Epicenter 2.0

Home > Mystery > Epicenter 2.0 > Page 28
Epicenter 2.0 Page 28

by Joel C. Rosenberg


  One day not long from now, someone actually will come from the clouds, riding on a white horse, leading his armies into battle in Israel. But his name will not be Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or that of any other Middle Eastern dictator or warrior. Rather, Revelation 19 tells us that his name will be Jesus—Messiah and Savior of Jews and Gentiles, the Prince of Peace, the Risen One who loved us and gave his life for us, that we might live a full and abundant life, both now and forever. May you experience his amazing love and forgiveness before that day, for that is his greatest wish, and mine.

  AFTERWORD

  Much has happened in Russia, Israel, and the Islamic world since I completed the original Epicenter manuscript in June 2006 that may, in fact, have prophetic significance. What follows is a summary and analysis of the most dramatic developments.

  THE SECOND LEBANON WAR

  The thirty-four-day war between Israel and Hezbollah was not in and of itself a prophetic event. That is, there are no passages of Scripture in either the Old or New Testament that forewarned this specific conflict was coming. That said, the Second Lebanon War was hugely significant for several reasons.

  First, the war was consistent with the Bible prophecies suggesting a series of traumatizing wars in the Middle East that will serve as the “birth pangs” before the return of Jesus Christ. In Daniel 9:26, the Hebrew prophet tells us that “even to the end [of history] there will be war” and that “desolations are determined” (NASB). In Matthew 24:6-7, Jesus tells us that in the last days before his return, “you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars” and that “nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom” (NASB). In Matthew 24:8, Jesus specifically indicates that such wars will be the “birth pangs” of even greater traumas to come. In many ways it was startling, therefore, to hear U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice state on July 29, 2006—right in the middle of the Second Lebanon War—that such events were the “birth pangs of a new Middle East.”354 Though Secretary Rice has in the past described herself as a Bible-believing Christian, it is not clear whether she specifically meant to reference this Bible prophecy or whether she simply used a phrase that seemed to accurately capture the moment. Either way, I believe she was right.

  Second, the war was consistent with the overall arc of Bible prophecy, which says that Israel will increasingly be the focal point of world attention in the last days. As I have sought to explain throughout this book, the Bible teaches us that in the end times the eyes of the world will once again be riveted upon Israel and the fate of the Jewish people and Jerusalem. That seemed virtually impossible for most of the past two thousand years. After all, Israel was not even a nation and only a handful of Jews lived in the Holy Land. Yet today, Israel dominates headlines around the globe. Thousands of international journalists are stationed in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Satellite television beams images from Israeli wars into living rooms on every continent. The Second Lebanon War was fresh evidence of just how thoroughly the resurrected State of Israel captivates the attention of people from every nation and language on the face of the earth.

  Third, the war suddenly thrust Rome—of all cities in the world—into the center of the Mideast peace process, capturing the attention of Bible students and prophecy scholars around the world. For ages, Christians have believed, based on their reading of Bible prophecy, that Israel will be reborn in the “last days,” and so will the Roman Empire. What’s more, many evangelical Christians have believed that a political leader from Rome will one day emerge to finalize a comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and her neighbors. While not all Christians have believed this in the past, nor do all Christians believe this today, those who do point to Daniel 9:26-27 and a fascinatingly detailed and specific trajectory of future events.

  First, the Messiah will come to Israel.

  The Messiah will then seem to be “cut off” from his people.

  After the Messiah is gone, Jerusalem will be destroyed.

  The Temple will then be destroyed.

  War will continue until the end of history.

  “Desolations are determined” until the end of history.

  Then, in the end times, a leader will emerge from the people who destroyed Jerusalem and “will make a firm covenant” between Israel and her neighbors for seven years (Daniel 9:27, NASB).

  Other events will make it clear that this leader is actually profoundly evil, opposed to God, opposed to the Jewish people, opposed to peace, but the Scriptures promise that this leader will eventually come to destruction.

  In the judgment of millions of Bible-believing Christians around the world, six of these eight prophetic events and trends have already been fulfilled.

  Jesus was born in Israel at the beginning of the first century and proved to be the Messiah by teaching the people, performing miracles, loving his neighbors and his enemies, caring for the poor, and conquering death by his resurrection.

  To those who did not believe in him, Jesus was seemingly “cut off” from his people when he was crucified around AD 33.

  Then, in AD 70, the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem.

  The Romans also destroyed the Jewish Temple, directly fulfilling Daniel’s prophecy.

  Wars have continued for the past two thousand years.

  Desolations have continued for the past two thousand years.

  Now millions of Christians around the world are watching for Rome to emerge as the focal point of Mideast peacekeeping efforts. Why? Because Daniel 9:26 indicates that the leader or “prince” who will eventually finalize the comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and her neighbors will emerge from the people who destroy Jerusalem, we can deduce that the future leader Daniel describes will be of Roman origin. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that even before this leader’s identity is known, Rome will become a key player in the Middle East peace process.355

  In that context, one can understand why the following headlines during the Second Lebanon War captured the attention of so many Christians, myself included:

  RICE TO VISIT ISRAEL, ROME FOR TALKS ON MIDEAST CRISIS:

  Secretary of State Calls for Plan to Ensure Stable, Enduring Peace in Region

  U.S. State Department, America.gov, July 23, 2006

  FOREIGN MINISTERS GATHER IN ROME FOR CONFERENCE ON LEBANON

  Voice of America News, July 25, 2006

  SECRETARY-GENERAL IN ROME CALLS FOR POLITICAL FRAMEWORK, ECONOMIC AID TO ADDRESS “HORRENDOUS AND DANGEROUS” SITUATION IN LEBANON

  United Nations Department of Public Information, UN.org, July 26, 2006

  CNN reported on June 26 that “leaders and representatives of countries around the world are meeting in Rome to discuss how to bring an end to the conflict in Lebanon and ease the humanitarian crisis. Pressure is on to achieve a swift cease-fire, but disagreements are expected as the U.S. pushes for a longer term solution to conflict in the Middle East.”356

  Italian foreign minister Massimo D’Alema then stated during a press conference in Rome that “an international force in Lebanon should urgently be authorized under a U.N. mandate to support the Lebanese armed forces in providing a secure environment. The Rome conference pledged its support for Lebanon’s revival and reconstruction.” What’s more, D’Alema noted that the world leaders who had gathered in Rome had pledged “their full commitment to the people of Lebanon, Israel and throughout” to bring about “a comprehensive and sustainable peace.”357

  Rome, however, was not satisfied to simply host a Middle East peace conference. That was only the beginning. Italian prime minister Romano Prodi then publicly offered to lead a UN peacekeeping force of some 15,000 soldiers in southern Lebanon and quickly persuaded the Italian parliament to send up to 3,000 troops, the largest contingent of forces sent by any country.

  The move was a dramatic and unexpected one. Not since the fall of the Roman Empire had Rome stationed military forces in or near the Holy Land. Now Rome was suddenly playing a central role in the Arab-Israeli peace process, cons
istent with Bible prophecy, and heads were turning.

  A further note about the Middle East peace process: Is it possible that we will see dramatic breakthroughs for peace before the final, comprehensive treaty that Daniel 9 describes? Or, put another way, might we see more peace treaties and truces in the epicenter—as well as an even more impressive surge in Israeli prosperity—in the months or years before the War of Gog and Magog? Yes, I think that is possible, and desirable. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and he was right, of course. Well-crafted treaties with the Syrians, the Lebanese, and the Palestinians—treaties that truly respect both Arab and Israeli rights and protect the honor and national security of both sides—should be signed, sealed, and delivered, if at all possible. But we should be on guard against offers of false peace, deals that vastly overpromise and tragically underdeliver. We should also be aware that more violent convulsions could consume the region before good deals are signed. Let me simply caution readers to be prepared for any number of twists and turns on the road from here to the fulfillment of the prophecies described in this book.

  Fourth, Russian president Vladimir Putin stunned the world by sending military forces and equipment to Lebanon in the fall of 2006, putting hundreds of Russian troops close to the border of Israel for the first time in two hundred years. True to form, however, Putin insisted that this was a unilateral action by Moscow and that Russian forces would not be under the command of the Italian general running the UN peacekeeping operation. What’s more, the Kremlin stated that Russia’s role in Lebanon could grow over time.

  Agence France-Presse (AFP), noting the historic nature of Putin’s move, reported that this was “Russia’s first military intervention in Lebanon since the early 1770s, when Russia, under Empress Catherine the Great, defeated Ottoman forces and a naval detachment landed in Beirut.” Russian military spokesman Vladimir Cherepanov told AFP that this was “the first time that Russia, or the former Soviet Union, publicly puts boots on the ground in the Middle East, apart from military advisors who have for decades served and trained customers of Moscow’s weaponry.”358

  To be sure, the Russian contingent sent to Lebanon in 2006 was small—about four hundred specialists and engineers, some of whom were helping rebuild bridges that would enable humanitarian relief supplies and UN forces to move southward toward the Israeli border. To some, therefore, Russia’s actions were perfectly consistent with assisting the international community in bringing peace to this troubled region.

  To others, Putin’s move was a classic case of the camel’s nose getting under the tent. A modern diplomatic and military precedent had suddenly been set for Russian forces to be stationed in Lebanon. But Moscow was not then—nor had it ever been—a neutral player in the region. Dating back to Czar Peter the Great and as recently as 1982, Russia has sought to dominate or fully control the Middle East, as I have described earlier in this book. Russia has historically and consistently armed Israel’s most dangerous enemies, even to this very day. That is why for decades it has been bedrock U.S. and Israeli foreign policy to keep Russian forces out of the region. Why then did the Israeli government agree to the presence of Russian forces so close to the Jewish state? Why did the U.S. government agree? Wasn’t this move paving the way for more Russian forces to be pre-positioned in Lebanon in the future? Wasn’t it possible that these Russian forces could eventually be used to execute the War of Gog and Magog?

  Fifth, Turkey raised eyebrows by contributing military forces to the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon—the first time Turkish troops have been stationed on the borders of the Holy Land since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1922. On the face of it, Turkey’s move appeared consistent with the UN’s declared mission to create and maintain peace and stability in the epicenter. Turkey is, of course, a member of NATO, a close American ally, and a predominately Muslim nation that has actually maintained peaceful ties with Israel in the six decades of the Jewish state’s modern existence. The Israeli government, therefore, did not seem bothered in the slightest. The Associated Press reported that “Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israel was especially interested in having Turkey in the force because it is a largely Muslim country and a regional power.”359

  But the notion of Turkish military forces suddenly moving to the northern border of Israel stirred serious concerns among those tracking Ezekiel’s prophecies. Why? For precisely the same reason the sudden presence of Russian military forces along Israel’s northern border raised concerns. It established a contemporary and internationally sanctioned precedent for positioning even more forces from Magog and Gomer to Israel’s north, and it did so at a time when so many other events consistent with Ezekiel 38–39 were occurring throughout the epicenter.

  Sixth, Germany also shocked many—especially within Israel—by sending military forces to join the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon. When 2006 began, the notion of German military forces anywhere close to the borders of the Jewish state seemed absolutely inconceivable. At the time, one German lawmaker who had opposed the mission put it this way: “After the killing of millions of Jews there could be no way German soldiers should participate in such a mission.”360 A German TV correspondent noted that “only a few years ago the attitude in both Germany and in Israel would have been more or less the same: After the Holocaust, German soldiers anywhere near Israel—never!”361

  Yet by the end of 2006, some 1,000 German naval and police forces were involved in the peacekeeping efforts, including patrolling the coast of Lebanon right up to Israeli sovereign waters, with the full approval of the Israeli government. In August 2007, the German government agreed to extend its maritime mission at least until September 2008. Israeli critics and some Jewish groups in Germany warned from the beginning that the UN was creating a scenario in which German forces could end up firing upon Jews. But the thinking in Prime Minister Olmert’s government went, Why wouldn’t we want to encourage Germany to do whatever they can to help defend the Jewish people?362

  The prophetic significance of Germany’s involvement in Lebanon remains to be seen. As noted earlier in this book, some Bible scholars believe German military forces will join the War of Gog and Magog against Israel one day. Others are not so convinced. But one thing is certain: such historic and unexpected developments bear watching closely.

  Seventh, with the help of Iran, Syria, and possibly Russia, Hezbollah is rapidly arming itself for a new, apocalyptic war with Israel. On September 2, 2004, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1559. The vote was passed 9-0 with six abstentions, including Russia. It called for free and fair elections in Lebanon and for the withdrawal of all foreign forces in Lebanon (referring namely to Syria, given that all Israeli forces had been withdrawn in 2000). What’s more, it called for the “disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.”363

  Not that it did any good.

  Neither the UN, the Lebanese, the Syrians, nor anyone else in the international community paid much attention. Hezbollah continued importing weapons, building up its arsenal, training its forces, and preparing for the war it launched against Israel in July 2006 in which it fired more than 4,000 rockets and missiles at the Jewish state.

  On August 11, 2006, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1701. The resolution called for an immediate cease-fire and authorized the dramatic expansion of a UN peacekeeping force to 15,000 soldiers. Perhaps more importantly, at least to Israel, the resolution ordered this expanded peacekeeping force to prevent the rearming of all Lebanese militias and to disarm all such militias.364

  Israeli prime minister Olmert’s government readily accepted the resolution, believing that the arms embargo and disarmament provisions of Resolutions 1559 and 1701 would truly be enforced. In the end, however, it was all just so much talk. Not only did the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)—which has been claiming to keep the peace in that beautiful but war-torn country since 1978—not disarm Hezbollah, it actually allow
ed Hezbollah to import advanced new missiles and other weapons systems from Iran and Syria, in direct violation of its mandate. Consider this headline:

  UN REPORT: ISRAEL SAYS HEZBOLLAH’S ARSENAL INCLUDES 30,000 ROCKETS

  Associated Press, March 4, 2008

  “Israel says Hezbollah is rearming and has an arsenal including 10,000 long-range rockets and 20,000 short-range rockets in southern Lebanon, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council in a report,” noted the AP. “While Ban’s report did not confirm Israel’s claim, the U.N. chief reiterated his concern about Hezbollah’s public statements and persistent reports pointing to breaches of a U.N. arms embargo, which bans weapons transfers to the militant Shiite Islamic militia. Ban also expressed concern at ‘the threats of open war against Israel’ by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.”

  But that was not all. In his previous report to the Security Council, “Ban alleged that Hezbollah had rearmed with new long-range rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv and tripled its arsenal of C-802 land-to-sea missiles since the 2006 war. He also drew attention to alleged breaches of the arms embargo and the transfer of sophisticated weapons from Iran and Syria—both strong backers of Hezbollah—across the Lebanon-Syria border. Syria disputed the claim and countered that the allegations of weapons smuggling are motivated by political rather than security considerations, Ban said, but Hezbollah’s leaders have admitted on several occasions that their military capacity had been replenished after the war with Israel.”365

 

‹ Prev