Archive for September, 2009
End-Time Scenarios
Sep 20th
By Jim Hutchens
One of the most remarkable yet revealing statements in Scripture is in Paul’s letter to the Corinthian believers. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. (I Corinthians 11:19). The word for “differences” is translated “heresies” elsewhere (cf. Galatians 5:20, II Peter 2:1). The Apostle is clearly saying there will be heresies among believers so that God may determine who has his approval.
Paul must have had in mind the conflicting and mutually exclusive end-time scenarios that abound among Christians today. They simply can’t all be correct. In the meantime confusion is rampant among God’s people. There is only one end-time plan that will eventually emerge as having “God’s approval.” God did not intent for an understanding of the end-times to be rocket science – open to only an esoteric few among elite academicians or theological superstars. Like the rest of Scripture, it’s for the common man. God expects us to understand it as He has given it to us in His Word.
The four most prevalent end-time scenarios are based on the book of Revelation, chapter 20, in which the 1000 (millennium) year reign of Jesus Christ is referred to six times. They are Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillenialism and Preterism.
Premillennialism sees the return of Jesus as occurring before he establishes his 1000 year literal reign on earth. The first resurrection, the gathering together of both living and dead believers (II Thessalonians 2:1), provide the manpower to rule and reign with Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Satan is bound and has no deceitful influence until the 1000 years are over. He is then released for a short period, but is ultimately defeated for eternity. Apparently, the author of Revelation, the Apostle John, as well as the other writers of Scripture, held to this belief regarding the end-times. It was this understanding of the end-times that was held by the earliest church.
Amillennialism sees us as in the millennium now. Thus there is no literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth as given in Revelation 20. Christ is presently reigning in heaven with the souls of dead believers. Satan is supposedly bound from deceiving the nations because the gospel is still being preached and people are still coming to Christ. This understanding of the binding of Satan conflicts with the prediction of Jesus himself, that Satan’s “deception” will characterize the times until Jesus returns – such profound deception that even the elect would be deceived, “if that were possible” (Matthew 24:24). Since the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth with believers is spiritualized, amillennialism gives an inadequate understanding of what believers should expect and prepare for regarding the future.
Postmillennialism sees the world as eventually becoming Christianized and will result in a future extended period of world peace. This requires the belief that the people and governments of the world are progressively becoming more Christ-like and reflecting the values and virtues of his teaching and example. Unfortunately, the world we live in today provides incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Wars and rumors of wars abound. Islam is gaining in influence, even in the United States. The moral compass of the world and certainly in America has gone south, with no indication of it being reversed. Postmillenianism is in conflict with the clear and observable facts in the world today. It does not provide a helpful understanding of the end-times.
Preterism sees all or most of the prophecies in the Bible as having been fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. They are in the past, hence preterist. This view is the most difficult to accept because it denies Jesus and the writers of the New Testament any understanding of the future up to the return of Christ. The events of the book of Revelation are all in the past and God’s people are left adrift without any guidance as to the future. To subscribe to preterism one must believe God is wrong when he says through the prophet, “Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7).
Obviously all of these end-time scenarios can’t be right. But God is not the author of confusion, and the least confusing and easiest to understand is the literal sequence of events given in Revelation 19-20 – which leads to premillenialism. Jesus will return in power and glory to establish his kingdom on earth, where he will reign with believers for a thousand years. His coming will follow an unprecedented time of tribulation and world-wide destruction that lasts for seven years.
This seven year period will begin when a dynamic world leader (the anti-Christ) will endorse a covenant that includes Israel and most likely allows for the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. This covenant is the next identifiable event in God’s prophetic calendar. Be alert, that covenant/agreement may be closer that we think. Even so, come quickly LORD Jesus.
Jim Hutchens is President of The Jerusalem Connection, International and editor of The Jerusalem Connection Report.
Inside the White House
Sep 15th
By William Koenig
Wow — what a month in Israel, the Middle East and the U.S. pertaining to peace talks! Just when everything seemed to be relatively calm after Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell’s meetings with the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Syrians (where he spoke of normalization of relations), the Arabs came to Washington in force and stirred things. That included the foreign ministers of Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Emir of Kuwait.
Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh surprised US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the State Department by his comments.
Judeh spoke against confidence-building measures, stating that “there has been in the past an over-investment, perhaps, by the parties in pursuing confidence-building measures, conflict-management techniques, including transitional arrangements, and an overemphasis on gestures, perhaps at the expense of reaching the actual end game.”
His words followed Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal’s comments in Washington on Friday, July 31, 2009, that rejected the idea of confidence-building steps.
After Saud’s meeting with Clinton, he told members of the media, “Incrementalism and a step-by-step approach has not and — we believe — will not achieve peace. Temporary security, [and] confidence-building measures will also not bring peace.”
On Monday, August 3, 2009, the Emir of Kuwait Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al Sabah met with President Obama to discuss peace talks.
He was not as forthcoming as the Jordanian and Saudi foreign ministers, saying after his meeting with Obama, “It is in our interest that peace be brought about, and the indicator is that the recent Arab peace initiative that was agreed upon by all of the Arab parties and states, and we would implement this peace initiative when Israel implements and fulfills its obligations.”
The emir told reporters as he sat down with Obama at the White House, “I affirmed to President Obama that we are interested in bringing about peace in the Middle East.”
The emir was speaking as if Middle East peace is possible only if Israel would cooperate. Well, then what is his plan for the Arab infighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Yemen — and among the Palestinian political parties?
The only time Arab leaders can agree to anything is when it has to do with Israel’s land.
Additionally, negotiating with multiple Arab leaders at the same time is like “trying to herd cats.” It is an exercise in futility.
Other activity
In a very rare diplomatic occurrence, Israel’s consul general in Boston, Nadav Tamir, fired shots at Netanyahu’s handling of the settlement situation — saying this was dangerous to U.S.-Israel relations and Jewish support of Israel.
Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, was summoned to the State Department for a reprimand due to the eviction of Palestinians from the homes they were occupying illegally in East Jerusalem.
The State Department said they hope to have a peace plan ready in the next few weeks and that they may have a major conference after Jewish and Arab holidays.
Obama’s public relations campaign for Israeli and Arab television
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency wrote on Monday, August 3, that the Obama Administration is planning a public relations campaign in Israel and with the Arab world to explain its peace moves.
The New York Times quoted Administration officials Monday as saying the campaign would include interviews with President Obama on Israeli and Arab television. Jewish officials have urged Obama in recent weeks to directly address Israelis about his peace plans.
The New York Times revelation came in an interview with George Mitchell, Obama’s envoy to Middle East peace talks. Mitchell rejected assertions that Arab nations were reluctant to make the overtures to Israel that would facilitate Israeli concessions, including the settlement freeze sought by the Obama Administration.
This sounds good on the surface, but it won’t solve the deep-seated issues between the nation of Israel and the people committed to her destruction. A campaign speech won’t change reality. Barack Hussein Obama’s rating in Israel is very low, and his interviews aren’t going to change the perceptions, especially after his June 4, 2009, speech to the Arab world from Cairo, Egypt.
Obama wants to be all things to all people and that certainly won’t work in this neighborhood.
Why Israel is nervous
Elliott Abrams, who was the deputy national security adviser overseeing Near East and North African affairs under President George W. Bush from 2005 to January 2009, stated the following in his Wall Street Journal editorial, “Why Israel is nervous.”
The Obama Administration has managed to win the mistrust of most Israelis, not just conservative politicians. Despite his great popularity in many parts of the world, in Israel Obama is now seen as no ally. A June poll found that just 6 percent of Israelis called him “pro-Israel” when 88 percent had seen President George W. Bush that way.
In closing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is extremely adept politically. His two conditions to moving forward towards a peace deal — (1) acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and (2) de-militarization — were brilliant. How could any reasonable person fault those conditions? These are also two items that the fractured Palestinian government seems incapable of agreeing to or accomplishing. Let’s pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Visit us at Koenig International News at http://watch.org for biblically relevant news. William Koenig is the author of “Eye to Eye – Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel,” that documents what happens when leaders attempt to divide the covenant land of Israel.
Wrong use of the ‘P word’
Sep 15th
By Victor Sharpe
The American Thinker
Throughout the Arab, and most of the Muslim world, the territory between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea is called Palestine while the name, Israel, is blotted out.
The so-called moderate wing of the Palestinian Authority displays a wall map behind the desk of its Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, showing the State of Israel in its entirety but named Palestine.
Indeed, the PA too often refuses to use the name, Israel, preferring to call it “the Zionist entity.” In doing so, it should remove from the minds of objective observers any faith in the Arabs’ interest in making a true peace. If the Arabs cannot even bring themselves to name their partner, then the entire peace process is a farce: a disaster waiting to happen.
But the general use of the term, Palestine, in a geographical and historical biblical context is often used just as insidiously as that employed routinely by the Palestinian Authority.
Christian and even Jewish writers, many eminent and admirable, often use the word Palestine along with or even instead of Israel, Judea and Judah when referring to the biblical period. This, consciously or unwittingly, helps to belittle the inextricable links of the Jewish people to their biblical and ancestral homeland.
It is time to restore historical correctness and dispose, once and for all, of the literary and present day propagandistic use of the term Palestine when referring to the biblical period.
Nowhere in the Jewish Bible is the word Palestine used. Nor is it ever used in the Christian Bible. Read the New Testament texts and look for the word, Palestine. It does not exist. But Israel is used. For instance in Matt. 2:20-21:
And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the Land of Israel.
The Bible, both Jewish and Christian, never employs the name Palestine in reference to biblical times. Any Bible commentary that refers to the biblical period as ‘in Palestine’ is either committing an historical error or is making a determined and sinister effort to deny the Jewish biblical names of Judah, Israel, Judea, Samaria and Galilee – especially that of Israel. It is, therefore, necessary to review some brief history to understand the monumental error being committed.
During the First Jewish uprising against the Romans, the Roman general, Titus, destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Subsequently Rome issued coins with the phrase, Judea Capta, meaning that the Jewish province of Judea had been captured. However, they did not use the term, Palestine, for it was as yet unknown and certainly never employed in Roman coinage of that time.
The second Jewish Revolt against Roman occupation of Judea broke out under the banner of Bar-Kochba in 132 AD. It was eventually crushed in 136 AD after years of heroic resistance against the legions of Rome’s emperor, Hadrian Publius Aelius.
Incidentally, a discovery of 120 coins minted by followers of Bar Kochba, who was known as the Son of a Star, have just been found by Israeli archaeologists near the Dead Sea where the Jewish defenders made their final stand against Rome. The coins all had the words, ‘Freedom for Jerusalem’ imprinted on them.
It is intriguing to consider that if the British tribes, at the other end of the empire, had risen in revolt at the same time, both peoples may have prevailed and history would be very different from what it became.
Hadrian destroyed Jewish Jerusalem, plowing the city under and filling the furrows with salt. He renamed it Aelia Capitolina, in part after his own name, and built a shrine to the Roman god Jupiter on the site where the Holy Jewish Temple had once stood.
But he also chose to rename Judea with that of the hated ancient enemy of Israel; the now long extinct Philistines. This was done as a lasting insult to the Jewish people. Hadrian thus renamed the land Philistia, later Latinized into Palestina and, in time, becoming Palestine.
We should note that the Philistines were known as the “Sea Peoples” whom, it is believed, originated from Crete. They settled along much of the south eastern Mediterranean coastline and certainly had nothing to do with the ancestry of any Arabs — despite the deluded imaginings of the late arch terrorist, Yasser Arafat.
The usage of the Hadrianic term, Palestine, was subsequently absorbed into the lexicon of the Church, which has continued to use the historically incorrect term, Palestine, when referring to biblical history in maps and literature: often replacing the word, Israel.
Interestingly, when the Crusader King Frederick II obtained a lease of much of the Holy Land from the Egyptian Sultan, Al-Kamil, including Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem, he called it the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
When Great Britain was awarded the Mandate for the territory in 1920 by the League of Nations, it immediately employed the term, Palestine, on both sides of the River Jordan.
The British term became the geo-political usage for several decades and the Jewish community was obliged to use terms such as the Palestine Post for today’s Jerusalem Post and the Palestine Symphony Orchestra for today’s Israel Symphony Orchestra. The historically correct name, Israel, was finally revived after the reconstituted State of Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948.
No such place as Palestine existed in Christ’s time or at the time of the biblical Jewish Judges or Kings. The Jewish patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, never lived in a place called Palestine, nor did any of the biblical prophets. Canaan would be accurate for patriarchal times but the Canaanites, the Philistines, and a host of other pagan tribes had already long disappeared by later biblical times. Indeed, as we know, no independent state called Palestine has ever existed in recorded history, certainly not an Arab one. Palestine – like, for instance, Patagonia or Siberia – has always been merely a geographical area.
Those still believing in historical correctness, not the dubious and transitory concept known as political correctness, might wish to urge publishers and writers to restore historical correctness to the nomenclature in their works.
It is sad to witness glaring historical errors in such titles as: Palestine in Biblical Times; Palestine under the Time of the Judges; Palestine in the Times of the Kings or Jesus’ Palestine, when a geographical territory called Palestine did not even exist during those times.
After all, we do not write of Alexander the Great’s journey through Bactria as Alexander in Afghanistan. Nor do we describe the invasion into Carthage of Scipio Africanus as Scipio in Tunisia. So why use the term, Palestine, to describe a historical period and location when that word had not yet been invented?
Surely the use by authors and bible commentators of a name that never existed until at least 135 AD can finally begin to be corrected.
After all, historical correctness must always trump political correctness.
Victor Sharpe is the author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/wrong_use_of_the_p_word.html at September 15, 2009 – 07:05:20 AM EDT
Digging for Temple Treasure
Sep 1st
By Shelley Neese
The Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, Atlantis, the Philosopher’s stone. Whether the objects of legend or reality, certain ancient mysteries arrest the imaginations of every generation. They are antiquities that refuse to be forgotten—remaining hidden enough to evade discovery but historically prominent enough to leave a smattering of clues. Many an explorer has fallen prey to the treasures’ siren call, spending their lifetimes searching for the relic that promises to alter minds or bring great riches.
The Copper Scroll is a relative newcomer to the modern treasure hunt. Part of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection, the Copper Scroll is unlike any of the papyrus documents, though not only for its copper plates. The Scroll reads like a treasure map, listing sixty-four hiding spots where tithes and vessels thought to be secreted from the Jewish Temple were stored for safekeeping. Over fifty years after archeologists found this unique copper document in a Qumran cave, only three explorers have dared to chase after the Scroll’s prize and only one whose search continues.
Explorer Jim Barfield believes he is the first to successfully interpret the mysterious text. According to Barfield who is now working with the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), hoards of Temple wealth lurk buried underneath one of Israel’s most famed archeological sites. Hundreds of tourists each day unknowingly walk over holy Temple items and at least sixty tons of Temple gold and silver.
Before Barfield, two men are on record for conducting archeological digs in search of the items listed in the Copper Scroll: John Allegro and Vendyl Jones. Both men risked their careers and reputations to dig for treasure that they had no guarantee still remained.
Allegro, a British scholar known for his controversial opinions on religion, was one of the original members of the publication team for the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the first to translate the Copper Scroll. Allegro believed two dozen of the Scroll’s locations were in the area of the Jerusalem Temple and the rest were near Qumran. In 1959 Allegro excavated tombs in Jerusalem’s Kidron Valley that he thought could be the same “Zadok’s tomb” mentioned in the Scroll. He applied for a permit through the Jordanian authorities to dig beneath the Temple Mount but was denied. Allegro then organized an expedition to Hyrcania, a Herodian fortress near the Dead Sea which had never been professionally excavated. Allegro linked the ruins to his translation of the first line of the Copper Scroll: “the fortress in the Valley of Achor.” At both sites Allegro lacked the proper equipment and stopped short of making a discovery. His colleagues from the Scrolls publication team openly criticized Allegro’s naïve ambitions and love for publicity.
Vendyl Jones, a former Baptist minister from Texas rumored to be the inspiration for Spielberg’s Indiana Jones, has spent the last thirty years in search of the Copper Scroll treasure. Jones has a unique take on the history of the Scroll, believing it dates back to the first Temple period and that the treasure includes the Ashes of the Red Heifer, Breastplate of the High Priest, and the Ark of the Covenant. Most academics believe the treasure is Second Temple period and that the Scroll never directly references those three Temple items. According to Jones’ translation, the key landmark in the Copper Scroll is “the Cave of the Column” which he identified as a cave adjacent to Qumran that appears to have natural rock columns on its façade. Since 1972, Jones has conducted eight excavations at the site, all funded through donations from private individuals and staffed by volunteers. In a lifetime of searching, Jones found one small intact vessel in 1988 which he claims was part of the Copper Scroll treasure.
Although Jim Barfield’s excavation sites are very close to Allegro’s fortress ruins and Jones’ columned cave, he has interpreted the Copper Scroll in a way that is entirely his own. A retired fire marshal from Oklahoma and award-winning arson investigator, Barfield cracked the code on the Copper Scroll two years ago while sitting in his home office. After meeting Vendyl Jones and hearing his unique history on the Copper Scroll, Barfield woke up one morning and decided to look at the Scroll. He had seen a translation years before and thought it was boring—“nothing but a list of kosher metals” Barfield says. This particular morning, though, he happened to have on his desk an aerial photograph of Qumran which he claims he still can’t remember putting there.
While Barfield was reading the Copper Scroll translation from F. Garcia Martinez’s The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, he glanced at the map and noticed that in Qumran there were several sites that seemed to match the Scroll’s descriptions. Qumran had stairs leading east, cisterns, aqueducts, a peristyle, and a double entry pool. Going into investigator-mode, a mode he has worked in for the last twenty years, he says “I started matching up the fingerprints between the Scroll and the Qumran map and within five minutes realized this was more than coincidence.”
Over the next six months he worked tirelessly to identify the sixty sites, all in or around Qumran. For his research on the Scroll he prepared an investigative report no different in style than what he would’ve produced as the logistics officer for the Oklahoma City Bombing, except, of course, for the ancient Hebrew and Israeli maps. He felt a burden of information but had nowhere to take his research, “I had no contacts in Israel, no credentials, no university backing, and no idea how the archeological process worked in Israel.”
Barfield and his wife took their first trip to Israel to visit Qumran and to meet with anyone who would listen and potentially help. Despite his lack of credentials and unorthodox approach, the report was so convincing that he moved rather quickly up the ladder. “Everyone who read the research just thumped their heads and moved me to the head of the class,” Barfield recalls. Finally Barfield got a meeting with IAA director Shuka Dorfman. Before Barfield could finish presenting the first five sites, Dorfman was hooked and had his top archeologists on the phone to organize a meeting.
At the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, Barfield laid out his full research to Dorfman and the two IAA archeologists in charge of Qumran, Yitzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg. Magen was a bit skeptical at first. He told Dorfman, “We have dug all over Qumran. This stuff isn’t there.” Barfield, knowing the enormous depths specified in the Copper Scroll, asked “Have you ever dug below virgin soil?” Magen admitted they hadn’t and Peleg, staring at the maps, said “I think he’s got something here.” Peleg, with Magen’s consent, agreed to be the archeologist for the excavation. Barfield was thrilled. This not only meant he had one of Qumran’s main experts leading the dig, but that he would also bypass the usual red tape to apply for a permit. Magen and Peleg are the authorities who give permits for Qumran, and they don’t make it easy.
By April 2009, Peleg was ready for the first phase of excavation and Barfield flew to Israel. In three days they tested three of the sixty sites about thirty percent of the way. A minor disagreement occurred between Peleg and Barfield about the depths they should test. Since the Copper Scroll mentions depths of eight to ten feet, Barfield felt they should go at least that deep. Barfield returned to the states after the first dig under the impression that when he returned for the second phase they would go deeper at the three sites and test more of the locations in the Qumran complex. However, since April Barfield has not heard anything from Peleg, or anyone at the IAA. He has called, sent emails, mailed letters; all have gone without a response. All Barfield knows is that the permit, under Peleg’s name, is still active and the three sites have not been filled back in.
Until the dig stalled in April, Barfield chose to keep a very low profile about his research, preferring the sites to be kept secret so the dig would not be jeopardized. Three months after the first dig and no communication, Barfield is going public with the information because he feels he has no other choice. “I only want these items to be found,” Barfield answers when asked about his motives. “Even if I read in the news one day that the IAA did it without me, I would be glad that the items were returned to Israel.”
Barfield was not the first to connect Qumran to the Copper Scroll locations. Allegro and Jones came very close in their excavations. But several academics have also made the association in their research. Jodi Magness in her book The Archeology of Qumran says Secacah, a term listed four times in the Copper Scroll, is an ancient name for Qumran. The scholar Hanan Eshel made a similar argument. Barbara Thiering believes the first twenty-one items in the scroll were hidden at Qumran. In a paper for the International Symposium on the Copper Scroll (1996), Thiering presents a scenario where the Essenes offer Herod the deserted buildings of Qumran as a place to store his bank account. In this way, they might curry his favor and he would consider their plans for Temple remodeling.
Even though explorers and academics have tiptoed around the idea of Qumran as a possibility for the Copper Scroll treasures, Barfield is the first explorer to say that all the locations are in Qumran. He is also the first to pinpoint the exact hiding spots, build a full investigative report, and pursue an excavation in the Qumran ruins below the earliest level of habitation. The reason why his theories are so striking is not because of their complexity, but because they are so plainly obvious. That’s why Barfield says no one proclaims him a genius when he presents the report; “most people just thump their heads.” Philosopher Kahlil Gibran has said, “The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it.” Perhaps someone has finally expressed the obvious in the Copper Scroll mystery. Let the digging begin.
Shelley Neese is managing editor for the The Jerusalem Connection Report.
