JOLLYBLOGGER: Pat Robertson esplainifies himself, or does he?

A quote of a quote from the Jolly Blogger...

JOLLYBLOGGER: Pat Robertson esplainifies himself, or does he?: "“In the book of Joel, the prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has ‘enmity against those who divide My land.’ God considers this land to be His. When you read the Bible, He said this is my land. For any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he will carve it up and give it away, God said, “No, this is Mine.”"



I am trying to look up the passage Pat Robertson is talking about. I just do not see where this quote is coming from in the book of Joel. As I search, I see passages that have wording sort of like this but nothing exactly like this. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong versions.

What I do see is Joel 3:2 in the NIV:

"I will gather all the nations and take them to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. I will enter into judgment with them there because of My people, My inheritance Israel. The nations have scattered the Israelites in foreign countries and divided up My land. "

I would find this a difficult passage to apply to anyone who supported Palistinian control of Gaza or peace with Palistine. While generally I am supportive of Israel as an ally of the U.S., and I do see the nation of Israel as a fulfillment of prophecy, I would see Palistinian Christians as my brothers in Christ. Who do I back? Well, it is not a simple loyalty test, but let me examine each issue that needs to be discussed. In a sense I welcome Pat Robertson talking about this because many Christians have a single deminsioned veiw of the Middle East. That is that there is going to be final battle there called the battle of Armegeddon. In the mean time, people are living there and trying to pass on a state that is safe for their children. Yes, I mean both Palistinian and Israeli.

Comments

pgepps said…
I'm not sure I understand or agree with your position on the Israeli/Palestinian problem, but your intuition about the verse above is quite right.

God does indicate hostility to "the nations" for having divided up "the land," but this doesn't have to do with drawing property lines. It also doesn't have to do with modern Israeli leaders.

Leave the "times and seasons" out for a moment, and we still have:

1) "the nations" never means "Israel"

2) "the land" doesn't refer to political borders, but to "the people dwelling in the place of promise," i.e., the problem is that the people were separated from their dwelling, to which God would restore them

3) the "divided" here refers to what the pagan conquerors did: they "divvied up" the spoils of war, including the resettled and enslaved people

So what relevance that could have to the health of an Israeli who, for the peace of Jerusalem, pulled back from some territory while putting up a fence/wall to keep the enemy at bay--I haven't the faintest.

Robertson is a first-order kook, and I wish the national news elites would lose his card out of their Rolodexes.

Cheers,
PGE
3:29 PM
pruittcommunications said…
Well, the only thing I really said about Israeli/Palistinian problem is that rather than backing one side or the other, we need a balanced veiw. The politicial solutions should be Christian in that we take a just and loving perspective with each nation. But in regard to policy, we should have the same standard for Israeli/Palistinian politics as the rest of the 170 some nations of the world, that is a safe, sovreign nation should be respected. It seems that we as Christians would support that for every nation except these two. I think perhaps it is the issue of prophesy seems to make many Christians have one set of standards for Israel and another for all other nations.

You are right that I did not develop the issue of how to deal with modern state of Israel, but what I was wanting to really say is that I don't see Joel as stated in the Robertson Press Release. I would agree with your interpretation of the words you chose to exposit, but I'm not sure I chose the right passage. This is sort of a faux pas for Robertson's PR gang not to reference the passage they quoted.
5:07 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A lion, a rooster, a billy-goat and Tommy Franks go to a bar...

Image
Three things are stately in their tread; four are stately in their stride: the lion, which is mightiest among beasts and does not turn back before any; the strutting rooster, the he-goat, and a king whose army is with him. ---Proverbs 30:29-31 (ESV) Different creatures in nature have different glories. A rooster is a glorious thing to see. He is proud of his feathers and his position. A lion knows he is a beast to be feared. A rooster would be no challenge for a lion though. A he-goat is no challenge for a lion, though he also is proud of his position and strength. When we think of a lion we think of an animal dangerous and to be feared. But in a sense, a general (king) with his troops who are equipped for battle find no match in a lion. This is especially true if we are talking about a modern general with attack helicopters, snipers, artillery, tanks and well trained troops. We all have our own gifting and glory. The glory may be small or large. One may be a
Read more

Celtic Words In English

I once heard a lecturer say that English was made up at its heart three languages; Anglo-Saxon (A Germanic tongue), French (influence from William the Conquerer A.D. 1066), and Latin (from the church and scholars). She also mentioned that Celtic had been the language of England before the influence of the Anglo-Saxons and some “tie together words” had been brought into English. I assumed she meant words which tie sentences together, or nouns. But I was not sure which words she meant in particular. So I did a little research to find out what those relics in our language are. It seems that Celtic has few words surviving in English. I'm not counting the Celtic words which came in through other languages such as French. I'm not sure that there is a definitive list of Celtic words in English but here are a few I found in various places on the Internet and a book I have. ass (borrowed earlier by the Celts from the Latin asinus) bannock bard blarney bucket car cart clock coll
Read more

Was the New Testament Letters Only Written to Male Brothers?

  Question:   Was the Bible written to men only and not to women?   Some teach that the New Testament letters address brothers exclusively.      Executive Summary Answer:   Women and men share in the blessings of the gospel, Scripture was written for both women and men. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen. 1:27 ESV) Answer:   The Bible recognizes differences between genders but also recognizes the commonality between male and female genders.   The book of Proverbs is written to sons to gain wisdom.   “Hear, my son, your father's instruction, and forsake not your mother's teaching, for they are a graceful garland for your head and pendants for your neck.”   (Prov. 1:8-9 ESV) The book of Proverbs was written in order to teach young men wisdom.   Even so, often it is the female gender that teaches wisdom.   Early in the book, the male gender, a son, is to embrace the teaching from a member of the
Read more