this past century or to simply one nation. Within a few centuries, observance of the biblical Sabbath was driven underground within the confines of the empire, and most who professed Christianity embraced Sunday.
Although the Protestant Reformation brought some changes, observance of Sunday continued from the Roman Catholic Church into subsequent Protestant denominations. But whereas the Catholic Church claimed authority to establish its own times of worship, Protestant churches generally justified Sunday observance on the grounds that the seventh-day Sabbath was replaced in the New Testament by worship on Sunday in honor of Christ's resurrection. However, there is no biblical authority for changing the day of rest and worship from the seventh day to Sunday.
The end may be different from the beginning
All speakers at the March 24 "Protection of a Work-Free Sunday" conference in Brussels lauded the effort to provide workers in Europe a legally protected weekly day of rest. Even those conference attendees who voiced concerns about minority rights voiced appreciation for the concept of a work-free day of the week.
As already noted, the main emphasis of the current initiative is on the social and labor benefits of a work-free Sunday. However, circumstances change over time, and what may not be as important now may become predominant in future years.
Revelation 13 contains an interesting prophecy where two "beasts" are depicted. One of them is able "to make war with the saints and to overcome them" (verse 7), and the other masquerades "like a lamb" but in reality speaks "like a dragon" (verse 11). This second beast performs miracles (verses 13 and 14), and he "exercises all the authority of the first beast" (verse 12).
The second beast of Revelation 13 is a religious power, since it appears like a lamb (symbol of Jesus Christ) and works miracles, although in reality it speaks like its actual source, the dragon (symbol of Satan). It uses the power of the first beast to force people "to worship the first beast" (Revelation 13:12). Additionally, the second beast enforces a sign on the people who refuse to worship the first beast: "He [the second beast] causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name" (Revelation 13:16-17).
The language used—"right hand," representing our actions; and "forehead," our thoughts—is virtually identical to the description God gave His people Israel in the Old Testament to describe what His law should be to them (Exodus 13:9; Deuteronomy 6:8).
This mark of the Beast is evidently a mark of disobedience to God. Of all the points of God's spiritual law, the Ten Commandments, the one that is questioned or ignored most frequently is the commandment involving the Sabbath, which God intended to be a special sign for His people (Exodus 31:13). In fact, the Sabbath can be viewed as a test of a person's willingness to be totally subject to God's will. Revelation 14:12 speaks of "those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."
Many Bible students understand the mark of the Beast as countermanding God's Sabbath. They believe that forced observance of Sunday—a day originally dedicated to the worship of the sun as a god—instead of observance of the seventh-day Sabbath may be involved. This view is strengthened by the fact that other prophecies in the book of Revelation show a great counterfeit religious figure and system at the time of the end. This system will be centered in Europe and will play a major role in leading people away from the true God.
Without accompanying legal protection for religious minorities in Europe, a successful initiative to declare Sunday as the European Union's official work-free day would have serious implications for those EU citizens who want to keep the true biblical seventh day of the week, God's holy Sabbath day.

For more understanding about the biblical Sabbath and the end-time prophecies of Revelation, read our booklets Sunset to Sunset: God's Sabbath Rest and The Book of Revelation Unveiled. WNP

Why Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem?

From http://www.el-paso.ucg.org/

Why Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem?
A commentary by Peter Hawkins British Isles

While most of us live generally peaceful lives, news reports bring into our personal space the tensions and troubles at home and abroad.
Tragedy in Cumbria; conflict in the Middle East
Just over a week ago my wife and I were part of a group touring around the north and central parts of the beleaguered land of Israel. Amazingly, we felt safe in both Israeli and Palestinian areas, in spite of the fact that Israel is surrounded by nations that would be glad to see it removed from the map. Still you could feel the tension of a nation continually on guard against terrorist attacks or possible invasion.
After returning home, Sonja and I expected to settle back into relatively calm Britain. Barely a week ago, however, the tranquillity of Cumbria and the Lake District was shattered by mass murder.
Known for its beauty and as home to several past authors and poets, Cumbria has also become an area of tragedy. This time Derrick Bird, a quiet taxi driver, "snapped." His day of rage left families and villagers mourning as he fatally shot 12 people and 12 more were seriously wounded. Mr. Bird also killed himself. It was a reminder that no place in this world is safe or immune to the violence plaguing human nature.
At the same time news from the Middle East told of another conflict brewing in this international flash point.
Terrifying experiences and expectations
Israeli security forces are on the alert to prevent additional weapons and jihadists from reaching its enemies. Israelis point out that this vigilance has subdued the spate of bombings that claimed the lives of both Palestinians and Jews a few years ago. Having been close to a small bomb blast in the 1970s in Johannesburg, South Africa, I know it is a terrifying experience.
Yet in many countries, not only Israel, people live their lives with violence and indiscriminate destruction all around them. It is not only a suicide bomber or an I.E.D. (improvised explosive device) that is a danger. Missiles are also a constant threat in border regions.
While we were visiting Israel, local news reported the delivery of longer-ranged Scud missiles to Lebanon. So while diplomats talk, the next round of the Middle East conflict is ready to erupt. Residents of cities like Haifa and Tel Aviv live with the expectation of sirens that will trigger a rush to the bomb shelters.
Londoners who survived World War II would remember the V2 rockets overhead; when the engine stopped, the bomb was on its way down. Today, there is little time to warn residents of incoming missiles. It must be emotionally draining to live with that constant expectation.
There is no doubt the Israelis would be willing to strike at the nuclear facilities of Iran before nuclear bombs travel skyward toward their own cities and installations. Even if the rest of the world dithers as to how to handle the situation, Israel knows that without a preemptive strike, it would have only a few minutes to react to a nuclear attack.
Shalom? When will it come?
The common greeting in Israel is "shalom" or "peace," but the reality for inhabitants is that war is an ever-present threat.
As we see prophecy marching on towards the return of the Messiah (whom Jews believe is coming for the first time), it is good to know that God's eyes are continually on that land (Zechariah 2:8)—focused on the eventual return of the house of Israel to join with the house of Judah under the resurrected King David (Jeremiah 30:9; Hosea 3:5).
We stood in the excavated City of David in what was probably the foundations and broken walls of the palace of King David. It is a couple hundred yards from the steps leading up to the Temple Mount, where his son Solomon built the first temple. The Holy of Holies and the Ark of the Covenant were probably in the area presently enclosed by the Dome of the Rock.
Jesus Christ, a descendant of David, traveled the countryside, villages and towns we visited. When He returns to the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:11), Jesus will come to restore peace.
We are encouraged to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, which will come when the resurrected saints are there with the returned Messiah, working together to bring peace that will spread to the whole world!
"Jerusalem, what a strong and beautiful city you are! Every tribe of the Lord obeys him and comes to you to praise his name. David's royal throne is here where justice rules. Jerusalem, we pray that you will have peace, and that all will go well for those who love you" (Psalm 122:3-6, Contemporary English Version).
For further details, be sure to request or download our booklet The Gospel of the Kingdom.



Related Resources
The Middle East in Bible ProphecyYou need to understand what is prophesied to happen in the Middle East. Whether you realize it or not, or understand it or not, events there are destined to affect the lives of every person on earth. In this free booklet, you will learn the story of the past, present and future of this crucial region that was laid out thousands of years ago in the Bible.
The Middle East: Ground Zero of Bible ProphecyOnly a century ago the Middle East was a relatively peaceful and tranquil area. Today it's the most volatile region of the world, with the possibility of war breaking out at any minute. You need to understand why this change happened, where Bible prophecy indicates things are headed and what it means for you and the entire world!
Jerusalem: Center of Conflict, Center of PeacePutting aside all the claims and counterclaims about the ownership of Jerusalem, what does the Bible say about this historic city? Who is its real owner, and what is its ultimate destiny? How will the city of almost continuous conflict become a city of enduring and everlasting peace? Let's examine the intriguing biblical story—past, present and future.
Jerusalem: Focus of Biblical Prophecy"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples...I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it"
Israel's Amazing Story: Fulfillment of Bible ProphecyAs American writer Saul Bellow asked, "What is it that led the Jews to place themselves, after the greatest disaster in their history [the Holocaust], in a danger zone?" The surprising truth is that Jewish rule over Jerusalem is an essential element of end-time biblical prophecy!

Does the United States Appear in Bible Prophecy?

From http://www.el-paso.ucg.org/

Click here to get this free book.

Does the United States Appear in Bible Prophecy?
Small nations like Egypt, Jordan and Libya are found in Bible prophecies of the time of the end. But what about the major English-speaking countries like the United States, Britain, Canada and Australia? Are they absent from Bible prophecy, or do we just not know where to look?
by Howard Davis
This may sound like crazy fiction to many people—and maybe to you too. But a considerable amount of Bible prophecy specifically talks about the United States and other major English-speaking Western nations at our time in history—a time the Bible calls "the time of the end."
Most readers of the Bible believe it's the basis of spiritual truth. Many know that a large number of prophecies are found within it. But without the vital key to understanding where these nations are found in Scripture, Christians cannot perceive what's going to happen next in the world.
Nations small and great described in Bible prophecy
Several midsize and smaller nations, such as Egypt, Jordan and Libya, are identified clearly in the Bible. So does it makes sense that the greatest single nation of our time or the greatest community of nations would be left out?
Many events now in the past were laid out in advance in the Bible. God's prophets accurately foretold the rise and fall of great empires and nations, and sometimes specific kings one after another. Many prophecies, including those dealing with the United States and other major English-speaking nations today, were spoken and written down thousands of years before their fulfillment.
Prophecies make up a fourth to a third of the Bible. But why are the scriptures that identify the United States and give advance news of its future not widely taught or understood among Christians today?
A primary reason is that the key to understanding the most sweeping prophecies has gone largely ignored. It can be found in the first books of the Bible—especially the book of Genesis.
Key to the prophecies of the United States
In the book of Genesis we find that God made great promises to one man—Abram, whose name was changed to Abraham. We read about this first in Genesis 12:1-3: "Now the Lord had said to Abram: 'Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed'" (emphasis added throughout).
Within God's statement to Abram are two promises. The first is that God would make from him "a great nation." Now when God calls something great, it is great!
Most people are blind to the tremendous meaning of this promise today. If they have any opinion at all, most think modern Jews fulfill this prophecy. But they are wrong. Although significant, the Jewish people have constituted a relatively small nation in world history—with modern nation-states such as the United States, China, India, Russia, Germany, Britain and others far exceeding them in terms of national greatness.
And indeed, God's promises of national greatness to Abraham's descendants have been fulfilled among other great nations—nations related to the Jewish people, as we will see.
Most churches generally acknowledge the second part of God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12—that "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." This deals principally with the saving knowledge of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, and God's gift of eternal life through Him.
However, God intended to shape all history through His promises to Abraham's descendants of building a great nation—one that would dominate the world in the time before Christ's second coming. Another would have significant influence over much of the rest of the world.
Promise of a great nation and multiple nations
Later God expanded His national promises to Abraham. He said, "I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered" (Genesis 13:16).
Then, when Abraham was 99 years old, God spoke again, making these national promises even bigger, more elaborate and everlasting: "I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you" (Genesis 17:6). So not just a single nation but multiple nations would descend from Abraham.
God also promised that He would deal with Abraham's descendants directly. He would guide their history through the ups and downs of prosperity, peace, war and poverty, whether they acknowledged Him or not: "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you" (verse 7).
It's important to recognize that the covenant promises of national greatness—including multiple nations—were to be fulfilled through Abraham's son Isaac (compare verses 19-21).
Notice that at first God told Abraham his descendants would possess and rule over the land of Canaan where Abraham sojourned: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever" (Genesis 13:14-15).
The land of Canaan is all the territory that theologians, Christian and Jewish, will acknowledge as the national promise to Abraham. But next let's notice that this promise extended to vast regions of the entire earth, not just the sliver of land in the Middle East. This fact helps to explain the many more Bible prophecies indicating that the Israelites would be spread throughout the world in the future—prophecies not fulfilled in the ancient world.
The expansion was revealed in a dream to Abraham's grandson through Isaac, Jacob—whose name was later changed to Israel. First, God reconfirmed that Jacob's descendants were to possess Canaan. God began the prophecy saying, "The land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants" (Genesis 28:13).
A few centuries after the dream, Jacob's descendants were led out of Egypt and occupied the land of Canaan. This fulfilled the first part of the dream promise, but the Israelite territory was generally much smaller than the Egyptian empire and other great empires of the ancient world, except for a short time under David and Solomon.
But notice that God added a huge extension of national greatness in Jacob's dream: "Also your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north and the south" (verse 14). They were to move far beyond their boundaries in the Middle East!
Later, God made it clear that the promise of multiple nations was to come through Jacob. In fact, God specifically told Jacob that through him would come "a nation and a company of nations" (Genesis 35:11).
Never fulfilled in ancient times
The promise of national expansion beyond Canaan into a great nation and company of nations was never fulfilled in biblical times by the Israelites. After having reached the peak of their power during Solomon's reign, the tribes of Israel split into two competing kingdoms at his death.
The 10 tribes of the northern part of the land of Israel formed the kingdom or "house" of Israel. Two tribes of the south, Judah and Benjamin (along with most of the scattered priestly tribe of Levi), formed the smaller territorial state of the kingdom or "house" of Judah—so named after the larger of the two tribes and from which the term "Jew" is derived.
Curiously, the first time reference to "Jews" is found in the Bible (2 Kings 16:5-6, King James Version), they are at war with their northern cousins in the kingdom of Israel! This shows, contrary to what most people assume, that "Jews" and "Israelites" are not the same peoples. Being descendants of Jacob or Israel, all Jews are Israelites. But not all Israelites are Jews!
Both of these small Middle Eastern states disappeared off the map in ancient times. First, Israel was taken into captivity through invasions by the Assyrian Empire, one in 733 B.C. and another in 722 B.C. Because of their many sins, as 2 Kings 17:23 tells us, "the Lord removed Israel out of His sight...So Israel was carried away from their own land to Assyria, as it is to this day." Never returning to their homeland, they became known to history as "the lost 10 tribes" of Israel.
The kingdom of Judah, repeating Israel's sins, was conquered and exiled by the Babylonian Empire in 586 B.C. Only a small group of exiles of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi (Nehemiah 11:3-36) returned from Babylon to set up the politically weak provinces where Jesus Christ's ministry took place.
However, after two disastrous rebellions against Rome from A.D. 66-73 and 132-135, Jewish power was shattered. They were only reestablished as the modern state of Israel in 1948. Even then, Israel exists as an independent state largely because the United States and Britain have supported its existence in the Middle East.
Joseph's descendants to be great
We see, then, that these promises of national greatness were never fulfilled anciently by either Israel or Judah. So how were they fulfilled?
Jacob, or Israel, was the father of 12 sons who founded the 12 tribes of Israel. When he went to Egypt to be reunited with his son Joseph, God inspired specific prophecies of national greatness to the two sons of Joseph. Of all the tribes of Israel, those from Joseph would be the specific nations on which the promise of national greatness would predominantly come—not the descendants of Judah, the Jews.
Again we need to understand that this would not be fulfilled among the people of the small kingdom of Israel in ancient times. Rather, the fulfillment would be vastly greater, yet still among the same peoples of the house of Israel, though much later in history, when Israelites would dwell around the world.
Jacob told His son Joseph that his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, would grow to become great powers on earth, not in a tiny portion of the Middle East. Conveying to them the promises originally given to Abraham (and later expanded), he said, "Bless the lads; let my name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth" (Genesis 48:16).
The language is very expansive. God said the promise of national greatness would mean a world power involving "a multitude" in the middle of the entire world system—global in scope and power.
Prophetic fulfillment "in the last days"
When were these stupendous prophecies of national greatness going to be fulfilled? The Bible is very clear. Just before he died, "Jacob called his sons and said, 'Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days'" (Genesis 49:1). The promises of global greatness to the descendants of Joseph would occur "in the last days"—the time leading up to the second coming of Jesus Christ!
The language in this prophecy shows that the blessings of burgeoning population, fabulous wealth, power and military dominance were to be fulfilled on a global scale.
Notice this prophetic description of Joseph's descendants "in the last days": "Joseph is a fruitful bough...his branches run over the wall...The arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the Mighty God of Jacob" (verses 22-24).
God inspired Jacob to get quite specific about the characteristics to look for in the nations that would fulfill the promises made to Abraham, his grandfather. And the promise of national greatness would not be limited to the small corner of the world.
"The Almighty...will bless you with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lies beneath, blessings of the breast and of the womb. The blessings of your father have excelled the blessings of my ancestors, up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills. They shall be on the head of Joseph" (verses 25-26).
The nation and company of nations identified
Jacob revealed that the descendants of Joseph would become two great peoples—brother nationalities. Those descended through his son Manasseh would become a great people, while those who would come through his other son, Ephraim, would become a group or multitude of nations (Genesis 48:19). Both would dominate the earth as no others in history.
Thus, through them would be fulfilled the earlier promise to Jacob of a nation and company of nations. But have the prophecies of Israel's global greatness been fulfilled? Yes—by two geopolitical powers on the world stage that have defined global greatness for the last two centuries.
Descended from Ephraim was the group of nations that formed out of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, the British Empire.
It ruled over five times the territory of the Roman Empire, and four times the number of people. Its territory encompassed almost a quarter of the earth's population and surface, including many of its most fertile and productive regions. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy ruled the seas. Out of this power came the British-descended countries of the Commonwealth of Nations—Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
From Manasseh came the great single nation. Its people dwelt with the Ephraimites in Great Britain until it was time for their separation through westward colonization and a war for independence—the American Revolution, by which came the formation of the United States.
The post World War II period saw America rise to replace the British Empire as the world's wealthiest and most dominant nation. Since World War II, up to half of the wealth of the world was owned by America. And until the current recession, 33 percent of the gross domestic output of the global economy was from the United States despite having only 4 percent of the world's population. Militarily, as Britain dominated the 19th century, America dominated the 20th—and remains the world's lone superpower.
Many prophecies in the books of Isaiah, Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel foretold the future history of the ancient scattered Israelites who would one day form the United States and the other British-descended nations in the last days. The promises of national greatness God made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph are fulfilled in these nations. Americans called it their "Manifest Destiny" to become the greatest nation of the world in their time. They were right!
Yet these prophecies also show what is going to happen next to the United States—as well as all the British-descended nations. Your life and future may depend on understanding these prophecies and acting in accordance with God's warnings and instructions! GN

Related Resources
The United States and Britain in Bible ProphecyWhere does the United States of America appear in Bible prophecy? Does Bible prophecy neglect to mention major nations such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom? In fact, many prophecies do mention these nations.
You Can Understand Bible Prophecy How will the world finally find peace? What will happen before that finally comes to pass? The Bible reveals many details about end-time events and the major trends that will lead up Jesus Christ's return.
America and Britain's Global Reach—Prophesied in the Bible? The United States and Britain combined to defeat European tyranny in two world wars, then Iraqi tyranny twice in the last 12 years. Why has it fallen to them to police the world?
America's Astounding Destiny: A Nation Losing Its Way In parts 1 and 2 of this series we saw the birth and expansion of the United States fulfilling Bible prophecy. We end with a look at America's replacement of Britain as global protector and how a nation's turning its back on God threatens its existence.
America's Astounding Destiny Rise To Greatness In part 1 of this series we noted America's unlikely break from Britain to chart a new and independent course—in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Now we examine the foretelling of the United States' rise to greatness and its dramatic fulfillment.
America's Astounding Destiny: Was It Foretold in the Bible? The rise of the United States of America from British colony to superpower is an incredible story worth retelling. Equally incredible is the fact that the rise of the United States and the British Empire was foretold thousands of years ago.
What's Ahead for America? Sensing a weakness of will, hostile nations appear to be ganging up on America. Some consider the United States a second-rate power. What are some of the specific problems, internationally and domestically, and how will they affect America's future?

Turkey and Palestinians in Bible Prophecy

From http://www.el-paso.ucg.org/


Today's Bible Reading: Obadiah 1

Topic: Judgment on Edom; Final triumph of Israel

Commentary:
Introduction to Obadiah; The Identity of Edom (Obadiah) :


Nothing is known of the prophet Obadiah beyond the words of his prophecy. His name, meaning "Servant of the Eternal," may have been a name or it may have simply been used as a title. As to when he lived and preached, while most modern scholars date his book to the time immediately following the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., "some scholars date the book very early, in the mid-ninth century b.c., following raids by the Philistines and Arabian tribes during the period of King Jehoram of Judah (see 2 Chr. 21:16, 17). This date would make the Book of Obadiah the earliest of the prophetic books" (Nelson Study Bible, introductory notes on Obadiah). Under inspiration, the prophet Jeremiah later utilizes some of Obadiah's prophecy in his own prophecy against Edom (see Jeremiah 49:7-22).
As mentioned, Edom or Esau rebelled in the days of King Jehoram against Judah, and they would continue to be in revolt (see 2 Kings 8:20-22). The book of Obadiah describes in more detail the future of Edom. Indeed, the prophecy of Obadiah is clearly for the end time, as the reference to the "day of the Lord" shows (verse 15; compare Joel 2:1-2)—as well as the references to the return of all Israel, the ultimate defeat of Edom and the establishment of the Kingdom of God (verses 17-21).
Yet who is Edom today? As discussed earlier, Edom is another name for Esau (Genesis 25:30). Esau and his descendants originally lived in the region of Mount Seir (Genesis 36:8-9), southeast of Judea, in what is now southern Jordan, around the city of Petra. The Greeks and Romans called this area Idumea (i.e., Idum = Edom). Because the Bible refers to end-time Jordan as "Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon" (Daniel 11:41), it is evident that many Edomites must still live there. It should also be noted that Idumea extended into southern Judah: "The Edomites were gradually pushed into the southern half of Judea, including the region around Hebron, an area which the Greeks later called Idumaea" ("Idumaea," Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1966). (The biblical king Herod the Great was an Idumean—an Edomite). One of Esau's grandsons (and a tribal chief) was Amalek (Genesis 36:10-16), who became father of the Amalekites. Some rabbinical schools in Israel teach that the Palestinian Arabs—the most fervent adversaries of the modern Israeli state—are Amalekites. In light of the prophecy in Exodus 17:16 of conflict between the Amalekites and Israelites from generation to generation, there may be considerable validity to this identification (see also Obadiah 10). Jordan's population is heavily Palestinian, and many of the Palestinians in Jordan and Israel are evidently Edomite by descent.
This identification of the Palestinians becomes clearer from a careful reading of Obadiah 19. It is speaking of territories—that those who control particular territories in the Holy Land will come to possess additional territories there. In context, we can see that Israelites in this verse are retaking areas that the Edomites have stolen. Fascinatingly, the areas listed as doing the taking here are areas that are today populated by Jews. The areas being taken back are now populated by Palestinians—thus apparently identifying the Palestinians as Edomites, at least in large measure. Notice: "The South [the Negev, now held by the Israelis] shall possess the mountains of Esau [southern Jordan and perhaps the area of Hebron, the southern West Bank now populated by Palestinians], and the Lowland [the Shephelah, or lower hills between the central hill country to the east and the coastal plain to the west, now populated by Jews] shall possess Philistia [most of which is now the Gaza Strip, territory now held by Palestinians]. They [the Jewish Shephelah inhabitants] shall possess the fields of Ephraim and the fields of Samaria [the northern West Bank, now occupied by Palestinians]. Benjamin [the area around Jerusalem, presently held by the Israelis] shall possess Gilead [northern Jordan]."
But Edom's descendants may be found elsewhere as well. Besides their sedentary life in the Mount Seir region, some of them appear to have become nomadic, ranging over vast territories as early as patriarchal times. A text from the ancient city of Ugarit, on the northern Syrian coast, mentions "the well-watered land of Edom," which was evidently in some proximity. Later, in the sixth century B.C., Nebuchadnezzar carried many Edomites of the Mount Seir region away captive to Babylon and other Babylonian territories. Perhaps that is why we find the city of Basra in Iraq—possibly a slight variation of the biblical Edomite city of Bozrah (Genesis 36:33; 1 Chronicles 1:44; Isaiah 34:6; 63:1). It is thus likely that there are still Edomites in Iraq and scattered throughout the Middle East. During the laxity of Persian rule, Edomite wandering appears to have resumed. The chief tribe of Edom was Teman (see Obadiah 9), named after Esau's eldest grandson (Genesis 36:10-15). And the rocky plateaus of Persia and Turkestan eventually became known as the land of Temani. In Turkestan in Central Asia was a city named Amalik, seemingly after Amalek. The name of Teman appears to have come down to us in the form of the name Ottoman—that is, the Ottoman Turks (only the vowels in spelling being changed over the centuries). While the Turks appear to be a somewhat mixed people, it does seem that a large number of them are Edomites. The historical Hor Turks may be named after the Horites, who were closely associated with the Edomites in Genesis 36.
Perhaps most surprising is to find that elements of Edom may be found in Europe. The Jewish Talmud says that Edomites settled very early on in southern Italy. It is believed by many Jews that the people of Edom became dominant among the early Romans, establishing themselves as the ruling elite among them and later among the Germans. There may be some truth in this, as Isaiah 34 and 63 describe the ultimate destruction of end-time Babylon (a power bloc led by a final resurrection of the Roman Empire) as the destruction of Edom and the Edomite capital of Bozrah. However, Edomites in Europe would seem to make up a rather small percentage of the population there. (More research on the modern identity of Edom can be found at www.british-israel.ca/Turkey.htm and at www.britam.org/now72.html —with the caution that the citing of outside sources for further study is not an endorsement of everything in those sources).
The Fate of Edom (Obadiah)
Despite their self-imagined greatness and pride, God says he will make the Edomites small and despised among the nations (Obadiah 2). Their dwelling in the "clefts of the rock" (Obadiah 2; Jeremiah 49:16) may refer to the rock-hewn city of Petra mentioned earlier (the word for "rock" being the Hebrew Sela, equivalent to the Greek Petra), and perhaps other rock fortresses. High above Petra and on other mountains of Edom were high places for worship, lookouts and refuge. "Some of the mountain peaks of Edom reach over six thousand feet; Jerusalem [by comparison] is about 2,300 feet above sea level" (Nelson Study Bible, note on Obadiah 3). Yet the Edomites would be brought down—not just physically, but figuratively from their exalted prideful arrogance (Obadiah 4; Jeremiah 49:16).
In Obadiah 5 God says that grape gatherers or even thieves would take merely their fill—not everything. But God will go way beyond this. Edom will be utterly laid bare, completely plundered of everything and everyone (Obadiah 6; see Jeremiah 49:9-10).
In verse 7 of Obadiah we see Edom in a "confederacy"—an alliance—perhaps the same one prophesied in Psalm 83:1-8. In any case, we see that the Edomites' allies will turn on them. Yet the Edomites won't be able to see it. Their "wisdom" or cunning (as the Hebrew could also be rendered) and understanding will not reveal it—as God will confound and destroy them (Obadiah 8-9; Jeremiah 49:7).
Proverbs 24:17 says, "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles." A comparison of that principle with Obadiah 12-14 shows one of the major reasons God is and will be angry with Edom. In the past invasions of Israel and Judah, Edom has often cheered it on and even participated, as will again be noted in the Bible Reading Program comments on Amos 1:11-12 (another prophecy of Edom). Apparently, the Edomites of the end time will continue in the same pattern, cutting off the escape of Israelites, contributing to their devastation and turning them over to the enemy (Obadiah 10-11, 13-14).
Yet Edom will pay dearly—as will all nations that have dealt maliciously with God's people (verses 15-16). But it will be particularly bad for Edom. At the time of Christ's return, Obadiah tells us, the land of Edom will be destroyed, and it appears from verse 18 that, at that time, none of the physical descendants of Esau will survive. (We will examine this matter further when we later read the prophecy of Edom in Jeremiah 49:7-22.)
This does not mean, however, that none of the Edomites will ever be in the Kingdom of God. They will be raised in the second resurrection, which will take place after the Millennium of Christ's reign (Revelation 20:5), and which is commonly referred to in the Church of God as the "Great White Throne Judgment" (see verses 11-12). At that time, everyone who has not been called by God in this age prior to Christ's return will be given an opportunity to accept God's way of life and enter into His Kingdom. And those of the first resurrection at Christ's return—the comparatively few called and faithful people of this age—will be there to help guide and teach those who will be raised in that second resurrection.
As we've seen, Obadiah evidently concerns the Israelites retaking Palestinian territories at the return of Christ. Verse 20 then concerns the redistribution of the land to all of Israel and Judah returning from captivity. The "land of the Canaanites as far as Zarephath" is perhaps the entire Holy Land, stretching up into former Phoenician territory in modern Lebanon—though it could be that only northern Israel is here denoted as the land for the returning house of Israel. Then notice the "captives of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad." The last word here may come from sephar, "which in the Aramaic vernacular would denote furthermost limit or seacoast" (Seth Ward, "On the History of the Term 'Sepharad,'" Foundation for the Advancement of Sephardic Studies and Culture, www.sephardicstudies.org/ward2.html ). By early medieval times, the Jewish people of Spain were referring to themselves as Sephardic Jews, evidently from this term. Perhaps it refers to the Jews who have been scattered since the Diaspora. They return to possess the cities of the Negev.
Finally, observe again this very encouraging promise at the end of the book of Obadiah: "Then saviors shall come to Mount Zion to judge the mountains of Esau, and the kingdom shall be the Lord's" (verse 21). Who are these "saviors," or deliverers, who judge? Describing the time of Jesus Christ's return, Daniel 7:22 says, "Judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom" (KJV). Yes, God's saints, glorified as divine kings and priests, will be given the privilege of playing a part in saving Israel and the rest of mankind. What an awesome future!
Regarding the closing words of the prophecy, "the kingdom shall be the Lord's" (Obadiah 21), The Nelson Study Bible says this in its note on the verse: "These were Obadiah's last words against all human arrogance, pride, and rebellion. Edom had thought itself indestructible; but the Lord humbled that nation and restored the fallen Judah [and will do so in a far greater way for all Israel in the future]. Many people are tempted to consider themselves beyond the reach of God. But God will bring them low, just as He will lift those who humble themselves before Him. And one great day, He will establish His just rule over all."

Can Israel Survive?

From http://www.el-paso.ucg.org/

Click Here to get this booklet for free.

Can Israel Survive?
Israel is geographically tiny, especially when measured against its massive impact on the world. Yet it remains the unceasing target of hostile criticism, with some countries openly threatening its extinction. Only 60 years old, Israel's survival remains at stake today. What does Scripture say?
by John Ross Schroeder
Adolf Hitler ruled over and devastated much of Continental Europe from the late 1930s until 1945. Yet polls in several of these formerly captive European countries show that, when asked which country is the biggest threat to world peace today, nearly 60 percent of the respondents named Israel .
Denying Israel's legitimacy and undermining its right to exist is still very much in vogue today—even in countries previously ravaged by the Third Reich.
An easy job for any journalist would be the task of assembling quotes from hostile Arab nations calling for Israel to be destroyed.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is perhaps the most outspoken, making such statements as "Israel must be wiped off the map" (2005), "the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation . . . [it] is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm" (2006), "the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives" (2007) and "the world powers established this filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime, which is lashing out at the nations in the region like a wild beast" (2008).
Could Israel survive a nuclear exchange?
In a Dec. 14, 2001, speech, then-Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani—considered a "moderate" Muslim leader—openly threatened a nuclear attack on Israel: "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with [nuclear] weapons like those that Israel possesses now . . . the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world [—not destroy it]. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."
American journalist Suzanne Fields summarized Rafsanjani's simple mathematical equation: "In a nuclear exchange with Israel his country might lose 15 million people which would amount to a small 'sacrifice' from among the billion Muslims worldwide in exchange for the lives of 5 million Israeli Jews" ("Confronting the New Anti-Semitism," The Washington Times, July 25, 2004).
In other words, he believed it would be worth it to start a nuclear war with Israel that could result in the death of 15 million Muslims if the 5 million Jews of Israel could be wiped out. After all, a billion Muslims would still be left around the world, but only few surviving Jews in other countries—and no state of Israel.
It is hard to believe how some people think, but it's also hard to argue with the cold-blooded logic of this calculation.
Israel simply cannot afford the kind of nuclear war threatened by Iranian leaders. Such a war could and would do considerable damage to Iran and the Arab world should it ever come to pass. But Israel itself in all probability simply would not survive.
The enormous geographical odds against her in a war with Iran alone are almost 80 to 1. Here is a very big factor: Israel is very short on living space, especially in comparison to the vast acreages of the Arab countries, which combined are some 650 times the size of tiny Israel.
The bottom line is that only two or three nuclear detonations in Israel would leave its land totally devastated and largely uninhabitable for generations to come. What an unconscionable catastrophe that would be for the world, given the nation's overall scientific, technological, humanitarian and cultural contribution to the world!
It is a frightening thought to envision a world without Israel. Yet this is precisely what many of her enemies throughout history have seriously contemplated. Notice the plea to God from King David's chief musician Asaph, written some 3,000 years ago:
"Do not keep silent, O God! Do not hold Your peace, and do not be still, O God! For behold, Your enemies make a tumult and those who hate You have lifted up their head. They have taken crafty counsel against Your people, and consulted together against Your sheltered ones. They have said, 'Come and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more'" (Psalm 83:1-4, emphasis added throughout). The Bible is right on target in describing conditions besetting our contemporary world.
The next few verses describe the nature of the forces arrayed against Israel. Viewed in the light of its contemporary history, these passages show that neighboring nations would be Israel's natural enemies: "For they have consulted together with one consent; they form a confederacy against You" (verse 5).
In the wake of the 1956 Suez War came the short-lived United Arab Republic, the union of Egypt and Syria. Does another union of hostile Muslim countries lie around the corner?
Verses 6 and 7 give the ancient names of the neighboring peoples surrounding Israel. But the overall principle remains crystal clear: Israel would be severely harassed by its neighbors.
The multiple burdens of modern Israel
The state of Israel has had to maintain its existence while being harassed by active Arab hostility often expressed by horrific terrorist acts and, more recently, continuous rocket and mortar fire well into its southern regions—now even reaching into the coastal city of Ashkelon, between the Gaza Strip and Tel Aviv.
The terror group Hamas now controls Gaza and is responsible for the rain of rockets presently afflicting Israel. This "Islamic resistance movement" was established in 1987 and is infamous for its suicide bombings. The Hamas charter plainly states that "there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad" and that " Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it." Clearly Hamas is devoted to the destruction of the state of Israel.
British historian Martin Gilbert has aptly summarized some of Israel's major difficulties since its founding: "Israeli society has faced a combination of pressures that are unusual in any nation: the pressures of continuous and massive immigration; five wars; the unpredictable cruelty of terrorist attacks (and, most recently, of suicide bombers); and a sense of the isolation and vulnerability of a small nation, each generation of which has lost loved ones in war and as a result of terrorist attacks.
"Israel is not only a nation that for the first three decades of its existence was surrounded by sworn enemies, but one that, following a victorious war in 1967, has had to share part of its own land with another people" (Israel: A History, 1999, p. xxi).
The nation has also had to deal with the troubling memory of the Holocaust—the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazis. The nation's Jewish population has often contemplated what talents and resources these men and women and their never-born descendants could have contributed to the national wealth and welfare.
Instead, through no fault of their own, they succumbed to the 20th century's most virulent outbreak of anti-Semitism. Six million trees (the " Forest of Martyrs") were planted in a reforesting of the Judean hills specifically in honor of the Holocaust victims. But the Nazi hostility of the Third Reich (1933-1945) has been replaced by equally virulent Arab and Muslim hatred.
The late American historian Barbara Tuchman wrote: "The Arabs are gracious and attractive people, friendly and courteous to strangers, possessing dignity, charm and even humor. On the subject of Israel, however, they are paranoid. Israel does not appear on Arab maps" (Practicing History, 1981, p. 128).
Israel has had to fight several wars of survival with surrounding Arab countries since its inception as a nation in 1948. Today this tiny state still has to periodically battle ruthless terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Yet Israel is not without its national advantages.
Israel's inherent advantages
The story of Israel is not all one-sided. Notice Barbara Tuchman's historic assessment: "With all of its problems, Israel has one commanding advantage— a sense of purpose: to survive. It has come back. It has confounded persecution and outlived exile to become the only nation in the world that is governing itself in the same territory, under the same name [although Judah would be more accurate], and with the same religion and same language as it did three thousand years ago.
"It is conscious of fulfilling destiny. It knows it must not go under now, that it must endure" (p. 134). Indeed, God has a very great purpose for the modern nation of Israel, even in the fulfillment of end-time Bible prophecy. A Jewish homeland had to be reestablished in the Middle East to fulfill Bible prophecy (see pages 39-41 of our free booklet Are We Living in the Time of the End? and pages 5-6 of the January-February 2008 Good News).
Martin Gilbert stated, "Although confronted with many problems, Israel possesses a strong will to succeed and prosper, to maintain its vigorous and fulfilling daily life, and to confound the critics who point to both external and self-inflicted problems as insoluble" (p. xiii).
The U.S. government has consistently supported Israel throughout its 60-year history. Former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett wrote: "We stand with Israel because Israel is a beacon of freedom and hope—to the world, generally, and in a more important sense, to the Middle East . . . Israel has kept faith with the promise of its founding [in 1948], a founding more similar to America's than perhaps any other nation's" ("Why I Stand With Israel," Alan Dershowitz, editor, What Israel Means to Me, 2006, p. 39).
The founding Israeli prime minister, David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), spoke of Israel as a "treasured people." But what type of treasure? Israeli civil rights spokesman Shulamit Aloni, a former member of the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) told of Israel's "treasure [of] ethics, knowledge, culture, art, science, literature, openness and listening to and respecting every single person, man, woman, and child as freeborn human beings, created in the image of God" (p. 23).
Israel's dilemma with demographics
Bennett firmly stated: "We must never ignore the fact that if Israel loses its war against terrorism, it will lose its existence" (p. 41). The stakes are very high indeed!
Yet not every enemy is a military predator. Simple demographics have become a critical concern for Israel's leaders. Jewish identity within the nation itself is being threatened.
Israel Harel founded the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea. He also writes a weekly column for a popular Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz . He describes the threat:
"Firstly, in Israel there is a large minority group (20% in the general population, which constitutes 30% of elementary first graders), the Arab minority, which resents the identity—and sometimes the very existence—of Israel as a Jewish state. This minority perceives itself as a part of the Palestinian people. Most Arabs in Israel identify with their people who fight a cruel and unrestrained war of terror against Israel" ("The Image and Significance of Contemporary Zionism," Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2007, p. 52).
David Ben-Gurion, perhaps modern Israel's greatest patriot, felt very strongly about Jewish identity in the land. He said to the 20th Zionist Congress meeting in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1937: "No Jew is entitled to give up the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation alive today to give up any part of the land" (quoted by Harel, p. 56).
Yet U.S. News and World Report editor-in-chief Mortimer Zuckerman reminds us that "it was [Yasser] Arafat who described 'all of Palestine,' which includes all of Israel, as a "holy wakf," i.e., an Islamic trust that cannot be given away" ("Denial and Hope in the Mideast," Oct. 8, 2007).
Do we grasp the extent of the significance of these conflicting territorial claims and their crucial historic, present and future implications?
Many European observers would even like to see the state of Israel void of its Jewish identity. For instance, according to noted London columnist Melanie Phillips, "The [British] general public no longer believes the Jews have a claim to the land of Israel." In her view, those who hold that belief "need to be told otherwise" (The Jewish Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2007).
She explained: "Long before the Shoah [Holocaust], the world decided the Jews should be returned to their ancestral homeland in Palestine—which consisted of what is currently Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza—because of their overwhelming entitlement to the land. This was not because of the biblical promise, but because it had been the Jewish nation state for hundreds of years, centuries before Islam came into being" (ibid.).
But will ceding portions of their homeland nonetheless bring Israel real peace with its neighbors?
Land for peace?
Israel 's pioneering founders such as David Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol are almost all gone from the scene. A new Israeli intelligentsia has arisen that is apparently willing to make whatever compromises are deemed necessary to achieve peace. Land for peace became the new watchword. Giving up Gaza unilaterally seemed like a good idea. But so-called democracy in Gaza produced the election of Hamas, which has rained rockets down on Israeli citizens in the southern border area of the country ever since.
Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the intifada of 1987-92 created "a substantial bloc of guilt-ridden Israelis ready to take almost any risk for peace." This led to a situation where "a majority of Israelis were considering previously unthinkable concessions such as uprooting Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and redividing the city of Jerusalem" ("The End of the 'Guilty Israeli," March 2, 2008).
In this atmosphere Israel withdrew in late 2005 from the Gaza Strip, which it had captured from Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War, turning it over to the Palestinian Authority government. But Hamas won a surprising victory in elections a few months later and started a small-scale civil war against the previous ruling forces of Fatah. Ever since, nearby portions of southern Israel have been regularly bombarded by rockets and mortar shells fired from the vacated territory.
Halevi sums up Hamas as a ruthless terrorist group "whose theology calls for the destruction of Israel and war against the Jews around the world, and whose terror attacks are small pre-enactments of its genocidal ambitions . . . Gaza was a test case for Israeli withdrawal and the experiment was a disaster."
As Halevi notes, " Had Gazans begun at this point to create a peaceful state from their new, self-governing territory, the Israeli public almost certainly would have endorsed substantive negotiations over a West Bank withdrawal." But since the Gaza withdrawal was met with rocket fire, surrendering the West Bank is apparently no longer seen as an effective "carrot" in achieving the long-sought-after peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Consider also that "from the time of the Bible to 1948, the West Bank, which includes the old city of Jerusalem (containing the Western Wall) and Hebron (where the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs are buried) has always been part of the land of Israel" (Gush Emunim, "West Bank Versus Judea and Samaria," Jewish Literacy, 2001, p. 343).
This is how many ordinary Israeli Jews view ownership. They realize that a West Bank in Palestinian hands could very well become a launching pad for rocket attacks on the city of Jerusalem and its environs.
Tony Blair's sobering assessment
Last summer former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was appointed as a special Middle East envoy under the auspices of the "Quartet" of the EU, the UN, the United States and Russia. Spending considerably more time in the region than ever before enabled Mr. Blair to gain a much better comprehension of the stubborn regional dilemmas.
He said: "I understand more than when I was the prime minister the difficulties here. I would hesitate to cede the West Bank to the Palestinians after the nightmare Israel has faced since the Gaza withdrawal."
The "land-for-peace" formula that has been the basis for Arab-Israeli peace talks was proven a failure by the Gaza debacle. Blair now acknowledges that a crucial factor for peace is "the character of the Palestinian state . . . There won't be a Palestinian state unless it is coherently governed and run, and anyone who tells you different is misleading you" (quoted by Mortimer Zuckerman, "The Elusive Mid-east Peace, U.S. News and World Report, Jan. 17, 2008).
Strong words indeed for any British prime minister, given the general U.K. predilection for the Arab world.
The most serious long-term threat to Israel
Notwithstanding the current dangers posed by Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Palestinians and even Syria, what is the Israeli government most worried about?
The most dangerous foreseeable threat is Iran's nuclear ambitions and their oft-professed desire to wipe out Israel. In mid-February Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel for bilateral talks in Berlin. According to the International Herald Tribune, he said that " Iran was still seeking to build nuclear weapons and called for a greater international effort to prevent Tehran from succeeding." Olmert indicated that " Israel was 'certain' that the Iranians were engaged in a 'serious' and 'clandestine' operation to build up [nuclear] capacity'" (Feb. 13, 2008).
Several newspaper and Internet articles have already cast considerable doubt on the validity of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which several months ago stated, "We judge with high confidence that in fall, 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."
Although the UN Security Council recently passed a resolution with further sanctions against Iran by a 14-0 vote, canny observers tend to view these new measures as little more than a slap on the wrist.
According to The Wall Street Journal: "Meanwhile, Iran continues to flout the Security Council's chief demand that it suspend its uranium enrichment program. The production of sufficient quantities of fissile material is one of three key components in any nuclear weapons program, a fact that was relegated to a footnote in December's U.S. National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] claiming Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.
"Nor did that NIE make any mention of Iran's ongoing ballistic missile programs, the second key component. Instead, its chief claim was that Iran had suspended work on weaponization, which by all expert accounts is the least challenging part of a nuclear-weapons program" ("Irresolution on Iran," March 10, 2008).
Although Newsweek 's "Point of View" column played down the threat of Islamic fascism, it did state that President Bush had "warned that the Iranian government is out to destroy Israel." It also said that Tony Blair had "compared Iran to the rising fascist powers of the 1930s" (Nov. 19, 2007).
It goes without saying that the Iranian threat is far more real to the Israelis than to America and Britain, since Iran is much closer to Israel, the ancient Holy Land of the Bible.
Another deadly round of war coming
We must, of course, look to the biblical record to round out our overall picture of Israel's predicament. It is impossible to separate the land of Israel from the Word of God. Even nonbelieving secular Jews rely on the Hebrew Bible to help establish their historical and geographical claims.
Both the Bible and secular history show that the land of Israel (Jerusalem in particular) is among the most contested areas on planet earth. The city itself has fallen to invading forces more than 20 times in its recorded history. But there has been no successful invasion since the formation of the modern Israeli state in 1948.
The Bible makes it clear that end-time prophecy could not be fulfilled without the restoration of the Jewish people to their homeland.
The book of Zechariah shows that Jerusalem will be the center of global conflict immediately prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ: "Behold, the day of the Lord is coming, and your spoil will be divided in your midst. For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem" (Zechariah 14:1-2).
These prophesied events could not take place without the physical restoration of the tribe or nation of Judah (now called Israel) prominently in the Holy Land just before Christ's coming, with the continual international tension and turmoil that has accompanied the nation's creation and existence.
Jerusalem will once again be the scene of horrifyingly violent turmoil. Zechariah continues in verse 2: "The city shall be taken, the houses rifled, and the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, but the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city."
So even after Israel united the city in the 1967 war, Bible prophecy tells us that Jerusalem will once again be fought over and divided. This region of the world is destined to be the very center of events at the end of this age—setting the stage for Armageddon and the second coming of Jesus Christ.
And Jesus Christ will indeed intervene personally and directly: "Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations . . . And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the east . . . Thus the Lord my God will come, and all the saints with You" (verses 3-5).
Zechariah 14:12 and Revelation 19:17-18, 21 describe the end of those armies that are gathered around Jerusalem and fight against the Messiah, Jesus Christ, at His return. It will prove to be no contest as Christ intervenes to save not just Israel, but the entire human race, from annihilation.
Jerusalem: Future capital of the world
Other prophecies tell us that Jerusalem's destiny is to become a center of peace for all nations on earth. Zechariah adds: "Thus says the Lord: 'I will return to Zion [referring to Christ's second coming], and dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be called the City of Truth, the Mountain of the Lord of hosts, the Holy Mountain'" (Zechariah 8:3; see also Jeremiah 3:17).
Long ago God promised: "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch [the Messiah, Jesus Christ], and He shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:5, New Revised Standard Version).
Nations will send representatives to Jerusalem even from faraway places to learn God's ways and to take them back to their peoples. As Isaiah 2:2-3 says, "Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it."
In Bible prophecy, "mountains" and "hills" are often used to refer to governments and nations. This tells us that the government of Jesus Christ, established in Jerusalem, will rule over all the nations on earth.
Isaiah then continues, describing a world transformed by the wonderful knowledge of God's way of life: "Many people shall come and say, 'Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."
Under Jesus Christ's reign as the Prince of Peace, all war, weapons and even military academies will be abolished (verse 4). Peace with justice will be administered to all peoples from Jerusalem.
Sadly, these sure biblical prophecies are far from the reality of conditions in the Holy Land today—a region plagued by violence, corruption, despotism and bloody, random terror. Yet these millennial prophecies assure us that "old men and old women shall again sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each one with his staff in his hand because of great age. The streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing" (Zechariah 8:4-5).
The Bible pictures a majestic future with a peaceful life in this long-troubled land. All will at last be safe from harm during Christ's coming rule on earth. Jeremiah 23:6 promises, "In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely."
God speed those days! GN

Recommended Reading What factors in history led to the ancient animosities that continue to plague the Holy Land down to our day? Did you realize that many of them are spelled out in the pages of the Bible? You need to understand the surprising and little-understood truth about the conflict in the Middle East—past, present and future, and how it will finally be resolved. Be sure to download or request your free copy of The Middle East in Bible Prophecy today!