Peace treaty could trigger destruction

After writing about the lack of a seven year, end-time period in scripture, and calling a presumed peace treaty in Daniel 9 “nebulous”, I find myself writing about a possible peace treaty. Amusing: so it goes. However, this writing is in agreement with that position. Ironically, all of the thoughts were already coming together while writing the other piece. To be clear, the previous writing was to clarify weak scriptural support for a divided period in the end-time of two, three and a half year time frames. If this is a shock to you please read “Seven year periods in scripture” to clarify and examine scriptural examples.

I have noticed lately that while we more often focus on the people of Israel (silly humans), the Lord often references the land. He goes so far as to say “my people of the land.” It is about the real estate…Location, location, etc. While we are aware of the concept of the Holy Land, we don’t often acknowledge that God can be jealous for the land as well as the people. Consider this as you look at scripture. Many times God’s concern is about the place.

A Bible search for “land” returned 1717 hits while a search for “people” shows 2139.

In Ezek 5:5 He says:

5 "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her.

So, Jerusalem is the center of the nations in God’s eyes.

This land existed long before the people of Israel. Populated by the “ites”, Canaanites, Amalekites, etc., the Hebrew nation was appointed to possess this land. The land was not “given.” God required that they fight for the land in faith of God’s promise; the Promised Land. The “ites” were to be defeated and killed. The tribes of Israel would be the caretakers of this land. For God, this would be a cleansing of the land. This Promised Land was never fully occupied due to prosperity weakened will and intermarriage. If they had gone forward as desired by God they would likely have been protected under God’s hand from dispersal. Failure caused God to allow strife to come upon them.

God’s covenant with the tribes of Israel is essentially in two parts: a promise of land and a promise of leadership of the people. Leadership comes as Messiah the priest and king. Through the Pharisees the nation rejected the priestly leadership of Jesus Christ. The Pharisees were seeking a Holy king, but not a Holy priesthood to cleanse the land. Christ would be king only of a Holy nation, so rejection of the teaching priest prevented his return as king. He will establish His kingdom only when the land and people submit to and acknowledge Him. When God restored Israel as a nation in 1948 they became caretakers of the Promised Land once again. The land has flourished during this time.

Coming forward in time, we can anticipate the nature of a future “peace treaty”. For the last twenty or thirty years the one persistent theme has been “land for peace”. In our human condition we consider the practical ramifications of Israel giving away land. This could be too small a land to be physically defensible. To the Arabs this amount of land means nothing. So why are THEY so insistent?

Balaam and Balak.

In Numbers 22, Balak is the Moabite king. The people Israel have come out of Egypt and are overrunning the land of the Moabites. Balak recruits Balaam, a prophet, to curse the tribes of Israel. After many failures, Balaam reports that He cannot place a curse on these people. He recommends that Balak reconcile with the tribes and cause them to intermarry. This would break their covenant of protection with God and God would lift his hand of protection. This, they successfully did.

Could Israel be enticed to break their covenant again?

1 Thes 5

2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

Often, world leaders have discussed Middle East peace and used the term “Peace and Security.” I have wondered if they have deliberately avoided the use of the word “safety” to avoid invoking scripture. I looked up the word translated “safety”, G803 asphaleia.

803. asphaleia, as-fal'-i-ah; from G804; security (lit. or fig.):--certainty, safety.

804. asphales, as-fal-ace'; from G1 (as a neg. particle) and sphallo (to "fail"); secure (lit. or fig.):--certain (-ty), safe, sure.

So the best definition of this word is, in fact, “security”.

Currently, Israel only widely acknowledges one aspect of God’s covenant with them: the covenant of the land. If they make a covenant with people for protection in exchange for giving up God’s land, that is an abomination to God. This is the goal of the “world”. If a peace agreement is signed by Israel which seeks the protection of humans while giving away rights to the Promised Land they will have rejected the last aspect of God’s covenant with them. God would indeed lift His hand and open the door to “sudden destruction.”