Tweet
Re: Ezekiel 36 and the Mountains of Israel.
Joshua also covenanted with them because he believed they were from "a very far country" rather than as close as they actually were. That no doubt made a difference in his reasoning as well. Like say if Israel signed a treaty with a non-border country - has no direct bearing on the land covenant. And also, when Joshua determined the truth, he cursed them, and made them servants to the Israelites. Of course, should he have asked God first? Absolutely!
I don't think Dayan was tricked. I just think the Temple Mount mattered nothing to him, because he was a liberal secular Jew. Reportedly, when hearing of the rabbis flocking to the Temple Mount that same day, he said "What is this vatican?" In other words, what's the big deal? But you're right, there's more to Israel than the temple site. Although its construction was to be in God's timing, and up to that point, ie the rule of David and subsequently Solomon, it's particular real estate wasn't vital to His people.
With regard to actual words - excellent point. Over and over in scripture our mouths are called swords, Jesus told us that what goes in isn't nearly as important as what comes out, and great stress is placed upon the need for two witnesses. In addition, God covenanted with His chosen using oraldeclarations.
Therefore, I would respectfully submit that Moshe Dayan's words did violate the covenant between God and His people by allowing a heathen presence to remain on ground that was considered to be holy. I would also submit that his successors did the same regarding the land covenant. Shimon Peres was never short on words to describe his willingness to relinquish land for peace. For example, here's a quote from Oslo time. When asked by the Knesset
Why are you selling the state of Israel?
he replied
"The answer is simple: We have not given up anything that we possessed. We have recognized a reality in which some parts of the western Land of Israel were not in our possession. Gaza was not in our possession. All we have given up is something that we had not possessed in any case. The people who live in Nablus and Bethlehem are Arabs, not Jews. Why should we be their bosses or their police? We have not forfeited our historical right to the Land of Israel. History is not a matter for concessions or changes. However, it is similarly impossible to disregard a reality that has taken shape over hundreds of years. We are not the ones who partitioned the country; it was partitioned between the Jewish population and the Palestinian population. It is not the Oslo Agreement that created the map; the map created the Oslo Agreement. When we can choose is the type of partition we want - a partition effected by knives or one effected by agreements. One can build here a place of eternal strife, or, as one of our leading authors proposed, a duplex dwelling.
- Shimon Peres, then Foreign Minister, during Questions and answers, presenting the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles to the Knesset on Oct 23, 1995
Similarly, his predecessor Yhitzak Rabin broke the land covenant because he signed the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, ie The Oslo Accords, which were born out of a letter exchange between himself and Yasser Arafat, and included the first point of "transfer of power to the Palestinians...in the West Bank and Gaza, so they may have control over their own affairs." He covenanted with Arafat to relinquish land that was already under covenant with God.
Barak, once considered a hawk, sold his principles for power, imo. He once said
"We are dutybound to turn these places surrounding us - sacred to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism - into a bridge and a symbol of freedom of access and worship, coexistence in peace... under the sovereignty of Israel."
And as described by this article - http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/t...06.php?CID=367 -
Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the house to Yasser Arafat: Israel would withdraw from 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and 97 percent of the West Bank, dismantle 63 isolated settlements, and make Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem the capital of a new Palestinian state, with the Palestinians maintaining control over their holy places and having "religious sovereignty" over the contested Temple Mount.
Once again, breaking the land covenant with his words. It just seems to me that since 1967, the words of Israeli leadership have been contrary to God's plan; whether they involve the Temple Mount or all of the promised land is inconsequential.
Joshua also covenanted with them because he believed they were from "a very far country" rather than as close as they actually were. That no doubt made a difference in his reasoning as well. Like say if Israel signed a treaty with a non-border country - has no direct bearing on the land covenant. And also, when Joshua determined the truth, he cursed them, and made them servants to the Israelites. Of course, should he have asked God first? Absolutely!
I don't think Dayan was tricked. I just think the Temple Mount mattered nothing to him, because he was a liberal secular Jew. Reportedly, when hearing of the rabbis flocking to the Temple Mount that same day, he said "What is this vatican?" In other words, what's the big deal? But you're right, there's more to Israel than the temple site. Although its construction was to be in God's timing, and up to that point, ie the rule of David and subsequently Solomon, it's particular real estate wasn't vital to His people.
With regard to actual words - excellent point. Over and over in scripture our mouths are called swords, Jesus told us that what goes in isn't nearly as important as what comes out, and great stress is placed upon the need for two witnesses. In addition, God covenanted with His chosen using oraldeclarations.
Therefore, I would respectfully submit that Moshe Dayan's words did violate the covenant between God and His people by allowing a heathen presence to remain on ground that was considered to be holy. I would also submit that his successors did the same regarding the land covenant. Shimon Peres was never short on words to describe his willingness to relinquish land for peace. For example, here's a quote from Oslo time. When asked by the Knesset
Why are you selling the state of Israel?
he replied
"The answer is simple: We have not given up anything that we possessed. We have recognized a reality in which some parts of the western Land of Israel were not in our possession. Gaza was not in our possession. All we have given up is something that we had not possessed in any case. The people who live in Nablus and Bethlehem are Arabs, not Jews. Why should we be their bosses or their police? We have not forfeited our historical right to the Land of Israel. History is not a matter for concessions or changes. However, it is similarly impossible to disregard a reality that has taken shape over hundreds of years. We are not the ones who partitioned the country; it was partitioned between the Jewish population and the Palestinian population. It is not the Oslo Agreement that created the map; the map created the Oslo Agreement. When we can choose is the type of partition we want - a partition effected by knives or one effected by agreements. One can build here a place of eternal strife, or, as one of our leading authors proposed, a duplex dwelling.
- Shimon Peres, then Foreign Minister, during Questions and answers, presenting the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles to the Knesset on Oct 23, 1995
Similarly, his predecessor Yhitzak Rabin broke the land covenant because he signed the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, ie The Oslo Accords, which were born out of a letter exchange between himself and Yasser Arafat, and included the first point of "transfer of power to the Palestinians...in the West Bank and Gaza, so they may have control over their own affairs." He covenanted with Arafat to relinquish land that was already under covenant with God.
Barak, once considered a hawk, sold his principles for power, imo. He once said
"We are dutybound to turn these places surrounding us - sacred to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism - into a bridge and a symbol of freedom of access and worship, coexistence in peace... under the sovereignty of Israel."
And as described by this article - http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/t...06.php?CID=367 -
Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the house to Yasser Arafat: Israel would withdraw from 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and 97 percent of the West Bank, dismantle 63 isolated settlements, and make Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem the capital of a new Palestinian state, with the Palestinians maintaining control over their holy places and having "religious sovereignty" over the contested Temple Mount.
Once again, breaking the land covenant with his words. It just seems to me that since 1967, the words of Israeli leadership have been contrary to God's plan; whether they involve the Temple Mount or all of the promised land is inconsequential.
......and the whole world seems to be totally oblivious to what is going on, going about their lives as though tomorrow will never come. seems i've read about that somewhere 
Comment