More Signs of the Times

An article appeared in the May 21 edition of the Israelnationalnews.com website edition that has garnered little attention, yet speaks volumes as to why the continued search for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians will be futile.  The article was written by Shimon Cohen and can be found at www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/195697.  "While Israeli politicians continue to debate the merits of the 'two-state solution,' their Palestinian interlocutors have long moved beyond that model for the solution of the Middle East conflict.  For Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the idea of a 'greater Palestine' - that would stretch from 'the river to the sea' - is now an official policy.  If this policy had until now been elucidated verbally in Arabic, by 'minor' government officials - allowing the PA to say that they had been speaking out of turn or voicing personal opinions - it has now taken on a much more official persona.  In a series of videos and images discovered and released by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), the PA's official propaganda ministry has made clear that when the PA says, "Palestinian state,' it means not just Ramallah and Jenin, but also Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Beersheva.  The change, said PMW, apparently took effect on May 7; since then, all broadcasts on official PA TV discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict have stressed the need for PA Arabs to 'return to their homes.'"


So, how does the PA think it could possibly gain control over all of Israel?  It is through a policy known as "the right of return."  This goes back to the War of Independence of 1948 where thousands of Arabs left Palestine when the five Arab armies attacked Israel.  These Arabs were told to simply leave everything behind - as it would only be a short time before they could return - the Arabs were that confident of their victory over the fledgling Israeli state.  But, as we know from history, the young Israeli State survived and won their battle for independence.  Their victory created a problem for the Arab world: what were they to do with all these thousands of refugees who had fled their homes with the promise that they could return?  Israel offered to repatriate many of them, but the Arab response was a resounding "no!"  The Arab solution was to place the Palestinian refugees into refugee camps - many of them in Jordan and Lebanon.  These people have become pawns in a great political game.  Every time there is talk of a "two-state solution" the question arises as to what to do with the descendants of these refugees?  The Arab world is adamant that the descendants of those refugees need to be allowed to return to those ancestral homes prior to the 1948 War.  Of course, now we are not speaking of tens of thousands of Arabs returning, but hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Arabs.  Given the "right to return" you can easily see that it would not be long before the Jewish community would become the minority community, and Israel would become just another Arab-state now known as Palestine. 


It is this thought that drives the Palestinian leadership.  This is the vision they aspire toward.  This is what they will be pressuring both the United Nations and the International Court to do on their behalf.  So the struggles in the Middle East continue and certainly bear our watching.


I also want to share with you a rather disturbing article posted on the World News Daily website.  It is titled: 'Father' to marry 'son,' with court's blessing!'  You can find it at: www.wnd.com/2015/05/father-to-marry-son-with-courts-blessing.  "The Pandora's box of same-sex marriage has just released a new pairing unimaginable a few short years ago.  Norman MacArthur and Bill Novak, father and son, though not biologically, will soon be husband and... whatever, reports the Patch of Bucks County, Pennsylvania.  The pair, both in their 70's, have been together for 50 years and registered in New York City as domestic partners in 1994.  But when they moved to Pennsylvania, they discovered their domestic partnership wasn't recognized, and legalized same-sex marriage was nowhere on the horizon.  Needing to take care of estate-planning issues, the pair pursued a novel legal approach.  Novak adopted MacArthur in 2000.  The fact their parents were deceased removed any legal objection.  When the United States District Court declared unconstitutional Pennsylvania's marriage laws prohibiting same-sex marriage in 2014, Novak and MacArthur wanted to tie the knot in marriage, but their earlier legal gambit now became an obstacle.  Pennsylvania law doesn't permit marriage between parents and children.  So, a week ago, the father and son's Petition to Vacate Adoption Decree was approved, and the pair simply became two single men now allowed to marry.  The pair has been given a marriage license and is planning a summer wedding." 


I remember sharing with a group of people several years ago that if the definition of marriage was ever changed from the traditional one of "one man and one woman" - you know, the way God intended marriage to be - then no one could really prohibit any type of marriage.  If marriage is no longer "between one man and one woman," then could not a man have more than one woman as a wife?  Could not a woman have more than one man as a husband?  Could not a mother marry her son or her daughter?  Could not a father marry his daughter or his son?  Could not a man marry his dog?  You are probably saying, "Max, don't be so ludicrous."  Let's be logical for a moment: What has been the recognized definition of marriage since, well since the time of Adam and Eve?  Has it not been based upon Genesis 2:24 - "A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh?"  Friends, that definition has guided civilizations and cultures down through the centuries and millenniums.  Yes, there have been deviations from that definition - you even have an example of it in Genesis 4 where a man named Lamech boasts to his two wives.  But those exceptions never changed the basic definition.  Now states and nations are redefining marriage.  Oh, marriage between one man and one woman will still be an option; but that is just it, it will only be an option among many diverse forms of marriage. 


So what can we do?  First, as believers in Jesus Christ, we need to affirm the sanctity of biblical marriage: one man-one woman.  We need to instruct our children and young teens that this is God's prescribed way.  Second, as believers in Jesus Christ, we need to affirm that any deviation from God's definition of marriage is sin.  Yes, God says there is a right and a wrong.  The problem today is that our society has confused what God says is right and wrong.  But, as with all sins, forgiveness can be obtained through Jesus Christ, and lives can be changed through the power of the Holy Spirit.   How we need to return to the Scriptures and affirm that it is the very foundation upon which we can build our lives and how we need to encourage our young teens to build upon that same foundation.