Should Christians Support the Modern State of Israel?

QUESTION: Hi Rick, just found your site. Is all this joining with Israel and sending the Jews home to their land jumping the gun and meant for the second coming, and should we be careful supporting it?

ANSWER:  So, in one sense this question is past due date. Meaning, the Jews have already been sent back to their homeland. I know you already know that, but it means your question of support for Israel can have two different meanings, one past and one present.

The first question of support deals with what has transpired to bring the Jews to their ancestral homeland.  The question is, should we think that this historic event fills a huge prophetic prediction of Scripture which Christians should be very excited about?  If we had been around when Zionism was at a fever pitch (around the turn of the last century), should we have supported the formation of modern Israel on these grounds?  As you note, this question is connected to prophesy about the Second Coming: would it have been right to support the formation of the modern state of Israel because we would have been "helping" an End Times timetable along?

The second question regarding support is much less biblical/prophetic and more geopolitical in nature and more currently relevant. Given that the UN charter created the modern state of Israel way back in 1948, and given that this did give safe haven to a deeply, historically persecuted and displaced population after the Holocaust, and given that they are today a functioning liberal democracy sharing a lot of what Christians value in terms of freedom, representative gov't, and all that, should we support Israel today?

I think the first question is an open question of biblical interpretation without a clear answer. Obviously, many Christians think that Israel being home in their land is a necessary precondition to the return of Jesus. Mostly they think this because of Scripture that infers there will be a Temple in the land before the coming of Jesus (Matt 24:15). On that specific question, I think that Christians do not have to commit themselves to an End Times model that requires Jewish presence in Palestine. And I say this because I don't think that the Temple has to be rebuilt before Jesus returns.

The verses where Jesus talks about the Temple destruction presaging his Return were very clearly fulfilled in 70 AD at the Roman destruction of Herod's second temple.  This is so clear and so compelling a vindication of Jesus words that it's mind blowing to me why anyone would even want to dilute the power and wonder of that fulfilled prediction by assuming it has some future fulfillment! Let the reader know, Jesus taught that the Temple would be destroyed before his coming and that prediction has already been fulfilled to the letter!  We do not need any future state of Israel or a future Temple so this prophesy can happen again before Jesus can come back.

But as I write that the Jews do not need to be in their land and the Temple does not need to be rebuilt, two contrasting thoughts hit me at once:

One, there they are, in the Land!  If nothing else, it is historically speaking, astounding!  And further, the Jews returning to rule over Jerusalem after the Temple destruction does seem to have prophetic significance as I'll make clear in a second.

Secondly, if it is a needed sign, our support of it or lack of support can make no difference at all - not in God's economy! For if we believe that Jesus holds history then he will conclude it on the Father's chosen timetable (Mark 13:32), not ours, and so modern Christians ranting for or against Zionism could never change what God has decreed!

I'm always amazed at End Times teachers who read the Bible like an advanced News Paper on one hand, then wring their (other) hands at global developments that scare them because "this means the End is near". A well-known Christian political thinker and fiction writer was on the news years back bemoaning America's lack of concern over Iran getting "the Bomb". Why? Because if Iran gets the bomb, he said, it will surely use it to attack Israel and that will signal the Tribulation. 

Hold on. 

I thought every Christian wants Jesus to come back. We "long" for the "Great Appearing," don't we? So for any event which we knew presaged this great Conclusion, shouldn't we be cheering for that to happen, and quickly?  It was as if in this teacher's mind, we could both know God's exact, unalterable schedule of events, and yet also totally affect the outplaying of those events by our geopolitical actions and voting preferences!!

Scripture gives us no indication that we can either know or effect the timing of that day or hour.

All that to say, on a prophetic level, we must let God be the Sovereign of history, and stop pretending or worrying that we can alter the unalterable timing He has set by pushing for or against this or that geopolitical agenda. The level of arrogance required to think we could even know what events are "needed" to push the schedule forward, let alone when to push them, is shocking to me.  Christians are not alone in this thinking - both Muslim and Jewish radicals think they can "speed" the End of Days by this or that catalytic action - usually an engineered catastrophe.

Having said all that, as I mentioned above, I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think it was biblically/prophetically very interesting that Israel is once again a State, back in the Land.  One thing that leads me to believe it's not unimportant is Jesus statement in Luke 21:24 "...and Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Since 70 AD, Jerusalem has been ruled in part or in whole, by Gentiles. But Jesus seems to indicate that this will come to an end at some point. After the UN partition, slowly the City is coming under more and more Jewish control - the Temple Mount being one glaring exception. Again, I believe the important thing about Jerusalem for End Times has already been fulfilled (Temple destruction), but it interests me that the time of Gentile control of the Holy City may end in our lifetime.

But, if I'm right that modern Israel's presence in Palestine may not be an important sign relative to the End, then if modern Israel suddenly went away, this would not shake my faith or make me less confident that Jesus was coming back. I'm not committed to the State of Israel one way or the other, prophetically speaking.


So with the prophetic questions sort of up in the air, all that leaves is the modern Christian Church's stance about the geopolitical situation surrounding the modern state of Israel. On that score, I think we do well to avoid two extremes:

One is the extreme that Israel, because it is populated by descendants of Abraham, can do no wrong and we should never call out immoral or ineffective policies of that State. Biblical calls to bless Israel and warnings against cursing Israel are sometimes misused to imply that God demands the Gentile believer's unconditional support for what is (let's face it) a deeply secular and irreligious State today. 

I've been there, in 2009, and by the testimony of Arab Christians who live there, the Jewish State can be heavy handed with non-Jews living there, and have a bit of an itchy trigger finger when it comes to retaliation for perceived wrongs and self-protection. They do own the gun everywhere you go (except Gaza), including the West Bank where they regularly have funded developing Jewish communities which the Arab Muslim population hates with a passion. They see it has an effort to push them out.

The other extreme is the one taken by the secularists in America who call Israel's influence in Gaza and the West Bank the "occupation" and regularly paint the Jewish State and the Palestinian leadership as co-equals in terms of their morality, values and behavior. This is utter nonsense. I suspect it is a stance driven less by the facts or political principle and more by a knee jerk reaction against traditional conservative, Christian support for Israel. If Christians like it, it must be bad!

Meanwhile, they ignore that Gaza has basically been left on its own by Israel and has descended into something that resembles a post-apocalyptic nightmare. When Israel did a full pullout in 2005, they left behind a thriving greenhouse infrastructure which the Palestinians, in pure spite, promptly destroyed or looted days after disengagement. 

Hamas regularly sends missiles into Israel without provocation because their charter explicitly states the destruction of Israel as one of its goals.  Whereas Israel, despite it's excesses, is publicly committed to a two state solution. Add to that the fact that Gaza (and its neighbors Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) values almost nothing we think important to a moral government, such as democracy, liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom for women, sexual minorities, etc., and it's not hard to make a case that Christians ought to support Israel's right to exist, against the credible, persistent, existential threats of its neighbors.

So in sum, we should let the End Times timetable play out by God's timing without thinking it needs our assist by involving ourselves in world events with our money or votes.  And we should simply use our Holy Spirit inspired, biblical discernment to judge what we support or don't support about what the modern secular state of Israel does.

Was Abraham Really a Prophet?

QUESTION: In Genesis, shortly after Abraham instructed Sarah to call herself merely Abe's sister to avoid being murdered while in a foreign land, God personally showed up in the dream of the man who sought to take Sarah as his own wife. In this dream, God calls Abraham a prophet (Gen 20:7). However, to my understanding there are no recorded cases of Abraham making any prophesies.

This, of course, does not exclude prophethood from him, especially given God's declaration, but is there a deeper or extended context to how we might understand what a prophet is? As in, someone who doesn't merely foretell....? How should we take this statement God made about Abraham?

ANSWER: Two things to say. First, we must understand that prophesies in the Bible are not always predictions of future events. Even when they do predict the future, sometimes it is not to tell us what will inevitably happen but what MIGHT happen, if certain conditions are not met.  So for example, Jonah predicts the destruction of Nineveh, but it doesn't come to pass because the more important feature of his prophecy, is God's relationship with the Assyrians. He wants them to repent and turn to him in humility - which they do, and the predicted judgment does not come to pass.

It is true that in the Old Testament many prophets do predict what God's going to do in the future. And the success of these predictions authenticates that the spokesmen speaks for God because who but God could know the future? Even in the New Testament, gifted prophets in the Church also make predictions by the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:28).

However, in both the Old and New covenant periods, prophets actually spend most of their time FORTH-Telling rather than FORE-Telling. Meaning, they speak forth God's Word boldly, revealing God's mind, God's heart, God's will, God's FEELINGS (that's an amazing thought!) and God's purposes in the right now, not in the future. Prophets simply receive God's messages. So they also act as intercessors for people and nations, as God's chosen liaison/mouthpiece (see Jeremiah 11:14, 37:3, and Elijah in James 5:17).

Under this expanded biblical definition, Abraham is certainly a prophet. He receives God's messages all the time! (Gen 12:7; 13:14; 15:1; 18:10) He's just not delivering them publicly to a large audience, like Jeremiah or Isaiah did.  In Abraham's story, the author tells us the messages God gives to him, so it doesn't look like it's Abraham's "prophecy" because it's always God delivering to him, rather than Abraham delivering them to others.  But what else should we call these communiques, if they're messages or direct promises from God?  It's prophecy!  Abraham's prophetic career has a different feel than the Major Prophets because, again, he's not writing these down or delivering them like sermons to kings and peoples in courtyards, with the phrase, "thus saith the Lord!".

All messages directly from God are prophecies nevertheless.  And the fact that we even know about them means at some point Abraham delivered all this prophetic insight to others.

Also, Abraham does intercede for nations, like other prophets do, when he prays for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18).  And he speaks messages from God for people, even if it's just his own people - the people of his own house (Gen 17:9ff) who will inherit the promises God makes.

Secondly, despite all this FORTH-Telling, Abraham was also given messages about the future as the FORE-telling prophets did. For example, God revealed to Abraham what he was going to do with Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:17). Also, God revealed what he was going to do with the Amorites, that he was going to tolerate their sin for a while longer before judgment. And God revealed the fact that his descendants would travail in slavery for many generations (Gen 15:16).

So in both his FORTH-Telling roles and his FORE-Telling roles, Abraham qualifies as a prophet like any other.

Was Nostradamus a Prophet?

QUESTION: What’s your take on Nostradamus?  Was he a prophet?

RESPONSE:  First, we should ask what a prophet is.  Every culture and worldview system has its predictors of the future, because there’s always a market for prognostication.  Why?  Well, if you could truly get accurate knowledge of the future, it would have a lot of handy applications:  Comfort, direction, betting advice.

But being a Jewish prophet was different than your run of the mill shaman, witch-doctor, soothsayer, tea-leaf or palm reader.  They all claimed to know the future through trances, or reading the flights of birds or the entrails of animals or the position of stars.

Thus the pagan had no objective basis for confidence, it was all mystery and fatalism.  The Jew on the hand shunned necromancy, and spiritism of all kinds because only if their omniscient, eternal God was real, was real prophecy a confident possibility.

Thus Isaiah will say:

Isa 8:19-20: When they say to you, “Consult the spirits of the dead and the spiritists who chirp and mutter,” shouldn’t a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?

Of course, the Jewish approach to prophecy means God is in the driver’s seat.  He reveals what he wants, not what WE want.  And God’s purpose in revealing the future was always for courting or building relationship with us.  Meanwhile, the pagans thought clairvoyance was about reading the predetermined script of Fate, for no larger purpose than personal gain or banal curiosity.

Despite all these differences in the source of prophecy, the real proof, as they say, is in the pudding.  Which mode of prophecy has proven trustworthy?  Here too we see a difference in biblical prophecy, because the Jewish Scriptures are not at all fuzzy about the accuracy standard:  100%.

"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:22).

A lot of “prophets” (I’m looking at you National Enquirer) would have lost all credibility (and income) if we applied this standard.  This standard made the ancient Jews a thinking, non-superstitious people.  Fear of the occult was pervasive back then, but God specifically wants to allay these fears with a simple standard:  prophecies, in order to be verified, must be specific and detailed enough to be shown undeniably true.

Now, with this standard in mind, how does the Bible fare against Nostradamus?  I’ll list just a few predictive prophesies made by Bible prophets that were fulfilled.  Then we’ll see how Nostradamus compares.

• Ezekiel 26 predicted, 250 years in advance, how Alexander would conquer Tyre.
• Psalm 22:16 would predict that the Messiah would be pieced in hands and feet – clearly alluding to a mode of execution (crucifixion) that hadn’t been invented when the prophecy was made.
• Predicting Messiah would not decay in the tomb (Ps 16).
• Predicting Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14).
• Predicting Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
• Predicting Messiah would be a Nazarene (Isaiah 11:1), and many others.

Of course Jesus shows up fulfilling all these predictions, but then he ALSO makes prophetic predictions himself – the most startling of which was predicting the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple within a generation of his life.  In 70 AD the Roman general Titus leveled the city fulfilling Jesus word to the letter. (Luke 21:5-6)

Now, let’s turn to Nostradamus.  Is there anything like this kind of detail with specific fulfillment?  What follows is a few examples that show either Nostradamus is so vague and unclear that his accuracy could never be assessed confidently OR when he is very specific and clear, he is proven false.

For example, this passage is believed by some to foretell the 9/11 attacks:

"In the year of the new century and nine months, From the sky will come a great King of Terror. The sky will burn at forty-five degrees. Fire approaches the great new city."

The problems with this “prophecy” are numerous.

• First, this isn’t taken from a single section, but rather it’s a collection of statements culled from different sections to make a more cohesive sounding prediction that is made to match an historical event.
• Second, terror coming from the sky matches 9/11, but not this reference to a King.  The “king” (Bin Laden?) stayed home that day. 
• Third, it’s not buildings that burn for Nostradamus, but rather the sky that burns at “forty-five degrees”.  What does that mean?  No one knows. 
• Finally, New York City has the word “new” in its title, but in 2001 it was the oldest city in the country.  In what sense is it new?

We can admit that collected artificially in this way, there’s some similarity - albeit very figurative - to 9/11.  But taking these bits of Nostradamus out of context (as if everything he wrote was somehow magically predictive, but in a way unconnected his own flow of thought or logic) strains credibility to the breaking point.

Another example:

The young lion will overcome the old one,
On the field of war in single combat:
He will burst his eyes in a cage of gold,
Two fleets one, then to die, a cruel death.

Allegedly, this has reference to the death of France’s king, Henry II.  He was wounded in a jousting contest in 1557; he died ten days later. Well, here’s what actually happened:

Only six years separated the ages of Henry and his opponent in the tournament; it was hardly a contest between the young and the old (Henry was only forty). The accident occurred during a friendly sporting event, not on a battlefield.  There is no evidence that Henry was wearing a gilded visor (cage) of gold. Also, the king’s eyes were not damaged; a splinter from the lance pierced his skull and entered the brain. The reference to “two fleets” is utterly unconnected.

These are just two examples of how extremely vague Nostradamus' writings are. This provides an opportunity for wild speculation and "retroactive clairvoyance."  Many have made him a genius by squeezing modern events into the very large openings provided by his imprecision and ambiguity.

However, there is one instance when Nostradamus was less vague and refreshingly clear. In his preface to “The Centuries” – a letter to his son – Nostradamus finally writes in unambiguous terms:

From the time I am writing this [1 March 1555], before 177 years, 3 months and 11 days, by pestilence, long famine, and wars, and more still by inundations, the world between this day and that, before and after, shall be diminished, and its population so reduced that there will hardly be hands enough to attend to agriculture, and the lands will be left as long without culture as they have been under tillage.

The deadline for this prediction is easily tallied:

             Day      Month     Year

Start     1            3              1555
Add      11          3                177

Total     12          6              1732

June 12, 1732.

The truly apocalyptic destruction and depopulation predicted here is very specific and the effects very long-lasting.  So we can say with confidence that none of this has occurred and yet the deadline passed by long before the United States became a nation.

So, when I compare Nostradamus to the incredible line of specific and fulfilled prophecy of Scripture, I find him untrustworthy.  And it leads to this question – why would we want to trust him?  Especially knowing that we have the markers of authentic prophecy in Scripture affirmed and crowned by the long-predicted Christ.

Has the Prophecy in Isaiah 19:25 Happened Yet?

QUESTION: 

Isaiah 19:25 The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.”

Hi Rick, I'm reading the book of Isaiah...in chapter 19:24-25 it sounds like part of this prophecy already occurred but verse 25 in particular - that has never happened? Is what was called Assyria...isn't that now where Iran/Iraq are? 

RESPONSE: 

Great question.  Yes, Assyria then basically covered what is today eastern Syria and Northern Iraq.

Finding the historical location of fulfillment for these prophesies is more difficult than the geographical location, however.  There’s been some general consensus that the judgment part of the prophecy of chapter 19 has some historical fulfillment.  Looking into Isaiah’s context, Egypt at this point (750 BC) was a shell of its glorious former self under the Pharaohs.  It was mostly ruled by Ethiopians, which explains the connection to chapter 18’s prophesy. 

After Isaiah’s time we could say that his vision (19:4) to see them “delivered into the hands of harsh masters, and a strong king to rule” was fulfilled many times over:  in many kings in the succeeding centuries.  

• Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal (Assyrians), 
• Nebuchadnezzar (Babylonian), 
• Cambyses and Alexander the Great (Greek) 
• all these ruled Egypt as fierce tyrants. 

So Egypt’s judgment as described here has definitely been fulfilled.

More context:  the temptation in Isaiah’s day was to see Egypt as a potential ally against Assyria.  So God is saying here DO NOT TRUST Egypt – she will be unreliable, God is going to crush her.  And do not be worried about her either, she will fall and fail you – and eventually adopt OUR ways, not the other way around.  Unfortunately, Israel would struggle all the way through to king Josiah and his sons with trusting Egypt when they shouldn’t.

So the judgement piece really came true, but what about the salvation piece of this prophesy, from 19:16-25?  Were there ever five cities in Egypt that "swore allegiance to Israel’s God"?  Was there ever a "Jewish altar in Egypt" for worship, did God miraculously "send a Savior" to deliver the Egyptians, and was there ever a "highway connecting Jerusalem, Egypt, and Assyria"?

Some suggest that the prophecy was fulfilled after the exile when a group of Hebrews fled to Egypt, settled in four Egyptian cities (Jer 44:1) and later built a temple in Leontopolis around 170 BC.  The problem with locating the salvation parts in that part of history is that all the Jewish settlements in Egypt were mostly by Jewish apostates who rejected the Lord or worshiped Him along with pagan deities.  Also, there was no highway connecting Egypt with Assyria during this period, unless we mean a highway of destruction!  

The prophesy is clearly envisioning a future where Egypt not merely has some outposts of true religion, but rather pervasively KNOWS the Lord in a real way, speaks the same language as God’s people, are faithful to Him and a good ally and fellow worshipers of the One True God (vs 22). This is more than we could say ever happened before Christ.

So another approach sees these words fulfilled after the spread of Christianity to Egypt.  And that makes better sense that Isaiah sees a “savior to rescue them” (vs 20).  This sounds like Messiah, and in the late Roman period and into the Byzantine era, most of Egypt was heavily Christianized.  But honestly, I don't anything that has happened in Egypt in the Christian era comes close to matching the lofty and quite shocking beauty of this vision of the fertile crescent: all One, all adopted as God's people, totally at peace and unified under Israel’s God from the Nile to the Euphrates (Iraq)?  Hasn't happened yet.

So I would settle on a third view:  the salvation part of the prophecy awaits fulfillment during the future period of peace brought in by Christ in the 2nd coming.  Read Isaiah 2:1-4… this is the grand picture of the future peace which the prophet sees coming to ALL the earth.  And Isaiah begins that vision with same words as the prophecies in 19: "in that day".  I think then chp. 19 is supposed to fit into this grander vision as a specific sort of microcosm of the whole picture.  Inside the future where “ALL the nations will come to the mountain of the Lord” and “walk in the paths of the God of Jacob” (2:3), will be this specific peace between Egypt, Israel and Assyria (19:23.24).

To even imagine it in Isaiah’s day was scandalous.  It would be very similar if I said that one day, Jesus Christ will be acknowledged everywhere, but then went on to say, “even in the Levant and Syria Jesus will be claimed as Lord and worshiped as God in the heart of Mecca!”  Christians believe that will happen when Christ comes again - but to non-Christian ears it's shocking to even imagine it!  It feels weird to print it!  That’s how this prophesy likely hit Isaiah’s countrymen’s ears.  A highway of peace between our dreaded enemies to the north to our enemies/unreliable allies to the south?  Co-adoption as God's people with Assyrians and Egyptians?  Unthinkable!  But that’s what’s coming, says Isaiah.

Yet not through some great negotiator or leader - only through the “Lord Himself” making himself known to the Egyptians (21) so that again implies 2nd coming.

That's why I would say this is for the future, because of its size and scope.

Are the Images in Revelation Literal or Symbolic?

QUESTION: In the book of Revelations it describes the throne of God and in detail about the 4 beasts and all that other stuff. Is that a literal vision of the throne or is it possible that it's different and that that was just an example of authority that God has over creation?

RESPONSE:  In apocalyptic literature (such as Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation) the message is explicitly being communicated through dreams and visions, which are by nature highly symbolic.  So the short answer to your question is yes they are symbolic.  This is obviously so, for in many cases the prophet himself knows that he is seeing only symbols of coming realities, not the realities themselves and he is perplexed by them.  Daniel for example doesn’t understand the ACTUAL meaning of his vision about 4 beasts in Dan 7:15-18.

"I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this.  "So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.’ 

So here we have it… the beasts are not ACTUALLY, literal beasts.  They are symbols of nations/kingdoms that are to come.  Therefore, when John sees similar beasts in his Apocalypse, of course we are to understand that God is not predicting the coming of ACTUAL beasts to terrify the earth.

The LaHaye “Left Behind” books leaned toward a literal understanding of almost every vision in Revelation which to me based on verses in Daniel alone is very misguided.  For example, when rendering Revelation 9:17-19 which talks about mysterious horses which have lion’s heads and emit smoke and sulfur… LaHaye imagines actual, demonic horses roaming the earth killing people.  Why would these beasts be literal, and the beasts of Daniel and earlier in Revelation be symbolic?  That doesn't make sense.

One more example.

Rev 17:9-11 "This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king.

So again, here the author who is bringing the prophetic vision explicitly tells us that he is talking in SYMBOLS.  Sometimes, the symbols may mean more than one thing and he tells us what they are – the beast is a King.  The seven heads are kings.  They are also seven hills – which is certainly a symbolic reference to Rome, known to John's audience and world history as "the city built on seven hills".  The woman then, is some kind of false religion or system that calls for the allegiance of the nations and she sits in Rome.

This is not to make the interpretation of Revelation to sound like an easy thing.  It’s not.  But your basic instinct is dead on:  these are symbols and codes – non-literal representations of historical realities that are present or coming.

The visions of the heavenly court are likewise probably symbolic descriptions of real things.  There are really angels that worship God day and night.  The description of these beings in the heavenly court are meant to capture some aspect of them, like their power, submission, transcendence, sight, truth, love, wonder, spiritual nature etc.  

Now, I am less certain that John's descriptions of the heavenly court are purely symbolic, because there he has been explicitly caught up to heaven, in another dimension of space and time entirely, whereas the other parts of Revelation deal with history, nations and life in our dimension.  Like with Ezekiel's wheels, John may be describing the scene as he actually saw it playing out literally in heaven, but his words are still filled with similes and metaphors because he's struggling to find words to describe the immense, unutterable glory of God.

What Do You Think of Rabbi Cahn's book "Harbinger"?

This book was recommended to me by two people from church in the last few years, so I did finally pick it up.  I admit I was skeptical, since the title page tells me upfront this will be:  “the ancient mystery that will hold the secret to America’s future.”  I get very twitchy about Christians nailing down a message for one specific country (in this case America) from Scriptural prophesy. 

Look, when people give warnings about America from biblical prophecy I think that’s fine as a generic application of God’s dealings with Israel for ANY culture/nation.  The Bible shows God’s good nature, his concern for law and justice and the prophetic parts show that he’s bringing world history to an epic conclusion.  Also, biblical prophecy overall shows how God uses all the nations to advance his will and that he cares about all the nations, even the ones that are not named Israel – yes even the ones that are in rebellion against him.

So, if Cahn would take these principles and apply them to America, to show how God judged and treated Nations that were like this or that nation in Scripture, in terms of their values and overall attitudes etc – then that’s a valid application, in my mind.  In that sense it might also be appropriate to say that as America carries on in the spirit of Ancient Israel (or Babylon, or Nineveh), not getting the gracious warning shots across our bow, we will suffer for our defiance and blindness in similar ways as they.

In Harbinger, Cahn has done some of this.  However, I think he takes it too far and misapplies Isaiah’s prophesy by making it far too specifically about this one country at this particular time.  Let me explain:

Cahn’s entire premise actually is borrowed (I’m not sure if he ever gives credit for this).  His book is essentially an expansion of a sermon I have in my files by David Wilkerson entitled “Towers Down, Message Missed.”  He preached this right after 911, and in his talk, Wilkerson gave a blistering critique of the American response to 911.  The whole message was build on Isaiah 9:10 which says:

Isa 9:9-10  All the people will know it — Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria — who say with pride and arrogance of heart,  10 "The bricks have fallen down, but we will rebuild with dressed stone; the fig trees have been felled, but we will replace them with cedars."

He felt that that great tragedy was God’s stirring call for America to repent.  And in the aftermath, he noted that there was no real repentance from America’s increasing hostility to the Christian faith, to Christian values and to the gospel overall.  In fact, he said (accurately I believe) that the response was the opposite of such repentance (the temporary spike in church attendance not withstanding).  It was rather to retrench ourselves in our current path of excess and immorality, and to pridefully defy any rebuke that God might have intended with that terrible slaughter, and instead commit ourselves to rebuild, recover, and be even greater than we were before.  Wilkerson cited this same passage as his text.

To give context, Isaiah is speaking to nations who are facing the onslaught of the expanding Assyrian empire around 750 BC.  The northern kingdom was always more cosmopolitan and urbane and wealthy than their hill dwelling brothers in Judah, but their connections to surrounding culture brought the corruption of excess and immorality.   One prophet calls Israel’s upper crust the “fat cows of Bashan”.

When Assyria made incursions into the northern kingdom of Israel, they did not at first obliterate the country.  They took the northern regions but left Samaria (the capital) alone (2 Kings 15:29).  It is likely these events that prompted the response Isaiah notes in 9:10.  “The bricks have fallen” – meaning, many of our towns may have been decimated by Tiglath-Pileser, but no matter, we’ll come back from all this – and better than ever.  That’s the meaning of “dressed stone” and “cedars”… the replacement items are of much better quality than the original.  Isaiah is saying their refusal to see God’s hand of discipline in the invasion constitutes unbelievable arrogance.  And he specifically criticizes their unbounded, blind optimism to be undeterred in the face of their immanent doom.

Well, it’s not hard to see how well the American experience after 911 fits with Isaiah 9:10.  We too we hit hard by an invading army.  And we too responded with an upbeat message of rebuilding.  We too mostly ignored the setback as any kind of Divine discipline or warning.  And of course now the Twin Towers have been replaced by the even taller, 1776 foot Freedom Tower.

Now here’s where it gets controversial.  Many saw the attack, not as a reason to turn to God, but as a reason to turn away from God, saying if God were real such evil things wouldn’t happen.  Others saw it as some sort of vindication of American values – if evil people hated us this much, we must be pretty good indeed!  

Of course Christians did mostly adopt a simple view that there is evil in the world that resists good, and this resistance doesn’t always indicate divine discipline or God’s displeasure.  True.  Without a known prophet like Isaiah around to interpret such events, it’s hard to connect with any authority the evil actions of evil people with a good God.  But let us not forget that the prophets did in fact do this often.  God called the pagan and wicked king Nebuchadnezzar, “my servant” (Jeremiah 25:9).  Not because God wills evil, but because he allows it and USES it for good purposes.  So I have no problem in principle with associating the Isaiah passage with American responses to 911.  It could be just as applicable to Germany after WWII.

However, if the author treats America as a sort of “second Israel” and sees that we have a special tie to these prophecies because somehow America is uniquely “God’s country” as Israel was, then I think it’s off the tracks.  America is not God’s means of redemption, or his sole plan for getting the message of Christ out to the world, and America is not the special object of God’s affection.  The Church however, does fill all those roles – the Church stewards the hope of Christ, the hope of the world.  If America blows its moment on the world stage, that’s bad for America, people will suffer, but the Church lives on, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

Now, I would agree that America has its place in the history of nations, some more or less righteous than others, and like them, will receive from God her just desserts.  therefore, it’s good for America to broadly be friendly to godly values, and to have godly leaders etc.  But if she does not, this doesn’t defeat the Church or God’s End Times purposes.  No post-Christ nation has anywhere the role in God’s plan that pre-Christ Israel did.  That nation’s role was to show God to the nations and bring in the Christ.  Other nations sometimes helped God’s people (eg. the Persians under Cyrus), and sometimes persecuted them (eg. the Greeks under Antiochus Epiphanes).  Likewise America might be like Cyrus and that’s good for the Church.  But America itself is not the Church – like Persia it CONTAINS God’s people who live in her, in exile.

America will come and (if today’s events are an accurate harbinger) it will also someday, go.  If it repents, like Nineveh did, it might go a little longer.  If that’s the author’s point, I think it’s a good one.  If he’s suggesting America is the modern day Israel, I think he’s gone too far.

Does The Bible Predict Global Warming?

QUESTION:  Does the Bible say anything about global warming or should we be concerned?  Is a scenario like in the movie “Soylent Green” possible?

ANSWER:  This is an interesting question that has some speculative answers.  So first let me mention what is uncontroversial: the Bible is a creation friendly book that encourages good environmental stewardship.  The earth and creation in general are called “good” by God several times (Gen 1:12, 18, 21).  And our dual mandate is to rule and subdue the earth (Gen 1:28) and to tend and care for it (Gen 2:15).   God is a benevolent manager and being made in His image, that’s the pattern we’re to imitate with the environment he gives us to live in.

Then sin comes along and junks up this plan and the result is not only that we fall out of harmony and uninterrupted fellowship with God and each other, we fall out of harmony with the good earth God made (Gen 3:17-19).  Our sin has consequences for the natural order and now it’s in open revolt and we have often become users rather than managers of earth. 

That’s not controversial, biblically speaking (contrary to those who assume the Bible encourages environmental pillaging), and there are examples of our fall and behavior leading to environmental damages recorded in biblical history long before our time, and mourned by the prophets.  For example:

Hosea 4:3 Because of this [sin] the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away; the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea are dying. NIV

So our current problem is really nothing new – the scale may be larger is all. 

Now your question has a prophetic element to it and this is where it gets speculative.  I gather that you wonder if the bible predicts environmental disaster for our future through global warming.  And if it’s not mentioned in biblical prophecy, then we needn’t concern ourselves with it, perhaps?

If that’s the force of the question I would warn that whether or not global warming plays into biblical scenarios of the future, we ought to be as zealous as ever about the creation mandate.  Any part of our use of God’s good (but broken) earth that is unsustainable is by definition, BAD management.  Christians who take scripture seriously should work for sustainable stewardship of the only home we’re probably ever going to live on.

Having said that, there are some bible scholars who think that Scripture does refer repeatedly to a future where environmental devastation is predicted by prophets to play a key role in our future.  Specifically there’s a reference to “fire” judgment, with the source of the problem being the sun, so it’s not a physical fire on earth:

Rev 16:8-9  The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire.  They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God…NIV

Whether this is global warming or our sun beginning to die or some other judgment that this is a metaphor for, is debated.  But there it is.  In fact, much of what the bible prophets write about the time of coming judgment looks like environmental devastation.  One example is the repeated reference to sun and moon.  Jesus himself said:

Matt 24:29 "Immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' NIV

Other similar references are Ezek 32:7-8, Joel 2:10-11, Joel 2:31, Isa 13:10, Matt 24:29, Luke 21:25, Rev 6:12, Rev 8:12.  These verses all predict a day of a darkened sun and a red moon and they were written by 6 different authors over a period of 700 years!  Speculating on what this means, we already know what sort of phenomena would cause celestial bodies to dim and the moon to appear red:  increased haze in the atmosphere.  Pollutants, green house gases, even water vapor through evaporating oceans.  The effect you see of a red moon rising on the horizon is a result of the light having to travel through more atmosphere and particulate matter to reach your eye, thus the dim, reddish glow. 

It may be possible that the Bible predicts a future when this effect is magnified and causes global devastation.   Is this simply divine judgment or human intervention?  It could be both.  It is entirely consistent with God’s methods of discipline that he would simply make us lie down on a bed of our own making.  It’s how God judges us now.  (Rom 1:28).  He “gives us over” to selfish ways and suffer the consequences for those decisions to not go God’s way.

If we continue to forget this, it would not be shocking to find ourselves someday reaping a terrible harvest for the seeds of earth mismanagement we’ve sown – and that this may play into final judgments that precede “the Day of the Lord”.

In the meantime, even if our future contains such horrible destruction from pervasive disobedience to God’s creation mandate, it is for God to know those times and dates and it’s for us who wish to love God  to obey God’s creation mandate no matter what.  Sustainability is a very overused word, but it is the right word to define proper usage of resources from God’s good earth.  Any environmental management that cannot be sustained indefinitely, is by definition rapacious, gluttonous, and greedy because it steals from the future well-being of others so I can live better today.  (The federal budget has been managed by this exact same selfish outlook for many decades.)

“Soylent Green” is a movie that tackles overpopulation.  That scenario is not really addressed in Scripture.  There is actually massive depopulation predicted in the book of Revelation (Rev 9:18, Rev 14:20).  That may or may not assume an enormous starting population.  Problems with the food supply are discussed vaguely in Revelation, but those seem to relate to the policies of totalitarian regimes, not too many mouths to feed (Rev 13:17).

Ironically, the 1966 novel that the movie “Soylent Green” was built on predicted 40 million people crammed into NY City by the year 1999, which obviously hasn’t happened.  So grim predictions of apocalypse through overpopulation are still a ways off.  And in places like Germany, Spain, France, Japan and Russia, the governments wringing their hands and paying their citizens to have kids because they're in negative population growth situations (minus immigration).  And of course the true antagonist of the movie is really less about too many people as it is the horrifying acts of tyrannical, unaccountable governments - spoiler alert: "Soylent Green is people!!!"

So we can’t know for sure what role global warming plays in God’s future visions of judgment.  We CAN commit in the present to manage the earth well no matter where this is going.  While there’s debate about how much humans are causing global warming, it seems to me that reducing, reusing and recycling should be uncontroversial, good management principles that enhance sustainability of our earth – and enhance financial solvency which is something that cannot hurt our over-leveraged pocketbooks.