PEACE is a small but significant word occurring in every book of the New Testament, except I John, and over 500 times throughout all of scripture. Since the word expresses a concept of the Judeo-Christian ethic, it is often used by the world’s political leaders in an attempt to justify their actions. That seems particularly true right now as “peace” has become one of the most over-used words of the year. Unfortunately, when political leaders use it, they usually have a different meaning in mind than the biblical one.
Same word, different meaning
When used in the Old Testament, the word often indicates the inner state of the individual that encourages the development of the faculties and powers. The New Testament use speaks of a relationship between God and man, and of a harmonious relationship between individuals of different national and ethnic origins. When used by the world’s politicians, however, the word merely indicates the ability of different peoples to coexist for the present.
The distinction is important. The scriptural definition provides for growth, while the worldly one allows for mere coexistence.
“Peace” in the Middle East
During the past several months, “peace” agreements have dominated the news from the Middle Easi Initially the term was used when the Israeli government successfully negotiated a “peace settlement” with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). And now, several months later, the Middle East peace process has again been catapulted to the forefront of the news as Jordan and Israel successfully agreed to begin normalizing relationships between their two countries.
Is this the foundation of a true and lasting peace such as indicated in the prophet Isaiah when, “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: [and] nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more?” (Isa. 2:4). Or is this merely the peace that the world heralds “when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction comes upon them?” (I Thess. 5:3).
An examination of the motives behind this agreement and the expected results quickly provides the answer.
Financial motivation
A meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Jordanian Prime Minister Abdul Salam Majali and U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher on July 20, 1994 marked the beginning of formal public negotiations between Jordan and Israel. Negotiations were brought to this point by King Hussein of Jordan after he realized that there existed no choice for Jordan other than a settlement with Israel. “Our country could collapse if we do not make a deal; there will be no one behind us unless a deal can be formulated” were the words of Hussein quoted in the Toronto Globe and Mail (July 21, 1994).
The king’s concerns did not emanate from his love for the Israeli people nor from a desire to see the land in peace. King Hussein’s motivations for a settlement are primarily financial in nature.
Promise of a quick payoff
The same article in the Globe and Mail reported, “Accepting U.S. terms for a deal will mean a quick payoff when Washington forgives a $950 million Jordanian debt. It also means new regional economic opportunities, with Israel as partner.”
The Associated Press elaborated further on the economic windfall to Jordan: “The declaration provides Jordan with immediate benefits in the form of tourism, transportation and energy. Direct telephone lines between Israel and Jordan will be established, electrical grids will be linked, and an air corridor will be negotiated between the two nations. In addition, tourists will be allowed to cross between the two countries instead of seeking special permits or taking circuitous mutes through Egypt” (July 26, 1994). All economic factors considered, it is in Jordan’s material interest to have a settlement.
Water
Jordan and Israel are supposed to share equally the water of the Jordan valley and the Yarmuk river, the principal source of the lower Jordan river. Although Jordan’s population is 75% of Israel’s, Jordan consumes only about 30% as much water each year as Israel.
Jordan argues that Israel has taken far more than its fair share of water and wants to do something about it. Israel insists that it has an historical right, based on its established use, to take what it does. Israel also argues that it has built dams to collect and preserve water and thus deserves a larger share. The peace accord provides Jordan and Israel a mechanism to discuss and hopefully resolve this critical issue.
According to the Globe and Mail article, “Israel has suggested the two countries cooperate to develop new water resources rather than fight over the little water there is left. Israel has proposed two major projects, the first would trap storm water in northern Israel and Jordan and funnel it into Israel’s Sea of Galilee, from which a canal would transport it to Jordan. The other project would bring sea water from the Mediterranean by canal to the Jordan valley, well below sea level. Jordan agrees that new resources are the only answer for a long term problem but insists that Israel must relinquish some of its water intake in the short term to provide Jordan with an immediate solution.”
A lasting peace
Can a lasting peace be achieved by men motivated by financial gain? Can peace be maintained by nations seeking essential resources rather than a desire to obtain harmonious relationships? The answer is obvious. Given the pace of technological and political change, what is advantageous or important today may not be tomorrow.
True Bible students realize that a permanent solution to the Middle Fast situation can only come about by divine intervention. Such intervention is shortly to occur which will establish a true and lasting peace in the Middle East and around the world.
Shortly the true Prince of Peace will return to his land to establish such an order. He will set up a peace motivated by right objectives and in harmony with the plan of God. Let us pray that the day for true peace comes quickly.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One