Background to a soon-coming prayer campaign, Part 5

The book of Jasher is not Scripture, but it is an old history book that is referred to in Joshua 10:13 and again in 2 Samuel 1:18. Its account of the story of Esau is of interest to us now, because it shows in chapter 27 that Esau killed Nimrod, the king of Babylon, and took his garment of animal skins by which he claimed authority over the nations.

This garment, it says, was the one God gave Adam. It was passed down to Noah, and after the flood, Ham and Canaan stole it while Noah was drunk. The story in Genesis 9:20-23 lacks this particular detail, but it is certainly plausible. Jasher says that Canaan ultimately gave it to his son, Cush, who gave it to his son, Nimrod, who claimed the authority of Adam.

Anyway, Esau eventually killed Nimrod while both were on a hunting trip, and Esau took the garment for himself. The story can be read here:

http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/27.htm

(If anyone wants a paper copy of the book, I sell them for $15 each.)

The point is to show that Esau-Edom set a prophetic pattern when he killed Nimrod. Esau never actually ruled Babylon, but he usurped his claim of authority. His descendants, as I showed earlier, were conquered by John Hyrcanus and were then forcibly converted to Judaism. Thereafter, they were absorbed into Jewry and were a big factor in the revolt against Rome in the first century, as Josephus tells us.

This element within Jewry today, in essence, killed Nimrod in 1948 and took the authority that the Babylonian beast system had enjoyed previously. Esau’s descendants have now ruled nearly 70 years, and they have not repented of their carnality and violent exercise of power. Even so, let us all be careful not to hate anyone that we suspect is an Edomite, as the law commands (Deuteronomy 23:7), for he is our wayward brother.

The Detour Around Edom

This has also delayed the establishment of the Kingdom, although to be sure, every delay is pre-planned by God. God often delays events until the appointed time, yet they seem like unnecessary delays from our perspective.

When the time came for Moses to lead Israel to the Promised Land, they requested passage through Edom. The Edomites, however, refused to allow Israel to pass through their land, which would have been a short trip along the east shore of the Dead Sea to the Jordan River crossing (Deuteronomy 2:8).

This detour around Edom appeared to delay Israel’s entry into the Promised Land, but actually, it slowed them down so that they would not enter the land until the time of Passover, forty years after the first Passover when they had left Egypt. I wrote about this detour in Book 1 of my commentary on Deuteronomy. It is in chapter 6 of that book, and I include a map showing Israel’s route around Edom.

The point is that this detour prophesied of the 70-year delay from 1947-2017. My guess is that it took them 70 days to travel around Edom. However, I cannot prove that, for Scripture does not tell us how long the journey took.

The Law against Drinking Blood

As I wrote earlier, God supported Esau’s right to return to the old land and claim the Birthright, because Jacob had taken it from him by fraud and deceit, trying to fulfill prophecy in an unlawful manner. So for 70 years, the church (as with Isaac) has been blinded by God, so that they would believe that Esau was Jacob-Israel. Because Jacob stole Esau’s identity, God mandated that Esau would steal Jacob’s identity—and with it, the Birthright name, Israel.

It was an ingenious judgment of God, but it is now coming to an end after 70 years. Justice has been granted to Esau, but Esau has ruled with violence and force, refusing to fulfill the calling of Abraham. They have not even tried to be a blessing to all families of the earth, but have mistreated the Palestinians and all of their neighbors from the beginning. They have maintained an Old Covenant mindset while claiming the New Covenant promise to Abraham. Instead of conquering by the Sword of the Spirit, they have conquered by the physical sword.

They have maintained a bloodthirsty policy, as prophesied about Edom in Ezekiel 35:6, although the law forbids eating blood (Leviticus 17:12).

The Deir Yassin Village Massacre: April 9, 1948

Perhaps the main reason why we are being called to the divine court on April 9 of this year is that it is the 69^th anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. I wrote about this event in my book, The Struggle for the Birthright, chapter 11. “The Rise of Jewish Terrorism.”

Many today have forgotten that the terrorists a century ago were Jewish, not Arab or Palestinian. The most prominent among these terrorists were Menachem Begin and his Irgun terrorists, along with Yitzhak Shamir’s Lehi (also called the “Stern Gang”). Both wrote their own books, so we do not need to quote their enemies to learn of their terrorist activities. We only need to read what they themselves wrote.

Here is some of what I wrote in The Struggle for the Birthright:

On April 9, 1948 for no good strategic reason Mr. Begin’s Irgun Gang teamed up with Shamir’s Stern Gang and massacred over 250 men, women, and children in Deir Yassin, a peaceful village outside of Jerusalem. Most of the men were absent, because they were working in Jerusalem. The people were quickly subdued, those who resisted were killed on the spot, and the rest were lined up against a wall in the town square and shot. Many of the women were raped before most of them, too, were killed.

Later apologists tell us that it was their own fault for not leaving when they were warned. Surely, such apologists must be a bit insane to think that a few minutes’ warning relieves terrorists and murderers of all moral responsibility for the massacres! Mr. Begin, a future Prime Minister of Israel, writes on page 163, 164 of his book, The Revolt, Story of the Irgun:

“One of our tenders carrying a loud speaker was stationed at the entrance to the village and it exhorted in Arabic all women, children and aged to leave their houses and to take shelter on the slope of the hill. By giving this humane warning our fighters threw away the elements of complete surprise, and thus increased their own risk in the ensuing battle. A substantial number of the inhabitants obeyed the warning and they were unhurt. A few did not leave their stone houses—perhaps because of the confusion. The fire of the enemy was murderous—to which the number of our casualties [four Irgun fighters were killed—ed.] bears eloquent testimony. Our men were compelled to fight for every house; to overcome the enemy they used large numbers of hand grenades. And the civilians who had disregarded our warnings, suffered inevitable casualties.”

This “warning” given to the civilians is contradicted by Alfred Lilienthal, who wrote on page 154 of The Zionist Connection II,

“No warning had been given to the villagers, as was later claimed (Begin has stated that all victims of Irgun attacks had been warned beforehand), because the armored truck with its loudspeaker had tumbled into a ditch and been tossed on its side far short of the first houses of the village. Advised by a night watchman of the approaching Jewish raiders, some inhabitants, with only a robe thrown around them, managed to flee to the west.”

“Jon Kimche, the Zionist writer, calling the incident ‘the darkest stain on the Jewish record throughout the fighting,’ stated, ‘The terrorist justified the massacre of Deir Yassin because it led to the panic flight of the remaining Arabs in the Jewish state area.’ Jewish writer Don Peretz described the result of Deir Yassin as a ‘mass fear psychosis which grasped the whole Arab community.’ Arthur Koestler wrote, this ‘bloodbath . . . was the psychologically decisive factor in the spectacular exodus of Arab refugees’.” (p. 156)

Menachem Begin also claimed that the town was of strategic military value. He bases this on a letter from Mr. Shaltiel, the Haganah Regional Commander, who had written to Mr. Begin:

“I learn that you plan an attack on Dir Yassin. I wish to point out that the capture of Dir Yassin and holding it is one stage in our general plan. I have no objection to your carrying out the operation provided you are able to hold the village. If you are unable to do so I warn you against blowing up the village which will result in its inhabitants abandoning it and its ruins and deserted houses being occupied by foreign forces. This situation will increase our difficulties in the general struggle. A second conquest of the place will involve us in heavy sacrifices. Furthermore, if foreign forces enter the place this will upset the plan for establishing an airfield.”

So the strategic value of Dir Yassin (or Deir Yassin) was that the Haganah was planning to turn it into an airfield! Certainly that would justify the destruction of the village. And if the people object and fight back, this would certainly justify their massacre. After all, who are they to object to a Jewish airfield? Don’t Jews have rights?

The Haganah, as usual, had denied all knowledge of the Irgun’s plans to destroy Deir Yassin. But Begin makes it clear that they knew about it and even approved of its operation. Begin says he did the “humane” thing by telling the people to flee from their homes before his attack. It was the Arab villagers’ own fault, he thinks, because they did not all flee and leave everything to the Jewish settlers who were soon to occupy the village. When they fought back, then the Irgun invoked its right to “self-defense.”

Do Arabs lack the right to fire upon invading Irgun and Lehi attackers? It was not Deir Yassin that attacked a village of the Irgun.

The primary goal of this massacre was to terrorize the Arabs into fleeing from their land, for only by their leaving could Jews confiscate it for themselves. Once the Arabs had fled—even if they went to a nearby town to stay with relatives for a time—they would not be allowed to return.

This Zionist definition of self defense is still used today as they confiscate more land and destroy more Arab villages. They come in and tell everyone to leave town, then blow up the town and move Israeli settlers to the land, giving the new settlement an Israeli name. Deir Yassin was no exception. I beg to differ with them on their basic definitions of morality and justice.

This murder was so diabolical that even the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, to his credit, excommunicated those who participated in the massacre.

Jacques de Reynier was the Chief Representative of the International Red Cross at the time of the massacre. His report of his inspection of Deir Yassin the day after the massacre may be viewed online at http://www.palestinehistory.com/mass01.htm: It makes grim reading:

“Suddenly the officer tells me . . . the story of this village populated by 400 Arabs, disarmed since always living on good terms with the Jews who surround them. According to him, the Irgun arrived 24 hours previously and ordered by loudspeaker the whole population to evacuate all the buildings and surrender. There is a 15 minute delay in the execution of the command. Some of the unhappy people came forward and would have been taken prisoners and then turned loose shortly afterwards toward the Arab lines. The rest did not obey the order and suffered the fate they deserved. . . .

“Former Haganah officer, Col. Meir Pa’el, upon his retirement from the Israeli army in 1972, made the following public statement about Deir Yassin that was published by Yediot Ahronot (April 4, 1972): ‘In the exchange that followed, four [Irgun] men were killed and a dozen were wounded. . . by noon time the battle was over and the shooting had ceased. Although there was calm, the village had not yet surrendered. The Irgun and LEHI men came out of hiding and began to “clean” the houses. They shot whoever they saw, women and children included, the commanders did not try to stop the massacre . . . I pleaded with the commander to order his men to cease fire, but to no avail. In the meantime, 25 Arabs had been loaded on a truck and driven through Mahne Yehuda and Zichron Yousef (like prisoners in a Roman “March of Triumph”). At the end of the drive, they were taken to the quarry between Deir Yassin and Giv’at Shaul, and murdered in cold blood. . . The commanders also declined when asked to take their men and bury the 254 Arab bodies. This unpleasant task was performed by two Gadna units brought to the village from Jerusalem.

“Zvi Ankori, who commanded the Haganah unit that occupied Deir Yassin after the massacre, gave this statement in 1982 about the massacre, published by Davar on April 9, 1982: ‘I went into 6 to 7 houses. I saw cut off genitals and women’s crushed stomachs. According to the shooting signs on the bodies, it was direct murder.”

Even today, there are Zionists who deplore this murder. Ami Isseroff, of the Peace Middle East Dialog Group, implores his fellow Zionists,

“It is long past time for Israeli Zionists, like myself, to apologize. The Israeli government has never apologized for the massacre of Deir Yassin . . . The perpetrators of the massacre at Deir Yassin were never punished.”

As you can see, the roots of the present-day conflict go back to the days of Jewish terrorism. It worked so well for them, the Arabs decided to try the same tactics. The Jewish state was founded on terrorism by terrorists. This is the true basis of their claim to “the right to exist.” This is part of God’s reason for prophesying its destruction.

The Violent Take the Kingdom by Force

We have shown from the prophet Jeremiah that there were (and still are) two types of “figs” from the fig tree of Judah. There are good figs and evil figs. The good figs are those that peaceably submit to the judgment of God, and there are those who would rather fight and die (Jeremiah 24-30). This was true in Jeremiah’s day, and it was again true in Jesus’ day. Jesus said of these people in Matthew 11:12,

¹² And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.

Jesus denounced the Jewish belief that the Kingdom of God must be taken by violence and force. Forty years later, God brought judgment and captivity upon Judah, this time at the hand of Rome. It was all for the same reasons that we find in the writings of Jeremiah six centuries earlier. One would think that the people would have learned, since they claimed to believe the writings of Moses and the prophets.

Being bloodthirsty is a characteristic of Esau-Edom, not of Jacob-Israel. If the current state of Israel had truly been the beginning of the Kingdom of God, they would not have needed to establish it by terrorism. Their terrorism was soon learned by Yassir Arafat and others, and this has now borne the bitter fruit of modern terrorism. The Islamic terrorists learned their lessons from men like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.

It is now time to take this situation to the divine court for justice to be done. While even many Christians try to justify the acts of Jewish terrorism in 1947 and earlier, we will leave it in the hands of God to decide. For our part, based upon Jesus’ view of the law and through our New Covenant perspective, we will advocate for the peaceful victims of Deir Yassin, as this massacre set the tone for the establishment of the Israel state a year later.