Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Israel belongs to God.��

Following the first statement of promise, Abraham received the promise:
 "To your offspring I will give this land"
					Genesis 12:7

On repetition; the promise of the land was specified as the reason Abraham
was ever brought out of Ur of the Chaldees in Genesis 15:7.

The promise of the land was formally restated as part of the covenant,
detailing the full extent, from the Nile to the Euphrates, and superseding
the then inhabitants in Genesis 15:18-21 - cf Isaiah 27:12.

The next restatement of the promise of land of Canaan included its duration
- an everlasting inheritance from God to Israel, for the duration of time :
	"The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, 
	 I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your 
	 descendants after you for the generations to come."
					Genesis 17:8

The promise of the land was repeated to Jacob, as he left for Paddan Aram 
in Genesis 28:13.

God also appoints where everyone is to live, as emphasised in Acts 17:26,
Deuteronomy 32:8, Jeremiah 27:5.

Prophecies concerning the last times refer to Judah and Israel as one in the 
land - Zechariah 12:2,4-5; Isaiah 9:7, Isaiah 11:10-13.

The promise is not conditional; it is made to Abraham and his physical 
descendants.  There are many references to God bringing Israel back to the 
land 'from all the nations', in a return which eclipses the return from 
Egypt and from Babylon, and is identified as occurring 'in the last days' 
(see Hosea 3:4-5).  

Until this century, the very idea of Israel being re-established as a
nation was ridiculed by 'orthodox' and godly churchmen. When Israel was
re-established, it gave a new perspective on the utter truth of God's Word,
and particularly on the literal interpretation of prophecy. 

I would be considerably more concerned for the way Rabin is dealing with
Israel were it not for Jeremiah 31:38-40.  These verses detail an outline 
of where the city limits would be built - areas which would not even have 
been considered suitable for building on in Jeremiah's day (the valley 
where dead bodies and ashes are thrown...).  This was apparently the area
apportioned to returning refugees between WW1 and WW2.  Apportioned by non 
Christian and non-Jewish staff, moreover.

The crunch is in the last sentence of Jeremiah 31, following the 
description of the area, which says: 
	"The city will never again be uprooted or demolished."

I'm interested in Rabin's activities, but confident that it is God who will
fulfil His Word; not politians or negotiators.  If Rabin aligns himself
contrary to God's will, Rabin will be moved.  Not God.

I understand that Shamir recognised the Old Testament as holy writings - as 
scripture - while Rabin merely views them as 'literature', only inspired at 
a human level.  

Meanwhile, we need to observe the exhortations of Psalm 122:6 etc, and 

		"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem."

								Andrew

Wonderful note Andrew, thanks.

Leslie

>The promise ... is made to Abraham and his physical descendants.

Where does the word "physical" appear in Scripture?

Does Scripture not refer to Christians as Abraham's spiritual children?

Does the scriptural phrase "grafted into Israel" not apply?

/john

Hi John,

Are you implying that Christians have a spiritual right to the physical
land of Israel? 

The temporal promises made to Abraham apply to physical Israel.  They do 
not apply to Christians, any more than circumcision, or the dietary laws do.

At least, that is the position I hold to.  From your reply, I presume that
you hold to the replacement theology position?  I haven't got time to
address this tonight other than briefly - it's 6:10 p.m. here, and I'm due
out tonight.  Also, we have discussed replacement theology elsewhere. 

� Does the scriptural phrase "grafted into Israel" not apply?
Romans 11 (which I presume you mean here) refers to salvation coming to the
gentiles; not 'the law' being received by the gentiles.  Verse 11 is the
key one, indicating that when Israel realises that the salvation that
gentiles have received is what God offered them, the 'jealousy' will bring
about salvation of the jews, as indicated in verse 26.  Not that the
gentiles will revert to the first covenant! 

						in haste...
								Andrew

    There's a whole other topic in here on replacement theology and why it
    is not Biblical.  God's covenant with Abraham is a permanent and
    everlasting one.  
    
    btw - the Church has a *LOOOOONG* way to go before we make the Jews
    "jealous" of our Messiah.  
    
    Mike

Nothing I have said indicates that I think Israel is replaced.

Together with the Bible, I say that Christians are grafted into Israel.

/john

    With respect to salvation that may be true, but there are areas where
    they are still distinguished in the Bible.  For examples, Abraham's 
    covenant, the land of Israel, and Daniel's 70 weeks to name a few.
    
    Mike

� Together with the Bible, I say that Christians are grafted into Israel.

No.  On your own ;-).

The Bible says that Christians are grafted into the olive tree, which is
those of the faith of Abraham.  Not specially 'Israel', who are the
physical descendants of Abraham throughout.  That's why some of physical 
Israel can be broken off from the olive tree (Romans 11:20), and some can 
be grafted back on.

The contraversial verse in this context is Galatians 6:16, in which Paul 
says:
  "Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God."

Pre-millenialists generally (including me ;-) take 'Israel of God' to mean
those Israelites who have the faith of Abraham, and the salvation of Jesus.

Amillenialists generally take 'Israel of God' to mean all Christians,
regardless of whether they are Jew or gentile.  On that basis they
interpret other verses too, and build the replacement theology mentioned
earlier.

This latter view is the only one I have heard which would call Christians
generally by the name of Israel.  That was why I assumed the stance you
took meant that you supported replacement theology. 

							Andrew 

Well, I'm neither an amillenialist nor a premillenialist, but a believer
in the one religion that has existed since Adam, the one complete faith
in God: for all his people, for all time, for all the world.

Jesus himself had quite a few things to say about who is a "brother" and
who is a "neighbor", and there is no exclusion and division, but a fervent
prayer that "they all be one."

/john

    God declared also that there will always be a remnant in Israel,
    regardless of what the church is doing.  He must honor the covenant
    with them for Gentiles to even have a prayer.

The only way that will happen is for them to live together, sharing the land
in peace, and together learning what the Gospel actually calls them to do
with the land and each other.

/john

    John,
    
    your view is the biblical view!
    Abraham is the father of both the circumcized and the uncircumsized. 
    There is a steady progression in the Bible from God-the tribal God to
    God the father of all people.  Jesus was very clear in his commandment
    to love.  Not love your neighbor, not love your countryperson, but love
    all, even your enemies.
    
    Perhaps when all the diverse peoples living in Jerusalem learn to love,
    respect, and get along one with another, then the whole world may see
    Jerusalem as a renewed symbol of God's love for all of humanity.
    
                            Patricia

    re: .13
    
    That would indeed be a good thing.  I don't see it happening, though,
    until Jesus returns.  According to prophesy, there will be a false
    peace for a while, then blamo!  Israel will be right in the middle of
    WWIII.
    
    Well, that's how I read it, anyway.
    
    
    -steve

Hi Patricia,

Actually, the Bible refers to Abraham as the father of those with faith, as
indicated in Romans 4, particularly in verse 16.  But that does not make us
'Israel'.  Throughout the Bible, 'Israel' has a distinct and physical
meaning. 

� There is a steady progression in the Bible from God-the tribal God to
� God the father of all people.

Actually the Bible goes back further than that, to the personal, individual
and family God.  After the fall, the flood, and the separation of the
nations, He appoints Israel to be take His message of law and love to all
nations. Never is He the father of 'all'; only of those who elect to follow
Him.  Throughout the Old Testament, those who come closest to the heart of
God are those who realise that the value of sacrifice is only in its
reflection of a heart for God.  Sacrifice without an individual personal
heart for God is a stench to God.  The New Testament brings this home with
the ultimate sacrifice, which has to touch our hearts for us to receive God
as Father.

							Andrew

>After the fall, the flood, and the separation of the nations, He appoints
>Israel to take His message of law and love to all nations.

And then in the New Testament, He appoints all Christians as new (not
replacement, new, additional) members of the People of God (Israel) to
take the Gospel, the more perfect Covenant, to all nations.

/john

      70 weeks.
    
      70 7's.
    
      Now where else have I seen that number?
    
      I believe that, as with individuals, so with corporate bodies.
      The limits of divine forebearance are infinite, i.e. 70 7's
      indicates the rejection by he whom God loves.
    
      Israel sealed her probation.  God could no longer use her as
      a corporate body.  69.5 weeks of years took place at Calvary.  
      Had Israel received the Messiah, she would have been so on fire 
      so as to usher in the closing scenes and the 2nd coming within 
       3.5 years (or within the 70 weeks of years).
    
      But, Israel rejected the Messiah.  And within 3.5 years, she
      killed the first martyr and went on killing more.
    
      70 7's.  Going all the way with God or _all the way without Him_.
    
      As a corporate body, Israel sealed her probation by her own choice.
      The vinedresser (Isaiah 5) was rejected.
    
      This is not to say that many of Hebrew lineage will not be saved.
      Just that as a corporate body, Israel fully rejected the Messiah
      and could not be used by God.
    
    							Tony
                                                 

    My pastor just returned from doing 2 weeks of ministry work in
    Jerusalem.  He told me that you just can't comprehend the hate between
    the Arabs and Jews as a tourist.  When you live there and try to blend
    in, the tensions and emotions are mind-boggling.
    
    Mike

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    What Land Belongs to any man, God owns The cattle on a thousand hills,
    Why be troubled by this. Is Land the kingdom of God or does he not say
    that he shall dwell within the hearts of man. The Land means Nothing,
    It is what is within you, Its Christ in you the hope of glory, Christ
    in you, that makes the difference.
    
    
    I am Not Freeking you out but rather enlightening you to Christ.
    

    God gave them the land and will restore His kingdom in Jerusalem during
    the millenium.  

      I guess my biggest concern about the application of a lot of
      texts to physical Israel is the age-old problem of seeing physical
      into what is a spiritual book.  Kind of like when Jesus said, 
      "Destroy this temple."
    
      I believe that applying a lot of texts to physical Israel removes
      things God is trying to say as pertains a last day complete
      revelation of the gospel and what this revelation accomplishes
      in the hearts of the final generation.
    
      But, I know we all agree that God is love and that He loves Jew
      and non-Jew equally, i.e. infinitely.
    
    							Tony

    It is equally as dangerous to claim something for the church which was
    never intended to be for the church.  

      Yeah, Mike, but we probably ought to give credence to our
      own convictions albeit praying to be teachable.  As per
      this topic, you probably have some interpretation about
      something never being intended for the church that I don't
      share.
    
      I just see it as a spiritual book and everything God intended
      for Israel such as former and latter rains and a land wherein
      only righteousness dwells and the covenant of God's character
      written in the heart - I see these as things Christ longs to
      do in all believers.
    
      And if the word is spiritual, then its ultimate understanding
      is in the spiritual realm which means to me that everything
      spiritual about Israel is a description of something Christ 
      longs to produce in every person on earth.
    
      Just one quick example is Armageddon.  I am amazed that people
      look forward to a physical battle!  One can find mention of
      Megiddo in Zechariah right about the place a people is described
      who see the sin of crucifying Christ.  The battle's in the heart!
      It is the final battle of the temptation to lose faith in the
      face of the intense persuasion of temptation on the mind to feel
      that God could never accept you as hideous as you are.
    
      The above is a good example of what I mean.  Physical wars, physical
      this, physical that, physical Israel.
    
      There's no endtime physical Armageddon.  Its a spiritual inward
      battle fought by the remnant.
    
      You know what I mean Mike.  I see Israel's mistake being replayed
      TOTALLY by Christianity.  Taking a spiritual book and totally being
      blind to its real applications.  Looking to physical temples, etc.
    
      I wouldn't doubt if the sanctuary does get rebuilt.  And if it does,
      it'll be 100% deception.
    
    							Tony

Hi Tony,

There are two traps one falls into, in totally 'spiritualising' the Bible.

One is in losing the factual origin of actual events.  This leads one to
overlook or ignore the roots of our faith - creation, the fall, the flood,
and what God has done throughout history.  This is an opening through which
the enemy can erode our assurance, and understanding of where we stand, and 
our hold on the faith.

The other is that there is no genuine future promise.  This leads to 
confusion and ignorance, even when prophecies are fulfilled.  Remember 
Matthew 16:3 - Jesus expected people to recognise the spiritual times from 
the physical fulfillments.  The saved are expected to recognise when Jesus' 
coming is imminent from the fulfillment of actual prophecy, as per Matthew 
24, homing in on verse 33.

Every prophecy that has been fulfilled has been clearly understood to be
fulfilled, in a totally literal way.  For instance, the many prophecies
concerning Jesus' death, are more literally fulfilled, even, than people
would expect.  Where God says that something will happen, and He expresses
it in a factual, temporal context, I expect that to be fulfilled, if only
as a guarantee that any spiritual picture would similarly be fulfilled! 

To dismiss Zechariah 12:10 because the physical generation of the
crucifixion has passed, is to miss the point that all mankind is in
rebellion, and has rejected the Messiah, and that the LORD Jesus is offered
to every generation, most of whom crucify Him in their hearts.  Bearing our
sins for us pierced Him more severely than the nails on the cross.  This is
not just spiritualising that verse; it is actually how those who have
rejected the Messiah will feel.  God who created the physical world also
made it to fulfil the actual physical prophecy He writes in His Word.

Isaiah 46: 10-11 says:
   "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still
    to come.  I say: My purpose will stand and I will do all that I please.
                                   ....
    What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that 
    will I do."

God's word has to stand both physically and spiritually.

								Andrew

      Hi Andy,
    
        OK, I overemphasized the spiritual aspect, but I did so because
        of my concern.
    
        So far as Zech 12:10 is concerned, I hope it is my experience.
        For only then will Zech 13 take place.  I fountain will be
        opened.
    
        As far as I'm concerned, every time we manifest anger, we 
        demonstrate that the sin of the cross is still not completely
        repented of.  (But, this is a digression.)
    
        Its something for all of us to repent from.
    
    						Tony

    Spiritualizing the Book also leads one to symbolically interpreting all
    of the Book Of Revelation as the SDA church does.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        So when Jesus says, "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, it
        must be literal leaven unless the Holy Spirit says so?  When
        Elijah says to Ahab that there won't be any rain except at his
        word, it must be physical rain at all times unless the Holy
        Spirit says so?
    
        Actually, you're right.  The Holy Spirit inspired the statement
        that God's word is spirit.
    
        BTW, Jesus said "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up."
    
        According to your mode of interpretation and realizing they didn't
        have a NT, why shouldn't they have expected Jesus to be referring
        to the earthly sanctuary?  On what basis should they have known
        He referred to His physical body (and far more than this actually).
    
        No physical temple was destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days.  If it 
        happens in the end (if one is rebuilt)...well, there will be many 
        deceptions.
    
        						Tony

Hi Tony,

You miss the point there.  Where there is an obvious literal application,
it requires special justification to say that this obvious literal 
application does not apply.  There may well be a spiritual application - in 
fact, one can usually think of a spiritual application for most physical 
situations, and especially those recorded in the Bible.  However, a factual 
statement, in the first understanding should have a factual fulfillment, or 
else the any spiritual message derived from it is similarly suspect!

In your examples, you refer to 'the leaven of the Pharisees', from Matthew
16:6.  Now leaven, or yeast, is used as a picture throughout the Bible of
evil influence to be purged out.  It is introduced in the passover in
Exodus 12:15.  At this stage in Matthew, the rejection of Jesus by the
ruling party means that the message is delivered through parables, so that
those who close their ears will not hear (Matthew 12:10-17).  The disciples
took a little while to grasp how to understand parables, so the description
of the teaching and influence of the Pharisees as their 'yeast' was a
simple pointer in this direction.  It does not imply that Pharisees are
made with yeast, and I do not believe that anyone would be caused to
stumble over that particular point!  Note that Jesus also explicitly
spelled out what was meant, until they understood (Matthew 16:12).  He was
taking an established picture to expand their understanding.  'Yeast' was 
understood to imply 'influence' or 'teaching'.

Jesus generally spoke to the Pharisees in parables (except in response to 
direct questions), so that they would be protected from a purely cerebral 
response, where only a heart response is valid.  In particular, He was very 
careful about Messianic claims, because their response was un-spiritual, so 
when He referred to the temple of His body (and the temple is where God 
lives, so this was perfectly true), the intent was that His words would 
only be understood by those who were listening with open hearts, and not by 
those they were ostensibly addressed to!

� When Elijah says to Ahab that there won't be any rain except at his word,
� it must be physical rain at all times unless the Holy Spirit says so? 
Now there, I'm not clear as to your point.  Are you saying that you don't 
believe that there was a literal famine in Elijah's time, or that you don't 
believe the famine ever ended?  That is the natural conclusion of your 
argument.  

Note that we do not deny that there are spiritual fulfilments and (more
generally) applications, but one has to be very careful in using these, to
ensure that they are justified.  We are not entitled to take just any
passage and derive a spiritual law from the events it records.  I have
often heard this done - in fact I heard it on Sunday morning! - and it is
spiritually indefensible, undermining the very point it tries to make
because it is placing it on insecure foundations.  It is better represented
from its solid foundations, with the picture given as an example rather
than as a justification. 

Excessive spiritualisation tends to lead away from God rather than towards
Him, because it nullifies the true authority of the Word, and leaves
loopholes to interject the opinions of men. 

							Andrew

    Tony, in addition to what Andrew put so well, over-spiritualizing 
    ignores context.  I know context is important to you and don't
    understand why you make an exception here.
    
    Mike

      Hi Andrew and Mike,
    
        Thanks Mike for the compliment on context being important 
        to me!
    
        I agree Andrew...where there is an OBVIOUS literal application,
        it should apply (unless, I suppose the prophecy is conditional
        such as Ninevah was).  Ninevah repented and thus was not
        destroyed.
    
        I have two points.
    
        One, we can fall into a trap of expectation of a physical inter-
        pretation.  As an example, consider Jesus' prophecy, "Destroy
        this temple..."  Did the earthly sanctuary get destroyed?  Should
        Israel have known better?  
    
        Do you see what I'm saying?  People expect to see the earthly
        sanctuary rebuilt all the while, the earthly sanctuary did not
        meet the specifications of Jesus' prophecy.
    
        But, Jesus prophecy is actually even more spiritual.  I believe destroy
        refers to the experience of that burden of sin and having the
        sanctuary rebuilt refers to overcoming by faith.  Three days refers
        to that experience.  Three days is a wonderful scriptural study.
    
        So, with this example of 'temple', where does the danger lie?  I
        believe it lies with missing the spiritual and insisting on a
        physical especially as it didn't even take place with regard to
        to the earthly sanctuary in terms of Jesus' own quoted words
        "Destroy this temple."
    
        WE ARE THE TEMPLE!!!  It is the faithful who will be built up 
        in the last days!  Christ will perfect a people!  But, what I 
        see is people rejecting what God most longs to do and in place
        looking to some earthly building in Israel.
    
        Two, the spiritual is usually (if not always) MORE IMPORTANT!!!
        What is more important for me to know?
    
        1) That there was a physical drought in Israel during the reign
           of Ahab and that there would be no rain except at the word
           of Elijah and when that word came, there would be physical
           rain?
    
        or
    
        2) That there is a spiritual drought in Christianity and we are
           dying for want of a better understanding of the gospel for
           the message of the cross is the power and power is what we
           lack.  And there is a message called Elijah which will come
           and when we receive it, the latter rain will come and Christians
           will be ripened in preparation for the harvest and the 2nd
           coming of Christ?
    
        You need not guess as to which is more important to me.
    
        Three, I do not believe we need a specific injunction such as
        "The Holy Spirit said this ought to be taken spiritually" in order
        to understand it as such.  What of the above example with Elijah?
        There are numerous examples.
    
        The tenor of this topic is that the spiritual takes a back seat
        to the physical (and again I am not railing against the beauty
        of *some* physical interpretations and their fulfillments. 
        Christ's physical death and resurrection is a beautiful 
        fulfillment!)
    
        But, to me, the nonexpectation of the spiritual is *dangerous*!
        It was a critical aspect of Israel's demise so far as recognizing
        a transition of covenant and it will be a critical aspect of
        Christianity's demise so far as recognition of the last day
        transition of covenant with the fresh light that will be a part
        of it.
                     
    						Tony

Hi Tony,

We're arguing in circles.  You're reiterating your position, and I can 
reiterate mine!  However, as you miss the point about there being any 
significance in the physical fulfillment, and do not understand that the 
tribulational temple is merely something built in ignorance, which 
nevertheless is one of the signs that Jesus has given by which we will be 
aware of His impending return.  And He gives us these signs in order that 
we should recognise them.

Tony, we do not miss the spiritual, but we do not miss the physical either.
God has out us in a really physical world, with real information about it.

Note that those who rely solely on spiritual interpretations fall into the 
danger of being led astray.  This is because it is very easy to make out a 
case for any theory by spiritualising some convenient circumstance.  I have 
stated that before, and it is no less significant.  I have heard it done, 
by people who usually pass as reliable.

The fact that Elijah has a significance for our time is made clear by his 
function with respect to the comings of the Messiah (eg in Malachi 4:5-6), 
but if the drought of Ahab's time had never occurred, we would still be 
aware of our current spiritual drought from other more explicit scriptures.

� The tenor of this topic is that the spiritual takes a back seat to the
� physical 

The reason you see it this way is because this note is actually concerned 
with a physical fulfillment of a practical prophecy.  While the spiritual 
application may be very relevant, it is not the subject of this note, so 
to discuss it here is strictly off topic! ;-)  If you do not have the 
vision of the practical fulfillment, this note is unlikely to mean anything 
to you.

							Andrew

      Hi Andrew,
    
        I hope from my last reply that you realize I give significance
        to physical fulfillments.
    
    							Tony

�        I hope from my last reply that you realize I give significance
�        to physical fulfillments.
    
But only once they are fulfilled, and only admitting their existance, 
rather than an actual physical significance... 

Hmmm.  I seem to be a mean one today!  ;-)

							Andrew

      No, Andy, thats not true!
    
      I believe in the literal second coming of Christ, but I also
      believe in a prior 'spiritual' 2nd coming which is one in which
      His character has 'come' in a certain fullness into the heart.
    
      I believe in others as well.
    
      Can you cite where I have stated what you have stated about
      me?  If so, I publically acknowledge my error.  If not, well,
      methinks you were out of line.
    
    						Tony

Hi Tony,

In citing the example of the drought during the time of Ahab and Elijah, 
you imply that the fact that it happened is insignificant, but that it is 
validated by indicating that Christendom is in a spiritual drought. etc.

This may not be what you meant, but it is what it implied.

In fact, there are many other more directly valid spiritual lessons,
concerning God's mercy and judgement which are sen in this episode, but 
even at times when Christendom is not in drought, that historical event 
occurred, and the more direct lessons apply.

Note that this does not mean I do not anticipate the LORD's return at a
time of spiritual apostacy, but I find this _directly_ taught, for example,
in Matthew 24. 

							Andrew

      Hi Andrew,
    
        How do you know what I implied?  Are you telling *me* what
        I meant to infer with my words???
    
        Andrew, you can be wrong sometimes.
    
        Its how you perceived it.  I simply said I found the spiritual
        to be *more* important.  I never said the physical was insigni-
        cant.
    
        It is your perception that it was implied.  But, your perception 
        and what I meant can be two different things. And when you say
        something about me as to how I believe, something implied that
        is your perception and NOT what I meant is 100% irrelevant to
        what my beliefs are.  Thus you err by using such as support.
    
        Really.
    
    							Tony
                                                                    

Hi Tony,

I could only respond to what I read your note to mean, and I guess I've 
heard too many sermons which use words like that to take away from the Old 
Testament.  It has great value to me as God's Word comes alive.  I know 
that you value the spiritual picture as a living reality; I just feel 
uncomfortable to totally miss the immediate thrust, as I feel that gives 
more body to that spiritual reality.

Naturally, I am even more aware than you that I am very fallible - I have
to spend a lot of my time with me ;-) ...  Glad of your prayers there ...
Incidentally, I hope I don't come over as so arrogant as that.  It's easy
to give a wrong impression in notes, because the typed word doesn't have
inflection etc, and typing in a hurry can come over more curt than it's
meant!  I'm sorry if I've fallen into that trap. 

							Andrew

      Hi Andrew,
    
        Thanks for the nice words.
    
        I assure you that I agree that the physical is important.
        I intend not to "totally miss the imemdiate thrust."
    
        I just want that cleared up!
    
        But, I do happen to believe the spiritual is more important
        than the physical.
    
    						Tony

    Former Chief Rabbi of Israel Takes a Stand
    ------------------------------------------
    "I am surprised that President Clinton, who is known to be a believer
    in G-d and in His Holy Bible, should act against the will of G-d.  This
    is even more puzzling after the President himself confirmed that his
    own pastor had warned him not to harm Israel," said Rabbi Shapira.  The
    rabbi added that if Clinton is rushing to strike a peace deal between
    Israel and the PLO and Syria out of re-election considerations, then he
    must be told that this will have an opposite effect.  "It is highly
    unlikely that G-d will allow someone who supports taking away His
    chosen land from His Chosen People to whom He gave it to keep, to
    remain in a position of power," the former chief rabbi said.
    
    {The Jewish Press, July 28, 1995}

The Jewish community, throughout the world, have a scheduled Bible reading
for each week, from the Torah (the first five books of Moses).  In a recent
week the reading was from Genesis chapter 12, to Genesis chapter 17.  The
Jewish synagogues around the world read the same passage each day.  

In the days of Moses the Hebrew writing didn't have spaces between the
letters, the spaces were implied - inferred by the readers - the prophets
and priests, (they knew the passages by heart and had little need for
separation of the words).  It wasn't until the days of Ezra (according to
tradition) that the spaces between the letters were included.

There is a passage in Genesis 15:17 - in the Hebrew - that reads in English:
    
    "And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark,
     behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those
     pieces."
    
    If you shift three of the spaces in Hebrew, the passage says: "An evil  
    fire, fire  <twice>  into Rabin is decreed by God."

THIS is the passage that was being read, by rabbis around the world, ON THE
DAY that Rabin was assassinated by TWO gun shots.

To those of you who have followed the "give up land for peace folly" being
practiced by Rabin and others... open your Bibles to Genesis 15:17 and read
it in English!   God's promises to His people are forever!

IT IS NOT THE SIZE OF ISRAEL THAT IS THE PROBLEM....
IT IS THE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL!    (it always has been!)

Pray for Israel!
    Mike

Mike, 

I received a tape recently with a report from a Christian Jew in Israel. It
is a regular ministry - he sends out about 4 per year, to encourage prayer
for Israel.  While visiting Wales, before Rabin's assasination, a praying
man and wife told him that a passage was particularly laid on their heart. 
The passage was from Ezekiel 13 and 14, with particular reference to the 
following two passages:

   "Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and
    there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it
    with untempered morter: Say unto them which daub it with untempered 
    morter, that it shall fall: there shall be an overflowing shower; and 
    ye, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall rend it.
    Lo, when the wall is fallen, shall it not be said unto you, Where is 
    the daubing wherewith ye have daubed it?  Therefore thus saith the Lord 
    GOD; I will even rend it with a stormy wind in my fury; and there shall 
    be an overflowing shower in mine anger, and great hailstones in my fury 
    to consume it.  So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with 
    untempered morter, and bring it down to the ground, so that the foundation 
    thereof shall be discovered, and it shall fall, and ye shall be consumed 
    in the midst thereof: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.  Thus will I 
    accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that have daubed it with
    untempered morter, and will say unto you, The wall is no more, neither  
    they that daubed it;
							Ezekiel 13:10-14

14:8 And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a
    proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall
    know that I am the LORD.

							Ezekiel 14:8

The latter verse puzzled them - thinking it referred possibly to Saddam 
Hussein.  The assasination put it in a different light.

Note - I'm not necessarily endorsing the assassin's claim that he was under 
God's command nor necessarily denying it - only God can ultimately know.
I would think it possible that Rabin's disposition of God's land may have 
taken him out of the area of God's protection, which is a very different 
thing.  I understand that Rabin did not acknowledge the God of his
ancestors, or his Bible (the Old Testament) as any more than 'literature'. 


								Andrew

    Yes, sadly, he advocated Reformed Judaism.  I'm currently taking a
    class on the Tanakh at school taught by a local Rabbi who is also in
    Reformed Judaism.  It breaks your heart to hear what they've reduced
    G-d's Word too.
    
    Mike

    I'm going to reveal my ignorance (as if you didn't already know I'm
    ignorant):
    
    What is the significance of replacing the "o" in God with "-"?  At
    first I thought folks had made typos, but I've seen it enough to figure
    out that there's something significant going on.
    
    So, what's the story?
    
    /Wayne

    It's a common courtesy done when noting with our Jewish friends, who do
    this out of respect for His name and titles.
    
    Mike

    Thanks.  I was indeed ignorant.
    
    What exactly is the significance?  Does substituting "-" for "o"
    signify reverence for His Holy Name?
    
    I really am asking out of ignorance.
    
    /Wayne

>    What exactly is the significance?  Does substituting "-" for "o"
>    signify reverence for His Holy Name?
    
    I understand that it does.  This is the same way we lost the vowels in
    YHWH.

    I still don't understand.  Whats the background for this?
    Tell me more.
    
    Jill
    

    I'm a little rusty on this, but it has more to with writing God's
    name in something that is subject to destruction. So temporary
    documents, informal papers, and so on, as opposed to hardcover books 
    and Torah scrolls, are where you'll find a vowel replaced with a dash 
    in any of God's names. When a Torah scroll is worn out, it is not
    simply disposed of, but there is a special process to go through.
    (I've forgotten the details)  Often you'll find HaShem, or Hashem in 
    Jewish liturgy books (when they are in English as well as Hebrew). This 
    is transliteration of the Hebrew for The Name. Because His name is too 
    holy to pronounce casually, He is simply called The Name. 

    Hebrew consists of all consonents. Vowel sounds are indicated by pointing.
    Pointing is a variety of dots and dashes, under, over, or beside the
    consonents to tell you how the word is to be pronounced. One of God's
    holiest names, is made of the Hebrew letters yad, hey, vav, hey. You'll
    see this as YHWH or JHVH in some English writings. This form of God's
    name has a name itself. Its the Tetragrammaton (which is Greek). Because
    this name was so holy, to prevent casual utterance, the pointing was not
    written with the consonants.  Or sometimes the vowel pointing for Adonai, 
    which means "Lord" was used instead. This was never actually meant to be 
    pronounced. In the Renaissance, Christian scholars made that mistake when 
    transliterating and came up with the transliteration Jehovah. Sometimes
    you also hear people say Yaway.

    To confirm that my facts were right, I just looked up Jehovah and 
    Tetragrammaton in my Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary & 
    found that it actually gives much of the same information - so you can 
    probably look it up in any non-pocket to verify what I've just written here.

    Leslie

    Thanks, Mike and Leslie.
    
    I've just arrived home, and on my drive from work "dawn broke over
    Marblehead" when I realized "o" was a vowel, and that's what was left
    out in the Hebrew.
    
    I suspect there's much to be learned in such reverence for G-d, not
    just out of courtesy to Jewish friends, but reverence from the heart
    for G-d our Father!
    
    /Wayne

    Re: -1
    
    Exactly!  Christians have a lot to learn from Jews about respect for
    G-d and His Word.

    Ye chosen seed of Israel's race,
    Ye ransomed from the fall,
    Bring forth the royal diadem,
    And crown Him Lord of all!

    Bring forth the royal di - i -  a-dem and crown him Lo-or-ord of All!

>    Bring forth the royal di - i -  a-dem and crown him Lo-or-ord of All!

I love both tunes, but my favorite is the 'coronation' version:

Ladies: And Cro-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-own Him,Crown Him,Crown Him,Crown Him
Men:  Crown Him,Crown Him,Crown Him,Cro-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-own Him

Both:  And Cro-o-own Him Lord Of All!

... provided there's enough people singing to hold both parts... ;-)