A new series on the ‘elementary principles’ of Hebrews 6:1-2.

We begin a series about the basic requirements of the Christian life, as set out by the writer to the Hebrews. It is a timely reminder of the necessity for a proper grounding in the principles of life in Christ.

True Salvation

One of the reasons why there are unnecessary problems in the life of some Christians is because certain foundational truths have not been established. If the foundation of a building is weak those weaknesses affect the superstructure. Cracks will appear and things will come out of alignment, all detracting from the strength of the building. So it is in a Christian’s life.

Some years ago after living and ministering in New Zealand, we returned to England. My son, who was then 12 years of age, soon discovered there was a difference in the standard of education between New Zealand and England. For example, he had done no language study, apart from English, and found himself in a class where the students had already had about two years teaching of French and Latin.

Three years later we attended a parent-teacher evening and in conversation with the French master, he said, “I cannot understand your son, Stuart. He is clever and does well in his exams, but from time to time he makes the most elementary mistakes.” We reminded him that he had missed the initial teaching of the basics of the language. Although he had learned much, because the foundational teaching of the language had not been properly laid, the defects were manifested.

Before foundational truths can be established it is important to ensure that a person is a true Christian. Many people call themselves Christians, but are not. Therefore, it may be a good investment of a few minutes to check up on the reality of our profession of faith. Although this may seem a strange introduction to this series, I believe there is a precedent for it. At the end of Paul’s second letter to the church in Corinth, in which he had encouraged. taught, and corrected, he asks them to do something: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; text yourselves. Do you not realise that Christ Jesus is in you - unless, of course, you fail the test” (2 Cor 13:5).

One of the reasons why there are unnecessary problems in the life of some Christians is because certain foundational truths have not been established.

He gives a clear definition of what a Christian is; someone with Christ in them. So the first question to ask ourselves is, ‘am I in the faith? Is Christ in me?’ He did not ask others to examine us, but made it personal. Here is a check-list of biblical references to help in this self-examination.

A person who has a right relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ knows it without any shadow of doubt. This assurance is given by the Holy Spirit. “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Rom 8:16) and as John puts it, “Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart” (1 John 5:10).

John Wesley, the great preacher, used to say to his congregations, ‘make sure you have the witness'. You are not a Christian because someone says that you are, but because you have that inner knowledge given by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes people have come to me and said, ‘can you help me, I have never been sure whether I am a Christian or not.’ My response has been, ‘yes, I do want to help you, you are not.’ A true Christian knows.

Another proof is that there has been a change in your life. Something has happened. Paul puts it this way, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Cor 5:17). A true Christian has a desire to obey God. John puts it bluntly but clearly, “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, ‘I know him’, but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3, 4). The Lord Jesus made this challenging statement, “Not everyone who says, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt 7:21).

Another evidence of the reality of Christian experience is that we love other Christians. Before one becomes a Christian there is little or no desire to be with people who want to worship God, read the Bible, pray and talk about Jesus. They are not, ‘one of us’, and we are not ‘one of them’. However, when the miracle of salvation takes place there is a change of attitude which leads to a change of company! Again John says, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death” (1 John 3:14).

The Apostle Paul gives a clear definition of what a Christian is: someone with Christ in them.

So, what is the result of the examination? Do you have the assurance of the Holy Spirit? Has there been a change in your life? Do you live to do the will of God? Do you love other Christians? Every true Christian will be able to say with Paul, “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day” (2 Tim 1:12).

If, however, you failed the test and sincerely desire to know God as your Father and Jesus Christ as your Lord, obey the word of God. Acknowledge your need. Agree with the Bible when it says, “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6) and, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23).

Remember the cry of the tax collector in Luke 18:13, “God have mercy on me, a sinner”. If we have one good word to say for ourselves we are not candidates for God's salvation, because he is only the Saviour of sinners. Look to the Lord Jesus. He is the only Saviour. He is the only way to God. He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

The first step to salvation is to believe in the Lord Jesus. Believe what is true, that Jesus is the Son of God, who loves you, died for you and took the punishment for your sins at the Cross. Jesus who, “died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). Receive him as your Saviour.

Having acknowledged your sin and repented, believing he died for you and rose again, ask Jesus to come in to your life, yielding it totally to his Lordship, knowing, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God. Children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God” (John 1:12). Now confess him as Lord, “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).

Now look at the record, “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:11,12). We move on now to the foundational truths.

The first step to salvation is to believe in the Lord Jesus. Then, having acknowledged your sin and repented, believing he died for you and rose again, ask Jesus to come in to your life, yielding it totally to his Lordship.

Foundational Truths

The Lord Jesus told a story about two house builders. One built his house on a rock and when the storms and floods came his house stood firm. The other built his house on sand and his house was completely demolished when the deluge came.

As the storms and winds of adversity face the church of God it is imperative that Christian lives are solidly laid on the foundation of Jesus Christ, and on the truth of God's word. It is a sad fact of life that many Christians remain in the kindergarten of faith and never move on to maturity.

The writer to the Hebrews emphasises this point. He was writing to Christians who had just come through severe times of persecution and were on the threshold of even greater opposition. After declaring the glorious wonders of the Lord Jesus Christ, greater than angels, greater than Moses, “the apostle and High Priest of our confession. Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him who appointed him”, he pauses to express a certain fear. That fear was that some who had been truly born again would fail to go on to maturity.

One of the reasons for their immaturity was a failure to have certain truths established in their lives. He wants them to get beyond the ‘milk bottle’ stage. He complains that instead of their being able to teach others they themselves still need to be taught the elementary truths. In chapter 6 of Hebrews these truths are described in the New King James Version as repentance from dead works; faith toward God; the doctrine of baptisms; of laying on of hands; of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

The purpose of this short series is to teach these basic truths to ensure that they have been established in your life so that you can go on to maturity.

First published as a mini-book in 1992 by PWM Ministries, entitled ‘The Biblical Basis of First Principles’. Edited for online publication May 2018.

Peter Sammons reviews ‘Heaven’s Dynamite’ by Mike Endicott (2003, Terra Nova).

Author Mike Endicott has a noted ministry in the field of Christian healing. At 128 pages this is a gentle but persuasive thesis, encouraging us to understand that gifts of healing are still for today.

Crisis of Confidence

The beginning of the book consists of testimonies – in the form of encouraging ‘thank-you’ letters - to the reality of miraculous healing. Endicott goes on to reflect on the “crisis of confidence” amongst so many Christians in Jesus’ ability and willingness to heal today. Yet the world of the 1^st Century Church was not so different to our modern world:

The apostles ministered, as we do, in a multi-spiritual choice culture, where truth claims competed for attention. In such a challenging environment they were not afraid to put themselves in the firing line, and to express complete confidence in the power of God to heal, save and deliver as they preached the cross.

Endicott expresses sorrow that modern Christians have too small and timid a view of God. With low expectations, we are not disappointed at low ‘results’ in terms of healing, or even of salvation for the masses! Endicott is convinced that these gifts are for today, and his own ministry bears out his confidence:

Believers have a clear mandate from the Lord to heal the sick. Jesus’ instructions to the twelve were: ‘As you go, preach this message. The kingdom of heaven is near. Heal the sick, raise the dead. Cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons’ (Matt 7:10). The command to the disciples to heal the sick was never revoked, but was reiterated and reinforced.

This is a gentle but persuasive thesis, encouraging us to understand that gifts of healing are still for today.

Dynamite?

Why the title? Several times in the book Endicott expresses the firm conviction that when we move in faith, “heaven’s power explodes” in salvific action. “By his grace, says Endicott, “when we begin to move in expectancy, heaven explodes. Why? Because the preached word was, and still is, accompanied by miracles”. Endicott enthuses:

The power of God is moving amongst us even today. Every Christian, born again of the spirit of God, baptized and filled with the same Holy Spirit, has in himself or herself the power of the new creation; the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. To affirm that truth is not arrogant. On the contrary, it is to acknowledge that it is all by grace – the free gift of God.

So as we raise the expectancy of sufferers by declaring, like the apostles, the power and authority of Jesus, and as we persist in proclaiming the gospel of salvation, we shall see more of heaven’s ‘dynamite’. The Greek word ‘dunamis’ means power, and our God has the power to heal now – today! Miracles happen!

This is a really helpful introduction to the realities of healing in the name of Jesus. As a gentle and relatively easy read, this book does not ‘tax’ its readers, but it does provoke thought, prayer and excitement.

A minor quibble; it would have been helpful to have explored in more depth the difficulties we encounter on those sometimes inexplicable situations where healing either does not happen, or happens not in the way we expect. With that minor reservation, because this is a real issue that many have encountered, this is still a book that I am happy to recommend. Healing is still for today! Praise God!

‘Heaven’s Dynamite: God’s Amazing Power to Heal the Sick’ is available from CPI for £8.99 including P&P in the UK. Also available on Amazon.

Following the Royal Wedding at the weekend we were greeted with newspaper headlines on the Monday such as this, in the online edition of The Telegraph:

Meghan Markle to fight for feminism: Prince Harry’s new wife given Palace blessing to champion women’s rights.

On the face of it this seems good that the new member of the Royal family will stand up for something of current concern in the nation. However, the more I think about it, the more I wonder whether the multitude of ‘isms’ we have in today’s society is more in danger of taking us out of balance and dividing us than restoring a balance and uniting us.

Feminism, globalism, Islamism, multi-culturalism, homophobism, capitalism, humanism, socialism…to name just a few of the virtual wedges being driven into society, challenging us on which side of each contemporary divide we stand. Then the voices get louder and the next thing we know is that what were once moderating influences and topics of open debate become authoritarian forces that brook no dissent.

Is this the biblical way? I don’t think so. The biblical way is one of balance in all things. The multi-faceted truths of God’s word are set in dynamic, healthy relationship with each other - such as justice and mercy, family and community, love for God and our neighbour. When we separate out a single truth and major on it, even in the Church, we often breed division and imbalance rather than the opposite.

We experience this, for example, in our denominationalism. Even when we seek to bring balance in a certain area of truth such as, for example, recognising God as Creator, we can easily corner ourselves into a special interest group such as what Creationism can become. And dare I include in the list of potential divisive "isms" in the Church, aspects of feminism which are fanned up by the world around us?

Should we, therefore, pay special attention to this in our Christian communities and not allow the swirling tides of the world to dictate the way we view our ministry and mission? Is not this summed up by the Apostle Paul in his exhortation to unity of the faith, symbolised by the picture of the One New Man of Ephesians 2:15?

Author: Clifford Denton

Welby, the wedding and the Gospel

My colleague Charles Gardner has written a splendid piece on the Royal wedding, eulogising the sermon from Bishop Curry that made such a great contribution to the union of Harry and Meghan. It was a powerful message delivered with great skill and passion that captivated not only the congregation in St George’s Chapel, Windsor, but countless millions watching the service around the world.

At the risk of being a spoilsport and dubbed a ‘prophet of doom and gloom’, I want to offer a few thoughts to go alongside what Charles has written. I too watched the wedding on TV and I was delighted with the charismatic message delivered by the Bishop. And I was really pleased that he did not only speak about love in a sentimental, romantic context, but he spoke about the love of God and got some Gospel into his message.

I applauded him for taking the opportunity of presenting the Gospel in simple words that would have communicated clearly to probably the largest congregation any preacher has ever faced. It was certainly good for Christianity.

Changes in the Church

My concern was not with the message but with the whole event and with the enormous changes that are taking place within the Church – especially the Church of England as our state Church. The last time a prince of the realm wanted to marry a divorced American lady whose ex-husband was still living, it resulted in the abdication of King Edward VIII. 

My concern is not with the message but with the whole event and the enormous changes taking place within the Church.

That was the 1930s and much has changed since then. But Harry and Meghan’s wedding could not even have taken place 10 years ago, when Dr Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Canterbury and Prince Charles wanted to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles whose ex-husband was still alive – something that was directly against the teaching of Jesus (Luke 16:18).

I remember discussing it with Rowan at the time. He was steadfastly against allowing a full Anglican wedding service and Charles and Camilla had to go to Windsor Town Hall and have a civil ceremony, after which they went to St George’s Chapel for a blessing.

Now, everyone is so delighted that the Royal family have accepted a beautiful, racially-mixed young lady into their midst that no one takes any notice of her divorce. I believe it is right under exceptional circumstances that the Church should offer a full wedding service where someone has been divorced – I have done this myself – and I don’t know the circumstances of Meghan’s former marriage, so I’m in no position to make any comment on this. My concern is really with Archbishop Justin Welby who has said publicly that it is his intention to make the Church of England ‘more inclusive’.

Gospel Truth?

It was Welby who advised Harry and Meghan to have Bishop Curry as their preacher, knowing full well that Curry is an advocate of same-sex marriage and the propagation of the LGBT code of immorality. I know that the Archbishop sent out guidelines to all CofE primary schools last year urging teachers to encourage the children to cross-dress in preparation for living in a gender-free society. 

What message is the Church sending to the world?

So, I wonder what Welby’s next move will be in undermining our Judeo-Christian heritage? How far does he intend going in promoting the LGBT agenda, destroying biblical truth and promoting an apostate Church?

Yes, it was a lovely wedding and only the British could put on such an amazing pageant in such an historic setting, blessed by perfect weather. It was great to have a national celebration in the midst of the dark Brexit-laden days we are enduring. It was great for the public to enjoy such a celebration and it was good for the national image worldwide. My only concern is: what message is the Church sending to the world? Does the Church of England even know the truth of the Gospel it is supposed to proclaim?

Royal wedding cleric challenges two billion people on faith

Many of us had just about given up the fight. We had unfurled the white flag of surrender to godlessness and immorality. We’d reluctantly come to accept that the Western world recognises neither God nor the Bible.

Then a black American bishop shook the airwaves with a thundering sermon on the burning love of God supremely manifested in the sacrificial love of his Son. This was a love so strong that it changed the world – and is still able to do so.

Comparing that love to the harnessing of fire that powers the modern world, Bishop Curry passionately challenged two billion viewers to see what the Christian Gospel can do to change our broken society into communities that love one another and work for each other’s benefit.

Love Stronger than Death

Taking his text from the Song of Solomon, he showed how romantic love between a man and a woman is God’s idea, but that it is not something sentimental – it is as fierce as fire and stronger than death, and was ultimately demonstrated on the cross of Calvary, where Jesus died for our sins.

True love involves pain and sacrifice. It’s “’til death us do part”. God himself is an incurable romantic – from the beginning to the end of his book, the Bible, we see that he pursues us as the ultimate Bridegroom seeking the perfect Bride.

Yes, there was great anticipation for this Royal Wedding; the courtship of Harry and Meghan had all the ingredients of a fairy-tale with the handsome young prince falling for the beautiful Hollywood actress. But they were both from broken homes, and Meghan was divorced. It seemed a bleak scenario reflecting much that has already gone wrong in our society.

Many of us had just about given up the fight, accepting that the Western world recognises neither God nor the Bible.

And yet no-one saw it coming – certainly not the liberal elite who have persuaded themselves that God is dead, but not even evangelical Christians, including myself, were prepared for this. Broadcasters and their interviewees couldn’t stop talking about it afterwards – not the dress, but the ad-dress – as expressions like “electrifying” and “blown away” were bandied about.

Apparently there were some 40,000 Tweets per minute on the subject, most of which reflected an undeniable joy which made me realise afresh that people really do want the Gospel after all. It really is good news for a world gone mad with political correctness. People genuinely warmed to a heart-stopping explanation of what Jesus came to do.

False Motives or True

Don’t get me wrong. I’m fully aware of what the bishop didn’t say, and what he is alleged to believe, for example, about same-sex issues. Some might even question his motive but, like the Apostle Paul, we should be thankful that the Gospel was preached and made millions sit up and take notice – even in faraway Argentina, I’m told.

“The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached” (Phil 1:18).

In my opinion, Bishop Curry is way off track with his unbiblical views on LGBT rights (which he did not address at the St George’s Chapel ceremony) along with his reported statement that Trump voters “cannot credibly call themselves Christians if they support policies such as tax cuts for the wealthy”.¹ But he undoubtedly has the gift of summing up the Gospel in less than 14 minutes!

The Prophet Isaiah foresaw this kind of surprise (at how the Gospel would become known, for example) when he wrote: “’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord” (Isa 55:8). In this context he explains that just as the rain and snow causes the earth to bear fruit, so his word will not return to him empty, but will accomplish the purpose for which he sent it.

People genuinely warmed to a heart-stopping explanation of what Jesus came to do.

The same passage urges us to “seek the Lord while he may be found, call on him while he is near.” When you know that what you are hearing is the truth, don’t let the moment pass. Call out to your Creator, who knows you intimately and who loves you with an everlasting love.

“Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon” (Isa 55:6f). If you do this, your world will never be the same. For “you will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands” (Isa 55:12).

Changing the World

Is the Gospel making a comeback? You bet it is. Speaking of the end times and the signs that would immediately precede his coming again, our Lord Jesus told his disciples: “This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt 24:14). And as St Peter, on the Day of Pentecost, reminded his hearers of the words of the Prophet Joel, “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21).

Too many have been switched off by soothing ten-minute homilies that neither challenge nor inspire.

It was predictable that the Windsor Castle chapel message would be hijacked by the diversity, equality and inclusivity brigade – he did, after all, touch on areas that suited them like black civil rights, in itself perfectly in order as Meghan is descended from slaves. But then, as I have already suggested, the Gospel has always been misused.

However, the essence of the Bishop’s address was the love of God that brought peace and harmony even to slaves in their desperate predicament – that the Gospel is what mends a broken society. After all, it was the Gospel that emboldened William Wilberforce to campaign against slavery. Campaigns in themselves will not change the world; that will take men and women who have fallen in love with the man who changed the world, our Lord Jesus Christ.

You might also be interested in our editorial this week, on the same topic.

References

1 Daily Mail, 21 May 2018.

Reflections a year on from Grenfell and Manchester.

This week we were reminded of two tragedies in our nation. On Monday the media carried harrowing reports of the tragic loss of life at Grenfell Tower, as the main inquiry into the cause of the disaster began.

On Tuesday, memories of the 22 lives lost and the multitude injured in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack replaced memories of Grenfell.

I heard no-one in the media asking the obvious question, “Where was God in all of this?” Indeed, God has been so sidelined in the thoughts and lives of the majority of our nation that we no longer even hear the question, “Is there a God?”

Yet, we still live in a nation whose Queen, at her Coronation, swore an Oath to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who has protected us beyond our deserving over many years. Central to that Oath was the commitment to maintain his laws and the true profession of the Gospel. Over a generation, this commitment to God has largely been forgotten by the nation’s leaders and is rarely mentioned by the leaders of the established Church.

Unprotected Children

As far back as the 1980s, I was waiting one day in the playground of the school where our youngest two children were about to finish their school day. I watched as the classes were dismissed and as a crowd of children emerged, each looking for a parent to take them home safely. I thought I heard the voice of God in my mind saying that these children were no longer under his protection.

Over a generation, our national commitment to God has largely been forgotten.

I wondered if I had imagined it, because these were simply innocent children, embarking on their lives in a country God has greatly blessed and protected. I recalled the wonderful protection of my own childhood when, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, family and community co-operated to re-build our nation after the devastation of war, thankful for God’s deliverance from the evil that so easily could have engulfed us.

Yet, since that day when I thought I heard that voice of God, one disaster has followed another in our nation, making me think that God was indeed speaking, in the early stages of removing his hand of protection.

Let me say clearly, however, concerning both the Manchester and Grenfell disasters that God was not punishing those who had assembled there, any more than those who lost their lives when the Tower of Siloam fell in Jesus’ day. The picture is bigger: that, whilst we must also recognise that God allowed these disasters, they serve as signs to our nation – warning signs that we will not live in safety if we choose to live outside of his protection.

Knowing God’s Ways

If, as we should, we search our Bibles to discover God’s ways, we will see that God does take his protection away from his people if they do not seek him with all their heart. At the time of Samuel, for example, when the religious framework of the nation had decayed under Eli the priest and his wicked sons, the Philistines prevailed over Israel.

Again, when the kings of Israel and Judah led the people astray (kings whom God warned his people they should not desire), the troubles of the nations soon followed. Ultimately, God’s protection was removed: first from the Northern Kingdom of Israel which fell to the Assyrians, and then from the Southern Kingdom of Judah which fell to the Babylonians.

Disasters like Grenfell are warning signs that we will not live in safety if we choose to live outside of God’s protection.

God’s sadness was displayed through the weeping of the Prophet Jeremiah, as recorded in the Book of Lamentations. Similarly, Jesus wept over Jerusalem when he foretold the coming second fall of the City.

God knows what will happen when the doors are allowed open to the evil adversaries of the people of this world – adversaries both physical and spiritual. God weeps when the time comes for him to remove his protection from a people who do not seek him, who choose to try to live without him under the beguiling principles of humanism and false religion, where false gods are honoured. But he is willing to remove his protection.

We are reaping the consequences of this in Britain today despite the fact that we have had sign after sign that should bring us to ask, “where is our God?”

The Prime Minister adds her condolences to a 'Tree of Hope' in Manchester. See Photo Credits.The Power of Testimonies

The testimonies of those who lost loved ones at Grenfell and the memories of the fatal night in Manchester are profound. But they should not only be sparking human sympathy and attempts to celebrate and unite a community (such as in Manchester where a concert has been held), but be compelling those who have responsibility for our nation to lead us in seeking God in repentance.¹

God is a loving Father to those who seek him with all their heart and protects his loved ones beyond their deserving – always. But he is also a strong God who will not bend from the eternal balance of justice and mercy. He is Judge of the entire earth and cannot compromise in the ‘big picture’ of his eternal covenant purposes throughout history.

God weeps when the time comes for him to remove his protection from a people who do not seek him.

If he did not spare his own Son in these eternal purposes of overcoming sin and offering eternal redemption to those who would accept it, he cannot continue to protect a people who reject him and choose lives of sin.

There is a Way Back

There is always a way back and those who know the Lord, namely those in the churches of our nation (especially the leaders of the churches), should be his prophetic voice. It is imperative that we take the opportunity while we still have it to call this nation back to repentance and seeking God.

It is time for the leaders of our Government - from the Royal Family through to the executives who are duty-bound to outwork the purposes of the Monarch’s Oath - to take their responsibility before God and lead the nation back to him. This is what the tragic signs are telling us. We are vulnerable outside the protection of Almighty God and that vulnerability is bringing increasing pain, sadness and loss of life - not only to those who lead but to those for whom they are responsible.

Notes

1 And we do not mean just any God. The multi-faith service in Manchester which was part of the memorial activities a year after the attack is yet another symptom of how far our nation has compromised our allegiance to the One True God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Our second excerpt from Sandra Teplinsky's ‘Why Still Care About Israel?’

Palestinian Injustice

A sad reality is that the War of Independence was not fought without collateral damage to both Palestinian and Jewish civilians. For the sake of perspective, no war can be fought without collateral damage - and in this instance, there would not have been a war if the Arabs had not insisted on starting one. Nevertheless, some Arab families and villages were wrongly expelled or inexcusably overrun by Jewish soldiers.^q In at least one such raid at Deir Yassin, genuinely innocent victims were massacred.³¹ Upon learning of the sordid event, Israel denounced it and sought to compensate the victims.^r

The Palestinian narrative claims that since 1948, Israel has stolen or destroyed over four hundred Arab villages. This figure, based on a recently created map of dubious veracity, cannot be objectively verified. Israeli historians point out that many Arab families who were forced to leave their homes did not actually own the lands or homes they left. Some were long-term renters - for generations - of lands sold legally, but without their knowledge, to the Jews.^s

Moreover - and without diminishing the loss some Arabs have suffered - a large Palestinian state (Jordan) existed just across the border. Those who might be displaced were expected to seek refuge there, just as 800,000 Jewish refugees were forced to leave their homes and wealth behind and relocate to Israel.^t (More on this momentarily.)

No war can be fought without collateral damage - and in 1948, there would not have been a war if the Arabs had not insisted on starting one.

Lacking objective documentation of their plight, Palestinians have amassed global sympathies through a narrative that inverts history.^u Many share tragic personal tales - that prove either unverifiable or outrageously embellished.^v Their stories tend either to romanticize Arab tribal-village life or misrepresent it as a bustling society.^w Sadly, some of these accounts are presented by Christians as honest-to-God facts. Their pitiable tales tug at the heartstrings of any hearer. It’s their personal story, we reason. How can it not be true - and how can we not be deeply moved? Emotions are stirred, then inflamed - against Israel. Gradually, hearts are hardened against the Jewish people and what God is doing with them today.

Jesus loves and died for the Palestinian people: He does not want us to disparage them. We must compassionately acknowledge their suffering and seek a right response to it. But even genuine suffering must be viewed in context to rightly ascertain truth and transform realities justly.

Palestinian - and Jewish - Refugees

Palestinians were not the only refugees to result from the War of Independence. According to official UN figures, over 800,000 Jewish refugees were forced to flee homes and lands in North Africa and the Middle East where they had lived for generations.³² Unlike some Palestinians, they were in no sense “voluntary refugees”. Jews were expelled, stripped of citizenship or both in retaliation for Israel’s declaration of statehood. Arab nations have persistently refused to compensate these refugees for their confiscated properties, valued today at billions of dollars.³³

Meanwhile, during the War of Independence, unincorporated areas proposed by the Partition Plan for a second Palestinian Arab state were illegally annexed and occupied - not by Israel but by Jordan and Egypt. Jordan seized Judea and Samaria, including East Jerusalem, while Egypt staked claim to Gaza.

Now, the Arabs’ publicly stated goal for the war had been to liberate Palestine. But neither Jordan nor Egypt ever gave the territories they annexed back to the Palestinians to liberate them. Instead, the latter were compelled - by their own brethren - to stay put indefinitely in refugee camp limbo.^x Why? you may ask. They would not talk about it; let me explain.

Lacking objective documentation of their plight, Palestinians have amassed global sympathies through a narrative that inverts history.

Israel began offering, as early as 1949, to negotiate for the refugees’ return - and full repatriation - back into the Jewish state. But no Arab leader was willing to negotiate with the Jews. Transacting with Israel, they said, would involve an implicit recognition of her existence. This they had vowed never to do.³⁴ Further, by refusing either to negotiate for the refugees’ return or to absorb them themselves, they could continue the war against Israel in the political realm.^y This they had vowed never to cease doing.

Children in Jabalia refugee camp, Gaza. See Photo Credits.In 1949 the UN established a relief fund (United Nations Relief and Works Agency or UNRWA) to provide for the refugees’ basic needs. Soon thereafter, UNRWA acceded to Arab demands to grant refugee status - for the first time in history - not only to those who fled but to their descendants, indefinitely. This redefinition of “refugee” guaranteed the Palestinian population would dramatically increase over time.³⁵ By 2013, of an estimated Palestinian population of five million, only 30,000 - or approximately half of 1 percent - actually ever left a home in Israel.³⁶

Meanwhile, many billions of dollars have been given to Palestinians by Israel and other nations to provide for their “basic needs”.^z At this writing, UNRWA remains the largest employer in the West Bank, with thousands of Palestinians on its payroll and, according to some, padding the personal fortunes of Palestinian leaders.³⁷

Former UNRWA director Ralph Galloway concluded early on:

The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore…as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.³⁸

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu similarly noted:

The consistent refusal of Arab leaders to solve this problem is particularly tragic because it would have been so easy to do…That the fifty million Arabs In 1948 could not absorb 650,000 Arab refugees - and have not finished the job even after half a century, and even after the fantastic multiplication of their oil wealth - is an indication of [how] the Arabs have manipulated the refugee issue to create reasons for world censure of Israel.³⁹

Of the situation an Arab American journalist comments:

What are the real roots of this [Palestiman-Israeli] conflict?...That Palestinians want a homeland and Muslims want control over sites they consider holy?...These two demands are nothing more than strategic deceptions. propaganda ploys. They are nothing more than phony excuses and rationalizations for the terrorism and murdering of Jews. The real goal of those making these demands is the destruction of the State of Israel.⁴⁰

Israel began offering, as early as 1949, to negotiate for the refugees’ return - and full repatriation - back into the Jewish state. But no Arab leader was willing to negotiate.

Palestinian Statehood and the Phased Plan

In 1964, Yasser Arafat assumed leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a terror group with the stated purpose to liberate all of Palestine. It was not, however, created to liberate the West Bank and Gaza; this was never the “Palestine” to which it referred. Recall that in 1964, Gaza still belonged to Egypt and the West Bank was governed by Jordan. Since 1964 the Palestinian agenda has been to liberate a Palestine that includes, by definition, every square inch of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River - that is, all of Israel.^{41 aa}

Shortly after the PLO published its goals, Israel fought for her life in the Six Day War of 1967. To the world’s surprise, she defensively acquired Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan. Then, in 1973, Egypt and Syria launched another unprovoked attack, the Yom Kippur War. Again Israel prevailed. As a result of these mounting Arab defeats, the PLO announced its “Phased Plan” the following year. The Phased Plan has never been revoked and still represents Islamist/Arab/Palestinian strategy today.

The Phased Plan refers to the slightly revised goal of liberating Palestine not all at once, but in stages. Phase One is the establishment of an independent, combatant national authority consisting of Gaza and the West Bank. This was to a large degree accomplished by developing the PLO into the PA and by Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Phase Two is the reconfiguration of Gaza and the West Bank into launching pads for provoking an all-out regional war, in which Israel is wiped off the map.⁴²

This is to be accomplished by military operations, lawfare diplomacy, cyberattack or any combination thereof.

On the Occupation

When Israel pushed back her attackers in the Six Day War and gained Gaza and the West Bank, she acquired land that had been originally allotted to her in 1920. By 1967, however, the areas were inhabited by over a million Jew-hating Palestinians and angry insurgents.⁴³ Israel had no desire to “rule over” them.⁴⁴

The Six Day War ended with UN Security Council Resolution 242, a truce that purposefully did not define borders. Resolution 242 authorized Israel to remain in possession of newly acquired territories until peace was established and final borders secured. It was meticulously and explicitly worded so that Israel would not be forced to withdraw from all the newly acquired territories, back to the boundary lines from which she had just been attacked.⁴⁵

When Israel pushed back her attackers in the Six Day War and gained Gaza and the West Bank, she acquired land that had been originally allotted to her in 1920.

Those boundaries, the 1949 armistice lines ending the War of Independence, were never meant to be permanent. Nor were they intended to substitute for negotiations to determine final borders. In less than twenty years, the lines had proved indefensible,^{46 bb} leaving the middle and most populous section of the country only nine miles wide. With Palestinians having shown themselves unwilling or unable to make peace, some Israeli leaders have termed the 1949 lines “Auschwitz Borders”, referring to a notorious Nazi death camp. Nevertheless, by 2011 the international community would euphemistically call them “pre-1967 borders” and urge Israel to retreat to them - with no enforceable guarantee of peace in return.

After the Six Day War, Egypt and Jordan eventually signed peace treaties with Israel. These nations refused, however, to take back either Gaza or the West Bank. Reclaiming these territories would have betrayed the pan-Arab plan, notoriously reaffirmed after the war,⁴⁷ to leave in place a local population to help destroy Israel. As a result, Gaza and the West Bank remained in a state of perpetual war with Israel, ruled by the increasingly militant PLO. That being the case, Israel was authorized by international law to administratively govern the territories, with quasi-military powers of enforcement, until peace could be achieved. The administration of law and order in a hostile, enemy population in such circumstances is called an occupation.

Some Israelis say, however, that they have not occupied any of these areas because the land rightfully belongs to them under customary international law. Customary international law refers to the body of international law and policy that Western nations have traditionally practiced and followed.

In either case, Israel’s quasi-military administration known as the “occupation” is not illegal. The term “illegal occupation” is a pejorative mischaracterization, intended to conjure up images of oppression and abuse. Admittedly, Israel has not always acted fairly or justly during the difficult course of governing people dedicated to her demise. But to brand her lawful jurisdiction “illegal” or “oppressive” obscures the reality that if Palestinians sincerely accepted Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, the war and the occupation would be history. Allow me to explain.

Peace Negotiations

In 1993, the PLO morphed into the Palestinian Authority under an agreement called the Oslo Accords. At that time Palestinians gained the right to negotiate peace with Israel for themselves.^cc Sadly, rather than pursue a peaceful coexistence alongside Israel, history records how they proliferated terror instead.

Nevertheless, in 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians full sovereignty over 95 percent of the disputed territories, including East Jerusalem, with secured geographic contiguity. There was virtually nothing left for the Jews to give away. But the Palestinians said no. Offering no counterproposal to the offer, they literally walked out on negotiations⁴⁸ and immediately launched a violent intifada (“uprising”) of deadly terror lasting several years.^dd US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, who was present, said the Palestinians’ main objection was the insertion of one critical clause in the agreement: “This is the end of the conflict."^{49 ee} The Palestinians could not end the conflict with anything less than ending Israel.^ff

In 1993, the Palestinians gained the right to negotiate peace with Israel for themselves – but rather than pursue this, they proliferated terror instead.

Yasser Arafat, who signed the Oslo Accords and walked out on the offer of a sovereign state, said (in Arabic): “I do not consider the [Oslo] agreement any more than the agreement which was signed by our prophet Muhammad and the Qurayish.”⁵⁰ Arafat referred to an agreement that established the right, called hudna, for Muslims to fake peace when they are weak so they can wait for better timing to fight when they are strong.^gg Thus an Arab saying goes like this: “When your enemy is strong, kiss his hand and pray that it will be broken one day.”⁵¹

Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Shimon Peres signs the Oslo Accords outside the White House, alongside PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. See Photo Credits.Faisal Husseini, a moderate Palestinian leader, compared the whole peace process to a proverbial “Trojan horse”.⁵² From the Arab perspective, it had been designed to fool Israel into letting the Palestinians arm themselves in order to destroy it. Said Husseini, “If you are asking me as a pan-Arab nationalist what are the Palestinian borders according to the higher strategy, I will immediately reply, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.”⁵³

Perhaps that would explain why, in 2008, when Israel offered Palestinians 93 percent of the territory they desired - including 98 percent of the West Bank - they again said no.⁵⁴ And why, in 2009, PA leaders said they would resume negotiations on the pre-condition that Israel stop all settlement construction - but still refused to talk when Israel complied with their demand. After that, with one perceived betrayal following another, Israelis were not so willing to believe Palestinians were sincere about peace.^hh

In 2011, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu tried to restart peace talks and pleaded at the UN with PA President Abbas to meet face-to-face, without preconditions. Abbas refused, demanding that Israel first agree to an expanded list of preconditions.ⁱⁱ Under the Oslo Accords and other agreements, however, these preconditions were in fact supposed to be the subject of the negotiations. By agreeing to all the preconditions first, there would be very little left to negotiate. So Netanyahu replied with one precondition of his own. He demanded that Palestinians recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. If the PA would agree to the one precondition, Israel would agree to their whole list of them. But the Palestinians refused.^jj

In 2012, Palestinians sidestepped negotiations, and thus breached the Oslo Accords, by seeking to forge a path for statehood in the UN. At the same time, they launched a war from Gaza and a terror wave in the West Bank. In 2013, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon commented on the situation:

This is our history: Every time a proposal was raised to partition the land, the other side started a war. Every time we expressed willingness to give up territory, terror rose to new heights.⁵⁵

In 2012, Palestinians sidestepped negotiations, breaching the Oslo Accords, by seeking to forge a path for statehood in the UN.

Palestinians often say they resort to terror because Israeli proposals do not offer them a universal “right of return”. Israelis reply this is because Palestinians are unwilling to limit the “right” to refugees who personally left Israel; they insist on extending it to every Palestinian in Gaza, the West Bank or anywhere else in the world. Therefore, when Israel has expressed willingness to give them land, Palestinians have sometimes agreed to recognize a country named Israel - but never as a Jewish state.^kk The difference is critical. If Palestinians acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, they relinquish a strategy for turning it into a Palestinian/Islamist one by flooding it with millions of Arabs “returning” there.^ll

The right of return has remained, at this writing, uncompromisable - even though “homeland” is only a few miles away, and even though Palestinians would finally be getting a second sovereign state. From Israel’s perspective, granting several million Muslims, many of whom are murderously militant, permission to immigrate and repopulate the country is tantamount to committing national suicide.

Israeli Settlements

In 2012, the PA began claiming that Israeli settlements were the main reason for the failure of the peace process. In fact, settlements represent only 1.6 percent of the disputed territories,⁵⁶ and 70 percent of settlers live in suburbs adjacent to major Israeli cities, not deep inside the West Bank.⁵⁷ Settlements do not disrupt Palestinian geographic contiguity. Despite public opinion to the contrary, settlements officially authorized by the Israeli government are not illegal under standards of customary international law.^mm To be sure, settlements have been built on lands whose ownership is disputed. But in this dispute, Israel actually possesses the best claim to lawful - if not politically feasible or practical - ownership.ⁿⁿ

Recall that when Israel acquired the West Bank, no state or political entity held legal title to it. The last rightful owner of the land had been Israel, and historically, a Jewish presence has been maintained in Judea and Samaria for thousands of years. After World War I, Britain obtained the land and, through international agreements, returned recognized legal title to the Jews. When the UN offered the land to Palestinian Arabs in 1947, it wrongfully tried to take that title away. But the Palestinians rejected the offer, thereby rendering it null and void.

Years later, Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank, but Israel defensively - and therefore, legally - acquired it from Jordan in the Six Day War. Under international law, the land has been technically “disputed” since 1967.^oo In the future, international bodies may decide to rule on the legality of the territories and settlements built on them. Given the nations’ collective stance toward Israel, it would likely take an act of God for a ruling in her favor to result. Which of course we cannot rule out.

In this dispute, Israel actually possesses the best claim to lawful - if not politically feasible or practical – ownership of the ‘disputed’ territories.

Meanwhile, Israel’s settlement policies are not necessarily perfect. Growing numbers of extremist settlers (and Palestinians) have turned violent, and the violence must be stopped. Some Israelis have tried to stake claim to biblical lands by erecting self-declared, unauthorized outposts. Usually these are dismantled by Israel within a short time. Jewish settlement construction has resulted in genuine hardship for some Bedouin and other Arabs, not always handled properly by Israeli courts.^pp But these proportionately few unfair cases do not make all the settlements illegal. Nor do they provide a reason to suspend peace negotiations, if the parties sincerely desire peace.

Future Palestine

Repeatedly, Israel has demonstrated her willingness and even desire to accept Palestine as a new sovereign state. But as this book goes to print, Palestinians still insist (in Arabic) their state must stretch from the “river to the sea” and encompass all of Israel.⁵⁸ Surveys consistently reveal that a solid majority of Israelis would agree to live alongside a peaceful Palestinian state. (The operative word is peaceful.) But similar surveys consistently show the majority of Palestinians say they would never accept peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state.^qq In 2011, 66 percent of West Bank Palestinians said that while they would accept a two-state solution as a “first step”, they wanted to eventually replace Israel with a single Palestinian state.⁵⁹ In 2012, 88 percent of all Palestinians preferred a strategy of terror, or another intifada, over diplomacy to achieve it.⁶⁰ In 2013, similar polls yielded similar results.⁶¹

As you can see, the root of the Palestinian plight is well hidden beneath the surface tension exposed to public view. Deep-seated realities that will not change unless faced forthrightly are disguised and distorted. I do not minimize the genuine suffering, frustration and injustice that affects some Palestinians. But, fundamentally, these conditions are not the cause of Arab and Islamist enmity toward Israel; they are the result of it. Moreover, injustices have repeatedly come about at the hands of Arab, not Israeli, leaders betraying their own people. That the world faults Israel - and threatens her survival - for a Palestinian plight that is Islamist/Arab generated, is highly unjust.

God wants transformational justice for both Israelis and Palestinians. But justice must be pursued and attained His way - according to righteousness based on truth - however His enemies try to obscure it. He wants us to “test and approve what [his] Will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans 12:2) as He restores His ancient covenant people. Toward them we must “not be arrogant, but tremble" (Romans 11:20).

About the author: Sandra Teplinsky is a Messianic Jew who lives in Jerusalem and teaches about Israel. With her husband, Sandra runs a ministry called Light of Zion. Find out more about the book 'Why Still Care About Israel?' on its website.

References

Letters q-qq can be found on this page.

31 Bard, “The Refugees”, Jewish Virtual Library, accessed April 30, 2013; Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 122

32 Auguste Lindt, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, “Report of the UNREF Executive Committee, Fourth Session”, Geneva, January 29 to February 4, 1957; Dr. E. Jahn, Office of the UN High Commissioner, “United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Document No.7/2/3," Libya, July 6, 1967, as cited in Alan Baker, ed., Israel's Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and World Jewish Congress, 2011), 50.

33 “Refugees Forever? Issues in the Palestinian-lsraeli Conflict," International Jerusalem Post, February 21, 2003, special supplement; Bard, “The Refugees."

34 Terence Prittie. “Middle East Refugees,” in Michael Curtis, Joseph Neyer, Chaim Waxman, and Allen Pollack, ed., The Palestinians: People, History, Politics (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1975), 66—67.

35 Daniel Pipes, “Peculiar Proliferation of Palestinian Refugees,” Washington Times, February 20, 2012.

36 Donna Cassata, “Defining a Palestinian Refugee,” Associated Press. May 31, 2012.

37 Jonathan Shanzer. “Chronic Kleptocracy: Corruption within the Palestinian Political Establishment,” Hearing before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressional Testimony, July 10, 2012.

38 As cited by Prittie, “Middle East Refugees," 71, emphasis mine.

39 Netanyahu, A Durable Peace, 155.

40 Joseph Farah, speech given at Messiah College, Grantham, Pennsylvania, July 3, 2003.

41 See for example Palestinian Media Watch, “PA Depicts a World Without Israel,” 2011; “Mashaal: We Will Never Give Up Any of Palestine,” International Jerusalem Post, December 14-20, 2011.

42 “Political Plan of the PLO Council," June 8, 1974.

43 Jewish Virtual Library, “Demography of Palestine & Israel, the West Bank & Gaza."

44 See for example Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (New York. Ballantine Books, 2002), 306-27.

45 Jewish Virtual Library, “The Meaning of Resolution 142"; Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West and the Future of the Holy City (Washington D.C.: Regnery, Inc, 2007), 172-74; Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Disputed Territories-Forgotten Facts About the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” February 1, 2003.

46 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Israel's Critical Security Requirements for Defensible Borders (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs).

47 The Arabs' Khartoun Resolutions of 1967 solidified the notorious “Three No’s”: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Jewish Virtual Library, “The Khartoun Resolutions.”

48 Benny Morris, “Camp David and After: An Exchange (Interview with Ehud Barak),” New York Review of Books 49, no. 10, June 13, 2002.

49 Ambassador Dennis Ross, in a Fox News interview, as reported by David Kupelian, “The Real Reason Arafat Rejected a Palestinian State,” Whistleblower 12, no. 3 (March 2003): 7.

50 Speech by Arafat in Johannesburg, May 10, 1994 (while Oslo was in effect), as cited in Daniel Pipes, “Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad in Diplomacy,” Middle East Quarterly, September 1999.

51 Kupelian, “The Real Reason,” 8-9; Pipes, “Lessons.”

52 “Faysal al-Husseni in His Last Interview,” MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 236, July 6, 2001.

53 lbid.

54 Reuters and Aluf Benn, “PA Rejects Olmert‘s Offer,” Haaretz, August 12, 2008.

55 Mazal Mualem, “New Defense Minister No Threat to Netanyahu’s Policies,” Al-Monitor, March 13, 2013.

56 See Michelle Whiteman, “To the Media, Building Settlements in Israel’s a Crime,” Huffington Post, December 26, 2012; and Mitchell G. Bard, “The Settlements,” Myths and Facts Online, Jewish Virtual Library, accessed April 30, 2013.

57 Bard, “The Settlements.”

58 “Jerusalem-on-the-Line,” Jerusalem News Network, Prayer Letter, April 3, 2013, quoting Palestinian Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal’s speech in Arabic at a rally in Gaza City, March 30, 2013.

59 United Press International, “Poll: Arabs Reject Two-State Solution," July 26, 2011.

60 Elhanan Miller,“88 Percent of Palestinians Believe Armed Struggle Is the Best Way," Times of Israel, December 16, 2012.

61 Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, “Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No. 47," press release, April 1, 2013.