Jump to Blog Sidebar & Archives
In these days of turmoil and uncertainty, I wanted to share this passage from the Psalms with our readers.
It's been a busy couple of months on the world scene, with all the changes in the Middle East—and now, the tragedy in Japan.
Let's allow the LORD to speak to us through His Word today.
Concentrate especially on the portions in bold print (emphasis mine).
1 Rejoice in the LORD, O you righteous!
For praise from the upright is beautiful.
2 Praise the LORD with the harp;
Make melody to Him with an instrument of ten strings.
3 Sing to Him a new song;
Play skillfully with a shout of joy.
4 For the word of the LORD is right,
And all His work is done in truth.
5 He loves righteousness and justice;
The earth is full of the goodness of the LORD.
6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deep in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9 For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.
10 The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.
11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
The plans of His heart to all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
The people He has chosen as His own inheritance.
13 The LORD looks from heaven;
He sees all the sons of men.
14 From the place of His dwelling He looks
On all the inhabitants of the earth;
15 He fashions their hearts individually;
He considers all their works.
16 No king is saved by the multitude of an army;
A mighty man is not delivered by great strength.
17 A horse is a vain hope for safety;
Neither shall it deliver any by its great strength.
18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him,
On those who hope in His mercy,
19 To deliver their soul from death,
And to keep them alive in famine.
20 Our soul waits for the LORD;
He is our help and our shield.
21 For our heart shall rejoice in Him,
Because we have trusted in His holy name.
22 Let Your mercy, O LORD, be upon us,
Just as we hope in You.
Last May, the international community was in an uproar over Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Do you remember this? Several leftist "humanitarian aid" groups tried to break through the Israeli blockade with a flotilla of boats. They knew full well that it would provoke a confrontation with the Israelis; and as a result, several people died.
On a sentimental note, my very first blog entry was about the flotilla: click here.
Aww.
The United Nations released its report on the flotilla incident a few months later and condemned the "brutality" of the Israelis: click here.
Yesterday, that same blockade stopped a ship bound from Syria to Gaza and the Israelis discovered a huge cache of dangerous weapons, including missiles and mortars. The instruction manuals were in Farsi, indicating that the hardware originated in Iran.
These are not defensive weapons, folks. They are offensive in nature—and very dangerous.
Here's the story from The Washington Post, courtesy of one of our researchers, Jon Watson: click here.
I have four questions:
- Doesn't this legitimize the blockade by showing its necessity?
- In the spirit of its hue and cry for "proportionality," will the UN now condemn Hamas for trying to smuggle weapons into Gaza?
- Where is the outcry from the international community about this? They shrieked like scalded monkeys last May, so why are they quiet now?
- Where is the media coverage? All we saw for weeks last year was news about the flotilla incident and its aftermath. Now, nothing.
It all goes to show that anti-Semitism (and more specifically, anti-Israelism) is alive and well in the 21st century.
Meanwhile, the dust is starting to settle in the Middle East. Libya is a work in progress, however. We should know in another month or two where we stand regime-wise. Right now, we're watching Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and several other Mideast countries.
Stay tuned ...
From the New York Times news service:
U.S. Blocks Security Council Censure of Israeli Settlements
The United States used its veto on Friday afternoon to block a
Security Council resolution declaring Israel’s settlement construction
in the West Bank illegal.
Many rumors had been swirling around Washington, DC, about what the US would do when this resolution was brought before the United Nations Security Council.
Some sources were saying that the US was on the verge of casting its first anti-Israel vote since the founding of the Jewish State in 1948.
That would have been a big, BIG mistake.
And thank God, it didn't happen.
There are many reasons to be proud of our great country; but we can be especially proud today because when the rest of the Security Council was ready to pounce on tiny Israel, the United States of America stepped into the line of fire and said, "You'll have to come through us first."
You can read the rest of the story by clicking here.
Earlier in the Obama Administration, there were signs that US-Israeli relations were strained (click here).
We were quick to speak up back in September 2010 when we believed the president was wrong.
So we should be just as quick to speak up when he does something right.
This is one of those times.
Thank you, Mr. President, and may God continue to bless the USA!
We've been getting questions recently about whether recent events in Egypt are connected in any way with the prophecy in Isaiah 19.
There's been a lot of prophetic speculation about these events lately, so it's important that we maintain a balanced and non-sensationalized approach to issues like this one.
So is the prophecy in Isaiah 19 relevant, or not?
The short answer is yes, it is.
Here's a longer answer from one of the evangelical world's preeminent scholars, Walt Kaiser: click here.
Photo of Dr. Walt Kaiser
Copyright 2011 Koinonia
Maybe you have a different viewpoint.
If so, please share it with us!
What does Egypt have in common with Macy's?
Answer: they both need a reasonable return policy.
Please allow me to explain. During the Six Day War of 1967, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula to preempt Egyptian military action.
It was the only time in the history of the modern State of Israel that its military struck an enemy first. In other Mideast wars, Israel has acted only after she was attacked. But in 1967, everyone knew what Egypt was about to do. The United Nations had withdrawn its peacekeeping forces from the Sinai because U Thant could tell that the Egyptians were preparing for war. So Israeli commanders in Tel Aviv decided to strike first. A preemptive attack could save many Israeli lives. And that's what they did.
When the dust settled, the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) had soundly defeated the Egyptian army and Israel had taken possession of most of the Sinai Peninsula.
The Sinai is a very significant piece of real estate not only because of its biblical importance, but also because of its rich natural resources—including oil.
Once the Israelis took over the Sinai, they began building communities and looking for ways to develop the region. They built roads. They erected factories in El-Arish. They constructed schools and hospitals for the indigenous Bedouin population. They turned a desolate desert area near the Israeli border into a beautiful, thriving resort town (Taba).
Then the world was stunned to hear some unexpected news. Israeli scientists and engineers discovered a massive oil field in southern Sinai with untapped reserves estimated (in the 1970s) at more than $100 billion USD. The Egyptians had been sitting on this field for centuries and didn't even know it was there. It wasn't long before the Alma Oil Field was supplying more than half of Israel's petroleum needs.
Thousands of Israelis moved into the Sinai. Their communities thrived. Business was good.
St. Catherine's Monastery at the base of Mount Sinai in Egypt. Photo by R.A. Higbee (CJF Ministries).
In 1979, Israel and Egypt signed a peace agreement at Camp David. Israel agreed to give up the Sinai (along with other concessions) in order to achieve peaceful relations with Egypt. The Israeli withdrawal from Sinai was complete by 1982. Before the big pullout, Israel razed its Sinai settlements and sent their residents back to Israel. They shut down the factories and destroyed military installations. However, they didn't destroy the oil wells and research facilities—those were turned over to the Egyptians largely intact, including many millions of dollars' worth of high-tech equipment. The Egyptians couldn't figure out how to use some of the cutting-edge technology; so the Israeli experts went the extra mile and provided training for their Egyptian counterparts.
The only thing the Israelis tried to keep was the resort town of Taba. After all, they had built it from the ground up—Taba was a small Bedouin village before they got there—and it was thriving. Besides, there was a longstanding border dispute dating back to Ottoman days. But when an international commission ruled in Egypt's favor in 1988, Israel turned the keys over to the Egyptian government. Even so, Taba continues to be a favorite destination for Israelis to this day. On weekends and during the Jewish holy days, thousands of Israelis flood across the border from Israel into Taba, Egypt. Even a 2004 terrorist attack on the Taba Hilton did little to dissuade Jewish tourists from descending on the resort in droves each year.
So you see, Israel paid dearly for that Mideast peace agreement. She returned the Sinai to Egypt--and gave up her dreams of energy independence. That costly agreement has remained in place for all these ensuing years.
So here's the question people are asking. If a new Egyptian government reneges on the peace accord with Israel, will Egypt return the Sinai to Israel?
After all, a deal is a deal, is it not?
Cartoon by Yaakov Kirschen of Dry Bones
Please Note: Some of the hyperlinks below will take you to YouTube or other secular sites where you may see profanity or other objectionable content. We recommend that children not be allowed to click on these links without adult supervision.
A new prophecy video is making the rounds on the Internet. (Click here to view.)
It's footage from the recent uprising in Egypt. As you watch this segment, suddenly you see a translucent, ghost-like image of someone riding a horse. It's eerie, but nonetheless distinct. It's definitely someone on a horse. After a few seconds, the image moves forward and vanishes—seemingly into thin air.
Prophecy buffs all over the Internet have jumped on this and declared that the Apocalypse is imminent because the mysterious figure was none other than the Pale Horseman depicted in Revelation 6:8. Within hours, the image (including video footage and screen shots) was accessible on dozens of websites.
It turns out, however, that the footage was from Rachel Maddow's MSNBC coverage of street demonstrations last week in Tahrir Square in Cairo. People on horseback were in the square (click here). In this instance, a horseback rider's reflection was picked up by the camera lens while the MSNBC crew was filming through a hotel window. The nighttime lighting and the window's reflective surface are what made the image possible. I have to admit, the visual effect was pretty cool.
What hasn't been so cool, though, is the fallout from this incident over the past few days. In the online discussions, some people continue to insist that the images were supernatural—and that they were indeed the Pale Horseman of the Apocalypse (click here).
One woman even says the rider looks like a skeleton and is carrying a scythe. That's an interesting insight, especially since the skeleton-and-scythe depiction of the pale rider is nothing more than an artist's conception and isn't found anywhere in Scripture: click here. Not only that, but we've run and rerun the footage dozens of times and we don't see any skeleton. We've zoomed and we've sharpened the image. We've watched it forward and backward. We've done everything but turn it inside out. It just looks like someone on a horse.
In one discussion thread, some poor, level-headed soul tried to inject some common sense into the conversation. He pointed out that the "horseman" only moved when the camera moved, so it was very likely just a reflection. The "true believers" pounced on him like tigers on a crippled zebra. Someone known online as "Special Agent" responded, "Then, sir, I would ask, Where is your faith?"
Now wait a minute. Let me see if I understand what Special Agent is saying. If I had enough faith, I would believe that a nighttime reflection of someone on horseback in Tahrir Square was actually an appearance of the Pale Horseman of the Book of Revelation. Is that the idea?
If so, then I have bad news for these folks. Their concept of faith is flawed. Faith is not the opposite of reality—it's the ultimate reality. Faith is seeing with spiritual eyes things that are real and true—even before they're visible with one's physical eyes (Heb. 11:13).
Faith is not (I repeat, not) believing something that's not true.
Just go to the psychiatric ward of your local hospital and you'll find patients who believe (and I mean really believe) some pretty weird things. You might find someone who believes, for example, that he's a head of cabbage, or that fuzzy black spiders are crawling all over him, or maybe that the moon is made of green cheese.
When people believe these things, they're not exercising biblical faith. They're just disconnected from reality--and they need help.
Maybe you're wondering why we're even talking about this. There are actually a couple of reasons. First, this kind of silliness is a bad testimony.
In one of the "pale horseman" discussion threads, a woman says she and her son have been witnessing to her husband (the boy's father), who they say is "unsaved." They showed him the "horseman" footage from Egypt. I guess they thought he would fall under conviction and admit that this had to be something supernatural. But instead, they said he watched the video clip, then sat back and said, "You've GOT to be kidding me."
Now they're asking everyone to pray for this dad. Personally, my hope and prayer is that the Holy Spirit will help him understand that not all believers are as gullible as his family--and that he'll experience the saving grace of God in spite of all this religious meshugaas.
The second reason we're talking about this is that it highlights a widespread problem in our premil camp. Evidently, some of us have difficulty with symbolic language—especially in the Book of Revelation. The "literal-historical" interpretative grid is so deeply ingrained in our thinking as premillennialists, we sometimes forget that the Bible (especially Revelation) is full of all sorts of symbols.
When the Bible says that God hides His people under his wings (Psalm 63:7), for example, it doesn't mean He has feathers. And when it says He's our Rock (Deut. 32:4), that doesn't mean He's a chunk of granite. Literalists understand this.
When interpreting the Bible, the literalist says, "When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense."
Whenever it's obvious that a biblical writer was speaking figuratively, we're perfectly fine with that.
The Bible employs many figures of speech—including simile, metaphor, hyperbole, metonymy, synecdoche, and ellipsis, among others.
When we feel obliged to explain everything in the Book of Revelation literally, our train has jumped the tracks (that's a metaphor, folks).
And other hermeneutic trains, where they refuse to explain anything in the Book of Revelation literally, have also jumped the tracks.
I really don't think the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are four literal guys prancing around Cairo on colored horses (white, black, red, and ashen or pale). Here's what John wrote about the pale horse:
So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him. And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth (Rev. 6:8).
What is the "plain sense" here? These sinister images point to events that will transpire during the coming Tribulation Period. They are real events, but they are often (especially in Revelation) couched in terms that are meant to be taken figuratively rather than literally.
It was routine in ancient times to seal (very often with imprinted clay or wax) important documents. That way, the scroll or book couldn't be opened without breaking the seal--something that could only be done by a person with authority greater than or equal to the one who affixed the seal in the first place. Extremely important documents might have multiple seals (we are told, for example, that the Roman Emperor Vespasian left a seven-sealed last will and testament for his successors). Here in Revelation 6:7-8, the Lamb's book/scroll is secured with seven seals which are broken one after the other (5:1ff), releasing a series of deadly judgments as it's opened.
Each of the first four seals is accompanied by a symbolic horseman. When the fourth seal is broken, the fourth (pale) horseman (representing death) rides forth and roughly a quarter of the earth's population perishes as a result of warfare, famine, and other calamities.
The figure of speech used here is personification. That is, John makes his point effectively by taking something inanimate and portraying it as being alive. So death is depicted as a pale rider on a horse (pale or ashen being the color of death).
The Holy Spirit (who inspired John to pen these words) was painting powerful images to communicate His truth. He wants us to understand something about the events that lie ahead.
Has the pale horseman arrived? Not yet.
That wasn't him in Cairo a few days ago.
We know that because a quarter of the population of Planet Earth hasn't perished.
But make no mistake about it; that fourth rider is surely coming. The other three are coming, too.
Someday, people during the Tribulation will hear those ominous hoofbeats.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
John Bolton, who served for a brief time (2005-06) as the US ambassador to the United Nations during the last Bush Administration, is always provocative.
Photo Copyright 2011 Raw Story Media
He's a smart guy. He's been accused of being brash and careless (which probably cost him Senate confirmation "back in the day"); but in diplomatic circles, that's just another way of saying that he speaks his mind without paying too much attention to who might (or might not) like it. That's why, when he comments on world affairs, some of us dutifully sit up in our seats and pay attention.
That's not to say that we always agree with him. After all, Mr. Bolton does have a history of making bold predictions about Israel striking Iran's nuclear facilities—that is, the site(s) where virtually everyone in the intelligence community knows they're feverishly working to develop a nuclear arsenal.
To me, Bolton's repeated warnings seem like they could be counterproductive. I mean, even if Israel was indeed preparing for a strike, wouldn't it be more judicious for us simply to keep our mouths shut about it? But hey—what do I know?
Maybe Bolton is engaging in a game of international intrigue that's beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. Is this (i.e., repeated warnings about a strike) his way of keeping the Iranians off-balance so they're never really certain if or when the Israelis might hit them? Or am I giving this man way too much credit?
For the past few days, he's been talking about the demise of the Mubarak regime in Egypt and its security implications for nearby Israel. He was just interviewed on Fox News. Fascinating stuff.
Bolton also has an interesting take on the effect of the Stuxnet cyber-attack on Iran's nuclear program. (You can catch up on our past discussions of Stuxnet by clicking here.)
Once again, he's saying Israel is about to strike Iran: Click here.
Fortunately, all we have to do is wait for another few weeks and we'll know if he was right.
Stay tuned!
Well, now—that's the big question, isn't it?
There's so much uncertainty about the current events in the Middle East, everyone wants to know how it's going to turn out.
Or more precisely, what will the Middle East look like when the dust settles?
So-called prophetic "experts" are engaging in a lot of speculation right now about how the fall of Mubarak was (they say) prophesied in the Bible.
This always happens. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, these guys said it was predicted in the prophetic Scriptures. When the US invaded Iraq, they said the same thing. And with these latest developments in Egypt, it's the same, tired, old routine.
Everyone is selling a DVD, it seems.
Don't you ever wonder why they didn't see it in the Bible before it happened? Why is it always after the fact?
Does anyone really know what the final outcome will be?
Yes, I think so.
Many years ago, an old evangelist friend of mine was an avid fan of Zane Grey novels. In his library, he had a whole wall of shelves of Zane Grey's books—hundreds of them. He said that if he was reading one of these adventures and it was looking grim for the hero, he would just flip over to the last page so he could see how the story ended. Then he would go back to his place in the story and continue reading—this time, with no sense of fear or trepidation because he knew how the whole thing was going to end!
Some people might consider it cheating, but my friend found that technique helpful. The villain in the story might be poised to throw the good guy over a cliff—or worse—but my friend wasn't worried because he already knew the outcome.
Similarly, the Bible tells us how the Middle East scenario will ultimately play out:
- The nations of the world will increasingly align themselves against the State of Israel.
- Eventually, there will be a military campaign with its main staging area in Megiddo, Israel.
- The Messiah will appear and bring the Armageddon Campaign to an abrupt conclusion before Jerusalem can be destroyed.
- The Jewish people will recognize their Messiah as Yeshua of Nazareth.
- Post-war, clean-up operations will begin as preparations are made for the Kingdom of God on earth.
- The survivors of the Armageddon Campaign (and the Tribulation), including believers from all nations (including Egypt), will come to worship the LORD:
All the ends of the world
Shall remember and turn to the LORD,
And all the families of the nations
Shall worship before You (Psalm 22:27).
There you have it, my friend. You've just fast-forwarded history to its ultimate conclusion.
Now you can return to real-time with the assurance that there's no need to fear (2 Tim. 1:7).
And just think—you didn't even have to buy a DVD.
Okay, I hear you!
Several readers have written to me privately and chastised me for speaking in disparaging terms ("dictator") about Hosni Mubarak, who for more than 30 years has been an important ally of the State of Israel.
Point taken. You're right—it's true.
It's also true that his departure—dictator or not—could radically alter the already-delicate political balance of the region.
The big unknown at this point is what will replace the Mubarak regime if it falls.
Mubarak has walked a fine line for years between his alliance with the Israelis and his need to maintain ties with the Arab world. Any way you slice it, such a feat cannot be easy. But somehow he has managed to do it.
Here's a pretty good summary of the finer nuances of this issue from The New York Times: click here
Thanks to our friend Jonathan Watson in Virginia for the heads-up on the Times article.
It looks like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is in trouble.
Tonight, as I type this blog entry, the news networks have been riveted for most of the day on the rioting in the streets of Cairo.
It's still too early to say what the ultimate outcome will be; however, I'm having flashbacks to early 1978, when the Islamic hordes were demonstrating against the Shah of Iran. It was on the news almost every evening.
I remember it vividly for a couple of reasons. First, we were living in Illinois and the winter of 1977-78 had been one of the coldest on record. One night in January, we recorded a low of 40 degrees below zero. Sure, that was "just the wind chill," but don't let that innocuous-sounding term fool you—it was bitterly COLD.
The second thing that made that winter memorable was that my wife, Marcia, was pregnant with our first child, Elizabeth (who, as it turned out, was born in March of that year).
Here we are in January of 2011—and it was in January of 1978 that fighting began in earnest in the streets of Tehran. Yes, there had been demonstrations before that; however, January of that year was when people started getting hurt and the world was beginning to understand that it was witnessing a true revolution. A year later, in January of 1979, the Shah, who had been a stalwart ally of the United States, fled the country.
That was in 1978-79. A US-backed dictator in the Middle East was replaced by the Islamic Republic of Iran, ruled by anti-US Jihadist imams.
Are you beginning to see why I'm having flashbacks?
Mubarak, a US-backed dictator in the Middle East, may be on his way out. It might take awhile (the Shah managed to hang on for a year), but the outcome may be nonetheless assured—depending on what happens over the next week or so.
You can bet that Mubarak and his advisors are poring over the history books tonight to see what they can learn from the Shah's mistakes during that fateful period in 1978-79.
Some people wonder how Islamic fundamentalism manages to gain a foothold like this, especially in underdeveloped and impoverished areas of the world. At least in part, it's because of the way the imams view the role of government. To them, it is the government's responsibility to provide the basic needs of its citizens—food, shelter, and employment. In places like Egypt, where the unemployment rate in some areas approaches 40% and annual per capita income is under $3,000, it's a welcome message. The Wikipedia article on "Iran" says:
The political system of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] is based on the 1979 Constitution. Accordingly, it is the duty of the Islamic government to furnish all citizens with equal and appropriate opportunities, to provide them with work, and to satisfy their essential needs, so that the course of their progress may be assured.
The poor masses are told that Allah, the Islamic deity, loves them and cares about them. If he was in charge, he would give them what they need. Powerful stuff, and understandably so.
By way of contrast, Western culture places more emphasis on rewarding hard work and on individual initiative. To us, the role of government is not to take care of its citizens, but rather to empower its citizens to take care of themselves. The US Constitution, for instance, doesn't guarantee the right to happiness, but rather the right to pursue happiness (big difference).
In other words, if you want it—go out and get it. Your government will make sure you have just as much opportunity as the next guy—but you've got to get out there and do it for yourself. That's the deal. It's a different way of looking at things.
I realize that the parallel between Iran and Egypt isn't perfect. Iran under the Shah was hardly impoverished or underdeveloped, so economics was not a major factor in the 1979 revolution. (Scholars continue debating its cause even today.) But still, it's a fact that the Islamic message resonates today with many distressed and downtrodden people (like the Egyptian people and the Palestinians in the Middle East and like Black people in the US during the tumultuous 1960s).
What's going to happen in Egypt? We'll know before too much longer.
In the meantime, the Bible reminds us that the LORD God of heaven and earth is still in charge of the affairs of men:
"O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, the One who dwells between the cherubim, You are God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth" (Isa. 37:16).
If Egypt ends up being ruled by an Iran-like, anti-Israel government, it will be one more nudge farther down the road to Armageddon. And to that I say, "Even so, come, HaAdon Yeshua!" (Rev. 22:20).
Egypt has been a source of stability in the region because of its détente with Israel since 1978, although many experts argue that Jimmy Carter (and subsequent administrations) have paid dearly for that détente with roughly $2 billion a year in foreign aid to Cairo.
In any case, a militant Islamic regime in Egypt would dramatically alter the geopolitical balance in the Middle East and make it a much more dangerous and unstable place.
Here's what the New York Times is saying tonight about the situation in Egypt: click here
This just in—the US government has frozen all economic assistance to Egypt pending the outcome of these events. According to some reports, the Obama Administration doesn't want large amounts of US cash to fall into the hands of Islamic radicals if the Mubarak government is toppled.
More tomorrow, so stay tuned ...
