Legs, Feet, and Toes of Iron

There are several eschatological issues that have challenged Bible students for generations. One such challenge is the identification of the ten nation gentile federation that will exist at the return of Christ after the great tribulation.

Shortly after Judah was deported to Babylon beginning in 605 BC, the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, had a dream which he did not understand. No one could interpret the dream except the Hebrew lad Daniel. The dream was that of a large metal image of a man consisting of four metals from head to toes.

“This image’s head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.” Daniel 2:32-33

As Daniel interpreted the dream, he provided more details of the feet and toes.

“Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided…and as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile (brittle).” Daniel 2:41-43

Daniel revealed to Nebuchadnezzar that the gentile kingdoms of the earth would deteriorate in purity as they increased in the ability to crush opposition, i.e. the specific gravity of the metals decreased from head to toes as they increased in brittleness. Another way to view it is to consider that the autocracies became diluted with each succeeding empire.

History revealed the identity of the four world powers of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Babylon was the head of gold, Media-Persia was the chest and arms of silver, the Greek empire was the belly and thighs of bronze, and Rome was the legs, feet, and toes of iron. These four empires ruled over Israel during their reigns.

The dream, then, reveals that at the time of the great tribulation a ten nation federation, under the rule of a future leader, will bear part of the characteristics of the original Roman Empire’s strength but will be diluted by some other influence depicted by the inclusion of clay.

Part of the challenge in understanding this dream is that it depicts the Roman Empire as never being totally dissolved. The empire began with iron after the demise of the Greeks and ends with iron when it collapses forever at Christ’s return. History, however, describes the ‘demise’ of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD during the reign of Emperor Diocletian. Historians record the reasons for the demise under Diocletian’s rule which includes excessive and inequitable taxes, the increase of immigrants to fill the void caused by the expanding military resulting in diluted citizenship, and a shortage of funds to support the military while maintaining roads and buildings. Sound familiar?

But did the Roman Empire really totally and permanently fall?

Approximately 1000 years before Roman Emperor Diocletian ruled, a certain man named Byzas of Megara founded a settlement near the south western shores of the Black Sea. This settlement became known as Byzantium. This settlement subsequently came under the rule of Media-Persia and then under Alexander the Great. Following Greek rule was the Romans. History reveals that the Roman Empire, after ruling for approximately 700 years, really didn’t dissolve but was rather divided into two regions, i.e. the eastern region and the western region. During the Roman era Byzantium became very popular due to its expanding cultural advancements. While the western region of the Roman Empire continued to decline, the eastern region of Byzantium continued to gain prominence.

Constantine recognized the value of Byzantium and made it the capital of the eastern region of the empire and Byzantium became known as Constantinople.

Beginning in the 7th century AD a new religion came on the scene. This new religion, i.e. Islam, was expanding into Palestine, Syria, and Egypt and posed a threat to Constantinople. Unrest continued for several centuries.

Subsequently in 1453 AD Constantinople, now known as Istanbul, became the capital of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Ottoman Turks sided with Germany in WW I and were defeated by allied forces. The previous home of the Islamic Caliphate would then become the Republic of Turkey.

To be continued.

Comments welcome on http://bibleandcurrentevents.blogspot.com

Is the Tea Party a Threat to Liberalism?

What is it about the Tea Party that liberalism finds so irksome? Of a surety the Tea Party leaves no question about what they stand for and what they don’t.

Firstly, the Tea Party believes in smaller government and less taxes. In reality smaller government would require fewer taxes to support it. The Tea Party believes the US government spends money on programs that are not Biblically based. They believe government exists for the primary purpose of maintaining law and order and providing protection for citizens.

“…for he (governing authority) is God’s minister to you for good…an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject…because of this you also pay taxes.” Romans 13:4-6

The Tea Party believes very strongly that the government should operate within its means and not generate deficits which result in debt.

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it – lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’” Luke 14:28-30

If, as in the above, more money is required to complete the project than generated, borrowing is required.

“Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments…the LORD your God will set you high above all nations…The LORD will open to you His good treasure… You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail…” Deuteronomy 28:1, 12-13

Thus far the Tea Party’s fiscal philosophy appears to be Biblically based. How about their primary social issues?

The Tea Party opposes abortion.

“And they (Jews) have turned to Me the back... though I taught them…yet they have not listened to receive instruction…And they built the high places of Baal…to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination…” Jeremiah 32:33-35

The Tea Party also supports traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife…” Genesis 2:24

‘Wife’ in this passage is from the Hebrew Ishshah which means female as opposed to a male. Jesus reaffirmed the above passage in the gospels as did Paul in the epistles.

Therefore, the major issues endorsed by the Tea Party are Biblically based. Due to political pressures from both sides of the aisle, Tea Party members are being encouraged to compromise their ideals in order to enact legislation acceptable to both conservatives and liberals.

Recall the Biblical story where Samuel relayed God’s instructions to Saul to totally destroy the Amalekites and all their animals. Well Saul, in an attempt to be a people pleaser, compromised God’s instructions and while he did destroy the Amalekites, with the exception of their king Agag, he kept the animals which he said were for sacrifices to God. Samuel confronted Saul about his compromise and Saul realized his error.

“Then Saul said to Samuel, ‘I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD…because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.” I Samuel 15:24

Partial obedience, i.e. compromise and political correctness cost Saul his kingship. The Tea Party today is also aware of the cost to compromise.

Does the Tea Party pose a real or perceived threat to liberalism? For sure, opposition to the Tea Party is definitely increasing as their ideology is made known. Self professed liberal congresswoman Maxine Waters while addressing members of the SEIU recently proclaimed boldly, “The Tea Party can go straight to hell…and I intend to help them get there.” Several days later on national television James Hoffa Jr. gave a warm-up address to an audience gathered to hear President Obama speak. He said relative to the Tea Party, “Let’s take the S.O.B.s out.”

Perhaps the economy is not the major challenge facing America today.

Liberalism or Conservatism: Which is more Biblical?

The answer to the title question is readily available; that is, if one gives credibility to Biblical teachings.

Firstly let’s define both the political philosophies of liberalism and conservatism according to Webster.

Liberalism is a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race…Liberalism subscribes to the premise that government should be the instrument to implement social justice. One will quickly note the similarities of liberalism and progressivism.

Conservatism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability…the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change. Contrary to liberalism, conservatism favors less government intervention in society and individual’s affairs. Therefore, while progressivism is identified with liberalism, the Tea Party espouses the conservative political philosophy.

Now then, armed with definitions, let’s see which political philosophy is closer to Biblical principles.

We’ll initially address the liberal premise relative to the ‘essential goodness of the human race.’

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:5

King David asserts in the above that all mankind, since Adam, is not born innately or essentially good but rather all mankind is born with a predisposition to sin.

Next, the liberal premise of progress implies change. In fact our current president campaigned on the promise to deliver ‘change we can believe in.’ The Bible is very clear, however, that the basic rules of conduct given by God do not require change to keep pace with societal trends. The benchmark by which all mankind is evaluated was revealed millennia ago and is immutable. The problem arises when man attempts to update God’s instructions to fit the contemporary norm.

Such an attempt to update or reinterpret Biblical teachings brings disaster. Over and over again in the scriptures mankind is encouraged to return to the basics. The Hebrew for return is shuv and can be interpreted as repent, turn, and/or go back. Shuv can further be defined as a movement back to the point of departure, i.e. a reversal in direction.

“It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the adversities which I purpose to bring upon them, that everyone may turn from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.” Jeremiah 36:3

“Yet from the days of your fathers you have gone away from My ordinances and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to You…” Malachi 3:7

Both of the above passages teach that to stray from God’s ordinances will ultimately bring adversity and in both passages God invites man to return to the basics, i.e. the original ordinances of God in order to receive His blessings.

Perhaps the best known scripture passage containing the premise of turning back to God is:

“When I shut up heaven and there is no rain, or command the locusts to devour the land, or send pestilence among My people, if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:13-14

This passage vividly reaffirms that God controls the rain. Therefore, a drought is not a random occurrence, i.e. such adversity is in the hands of a sovereign God. Such adversity serves as ‘wake-up calls.’ In this light an adversity can be considered to be an ‘olive branch’ extended by a pleading God to get man’s attention.

When there is no rain and the locusts devour the land there is famine. Famine and pestilence are not limited to the Old Testament.

For example, the result of the four horsemen of the future apocalypse described in the final book of the Bible can be summarized thusly:

“…and power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death (pestilence)…” Revelation 6:8

It appears that mankind in total will not ‘return’ or ‘go back to the point of departure’ but will continue to ‘progress’ towards contemporary norms which, according to the Bible, leads to destruction.

Southern Baptists Divided on Islam

If Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, is the spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, the convention’s leaders are at odds with much of the laity.

Dr. Land asserts that ‘Muslims and Christians have the shared right to abide by the rules of their faith as long as that faith is not imposed on the government.’ Dr. Land was defending first amendment provisions for religious freedom.

While Dr. Land’s intentions may be noble, his assessment of Islam is either naïve or wrapped in political correctness.

Firstly, it is impossible to separate the religious aspect of Islam from their political aspirations. Sharia is as integral to their religion as it is to their politics.

The most affective way to describe and understand Islam is to quote noted Muslim spokesmen in their own words so as not to misinterpret their ideology and agenda. From Islamic spokesmen:

• Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.

• We believe that Islam is an all-embracing concept which regulates every aspect of life, adjudicating on every one of its concerns and prescribing for it a solid and rigorous order. It is the duty incumbent on every Muslim to struggle towards the aim of making every people Muslim and the whole world Islamic…

• The Muslim Brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…

Islam welcomes those like Dr. Land that fight for constitutional rights for all religions. Islam sums up that point succinctly.

“Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you, thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you.”

The same amendment that Dr. Land defends relative to religions freedom also provides him the freedom to express his feelings. And that same amendment provides for those who disagree with him to voice their opinions.

Accordingly, much of the laity realizes that aggressive Islamism is counter Biblical. As such they contend God’s laws override man’s laws.

“But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.’” Acts 4:19-20

“But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’” Acts 5:29

The precept of the pre-eminence of God’s laws over man’s laws was perhaps the impetus for a document called the ‘Manhattan Declaration.’ This document drafted just two years ago constitutes a ‘call to Christians to adhere to their convictions and inform civil authorities that the signers will not – under any circumstance – abandon their Christian consciences.’

Dr. Land assisted in the preparation of this declaration commenting, “It was an honor and a privilege to be part of the process that produced the document.”

A major provision of the declaration reads:

“We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.”

It is hoped that Dr. Land will consider the Manhattan Declaration that he helped develop, and reconsider the anti-Biblical, self-proclaimed agenda of Islam which includes the destruction of Israel as well as the demise of the United States. The following statement was issued by Al Qaeda’s leader after the 9-11 attack.

• Yet with the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York, there occurred an even bigger destruction: that of the great American Dream and legend of Democracy

Now, one may say that Al Qaeda is an extreme radical but minor fraction of Islam. Actually it is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood which is permeating nearly every segment of our society within our borders. We are aware of the ‘terror’ aspect of jihad but are asleep relative to the ‘stealth’ aspect of jihad. As such our government is subliminally promoting the stealth aspect via our political correctness.

Of a surety our present administration will not stand up to the challenge of Islamic supremacism, therefore, the church must.