October 2002

This issue of Christian Chronicles will be mostly about prophetic themes. As the time of fulfillment of prophecy draws near, things come into focus that have not been clearly understood before. We want to discuss several general themes in this issue, attempting to bring clarity to what to many is an arcane field of study. There are some areas of prophecy that remain controversial. However, among conservatives, there is a great amount of agreement as to the essential structure of those prophecies that remain to be fulfilled. While we will address some of the controversies, our greater intention is to examine some of yet unfulfilled prophecy in such a manner as to offer insight into some of those things that will happen, as well as some things that should happen.

The article on pages six and seven of this issue, however, does not deal with prophetic themes. Rather, we are pleased to present an article written from a Jewish perspective that eloquently addresses the issue of the “media spin” that is often used to support the Palestinians in the eyes of the world. This is an insightful article, revealing the heart of the Jews as they struggle against the opposition that they have faced since the Zionist movement began; really, since millennia before that. We have long recognized the bias of the world press against Israel, and have not been shy about commenting on it. Now, as explained by a Jew, the curtains of deception are parted, and we have a glimpse of a startling reality. With refreshing candor, Marc Rauch exposes the great sham of modern media prejudice against God’s chosen people.

Editor’s Note: We rarely present political views in CC. Given the effects of a war with Iraq upon Israel, however, we have decided to present this op-ed piece in this space this month.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) must be eliminated. That's a no-brainer. However, there is no reason to panic. Sixty or ninety days is not going to make a big difference. On the 8th of October, the Director of the CIA stated that there is no imminent threat from Iraq. Hussein is not expected to use even terror tactics unless or until he feels that the threat directed against Iraq is to be executed immediately. To use terror attacks now would only serve to increase the danger he faces. Kaddafi ceased terror activities when he understood that he would be killed if he persisted. Hussein understands that any threatening action at all on his part will unleash such a severe retaliatory strike that he will not survive.

It would take a massive effort on Iraq's part to have constructed even a single device by now, and an effort such as it would require could not likely be carried out with the degree of secrecy it would need. Putting everything in a single location after all the years of weapons inspections and hiding the various parts here and there, while possible to do fairly quickly, does add to the time frame. Above all else, Iraq has had to operate with a high degree of clandestine care, because our planes and those of Britain have been over-flying his country, taking photographs many times daily, with experts studying them for the very signs he would have to generate. No one is saying he isn't trying, or even that he doesn't have a couple of useful devices already. However, the likelihood of his using them will be heightened by all the war talk, not diminished.

In the context of this publication, Israel is the primary concern. Saddam Hussein will almost surely attempt to strike Israel if he is attacked. His real goal will not be the destruction of Israel, but to draw his Arab “brothers” into the conflict and broaden the war. This is the perceived threat today, and is one of the main deterrents to the world’s acquiescence to the demands of the U.S. for immediate action. Nobody wants a holy war between “Christianity” and Islam except the radicals. The fear in the world is that George Bush may be as radical as those whom he accuses. He speaks of making peace as he prepares to make war.

As Iraq begins to lose the war, which it surely shall, the danger of their use of WMDs will increase dramatically. SCUD missiles will be launched against coalition forces and against Israel. Initially, they will almost surely be tipped with conventional warheads. However, as the threat of destruction becomes ever more imminent, the temptation to use WMDs will become irresistible.

Ultimately, those weapons must be destroyed. There can be little question that Hussein is a greater threat to the world community than the leaders of more stable regimes. He is a loose cannon, and may act unpredictably, whereas the Soviets or China or N. Korea were and are less likely to act in precipitous haste. But the removal of the present danger must be accomplished by the world community, and not by a cowboy politician who exaggerates the threat in order to be able to bloody his hands just at election time.

It appears that this war-mongering is about George Bush wanting to make a big splash before the general elections in November. The debate over this war is Bush's entire political agenda right now. It is almost fanatical, the emphasis he is placing upon this problem.

General Wesley Clark and Senator Max Cleland made a very cogent point recently. Each concurred that it is those who have never been in battle who want to engage other people's children in war. Those men who have fought in battle always agree that war is a last resort, not a first. It is not a matter of cowardice or a lack of concern, of which Bush accuses the Democratic party senators, but simply a realization that war is not entertainment.

Let us take Desert Storm for example. How many soldiers did the coalition lose? Wasn't the number something under a hundred? But U.S. casualties are still being counted today. The number thus far is upwards of ten thousand, most dying years afterward from exposure to the Iraqi sarin gas weapons that we destroyed. That number increases daily.

War is not wrong when it is necessary, but it is not necessary at this very instant. Let the world community take Hussein out quickly and quietly if that must be done. Then Bush can do the nation-building afterward that he wants to do, but he can do it without having destroyed the entire national infrastructure of Iraq that we're going to have to replace after a major military engagement. How moral is it to send our boys and girls to fight an unnecessary war? And how many of them will be killed if or when Hussein does unleash those WMDs? Covert action, properly engaged, can eliminate the threat altogether, at far less cost in both lives and dollars.

If the U.S. handles this situation improperly, we will certainly earn the ire of all our Arab friends. If we handle it wisely, however, the Arab states will make the appropriate noises and protests for domestic consumption, but they will secretly applaud the elimination of a destabilizing factor in the Arab family. We will gain, not lose, in world opinion by handling this matter discreetly, with a broad coalition. What the world is asking is not that we should ignore the problem, but that we should not be precipitous in our decision-making. It is saying to the United States, “Look, we will help, but you are drawing your guns prematurely. Let us all be a bit more judicious. Al Qaida is a far greater threat in the immediate future than Iraq is. The problem must be dealt with, but let’s deal with it together. We know that you are powerful, and we want to cooperate, but the whole world feels that you are acting hastily. You could be wrong in this.”

If we handle this Bush's way, we are certainly going to lose, and so is Israel. The U.S. needs to wake up. Even if Hussein has ten nuclear weapons, he lacks the means to fire them upon us unless we are in his back yard. Together, the world can eliminate the risk without making a sea of glass of the whole Middle East. We risk not only a measure of stability in the region in a pursuit of all-out war with Iraq, but we also endanger the very people we say we want to protect.

Do not think that God is not interested in this. Where the apple of His eye (Zech 2:8) is concerned, He is always vitally interested. That must also be a consideration for the United States. What is at stake in this debate is not merely the elimination of WMDs in Iraq, or a regime change there. Rather, we are considering action that will certainly bring death and destruction to many Israeli cities and their inhabitants. Without wisdom and foresight, we are liable to unleash a much broader war than many suppose. If Israel should be attacked with WMDs, she will certainly respond. She might forbear if only conventional weapons are used, but not if WMDs are loosed upon her people. And if Israel retaliates, then the entire equation changes. A new paradigm will exist, and a wider war is all but inevitable. We lived with a far greater nuclear threat from the former Soviet Union for decades without finding it necessary to launch a preemptive strike. It is surely no more necessary today. Let us be wise, not hasty. Let us be aware of God’s will concerning His people.

These are the last days of the harvest. The day is rapidly approaching when we shall receive the rewards for our labors. We shall stand at the judgment seat of Christ immediately following the rapture of the Church. The sin question will not arise in that time of judgment. Our sins have all been paid for. The issue then will not be sin, but labor. Our “works” will be judged, and we shall then receive our wages. We will all suffer the loss of reward for labors not done, but we shall also receive a full measure of reward for what we have done. What is the basis for reward? What does Paul say? “Therefore, knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor 5:11).

Our responsibility in this age is singular. We are to preach the Gospel. We are to bring the light of God’s grace to a fallen world, a world darkened and without hope. Ours is the blessed responsibility of offering hope to everyone. We have the delight of bringing Good News to those who fear condemnation. There is no work on earth more noble than rescuing a soul from the fiery furnaces of hell and delivering him eternally into the very presence of God. There is no profession more gratifying, no wages greater than those wages that accrue to the winner of souls. It is a marvelous thing to be a Christian!

Isaiah was addressing the nation of Israel. He was telling them that a Day is coming in which the very glory of God will arise over Jerusalem much as the sun arises each morning. God’s glory will spread over that nation and she will enter her greatest era, her “Golden Age.” Many, even among Christians, believe that God has abrogated His covenant with the Jews on account of their rejection of their Messiah, and that the promises He made to that people now apply to the Church. It is not so. The Day is coming when all of God’s promises to Abraham and His descendants will be literally fulfilled. In that Day Israel will reach the heights of her glory, and God will Himself be glorified in her, and the Gentile nations shall see it and rejoice. It is a far cry from today, is it not?

No, it is not. Far, that is. It may be a very short time indeed before that Day dawns, perhaps as little as seven years. We pray that it is so. The time of Jacob’s trouble (Jer 30:7), a period of seven years, must intervene between the present day and the fulfillment of those promises. But those seven years begin with the ratification of a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement, so that, as the nations seek to formulate such an agreement, we may be very near the beginning of that time of trouble. Thus, we may be as little as seven years away from the fulfillment of the verses quoted above.

God chastened Israel for her idolatry and disobedience when He allowed Nebuchadnezzar to carry her away captive into Babylon. Seventy years later, He restored her to the land. From that time forward, she has been under the thumb of the Gentiles. Even when she was autonomous in the land, she was forced to pay tribute to, and to obey, Gentile nations. It is so today. She is in the land by the grace of the United Nations, and her actions and activities are tightly governed by U.N. resolutions and the hope of financial aid from the Gentile nations, primarily the United States of America. She flies in the face of those “rules” occasionally, but always pays a heavy price in terms of world opinion. From 70 A.D. until 1948, Israel was again out of the land. This was indeed a time of chastisement, and it was on account of her rejection of her Messiah. However, God has not abrogated His covenant. To do so would make of Him a Liar, and He is no Liar. There has been a beginning of a return to the land, but the Day is coming in which every Jew will live within the expanded borders of Israel.

Were Israel to stand up today and trust in the God of her Fathers, going out to take by force the land that was given to her, God would support that movement and she would be victorious in her quest. She would conquer lands from Iraq to the Sinai Peninsula and all the real estate in between. We know, however, that such will not be the case. Though she rightly should do that, we know by her own prophets that she will not do so. She will continue to knuckle under to the Gentiles until such time as she is rescued. That will be on the Day when her Messiah returns and establishes by force that kingdom that once was rejected. Then shall the opening verses be fulfilled. Only then shall Israel really rejoice.

It is not New Testament doctrine that declares these things, but the prophets of the Jews themselves. Israel’s rescue will come at a time of great suffering, such as she has not yet endured. Every Christian, however, ought to long for that Day. The Day when the Lord rescues Israel from the Gentiles, ending forever the Times of the Gentiles (Lk 21:24), is also the Day when our Bridegroom comes into His greatest glory on the earth. Every Gentile nation will bring its treasures into Jerusalem, paying tithes to the God of Israel, and rejoicing to do so. We shall see our Lord’s glory rise above Jerusalem — indeed over the whole land of Israel — and He who was once reviled will be glorified. But we should also long to see God’s chosen people finally restored, and restored to a greater glory than they have ever known. Indeed, Israel will rejoice to have suffered as she has suffered over the millennia because she will see what her long chastisement has at last produced. The Old Testament prophets will shout and rejoice over the faith of Israel and the faithfulness of her people. The whole nation will sing praises to her God, recognizing both His justice and His mercy, His goodness and His righteousness. Worldly wisdom will be vanquished and the wisdom of God will prevail over all the earth, even as His will shall be done everywhere as it is done in heaven. Israel will not today do what she should do in taking by force what is hers, but she will yet have it by God’s grace.

    The simple fact that the tribulation period is that time when God's judgments are poured out on the earth must preclude the Church's presence under that time of judgment. We are the body of Christ, His bride. Our relationship with God is much different from any other saints’, insofar at least as we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. No other generation of man has been indwelt by the very Spirit of God except those who have been regenerated by the God who indwells us. Our Husband and our Redeemer has borne every judgment for us, and we may now rejoice in communion with Him. Our estate is not one of misery and judgment, but of children, born of the very Seed of God (1 Jn 3:9), and dearly beloved. Temporal chastenings? As children, assuredly. Judgment and condemnation? Hardly!

    The purposes given for the tribulation period in the first place are essentially twofold: 1. to bring the Jews to a point of repentance so that they will accept the Messiah whom they earlier rejected (Mt 23:37); and, 2. to punish the Gentiles for scattering the Jews out of the land, into the nations, and for partitioning the land that God gave to the Jews (Joel 3:2). There is no purpose given anywhere in the Scriptures for which Church Age saints are said to endure any of the wrath of our heavenly Father.

    It is almost blasphemous to suggest that the bride of Christ should be subjected to His wrath. Then He would be pouring it out upon His own body. Perhaps not blasphemous, but certainly implausible. What prospective groom beats his wife just before the wedding? The very idea is not only illogical, but irreverent, making God arbitrary and untruthful.

    All of the Scriptures express the wonderful relationship that our Father has graciously granted us, the earth-bound, heavenly saints of the Church Age. In the Old Testament, our blessing is found in types and shadows; and in the New Testament, in the antitypes, and in the Words of Christ and of those who spoke after Him. Born of His Seed, we are accorded such heavenly blessings and intimate proofs of His beneficent providence toward His children as those who are not His children cannot even conceive of. Experience serves only to strengthen our faith, for our faith is not in ourselves, but in Christ: our Savior, our Husband, and our God. Those who say that we must be purified in the tribulation period must believe that a saved person can completely reform his old human nature (cp Rom 7:15-25), so that he becomes worthy through punishment and judgment to go to heaven on his own merit. That is not grace, but works.

    One who takes a post-tribulation approach must accuse God of very harsh treatment of His children. Grace is completely ignored, but the rather Romanist - almost purgatorial - view of a harsh and judgmental outpouring of condemnation before the blessings of being children of God are bestowed upon us — that is the necessary view of the post-tribulationist. We are now children of God. The Gospel is good news, and the more we know the better it gets. The hope of the Christian ought to grow stronger day by day. Post-tribulationalism does not lead to hope but to fear. The more you know, the more scared you must become. The more you learn of the judgments that are going to be poured out on the earth, the more your hope is diminished. The more we learn of the Bible, the better it gets. The more we learn of God’s grace, the more sinful we see ourselves. A saved person's sins do not diminish in his own eyes after he is saved, but all the more may he abound and rejoice in the grace of God. The gospel becomes the Gospel. It is to God’s glory, and not our own. Those who declared themselves most righteous among the Jews were the Pharisees, the most sinful of the Jews. And so it is today, when the “religious right” stirs up its pride and sits in judgment upon everyone else. In no way does the Bible lend us any glory of our own, but that which is bestowed upon us by the grace of God.

    Our focus ought not be upon the deeds of the saints, but upon the wonders, the sheer magnitude, of the grace of God; the little-considered privilege of the high blessing of being members today of God's own household.

    Our destiny, as a people indwelt by the Spirit of God, citizens of heaven, is not a dark fear of an approaching catastrophe, but the hope of the pre-tribulationist is the outward calling by God of this "peculiar people," removing from us at last that inescapable burden of sin that plagues all men, freeing us from the body of sin and changing us into the sort of physical beings who are able to stand in the presence of the very glory of God. This is not done because we have achieved some state of “goodness.” The point of the long ages of the Bible is to show that, even after a thousand years of righteous and benevolent rule by God Himself on the earth, the heart of man is unchanged, still rebellious, still tempted and being tempted. There is none good; no, not one (Rom 3:10, 12). The tribulation has a twofold purpose: to bring to repentance, and to punish; the former, the Jews; the latter, the Gentiles. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that the punishments and judgments poured out during the tribulation have as a purpose the molding and shaping of sinners into worthy and righteous states. The notion does not exist in the Bible.

    Pre-tribulationists and the post-tribulationists alike argue the merits and meanings of verses and local contexts without simply approaching the investigation from the more obvious position of the unique relationship that exists between God and His Church. All doctrine must be harmonious with all other doctrine. The approach of those who argue the way the argument is being presented today do not reckon with the principle of applying the other doctrines of the Bible to the debate. While this might be understandable from the post-tribulational approach, one would certainly expect every pre-tribulationist to insist that the other doctrines of the Scriptures be brought to bear on every topic of discussion, whether of prophecy or otherwise.

    What of those many Church Age saints who have already died? Generation upon generations; and how shall they be purified? Or does only that generation of Christians who are alive at the time of the rapture become purified? Then, what would be the fate of those saved people who had died before? Is it not strange that the Word of God is silent about the eternal estate of such a significant group of people? Are all those Christians who have died doomed with the lost? If they have not been purified by this tribulation period, how shall they qualify to be saved once they have died?

    The fact is, no amount of tribulation is going to turn any man from a sinner into a saint. Only God does that, and it is indeed done that way to man. That is, God often uses trials in our lives to bring us to a point of conviction at which we will accept the grace of God, realizing at last our utter unworthiness, falling hopefully at last upon His grace.

    The thing is, God has already done that to those who are His saints today. He will yet bring such tribulation upon the whole world as to bring it to its collective knees or be destroyed. But we need not be reminded of our sins everyday. They are constantly before us and we cannot escape them. But our God bore all of the penalty of our sin and then led us to a point where we would understand and accept it. What God has been doing for two thousand years to individual men and women, He is going to do in seven years to the entire world. The process is essentially the same, but the degree of tribulation we suffer in our conviction pales in significance to that which shall befall those who have not partaken of the grace of God in this age of grace. Christians do not need to be purified beyond what Christ purified them as He hung on that cross. He knew us then as intimately as He knows us today. He loved us then and He loves us now. Is it reasonable to suppose that we should cower in fear? Oh, no! Let us evermore exalt the name of an infinitely benevolent God. Our time of conviction has passed and we have now entered into the blessings of fellowship with God. Our future is not dark and scary, but glorious and filled with hope and rejoicing.

    One eschatological position attempts to diminish hope and hold out the fear of judgment as the stick, rather than the carrot of grace. One repels the sinner and scares him away from God. The other invites one into the very bosom of the most wonderful Father one could ever hope for, and more, because we cannot conceive today of the depth and breadth of the blessing we shall enjoy in those days. Blessing, not fear. I'll take the grace of God every time, knowing that I will never be worthy until God Himself changes me on that Day. I shall then stand and look into the very heart of God and He shall welcome me there. From that Day forward, I will serve my Husband in complete sinlessness and glorified perfection. This is that blessed hope that Paul speaks of in his letter to Titus (2:13).

    The post fellow, well, I don't like to think of the depths of despair and misery that such a view must bring to the heart of that man. What a terrible God they serve so poorly. In their hearts they know it. Their minds and hearts cannot bear to admit that it is so. And that is especially true of admitting it to themselves. Their God has not forgiven them of anything, but they must yet face the outpourings of His wrath.

    It is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance, not His harshness and discipline. Let us rejoice until that Day, knowing that our Father has His hand upon us, has us hedged in front and in back; that He has promised to direct our steps if we but acknowledge Him in the affairs of our lives. Let us lead peaceable lives, secure in the love of God, looking at the grave, not as an end, but as the gateway to blessing. But much more, let us think beyond the grave, being watchful for the coming of our Groom for His bride, knowing that that great Day may well be this very day.

    Let all the Church serve her God in works of ministry and prayer until He returns for us!

The many differences set forth in Scripture between Israel and the Church are key to an understanding of the purposes of God for each one. With the recognition of these differences, the believer as an individual and the church as a whole perceives her standing as being in Christ. Apart from this dispensational division, confusion abounds as to her own peculiar position and responsibilities.

The one commonality between Judaism and Christianity is that each is ordained of God to fulfill His own perfect, eternal purpose. Yet regardless of this similarity, Judaism has not merged into Christianity, but rather, the two are as distinct as earth and heaven. The believer may learn much, it is true, by studying, for instance, God’s dealings with the Israelites in their wilderness wanderings, but there is a difference between direct application and the gleaning of spiritual principles. The former results in mass confusion and much violence to the text of Scripture as a whole, while the latter instructs us further of the character of our heavenly Father, acquainting us with His ways which are so far above our own. Lewis Sperry Chafer has accurately observed (Chafer, L.S.; SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY; Vol. 7, P.213):

It must also be noted that the distinctions, which appear in Scripture between Israel and the Church, must be in accordance with, and not taken further than, what the Bible alone reveals.

Scripture draws the following distinctions between Israel and the Church, between Judaism and Christianity. A study and recognition of these differences will profit each and every believer. While not exhaustive, this chart shows many basic distinctions:

ISRAEL	THE CHURCH
Who She Is
Chosen of the Nations of the Earth; Jehovah’s earthly wife; Earthly saint (1 Chr 16:13; Ho 2:1-17; Ps 16:3)	Flesh of Christ’s flesh and bone of His bone; The Lamb’s Heavenly bride; Heavenly Saint (Rom 7:4; 1 Cor 1:2)
Position While On Earth
Physical birth (Born a Jew) (Isa 45:25)	Spiritual birth (Born Again) (1 Pet 1:23)
Has Abraham as her physical father (Gen 16:7)	Has Abraham as her spiritual father (Rom 4:16)
Christ is King (Ps 24:7-10)	Christ is Bridegroom (2 Cor 11:2)
God deals with her as a nation (Rom 11:26-29)	God deals with saints as individuals (1 Cor 4:5)
Not indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Came upon prophets temporarily) (Ps 51:11)	Indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Permanent) (Jn 14:16-17)
Blessed with earthly blessing, and never blessed apart from the land (Ezek 34:11-31; Isa 60:12)	Blessed with all spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus in the heavenlies (Eph 1:3)
Limited to the resources of the natural man (Ex 19:8; Rom 8:3)	The natural man set aside as having been crucified with Christ, and the securing of a new creation in Him.
At home in the land God gave them; Citizens of earth (Gen 15:18-21)	Strangers and pilgrims in the land; Citizens of heaven (Phil 3:20)
Under Law (Both Mosaic and theocratic) (Ex 20; Jer 31:33)	Under Grace (Holy Spirit ministering the Law of Christ, which is not legalistic) (Rom 6:14)
Position in Tribulation and Coming Kingdom
Will go through the Tribulation (Dan 9:27)	Not subjected to the wrath of her Bridegroom (1 Th 4:16-17; 5:9)
Rulers dwelling in their own land with the Gentile nations subject to her King (Isa 60; 66:13)	Co-Rulers with Christ as His beloved bride, and thus, dwelling with Him at that time on the earth; she enters the millennium because of her association (as His bride) with the Messiah. (Rev 5:8-10)
Position In Eternity
Will abide on the New Earth (Heb 11:9-10)	Will abide in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:24)
Program Summary As It Stands Today
Israel is temporarily set aside, but at a future time, Christ as King will reconcile the Jewish nation and the Gentile nations to God to constitute His millennial kingdom (Rom 11; Isa 66:10-14)	Being built today by Christ’s present work of reconciling believing Jews and Gentiles to God to form the Body of Christ, His bride, the heavenly Church. (Eph 2:14-18)

It should not be thought, however, that to say one is earthly and the other heavenly, is to say that one is better than the other. It would never be said of the Scriptural principle of the variation between a man and a woman that the man is better because of his differing position than his God-given helper. Rather the two are merely distinct holding separate positions with different responsibilities. This same principle can also be seen in the three Members of the Godhead, the Son being subject to the Father and the Holy Spirit to the Son, all with differing duties, yet all being One. The one unifying factor between Israel and the Church, as stated above, is that God has a distinct purpose for them both. And within God’s eternal purpose, there is an order, which He has plainly and specifically ordained as set forth in His Word.

Therefore if we find differences between these two peoples in the Scriptures then we do well to heed them and not read one into the other, knowing that God Himself deals particularly with Israel whom He loves and also distinctively with the Church whom He also loves. Charles Ryrie has made this very important statement concerning the result of such distinction (Chas. Ryrie; DISPENSATIONALISM TODAY; PP. 154-155):

    I overheard a water cooler-type conversation the other day that really made me laugh. Person A was saying to person B that he couldn’t understand what all the fuss is about in the Middle East. “After all,” the former said, “both the Jews and Arabs are members of the Semantic race.” I stopped in mid-stride, did my best slapstick double-take, and thought to myself, “That’s the problem, they’re not both Semantic. The Arabs alone are members of the Semantic race.”

    Nevertheless, I found it amusingly ironic how this verbal faux pas underscores many of the basic misunderstandings that the world has about the Middle East conflict. These semantic misunderstandings then give rise to the wrong impression that “Palestinian Arabs” are the underdogs and that they have a valid position.

    For example, there are the endless charges of Israeli brutality and massacres that supposedly took place over the past 60 years. The most recent, of course, was the “Jenin Massacre”. In the great mistory (i.e. revisionist history, or mis-history) of the conflict, Jenin is a relatively minor tale. Most episodes that are used by Palestinian Arabs and anti-Israel supporters to incite their followers surround the events of the three major wars fought in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Typical today are the claims that Israeli soldiers attacked and killed helpless, unarmed civilians. To heighten the horrors of the imaginary atrocities, the reports of civilians “massacred” always include a large number of Arab women and children.

    To illustrate how insidious this semantic problem is, the last two sentences in the preceding paragraph contain seven misused words. They are:

Attacked
Helpless
Unarmed
Civilians
Massacred
Women
Children

    “Attacked” would indicate that Israel was the aggressor in any of the wars or even in the bloodshed that began in the latter part of the 1800s when Jews began to restore their homeland in the region of historic Israel. The Jews were defending their right to not only have a home (on land that they purchased), but they were defending their very lives. This sort of action is called “defense.” The reason why Muslims have a problem understanding the difference between the two words is that when they “defend” Islam, they “attack” and kill other people.

    “Helpless” portrays an image of being alone, or surrounded, or without the ability to protect oneself. A “helpless” situation might exist in the case of a Christian or Jewish girl walking through Nazareth and being assaulted and raped by several Arab men. That’s “helpless”. Muslims use the word differently. To them, when they’re confronted by one or more persons capable of fighting back, they (the Arabs) are then “helpless.” Other people use the word “cowardice” to describe what the Arabs call “helpless.”

    “Unarmed” is an interesting descriptive word. Such as when I heard a caller to a national radio show describe the machine-gun toting “Palestinians” as being “unarmed.” The talk radio host correctly reminded the caller, “One, a machine gun can ruin your whole day.” The same could be said of those “unarmed” Arabs that are firing mortars at buildings or carrying bombs into restaurants: one mortar round can really spoil a family get-together. Frequently “Palestinians” and their supporters will cite the “unfair” disparity between the Israelis using tanks and the Arabs using only automatic weapons, bombs, and incendiary devices. They shriek about the “unarmed” disadvantage and shout that if the roles were reversed, and they had the tanks, they would be victorious. Needless to say, if they simply chose to lead productive lives and teach their children things other than hatred of Jews and the West, there would be no need to be at an “unarmed” disadvantage. In any event, they’ve obviously been able to repress the memories of when the multi-nation Arab army attacked the nascent State of Israel in 1948, and they, not the Jews, had the tanks and artillery. It didn’t help them then, I’m not certain as to how it would help them now; they would still have to confront a group of trained Israeli soldiers (the heavily armed Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian militaries could attest to the difficulty of that).

    “Civilians!” Ah, “civilians.” Only in the Islamic world could a group of people armed with weapons and engaging in warfare be called “civilians.” However, “civilians” is actually an appropriate term to use; because, in their world, war, killing, hatred, destruction, and violence is the norm. If you raise a child to believe that his or her primary goal in life is to kill the infidels and martyr themselves, then they are just ordinary “civilians”, as judged by their community standards: that’s their civility, hence they are “civilians.” The rest of Earth’s population might use words like “combatants”, “soldiers” or “fighters.”

    “Massacred”, the past tense of “massacre” (both used the in the same way). This is an easy one to explain. Any battle lost to infidels is a “massacre,” and should be reported as such so as to not humiliate Islam. It doesn’t matter if the sides are balanced or even if the Muslims began the battle with superior forces and materiel, if they lost they were “massacred.”

    “Women”: clearly a relative term when discussing Arabs. However, considering the numerous times that Arabs have dressed as women during battles and in terrorist activities in order to disguise their efforts and create a propaganda hullabaloo after being “massacred,” yes, I’d say that these men are “women.” Although, semantically, anyone can see how the usage of the word differs between Islamic and non-Islamic use. And with this difference in mind, noting Yasser Arafat’s predilection for wearing women’s clothing when eluding capture, one could understand why he’s not man enough to make peace with Israel.

    “Children:” are there “Palestinian” children? Can you consider a 4-year old, who is being taught to kill, a “child?” Would parents wish and encourage their “children” to die, and then celebrate when they do get killed? How are these people “children” or “parents” or “mothers and fathers?” What kind of distortion is there in Islam that so radically alters the definitions of every single family-related word? “Tools” is a much better word. “Device” could also work, as could “apparatus” or “gadget” or “instrument;” like “instrument of destruction.”

    “Ahmed, I’d like you to meet my little instrument-of-mass-destruction. We call her Yasmine, and we’re hoping that she’ll blow herself to bits on a crowded school bus by the time she reaches ten.”
So is there any wonder why so many people think that the “Palestinians” are the ones being victimized? Why people are misunderstanding the intent of the Arab nations? Why people all over the world think that a country with less than 5 million Jews occupying only about 8,000 square miles of land could be the aggressor in a conflict with a couple hundred million Arabs who occupy nearly 1.3 million square miles of land? It is a problem of semantics, and we’ve got to get everyone reading off the same page. Fortunately, I have the solution! In addition to putting bibles in hotel rooms we should be providing a dictionary and thesaurus. And we should start with the hotels used by the news media.

About the author:

Marc J. Rauch was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1952, and lived in the metropolitan area until “emigrating” to the West Coast in the early ‘80s. He is a multi-award winning TV/film writer, producer, and director, and has been a broadcasting and marketing executive since the 1975. Marc regularly lectures on various subjects concerning broadcasting and new media at conferences and seminars throughout the U.S. and Europe. In 1994, he authored a book on advertising and has had several business and industry articles published in a variety of related magazines. After the events of September 11, 2001, Marc began writing about U.S./Arab relations and the Middle East conflict. He has since had several articles published on these subjects.

Bibliography:

Israel and the Arabs, Ahron Bregman and Jihan El-Tahri, 1998
Testament at the Creation of Israel, Aaron Levin, 1998
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Middle East Conflict, Mitchell Bard, Ph.D., 1999
Myths and Facts, Mitchell Bard, Ph.D., 2001
From Time Immemorial, Joan Peters, 1984

In the article entitled “There is a Dichotomy,” the distinction is drawn between Israel and the Church. It should be noted that this is one of the most fundamental divisions in the Bible. Without separating the lines of prophecy concerning these two groups, it is impossible to arrive at a correct interpretation of Biblical prophecy. In his book, “Things to Come,” J. Dwight Pentecost opens his lengthy discussion of prophetic themes with a long chapter on interpretation. This is as it should be, for the hermeneutics one employs will determine the structure of his prophetic view. The “literalist,” or one who uses a normal or plain interpretive method, will always separate Israel from the Church. Theological liberals, however, frequently combine the prophecies concerning Israel with those concerning the Church, making a mess of both, and being unable in the end to substantiate his views with a plain interpretation of the Scriptures. In that method, the Scriptures are twisted in order to make them fit the interpreter’s point of view. In the conservative method, the interpreter’s view must be adjusted to fit what the Scriptures plainly say. Liberal hermeneutics are based upon an arrogance that is almost incomprehensible, teaching that what God says is wrong, but man’s interpretation is more authoritative.