If it weren't for the Bible, it would certainly be hard to explain why Israel is considered so important in the world today. Indeed when we look at nations with populations comparable to Israel's, we find they are only rarely in the news as would be expected. Benin, Paraguay, Denmark, etc., have their ups and downs like all nations, but the goings-on in such relatively small places is of little concern to the world leaders, the media and the man on the street. David Bar-Illan, senior advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his media spokesman, bemoaned the fact that his boss was known worldwide while he himself could not even name the prime ministers of comparable-sized nations around the world.

          Media attention is what makes a prime minister or a nation famous or infamous in today's world, and for some reason (known only to Scripture), Israel gets much more than its share of it. While a handful of reporters cover European capitals, there are 400 newsmen, TV commentators and the like in Jerusalem everyday! While entire revolutions take place in countries ten times Israel's size with minor media coverage, CNN virtually stops its news day to report that the orthodox and the secular Jewish people are arguing again on some Israeli street. The Dallas Morning News, a reliable critic of Israel along with so many of its sister newspapers in this country, ran a picture of so-called strife while covering some neighborhood disagreement in the Holy Land in which there were zero casualties. The front page story was accompanied by a huge photograph of the factions that were arguing. On page 13 of the same paper it recorded seven murders over the same weekend in Dallas. The New York Times, our "newspaper of record," keeps up a steady drumbeat of criticism of this allied democracy no matter what else in the world is happening. I would think that if a world war broke out, the Times editor would order his reporters to keep a front-page space open for its usual Israel coverage whatever else might be happening.

          Media attention in the modern world simply means negative coverage, since the media tends to feature the world's troubles. Cynicism, negativism, and some sort of nether drama marks our media these days. They are turning into entertainment organizations simply desperate to draw a crowd to whom they hawk the products of their advertisers. The crowd is evidently better drawn by the sort of negative news that is part and parcel of the human condition. Witness the litany of robberies, killings, fires, etc., on the local TV news each night in every American city. The media could cover the good works of the city every night just as it could cover the fact of Israel's miraculous restoration in one generation to becoming a progressive modern democracy, but news editors favor the tried and true. Bad news about good people always sells.

          There might be an even more sinister idea at work in the media's negative coverage of the news. Wars are a boon to any media. CNN charged triple the going rate for commercials during its coverage of the Persian Gulf War, and sponsors lined up to pay those prices. It did not escape the notice of the editorial board that real conflict — bombers, people dying in the streets, big fires, etc. — provided a huge audience like no local robberies and murders could. What if they could arrange their own wars? This almost science fiction concept may be unconsciously at work today. Coverage of what the media views as trouble spots — Bosnia, Ireland, Africa, and oddly enough, Israel — is in place just in case some spark ignites a real shooting war. And needless to say, coverage of the news in such places aims to exacerbate their situations. Hence the "plight" of the Palestinians and Israel, the "hopelessness" of the arguments in Ireland, etc., etc. We might say that the media are continually publishing introductions for war in the hope that some war will commence where their people are in place. Then the media accomplishes its major purpose, its reason for being. It makes big money.

          We must keep in mind that the media are not some public service but simply profit-making businesses which charge substantial fees for the coverage provided. In previous editions in this series of books, I have pointed out that the media are likely supported by petro dollars since makers of oil-based products buy a great deal of advertising. If the makers of cars, cosmetics, gasolines and so forth are not pleased with the sort of coverage that they receive in the media — if it does not somehow support Arab oil interests — then they possibly buy less advertising space. And so we have a profit-making business covering an ordinary day-to-day life situation in Israel in a most negative and provocative way for reasons of greater profits.

          For its part, Israel goes along, the only democracy in the Middle East, achieving wonderful things. Its per capita income is now comparable to that of England and greater than that in the largest Arab oil-producing states, including Saudi Arabia. As a result the Arabs of Israel, the only Arabs privileged to live in a democracy in the Middle East, are profiting as well and have a standard of living hardly imagined by Arab people elsewhere. (The Egyptian government issues precious few visas for its citizens to visit Israel even though this is perfectly allowable under the Camp David peace accords, and Israelis visit Egypt every day in huge numbers. The fact is the government of Egypt doesn't want its citizens to see how well the Arabs of Israel are living. They fear an absolute revolution when people see their cousins of the Holy Land driving cars, drinking clean water, having doctors in their villages and schools, etc.)

          The international solution to Israel's success seems to be to cut the place in half, give the Jewish people less land, and somehow bring peace by dividing one of the smallest nations in the world. Certainly it is the division of the world's available land into smaller and smaller parcels with different governments that causes the rash of "wars and rumors of wars" of the latter half of this century. When the United Nations was founded in the late '40s there were less than a hundred nations, and at this point there are close to two hundred. Having more nations simply provides the situation where "nation will rise against nation."

          Israel must be the most obvious example of creating new boundaries that create new troubles. If Saddam Hussein of Iraq could complain that the British mapmakers drew a boundary cutting off the province of Kuwait from Iraq, then what would Israel say? Iraq has a murky history emanating from about the time of the Arab conquest of Mesopotamia over a thousand years ago, but Israel started out as one nation under Jewish leadership 35 centuries ago!

          History and archaeology show this to be Jewish land from the Mediterranean to past the Jordan River, and from the deserts of the south to northern borders that exceed the Galilee and Golan Heights on the north. But even though the formal boundaries of Israel are about half the size of what they were in Biblical times, world leaders, and especially Arab leaders, demand that even this small area be cut in half again and an equal portion be given to those who have sworn to drive Israel into the sea.

          Why is all this happening to Israel? The best of all reasons is that prophetic Scripture says it will happen. While the world press dithers over Israel's supposed intractability with the peace process or bad treatment of the Palestinians or a wrong-headed prime minister, the real reason is that Israel must be maneuvered into a position where it will be "hated of all nations" (Matthew 24:9). It is well to remember that close to 100 percent of end times prophecy concerns that tiny nation and that the Biblical signs of the end pertain especially to Israel.

          The Olivet discourse of our Lord. His answer to the disciples. question, "What will be the signs of Your coming and of the end of the world?" (Matthew 24:3) — details phenomena that are global in scope but of particular concern to those in the Holy Land. The Lord addresses His disciples as Israelites in particular when He observes, "He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" (v. 13). It is the Jewish people gathered in Israel at the time of Armageddon that must endure "unto the end" — that is the second coming of the Lord — to be saved.

          At the time, "they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced and mourn for Him as for an only son ... and a fount of cleansing will be opened unto the house of David" (Zechariah 12:10 and 13:1). It is imagined that the Jews are receiving some sort of favor or second chance due to their salvation at the Second Coming, but they are saved by seeing the Lord come out of heaven to stop that mad battle raging in Jerusalem. Since He is coming back to the earth exactly in their midst where they stand back to back in their nation's capital ("And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives...." Zechariah 14:4), they simply see Him come and they believe. Undoubtedly, Gentile soldiers engaged in Armageddon who look up and see Him are saved as well. After all, anyone looking up into the sky and seeing a heavenly figure riding a white horse with a robed army behind Him and an identification on that robe reading "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" will believe, and that's all there is to that. They believe by seeing, but this is after the age of grace when we believe in "things not seen."

          Besides that piece of evidence that the signs of the end are given in particular to Israel, Matthew 24:15-16 advises "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) then let them which be in Judea flee unto the mountains" rather than try to cope with the Antichrist. The advice presupposes that the Jews are pretty much gathered in Jerusalem at that dramatic time. I belabor the point that Israel is concerned in Matthew 24 because that discourse is often taught in reference to the Church and erroneously leads to the Church having to endure the tribulation. But obviously Israel is singled out for instructions because Israel is deeply involved in end times prophecy.

          We know that the start of the Tribulation period is signaled by the Antichrist's peace covenant with Israel, and it is obvious that we are being prepared for such news day by day. The "peace process" has conditioned the world to imagine that there is some drastic situation in Israel that badly needs some international agreement to settle it. To look at the world objectively, it is clear that peace covenants are needed much more in other trouble spots where there are real conflicts going on, and not in Israel which is suffering from something more like a common ghetto problem. But to satisfy the prophecy, world opinion is being manipulated to where the Antichrist's seven year offer will be most welcome. Even the Israelis, I think, will sign that covenant in a hopeful spirit out of necessity at the time it is offered. (The necessity will not be the need to make peace, but simply pressure from the United Nations and certain powerful members to come to some accommodation with the Arabs.) The media will immediately trumpet the idea that peace has at least been achieved in Israel only to be proved as wrong as when we trumpeted the same thing about Ireland in 1998. We can all recall the glad ceremonies and triumphant dinners and toasts which preceded the worst bombing in the history of Irish terrorism.

          The Antichrist's false peace will last longer than the Irish false peace by three years or so. At the mid-point of the tribulation, at exactly three and a half years after the signing of the covenant, he will perform that "abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel" (Matthew 24:15) and proclaim himself God in the tribulation temple! The temple may have been built as one of the stipulations of the original peace covenant, but in any case, it will be standing on Mount Moriah at the midpoint of the tribulation and the Antichrist will "cause the sacrifices and oblations to cease" (Daniel 9:27), as he renegs on his agreement. And that, in a sense, begins Armageddon because I believe it is from that point that the kings of the East begin to mobilize the most fearsome army the world has ever known. China and possibly other Far Eastern powers will march 200 million men all the way to Israel evidently to challenge the Antichrist who they do not believe is God. The Chinese communists, after all, are atheists and believe that no one is God, and the huge number of Chinese Moslems (out-numbering the ethnic Chinese!) will take the Antichrist to be a total pretender since he is not Allah. And finally, military-minded Chinese will simply note that the Israelis did not believe he had supernatural powers since they bolted (taking the Lord's advice). And so, the Chinese and other Far Easterners will be motivated to vanquish the pretender, the Anti-christ in Jerusalem, claiming to be the God of Israel.

          A visit by a 200,000,000-man army will do Israel little good. This will be the most difficult-to-handle tour of Israel ever undertaken, and the land and the people will suffer.

          While King Hussein of Jordan may have been a good king so far as kings go, the only really good king is the king who abdicates in favor of democracy.

— Jimmy Dunne, Houston

Subject: Gundry Text
Date: 09 Feb 1999 10:39:19-0600
From: The Sparks
To: levitt@metronet.com

          I have followed Zola's newsletter's Gundry confrontations closely, and am theologically in agreement. My son is a freshman at Taylor University in Upland, Indiana. I learned from your newsletter that Taylor used the Gundry test, and so I sent a letter of concern to the president. Yesterday I received a call from the professor who uses the text. He wasn't sure what the term Replacement Theology and "gentilizing" the gospels meant which I find interesting in itself. But nonetheless, I explained Replacement Theology. In our conversation he was not defensive but more curious and asked if I had suggestions for another text. Of course I drew a blank and feel I missed an opportunity. Can you help me in this matter? What would be an unbiased text for any class desiring a survey of the New Testament? I am preparing a letter to send the professor explaining my position more clearly and would like the extra punch of suggesting a text or several texts. Would appreciate your help as promptly as possible. Thank you for [your] watch-dog efforts.

— Denise Sparks

It's not my field, but I can certainly recommend "Once Through the New Testament" by Dr. Tom McCall and myself. We offered it free of charge to Criswell College last year, but they preferred the Gundry textbook.

— Zola

Dear Friends,

          More than 200 United Methodists have signed a statement calling for an end to the violation of human rights of Palestinians. The petition is being circulated by SEARCH for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, a Boston-based group. It was first presented to U.S., Israeli and Palestinian officials on Jan. 26.

          So far, 42 bishops and 160 other members of the United Methodist Church, mainly clergy, have endorsed it, according to Edmund "Ned" Hanauer, a member of SEARCH's steering committee.

          The petition condemns rights violations by Israel and the Palestinian Authority and urges them to "abide by international law and human rights conventions." It calls on the United States to withhold financial aid to the two governments until they do. "Pending compliance, aid should be given to Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organizations working for peace based on human rights," the statement declared.

The U.S. government also is called upon to:

• Publicly support full self-determination for Palestinians in a West Bank-Gaza state within the borders that existed before the June 1967 war.
• Support a peace that recognizes the religious significance of Jerusalem and gives equal national status there to Israelis and Palestinians.
• Urge Israel to cease the demolition of Palestinian homes and the seizure of Palestinian lands and to return all land and water resources confiscated from Palestinians since 1967.
• Urge Israel to dismantle all settlements except where settlers are willing to live as equal citizens within a Palestinian state.
• Support the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland or receive compensation.
• Support the release of political prisoners held by Israel.

Our readers are becoming good at correcting the mistakes of authorities in the church. The letter below is by one such authority and the following letter is by one of our viewers.

December 16, 1998
Mr. James E. Clay
Dear Mr. Clay:

          Thank you so much for your letter and your kind words regarding Explore the Bible: Adult Teacher. I regret that you found the use of the term "Palestinian" on page 27 of the winter 1998-99 issue offensive. Certainly it was not our intent in the usage of the word to imply in any way an "anti-Semitic drift" or a "pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel leaning." The word was not intended to convey any connection with, or support of, the modern Palestinian movement. The terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" have been in usage for centuries to refer to the land of the Bible.

Note: If those writing to this ministry tell us that they do not want their letters published, we will abide by their wishes.

Believe it or not, we get mail like this all the time.

Subject: Judeo-Communism
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:47:53 -0500
From: kenzo
To: levitt@metronet.com

Hello,

          Why do you people never speak of the horrors of Talmudic/Judeo-Communism, and its genocide of over 150 MILLION people, or the fact that Jewish Fidel Castro (de'Castro) continues the persecution of Christians while his co-religionists in the Israeli State progress an arrogant form of racial supremacy and hatred towards the Gospel of Christ and His followers, as well as other non-Jews?

Everyone is falling over one another trying to say kind things about the late King Hussein of Jordan. He was wise, he was patient, he was a peacemaker, he was honest, etc., etc.

          My memory is too long for that. When King Hussein blew up 56 synagogues in Jerusalem's Old City while Jordan ruled the place from 1948 to 1967, he became just another terroristic Arab dictator in my mind. No Jew was allowed in the Old City, period. Thus, the original home of ancient Judaism, it's temple site, was the only place in the world where Jews were not allowed to even walk down the streets. Gentiles who wanted to visit Jerusalem, like our tourists, were obliged to come in from the east, from Jordan, on the pretense that there was no Israel and the entire country was Arab owned.

          It would be a terrible crime if any individual blew up one synagogue, one church, or one mosque anywhere in this world. Fifty-six houses of worship destroyed may be a record for all history.

          King Hussein also seized tombstones out of a Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives to pave roads. Jewish peoples have, for centuries, been buried there because they recognized that, "... His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east..." (Zech. 14:4). (They did not necessarily expect Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but in any case, they believed in the resurrection and they wanted to be right up front when it happened!)

          He also had a four-lane highway built from Amman to Jerusalem so that he could enjoy zooming around in his sports car, a hobby pursued also by the new king on his Harley Davidson motorcycle. The new king, Abdullah, also shares his father's preference for beautiful Western wives and is married to a knockout, who also enjoys the Harley Davidson. King Hussein had three Western wives, including the American Queen Noor.

          King Hussein's lasting legacy was his invention of the curious term "West Bank" for the half of arable Israel that the Palestinians claim to be their own. What salesmanship! Persuading the world that only a riverbank was in question, Hussein proceeded to occupy a huge portion of Israel. It's as if someone would refer to the Atlantic Coast but mean that it ends at the Mississippi River and takes in all land in between.

          It was a brilliant idea, as far as propaganda goes. Perhaps only the invention of the term "Palestinian" for the sundry Arabs who migrated to Israel during the Jewish rebuilding did greater favors for the pretenders on the land.

          The Hussein family — ordinary people, not particularly descended from royalty — have lived lives of such ease and ridiculous spending that they beggar the Arabian Knights of legend. I once examined the 500-person yacht, a 20,000 ton vessel, which belonged not to King Hussein but merely to his brother, the crown prince. This was during a reign when the average Jordanian lived in total poverty and unemployment was rampant. Lavish palaces at Acaba, Jerusalem, and elsewhere allowed the king to live a life enviable by monarchs anywhere.

          About all I can give King Hussein credit for is standing up to the PLO, first in 1980 with "Black September," when he ushered a whole gang of Palestinians out of Jordan and into Beirut. The PLO has fomented war wherever it resided, whether Jordan, Lebanon, or Israel. King Hussein vied with Arafat about the Temple Mount and insisted on control of that site, considered holy to Moslems. Presently, during this "peace process," he has conducted friendlier relations with Israel than his grandfather, who was assassinated for trying to make peace with Israel in the early '50s. A total dictator, he owned all the land, and all the people, until his dying day and he even picked the new king when he could barely raise his hand to point.

          In connection with King Hussein's funeral, Bill Clinton visited with the Syrian dictator, Hafez el Assad. Assad won a new seven year term in a recent "election" by 99.98 percent of the vote. The other .02 percent could be held in the same cemetery. Those two really deserve each other — a black-hearted dictator oppressing one of the most backward police states in the world — and the President who will bow before anybody if it will get him the slightest approval in the polls.

          Three U.S. presidents may have attended his funeral, but I'll go with A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times, who described Hussein as, "The King of Jordan; never for sale, but always for lease."