Information Related to "End-Time Scenario Not Possible Until Now"
| Audio/Video |
 |
End-Time Scenario Not Possible Until NowAll nations are firmly in place for the final act.by Melvin RhodesWhen we consider the end time scenario of events that lead to the return of Jesus Christ we cannot help but notice that the main area of conflict is going to be the Middle East. At the same time, it is easy to overlook two very interesting facts about this period, one historical and the other contemporary. Looking at the historical map of the region, what stands out is that the prophesied apocalyptic events would not have been possible one hundred years ago. It wasn't, in fact, until fifty years ago that nations and alliances were in place that made today's situation possible. At the turn of the twentieth century the Mideast was dominated by the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. The Turks had dominated the region for over 400 years. Before them, various other Islamic powers were in control, and before them the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire. The Jews (Judah) were out of the picture from the second century on. The Turks had been a major European power as well as dominating the Middle East. Only 300 years ago they reached the gates of Vienna, frightening western Europe with fears of a Moslem invasion. They ruled what is now the Balkans. The decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire led directly to the divisions that now consume the Balkans and, therefore, directly and indirectly to the two World Wars that devastated so much of the world in this century. Allying itself with the Kaiser's Germany in World War I, the Turks lost to the Allies. Most notably, the British took control of Palestine in 1917 and helped Arab nations come into being through successfully aiding rebellion against the non-Arab Turks . The British had already moved into the Middle East, taking control of Egypt in 1882 and of the Sudan in 1896. Aden had come under their control earlier in the nineteenth century. The end of World War I saw the British and French carving up the former Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence. The French took control of Lebanon and Syria, while the British ruled over Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan. The British also dominated the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. It took another world war to drive the colonial powers out of the area. France lost control of both Lebanon and Syria while she was occupied by German forces during the war. From Colonial Powers to Small States Britain saw its influence gradually decline in the years immediately following victory over the Axis powers. Jewish resistance to British rule in Palestine led to the establishment of the state of Israel (May 1948). Britain continued to be the major power in the Middle East for another ten years, maintaining influence through the various conservative monarchies that ruled over the Arab countries. Egypt was the first country to overthrow its king in 1952, after which Egypt had a native Egyptian ruling the country for the first time in almost 2000 years. This led to a dramatic rise in Arab nationalist feelings and led to the seizure from Britain and France of the Suez Canal in 1956. America's intervention stopped the colonial powers from taking back control, leaving them considerably reduced in power and influence. Two years later, inspired by events in Cairo, the king of Iraq was overthrown, an event which led eventually to the rise to power of Saddam Hussein. Libya's king Idris was overthrown in 1969, with the resultant loss of British and American bases. Radical regimes were now in power throughout the area. The Gulf remained fairly conservative until the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Since then, radical Islamic movements have grown in power and influence. Most people are aware that Israel's borders are a constant source of conflict in the area. So also are those of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and others. The major reason for this goes right back to the Ottoman Empire. Kuwait and Iraq for hundreds of years were in the same administrative region, thereby leading to Saddam's claim to control of his oil rich neighbor. Lebanon and Syria were similarly governed in Ottoman times. Lebanon has been in continual ferment for over twenty years as various factions have tried to take control, aided or opposed by neighboring Syria, looking for territorial advantages. A border dispute between Iraq and Iran led to one of the bloodiest and longest wars of this century in the 1980s. It is, without a doubt, the most volatile area of the world. But it wasn't that way until the colonial powers were driven out after World War II. Prophecy Takes Shape In this context, it is interesting to note some Bible prophecies. Daniel, chapter 11, verses 40-43, indicates there would be a number of different military powers in the region as end time events unfold, not just one big empire. Hosea 5:5 prophesies the fall of Judah, Ephraim and Israel (the dominant nation of which today is Manasseh), all at the same time. Judah did not exist as a separate nation until 1948, calling itself Israel. See Isaiah 48:1-2. Prophecies in the gospels of Jerusalem being trampled by gentile armies immediately prior to Christ's return would also suggest that immediately prior to that the city would be ruled by Israelites. (Revelation 11:1-2 and Zechariah 14:2 indicate that Jerusalem will be divided, with one part being ruled by the gentiles. This came about with Britain's liberation of Palestine in 1917and continued through Jewish domination after the birth of modern Israel in 1948. It is also interesting to note that no further dramatic border changes are necessary for end time events to be fully played out. All nations are firmly in place for the final act. The exact role the United States will have in the final prophetic scenario is uncertain. The prophecies of Daniel show that other major powers will arise to play a key role in the Middle East, and Jerusalem in particular. Like other nations who have played historic roles in this region, America, too, may fall victim to events beyond her control. Until the late 1950s the British dominated the region. America moved in exactly forty years ago when it invaded Lebanon. America's involvement in the region was a result of the policy of "containment" (containing the spread of communism). The Soviets moved into Egypt as the British moved out, so America moved in to the area to stop Soviet influence from spreading. Today the escalating threat of terrorism adds a new dimension to America's will to maintain it's role as the world's policeman. Significant Shift in American Policy More interesting still is the new direction of America's military policy following six years of reduced military expenditure under the Clinton administration, part of the "peace dividend" made possible by the collapse of the Soviet Union. America's military capabilities have been reduced by an estimated 40 percent. The current paradigm in the Pentagon is based on four basic principles as discussed recently in The New Republic (5/25/98 "Battle Wary" by Andrew J. Bacevich and Lawrence F. Kaplan). Excerpts follow: "The paradigm has four basic principles. The first is faith in technology…. The second principle is confidence in the potential of a militarily dominant power to overawe would-be opponents…. When threats do not suffice, the U.S. uses force as a precision instrument: this is the third principle…. The final principle…is to employ ground forces only as a last resort. This principle manifests itself in an inclination to intervene reluctantly, late in the game, and then on a massive scale. It also manifests itself in tendencies, once troops deploy, …to seek withdrawal at the earliest conceivable opportunity." Many of you will have seen the movie, "Saving Private Ryan," in which American troops are sent to rescue a certain Private Ryan, whose three brothers have already died in combat. Following the tragic real-life loss of all five Sullivan brothers when their submarine was torpedoed, it was decided that no family should have to lose all of its sons serving the country's military needs. A fine humanitarian gesture. Today, few families have more than one son. How politically acceptable would it be for America to fight a long, protracted land war today? How long would Americans (or Britons) tolerate watching their sons dying every night on the news in some far away country that most could not find on the map? The number of American troops in the Gulf was decreased this summer from 32,800 to 19,650, in spite of increased intransigence from Saddam Hussein and the extremely volatile political situation. America today leads a strong NATO organization and is the only nation that can effectively project force into any part of the world. Economically, no other country can match its depth of resources which continue to help so many others. At the same time it is the world's largest market for goods. Yet, prophecies indicate that the picture will change significantly enough to allow a collection of other powers to enter the scene at the close of the age. WNP |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| © 1995-2022 United
Church of God, an International Association | Request
Free Literature Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. All correspondence and questions should be sent to info@wnponline.org. Send inquiries regarding the operation of this Web site to webmaster@churchofgodtwincities.org. |
|
Related Information:
Other Articles by Melvin Rhodes
Origin of article "End-Time Scenario Not Possible Until Now"
Keywords: Middle East history Iraq
Middle East - history:
