
In Mark 10:16 we are told that Jesus took children up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record this event. What was Jesus doing and why was it important enough for the synoptic writers to record this event?
God instructed Aaron, His first High Priest how to bless.
(By the way, if you are a believer in Christ, then you have been called as a
priest as well.) God told Moses to speak to Aaron and his sons saying: “Thus
you shall bless the sons of
God does not institute rites for the fun of it. There is no
wasted motion in what God does, nor is there a lack of purpose. Every thing
that God does, he does so to produce life at a higher level when it is
observed. This blessing in Numbers 6 was the vehicle God chose so that He could
bless His people. He is present in the blessing, when it is invoked, to impart
the blessing. “And they shall put my name upon the children of
In conclusion, every blessing in the Bible is a verbal one.
The blessing is not just a desire hidden in the heart. It must be spoken. Words
have power when they are released. God said it this way: “Thus you shall bless
the sons of
Hopefully you have read Part I and II. If not just scroll down to find them.
I would first of all like to discuss the issue of refugees in the Mid-East. It seems that everyone who wishes to re-write the history of the area neglects to write about the Jewish refugee problem that was created when Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria with the help of Iran attacked Israel beginning in 1948. At that time the Arabs who abandoned their homes numbered around 587,000. The UN took charge of them and began to house, feed, care for, and educate them. They did not resettle Arab lands but rather chose to become wards of the UN. Ah, but the second group encompasses the Jews who, between 1947 and 1963 were uprooted from African and Middle Eastern countries where their ancestors had lived for generations and where they were full-fledged citizens until they suddenly became anathema. They numbered about 650,000 at that time. They or their offspring are now productive citizens of Israel. Generally they were poor; but collectively they left behind property valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. All arrived in Israel penniless but they are not a “problem” for the UN or anyone else. Instead, they are home, secure under their own flag, protected by their own laws, wandering Jews no longer.
The world has not overly concerned itself with the Jews who were constrained by forces beyond their control—discriminatory laws, persecutions, physical violence, and purposeful exclusion from Arab societies—to flee “to a place of safety,” thus meeting Webster’s definition of “refugees.” Attention has been concentrated instead on the plight of the Arabs who left Palestine voluntarily, persuaded by their own military commanders and politicians that the war against the Jews would be short and their victorious return would be sweet with booty. Hence, they might be categorized more properly as “fugitives” rather than “refugees.” The Arab states rejected every proposal by Israel (and by various international bodies) for absorption and rehabilitation of the former residents of Palestine. Their refugees do not represent for the Arab states a human problem to be resolved at the earliest possible moment but a propaganda weapon to be preserved at all costs, regardless of the consequences to the people involved.
We can definitely see the results of that today. The only “solution” for the refugees according to the Arab states, is the complete annihilation of Israel and its Jewish population. Meanwhile the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) has spent nearly a billion dollars, most of it contributed by the U.S., in providing housing, food, medical care, and education for these so-called refugees. What started out as relief for approximately one-half million people is now “relief” for 4.7 million Arabs in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and occupied Palestinian territory (whatever that is). The Arab states have refused to absorb their own people into their societies or to contribute to their welfare. Their only answer is war with Israel; as if that would solve their problems. For decades, Israel has been offering compensation for the landed property left behind by Arab “refugees” and taken over by Israel. The Arab governments will have no part of these offers.
All problems, including the so-called refugee problem, arising from Israeli-Arab tensions remain problems only as long as the Arabs continue to insist that they want to kill every Jew and wipe out Israel as a nation. The moment the Arab states and the “Palestinians” recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, problems disappear. It is not difficult to imagine railway and highway communications running from Haifa to Beirut, Damascus, and Istanbul; from Amman to Cairo; from the Nile Valley to the Fertile Crescent. Israel could be a bridge between these areas. With peace, the Middle East, a geographic crossroads of three continents, could be a great communications center. In fact, there are no limits to what peace could mean and bring to the region.
No progress can be made, however, if one side is not ready to negotiate. So far, the Arabs have uncompromisingly declined to recognize the right of Israel to exist let alone have peace with her. Nasserism with its overriding theme of pan-Arabism, has remained the principal obstacle to peace between the Arab states and Israel. The kind of Arab oneness which Nasser (previous dictator of Egypt) sought has little support in Arab history. Indeed, Arab unity has been the exception rather than the rule. Egypt (prior to 1/25/2011) had a unifying element with the Arab world—a common religion and language—but these are not sufficiently strong to persuade Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Iraq, and Yemen to accept centralized domination by Cairo. Now with the revolution in Egypt the question remains if there will be a unifying element throughout the Arab world strong enough, i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps. If they unify only to destroy Israel, will that be sufficient or will they continue their inter-Arab rivalry with the other Arab oil nations or between Egypt and Syria (a historic rivalry)? Also, contrary to “Nasserism,” the Middle-East is not exclusively Arab. There is Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. Is religion enough to unite them? Further, what about the influence of other countries in the area such as Russia? Will that unite or create even more conflict? These are question I suppose only the future will answer.
But back to the claims of “Palestinians” for the moment. The “Palestinians” never sought statehood when they were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Historically they wanted to be part of Syria. The claim of Palestinian statehood and independence began as a tactic to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel. Moreover, its claim to statehood is no stronger, and in some cases far weaker, than the claims of the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques, the Chechens, the Turkish Armenians, and other such groups. The terrorism emanating from the Palestinians has brought them world-wide attention. Nevertheless, neither Israel nor the U.S. has been willing to reward terrorism in the way that the United Nations, the European Community, the Vatican, and others have. With Barak Hussein Obama as President of the U.S., the question is whether that policy will substantially change. It looks like it has.
Palestinians have been denied statehood by their own leaders, who have rejected--time after time--offers that would have led to statehood. Israel has stood ready, and stands ready today, to offer that statehood in exchange for recognition as a sovereign state and in exchange for the cessation of terrorism and acts of war. Palestinian groups on the other hand are committed only to continuing their crimes against humanity until Israel is destroyed. Would any other nation demand less than Israel? I think not.
Well, what about the settlement issue (settlements in Judea and Samaria often called the West bank), you might ask. Palestinians refused to make peace when an end to the settlements was proposed by Ehud Barak. The real barrier to peace, and no other, is the Palestinian refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state in any part of the world let alone in Israel. From a purely legal and moral point of view, there is no good reason why ancient Jewish cities like Hebron should be without Jews—Judenrein. The Jews and their descendants who were forced out of Hebron by anti-Semitic massacres should have the same right of return or compensation as the Arab refugees are claiming. But the Jews have never been given equal opportunity in the area.
What then is the real issue here that prevents peace? Is criticism of Israel tantamount to anti-Semitism? Of course, not. Israel is not alone in the commission of mistakes. Indeed, the harshest critics of the Israeli government have been her citizens. But is the real underlying hindrance to peace anti-Semitism? My answer: a resounding YES. Anti-Semitism takes many forms from genocidal to political, from ideological to theological, from cultural to economic, and from holocaust denial and racist terrorism against Jews to denial of Israel’s right to equality in international law. Certainly, denying the Holocaust, or blaming it on the Jews, which has been the staple of Palestinian rhetoric, constitutes anti-Semitism or bigotry. Here is an excerpt telecast on Palestinian Authority Television by Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya: “Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them—those who stand by them. . .” Just as an aside, I wonder if under Barack Hussein Obama America will continue to “stand by them.”
In conclusion it would be wise to remember the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoken less than two weeks before his assassination. He said: “. . . peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. . . I solemnly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews—because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all.”
Happy is the man who has not followed the counsel of the wicked, or taken the path of sinners, or joined the company of the insolent; rather, the teaching of the Lord is his delight, and he studies that teaching day and night.
He is like a tree planted beside streams of water, which yields its fruit in season, whose foliage never fades and whatever he does prospers.
Psalm 1:1-3

Tu B’Shevat simply means the 15th of the Hebrew month Shevat (Jan.20, 2011). It is the New Year for Trees. Although it is a non-Biblical holiday, it does date back to Talmudic times. The Talmud regards Tu B’Shevat as the New Year for agricultural laws that relate to tithing.
Why is this date the New Year for trees? In Israel most of the annual rain has fallen by this date. The trees have used up that rain and have begun to form their fruit. Thus, this holiday is seen as a harbinger of spring and gives Diaspora Jews a connection with the land of Israel as well. So besides planting trees on Tu B’Shevat (both at home and in Israel), the Jews eat fruit associated with the land of Israel. Deuteronomy 8:8 describes the land of Israel as a land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey (this is date honey rather than bee honey). Further, besides eating these four fruits, the almond is also given a place of prominence during the holiday since it is believed to be the first tree to blossom of all the trees of Israel. Also, carob or St. John’s bread is popular because it could survive the trip from Israel to Jewish communities in Europe and N. Africa. According to another Jewish tradition, God decides how bountiful the fruits of the trees will be for the coming year on Tu B’Shevat.
What has this to do with Christianity you might ask. Deuteronomy 20:19, as well as many other Scriptures, describe trees as a symbol for humans. “For a human is like the tree of the field.” And again in Psalm 1:3 “He (a man) is like a tree. . .” In John 15, Jesus compares us to branches that bear fruit. And He is the one who prunes the branches (us) in order that we bear more fruit. Did you know that trees can be grafted? The apostle Paul explained in Romans 11 that the Gentiles (a wild olive branch) were grafted into the Jewish root. Furthermore, Revelation 22, explains the tree (the Tree of Life—Jesus) as eternal life bearing fruit and healing. What a wonderful day and subject to celebrate!
Furthermore, the Sabbath before Tu B’Shevat this year, is a special Sabbath called Shabbat Shirah—the Sabbath of song or praise. In synagogues around the world the Song of Moses (Ex 15) is chanted to a special trop or cantillation. The crossing of the Sea is celebrated as the final step of liberation. Again, what a wonderful day and week to celebrate!
Tu B’Shevat has continued to be a time to reflect upon our connection to the land of Israel. Jewish people traditionally give money to the Jewish National Fund to plant a tree in Israel (www.jnf.org). The current price is $18.00 which is the numerical equivalent for the word “life” in Hebrew.
Finally, consider the words of Cedric Wright:
Consider the life of trees.
Aside from the axe, what trees acquire from man
is inconsiderable.
What man may acquire from trees is immeasurable.
From their mute forms there flows a poise,
in silence, a lovely sound and motion
in response to wind.
What peace comes to those aware of the voice
and bearing of trees!
(Words of the Earth, 1960)
A series of general armistice agreements with Israel were entered into after her war of independence. These agreements were concluded under the UN auspices and were signed by Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. The first agreement guaranteed the right of each party to security and freedom from fear of attack by the armed forces of the other. This agreement claimed that threats to peace were to be eliminated. Besides these armistice agreements, the UN appointed a commission represented by the United States, France, and Turkey which first attempted to bring the Arab states and Israel together to find a common ground for a final peace settlement. The Arab states refused to sit with Israel’s representatives. Meetings were thus held separately and eventually separate protocols were signed by the affected parties. Even though these agreements and protocols were signed back in 1949, eighteen years later by 1967, no peace treaty had yet been drawn up. Israel repeatedly drew attention to the fact that these agreements were not permanent and volunteered time and again to enter into negotiations for a permanent peace.
These are some of the unilateral peace offers to the Arab states that Israel made. In 1951 Israel proposed a nonaggression pact. Israel offered to negotiate compensation to Arabs who abandoned their land and dwelling places in Israel. In 1953, Israel released accounts held by Arab refugees in Israeli banks. In 1954, Israel offered Jordan free port facilities at Haifa as part of a peace settlement. Also in 1954 in an Arabic broadcast over Israel’s official radio station, Israel expressed willingness to serve as a land bridge between her neighboring Arab states, offering passage across her territory.
Israel even went so far as to offer the Arabs complete disarmament in the Middle East with mutual inspection or in the alternative Israel would offer political, economic, and cultural relations along with a non-aggression pact. Israel has sought only to have the chance to live in peace with her Arab neighbors. This effort continues to this day; but like the others, is ignored or scorned. Instead of peace a cacophony of hate pours from the Arab press and the Arab peoples. Their two main themes are genocide and “politicide. ”No other people in the world has been obliged to contend, day in and day out, with so real a threat to its existence as the Israelis are forced (by international pressure) to do.
In 1967 Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran by military force, knowing this was an act of war against Israel. Egyptian president G. A. Nasser boasted, “We knew the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel…the objective will be Israel’s destruction.” Nasser stated publically that the ensuing war would not be over the Straits of Tiran but over Israel’s “existence.” This was to be a war of extermination, a situation Israel and the Jewish people face continually. This was not rhetoric. Arab armies were massing along Israel’s border poised to strike. Egyptian battle plans included the massacre of the Tel Aviv civilian population. The Egyptian army was equipped with poison gas according to Israeli intelligence. Further, Egypt flew surveillance missions over Israel. The question was who would attack the other’s air fields first. Israel answered the question. On June 5, 1967 the Israeli air force attacked Egyptian, Syrian, and Iraqi military airfields. Israel did not attack Jordan, hoping it would stay out of the war. Israel sent several messages to King Hussein in Jordan promising not to attack Jordan unless it was attacked first. Israel made it clear that it had no designs on the West Bank or even on the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem with its Western Wall, unless it was to be attacked. It was the Arab legion that initiated the hostilities between Jordan and Israel.
Hence, Jordan attacked. It began shelling Jewish civilian population. Six thousand shells were fired into Jewish residential areas, wounding 1000 civilians. 900 buildings were damaged. Jordanian planes joined those of Egypt and Syria, as well as Iraqi MIGs in bombing civilian population centers. Damascus radio proudly announced the bombing of civilian cities. It was a repeat of 1948 in which the Arab armies deliberately and unlawfully targeted Israel civilian population centers, while the Israel army attacked legitimate military targets. Only after Jordan’s air force began bombing residential neighborhoods in Israel did Israel finally attack Jordanian military airfields. The Israelis accepted a cease fire proposed by the UN but the Jordanians kept fighting. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem.
When you look at the above events, the history, and the circumstances surrounding Israel today, has anything changed in the last 43 years? With one exception, instead of Iraq supplying arms and pilots, Iran is doing it now. The entire Arab world is poised against her and it is more than rhetoric again. The threat of a nuclear attack from Iran or Syria is real. Israel and the Jewish people are faced once again with the diabolical threat of annihilation. Who will attack first this time? In all honesty, I pray it is Israel without regard to American political opinion and for the preservation and protection of the Jewish people.