In Gerald Flurry's booklet, Jerusalem in Prophecy he harshly critisizes Israel for giving the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt.
Why are these three nations [the U.S., U.K., and Judah] in such serious trouble today? Giving the Sinai back to Egypt is at the heart of their problems! If God were to give me the Sinai, I would never give it back unless God commanded it—which, I'm quite sure, He never would. The whole world could not influence or force me to do so. (Gerald Flurry, Jerusalem in Prophecy, p. 11, 2010 version, here)
Yes, I facetiously call this article a "memo from God to Flurry". No, I don't claim to be God but I really will try to use some logic here to show that Gerald Flurry is wrong for scolding the Jews for giving the Sinai back to Egypt. I think God would approve if we all used more logic.
My arguments can be summarized as follows:
Flurry's entire position is based on the dubious assumption that God gave the Sinai to the U.S.A., U.K., and the Jews. And on that dubious basis, he would defy international law ("the whole world could not influence me"), apparently even to the point of armed resistance ("or force me to do so").
The Jews did give back Sinai, but, only under U.S. pressure. And they still hold onto other lands they took in the 1967 war and settle Jews there, indicating that they intend to keep those lands permanently. Flurry thinks just like a hard-line Jew—don't give anything back. But is that thinking really biblical?
1. God gave Palestine to Joseph, not to the Jews
I used the following two quotes from Herbert Armstrong in another article, but they are worth repeating here.
The Jews think they are birthright Israel, and believe this land belongs by God's birthright to them. And "silly dove" Ephraim (Hos 7:11), not realizing that she is really the birthright tribe of the House of Israel—the nation that God decreed should obtain Palestine December 9, 1917—blindly tried to build a national home for the Jews in this land, and at the same time blundered into a contradictory pledge to establish it as a home for the Arabs! (The Plain Truth, Nov-Dec 1955, page 5, here).
Later in the article, he reiterates the same point:
What a muddle! The Arabs believe Palestine should be theirs because they are descended from Ishmael. The Turks want it because they come from Esau. The Jews want it because they come from Jacob, but through Judah. Yet it belongs to none of them by divine right! It belongs to Great Britain and America, into whose hands God placed it, but who have been so valiantly trying to maintain it for Jew and Arab. (The Plain Truth, Nov-Dec 1955, page 7, here).
Since Flurry claims to follow Armstrong and believes in British-Israelism (BI), why can't he see that the Jews don't belong in Palestine or the Sinai?
Flurry condemns the US and Britain for pressuring the Jews to give the land back to Egypt. But if the land belongs the Joseph, then the US and Britain could give it to whoever they want, and they wanted Egypt to have it, not the Jews.
The United States and Britain were both instrumental in pressuring Judah to give the Sinai back to Egypt ... Why are these three nations in such serious trouble today? Giving the Sinai back to Egypt is at the heart of their problems! (Flurry, p. 11, here).
If we really believe in BI, then maybe the US and Britain should have taken over the land and kept it for themselves. Letting the Jews have it is little better than letting the Arabs have it. Flurry would be more consistent with BI if he disagreed with the USA and UK for letting anyone else have it, whether Arab or Jew.
2. The Sinai is not part of Palestine.
When the Jews gave the Sinai back to Egypt, that probably included Mount Sinai, where God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses. This fiery mountain spectacle gave birth to the nation of Israel! The Sinai area was where the children of Israel wandered for 40 years as they rebelled against God's law. (Flurry, p. 11, here).
So Flurry says the Sinai was where they wandered for 40 years. We all know that was before they entered the Promised Land. So then, the Sinai is not any part of the Promised Land. Instead of entering the Promised Land "on schedule" they were forced to wander for 40 years in the Sinai.
Looking at this another way, the Israelites were in the Sinai for 40 years, but only because "they rebelled against God's law." So, if they want to please God today, why would they stay in the Sinai?
Here is a map of the route the Israelites took after they left Egypt, when they traveled through the Sinai. Note that the Sinai is south of the Holy Land, not part of it.
3. Neither the Jews or Other Isrealites Possessed the Sinai in Bible times.
Flurry does not seem to acknowledge that the Sinai was never a part of the traditional Promised Land. According to the Bible, God promised to Abraham that his descendents would some day expand beyond the Holy Land, all the way from the Nile river in Egypt to the Euphraties river in Iraq, but that time has not come.
When did the Kingdoms of Israel or Judah ever include the Sinai?
Here is a map of the Promised Land at the time of Joshua.
Note that most or all of the Sinai isn't even on the map; it's located to the south of the map. The Israelites were not living in the Sinai at the time of Joshua.
Now here is a map of the Promised Land at the time of the apostles.
Once again, the Sinai isn't even on the map.
Hey, Gerald, blow the dust off your Bible and look at the maps at the back!
If the Jews want to move into Sinai they need to wait for a prophet of God to give them the go-ahead and promise them the victory. They can't just move in any time they feel like it. Gerald Flurry claims to be a prophet and seems to be giving them the green light, but he can't promise them the victory. If he can't promise them the victory, he should keep quiet.
4. God did not give the Sinai to the Jews in the 1967 war.
According to Flurry,
Prophecy states that those three nations, Israel, the U.S. and Britain, will be conquered together just before Christ returns (Hosea 5:5). The Jewish nation had to be established by God for that prophecy to be fulfilled. A miracle by God had to be performed. (Flurry, p. 11, here).
So Flurry thinks that God performed a miracle to give Palestine to the Jews. Why would God do that if he promised the land to Joseph? That makes no sense. Sure, God, if he knows all things, could have foreseen that the Jews would take the land, or that they would be given it by Joseph and/or the UN, but, that does not mean that God himself would give it to the Jews. Why would he do that when, as Armstrong said, the Jews have no right to it?
Does God take something away from one people and give it to another people who have no right to it? If he was going to take it from the Arabs and give it to someone, why not give it to the Birthright tribes (U.S.A., Britain, Canada, Australia, etc)?
Flurry thinks that the circumstances surrounding how the Jews got Palestine and the Sinai prove that it was a miracle from God. He presents no proof of that whatsoever. He is just reading that into events because it's what he wants to believe.
When the Jews win, Flurry assumes it's a miracle from God. Is there any real evidence such victories are miracles? Sometimes his "logic" is almost funny.
In late 1973 ... the Jews won the war in three weeks, with much aid from the Americans. Egypt was beaten, but not humiliated. Once again biblical Judah had been miraculously saved. (Flurry, p. 10, emphasis mine, here).
So the Jews were "miraculously" saved by the Americans. Who needs a miracle to explain victory when you have the most powerful military and economic machine in the world on your side?
If God really did perform miracles so the Jews could have the land today, then he basically took the land away from Joseph and the Arabs and gave it to Judah. That does not make sense if he intended for Joseph to have it, which is what he intended if Joseph had the Birthright.
Flurry more or less assumes that victory in recent wars proves that God gave the land to the Jews in modern times. But just because someone wins a war does not mean that God gave them the victory or that he gave them the land of their enemies. The U.S.A., Russians, and others won a war over Germany and Italy in 1945. Does that mean that God gave Germany and Italy to the US and the USSR? Does God want Americans to move into Germany and Italy the same way Jews are settling in the territories they took from the Arabs? Did God give Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe to the Russians? Should the Russians have moved into Poland? Did God give Japan to the U.S.A. or did he give it to the Japanese? Who does God want living there? Americans?
In other words, just because the Jews have some territories, does not mean that God gave those territories to them, and it does not mean they can keep them indefinitely, nor does it mean they have the right to move in and settle there.
Even if "The Jewish nation had to be established by God for that prophecy [Hosea 5:5] to be fulfilled" that does not mean that a Jewish state had to be established in the Middle East, or in the Sinai. Is Joseph in the Middle East today? No. So why do the Jews have to be there to be established as a nation?
But Hosea 5:5 says nothing about a Jewish nation in the Middle East or anywhere else. Nothing at all. Flurry is just reading that into the scripture. Let's read it:
Hosea 5:5: "And the pride of Israel doth testify to his face: therefore shall Israel and Ephraim fall in their iniquity; Judah also shall fall with them."
First of all, Flurry has not proven that this prophecy is for our time.
Further, the word "fall" here is "stumble" in some other translations. It does not necessarily refer to a militiary conquest at all. A nation could "fall" in various ways. It could be a moral fall, a fall in prestige or international influence, or a financial fall.
Even if the fall is military, this verse would make just as much or more sense if the Jews were dispersed in the lands of Joseph. In that scenario, if Joseph fell, the Jews could have fallen without becoming a nation. Such a fall could still happen if the Arabs ever get Palestine back and Joseph then falls in a military defeat. Judah would certainly then "fall with" the other tribes if the Jews live among them. It does not say they will fall when geographically separated into different territories or into individual soverign nations. Flurry is just reading that into it.
Of course, Flurry thinks the end will come in a few years, so he reads into this verse (which he assumes is an end-time verse) that the "fall" will be military and will come soon, while the Jews are still a separate nation. But none of that is in this verse. He's reading all that into it.
Hosea 5:5 actually says nothing about God making the Jews into a nation in recent history, or giving them the Sinai, or any other land.
5. At Mount Sinai, God gave Israel the Ten Commandments, not the Land of Sinai.
Flurry again:
When the Jews gave the Sinai back to Egypt, that probably included Mount Sinai, where God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses. This fiery mountain spectacle gave birth to the nation of Israel! The Sinai area was where the children of Israel wandered for 40 years as they rebelled against God's law. (Flurry, p. 11, here).
This brief excerpt does not fully paint the picture, as Flurry sees it, but his message is that one reason the Jews should keep the Sinai is because of their history with God in the region, in particular, because that is where God gave the ten commandments. That is just bad logic. Giving the ten commandments at Sinai has nothing to do with whether the Jews should have the Sinai today.
Should the Jews really have the Sinai today because they were there with Moses? The French and the Dutch are also of the twelve tribes of Israel (according to BI) so they were also at Sinai. Does Flurry think they should they move into the Sinai also?
Just because God was with them at Sinai or performed miracles there does not mean that God wants them to live there today. God was also with them in Egypt and performed miracles for them in Egypt. Does that mean they should go back to Egypt? Of course not.
And what do the ten commandments really have to do with it? The ten commandments are important but so are other things, such as the Passover. God gave the ten commandments at Sinai but he gave the Passover in Egypt. So if the Jews should have the Sinai because that's where they got the ten commandments, does that mean they should have Egypt because that's where they got the Passover?
Gerald Flurry needs to be a lot more careful and logical.
Conclusion
Once again, Gerald Flurry is way wrong. That happens a lot. I wonder how many other COGs also think that the Jews should have kept the Sinai.