Signs of the Times

This "Flash Traffic" article is used by permission of Joel Rosenberg. I thought you would find it interesting to find that Israelis are beginning to explore Y'shua (Jesus) as being the Messiah.

Interesting times we live in.

By Joel C. Rosenberg

(Washington, D.C., July 11, 2008) -- Talk of missiles and the Messiah are making big news in Israel, Iran, and the U.S. in recent days. It's a curious combination, to be sure. But numerous high-profile stories and television programs on both topics are stirring interest and controversy among millions in three countries that could not be more different. The Messiah stories are particularly interesting to me. Iran, as I mentioned the other day, is running a new documentary TV series on Jewish, Christian and Islamic eschatology (End Times theology), consistent with President Ahmadinejad's on-going call for the Muslim world to prepare for the "imminent" arrival of the Islamic Messiah, known as the Mahdi. The Israeli archaeological community, meanwhile, is currently abuzz over the discovery of an ancient stone tablet dated not long before the birth of Jesus that strongly suggests that religious Jews of the day were expecting the coming of a Messiah who would suffer, die, and be resurrected three days later. Most Rabbis and other Jewish scholars have long argued that the death and resurrection of a Jewish Messiah was a "Christian" invention, not part of long-established Jewish thought or Biblical teaching. But a front-page story in Haaretz, a leading Israeli newspaper, just a few days ago has a lot of people asking: Are Jews really supposed to believe their Messiah will actually die and rise again, and was this really Orthodox religious thinking before the time of Jesus?

That said, let's actually start with the missile stories. Tensions are growing -- as are oil prices -- after Iran tested more medium- to long-range ballistic missiles overnight. Each of the missiles were capable of reaching Israel, all U.S. bases in the region, all of the major oil fields and facilities in the epicenter, and even cities in southern Europe. Each were also capable, experts believe, of carrying nuclear warheads.

Particularly disturbing to me was this story out of Israel. "The IAEA's latest report of Iranian nuclear capabilities noted several covert developments 'which should be cause for some concern': Developments of nuclear detonators, high-end experiments involving conventional explosives made to accelerate nuclear warheads' fission and underground nuclear testing facilities. The most disconcerting find, however was that of computer files suggesting Iran already possesses - and may have already tested - a full-fledged nuclear warhead. To make matters worse, the Swiss authorities have recently discovered even more computer files suggesting Abd al-Kader Khan did more than draw plans for a simple nuclear warhead - he may have also provided the Iranians with the blueprints for a new, extremely small nuclear warhead, which can be installed atop ballistic missiles."

Consider these other headlines:

* Iran Press Service: In Direct Warning to Israel, Iran Test-Fired Long-Range Missile
* Islamic Republic News Agency: President Ahmadinejad: US, Israel not dare attack Iran
* AP: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf
* Times of London: Iran ready to strike at Israel's nuclear heart: Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel's Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets
* AP: Israeli defense minister Barak hints at Israel's readiness to strike Iran
* AP: Rice warns Iran that US will defend Israel
* MEMRI: Iran in Preparations, Deployment to Withstand Possible Attack by West

There's no question now that Tehran, Jerusalem and Washington are also actively preparing for the possibility of a major regional war this fall. But that's not all. A Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday morning on "Iran's Missile Threat" raises another disturbing scenario, one seemingly ripped right out of my latest thriller, Dead Heat.

"Yesterday's tests offered no big surprises about Iran's missile technology, but they are a useful reminder of just how real the Iranian threat is - and how rapidly it is growing," observed the Journal. "One of the missiles tested was the latest update of the Shahab-3, which has a range of about 1,250 miles. Replace the payload with a lighter one - say, a nuclear warhead - and the range gains 1,000 miles. Add a booster and the range can be extended even farther. North Korea did just that with its Taepodong missile - technology that it passed along to Iran. U.S. intelligence estimates that Iran will have a ballistic missile capable of reaching New York or Washington by about 2015. Iran may already have the capability to target the U.S. with a short-range missile by launching it from a freighter off the East Coast. A few years ago it was observed practicing the launch of Scuds from a barge in the Caspian Sea. This would be especially troubling if Tehran is developing EMP - electromagnetic pulse - technology. A nuclear weapon detonated a hundred miles over U.S. territory would create an electromagnetic pulse that would virtually shut down the U.S. economy by destroying electronic circuits on the ground. William Graham, head of a Congressional commission to assess the EMP threat, testifies before the House Armed Services Committee this morning. We hope someone asks him about Iran."

All the more reason to move forward -- rapidly -- with a robut missile defense program for the U.S., Israel and Europe, regardless of what the Russians say.

Now, let's turn to the Messiah stories. Through TV programs like "The Secret of Armageddon," the Iranian government continues trying to prepare people for what Ahmadinejad sees as the increasingly "imminent" coming of the Islamic Messiah. I don't begrudge them that, per se. I also believe we are living in the last days. I believe the Messiah is coming. And I believe we all need to live differently in light of these truths.

The problem is that while Jesus, the Apostles and all Biblical eschatology teaches us to love our neighbors and our enemies in the End Times -- and share the good news of God's love and salvation for all who will listen and respond -- Shia Islamic eschatology teaches just the opposite. The way to hasten the Mahdi's appearance or arrival on earth, Shia scholars teach, is to create chaos and carnage on the planet and kill tens of millions of people. They believe that annihilating Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it and sending the world goes up in flames will then trigger the arrival of the Mahdi who will bring righteousness, justice and peace and create a worldwide Islamic empire.

Of course, it's one thing to believe in such horrifying theology. It's another thing to run a country based on it. Yet that is exactly what is happening in Iran today. Such Shia eschatology is driving Iranian foreign policy. What's more, it is driving the Iranian regime's feverish bid to build, buy or steal nuclear weapons and the missiles capable of delivering them to U.S. and Israeli targets. Such genocidal zealots cannot be successfully negotiated with or deterred. That's what is so critical for Washington and our allies to understand. Ahmadinejad -- and, more importantly, the Ayatollah Khamenei -- don't want to be stopped. They believe they are on a God-given mission to bring about the end of the world, and they are eager and passionate about getting the job done as quickly as possible.

Meanwhile, a far healthier discussion is going on right now in Israel. Many religious Jews also believe global events are lining up to usher in the coming of the Messiah. Of course, they believe He will be arriving for the first time, not the second time, as Christians believe. But now the very nature of who the Messiah is and what He will do when He arrives is being debated in a whole new way. Consider these stories (and I strongly encourage you to read each thoroughly):

* Haaretz (a leading Israeli daily newspaper): Dead Sea tablet suggests Jewish resurrection imagery pre-dates Jesus
* New York Times: Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
* Agence France Presse: Mystery tablet could redefine Jewish-Christian links
* The Jewish Journal: Was Jesus' resurrection culturally expected?

Israeli Professor Israel Knohl of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem finds himself in the spotlight for a presentation he is giving this week at a major conference on the 60th anniversary of discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls. His lecture is entitled, "The Gabriel Revelation and the Birth of Christianity," and it is creating a whole lot of buzz.

"The first part [of the ancient tablet that he has been studying] describes an eschatological war," Knohl explains. "The nations of the world besiege Jerusalem, and the residents are expelled from the city in groups. This description is followed by a passage in which God sends "my servant David" to ask...the Messiah Son of Joseph to deliver a 'sign.' From the context, it appears that this sign heralds the coming redemption.The second part of the Gabriel Revelation focuses on death and resurrection - and the blood of the slain. The last paragraph cites the words of the Archangel Gabriel who commands a person to return to life after three days: 'By three days, live.' In my lecture I will deal with the possible connection between the figure of Ephraim, the Messiah Son of Joseph, and the image of Jesus in the New Testament. I will also explore the possible link between the resurrection 'by three days' commanded by Gabriel in the Gabriel Revelation and the resurrection of Jesus 'on the third day.'"

"Moshe Idel, a professor of Jewish thought at Hebrew University, said that given the way every tiny fragment from that era yielded scores of articles and books, 'Gabriel's Revelation' and Mr. Knohl's analysis deserved serious attention," reports the New York Times. "Here we have a real stone with a real text," he said. "This is truly significant."

What Knohl finds most significant is "the fact that [the writings on the stone tablet] strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day. But there was, he said, and 'Gabriel's Revelation' shows it."

"His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come," Mr. Knohl said. "This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself....To shed blood...to bring redemption to Israel."

Two trends worth watching.

Opinions

Obama vs McCain



This article appeared in yesterday's JERUSALEM POST as an op-ed piece. I endorse no candidate, but thought this an interesting viewpoint and succinctly stated.

The writer, a managing general partner at SymAction Communications and an adjunct professor of communication at Pepperdine University, worked for Sen. McCain in Washington DC and Phoenix, Arizona.

The last time Democrats lost the Jewish vote was in the 1920 presidential election, won by Warren Harding. So why in this election - when an unpopular president and an unpopular war have left the Republicans in shambles - would there be such doubt over Barack Obama's ability? Not since Jimmy Carter's 1980 campaign have US Jews seriously questioned the foreign policy credentials of the Democratic nominee.

This administration's failure to communicate the long-term sacrifices required to defeat terrorism has shifted voters' priorities. It's a sobering reality when, according to recent polls, Americans consider the economy and healthcare more important than national defense. But US Jews remember the threats, past and present, of foreign dictatorships and terrorist regimes. Only a candidate who can lead our nation under such exigent circumstances will earn their support.

THE CASE for John McCain is the assurance of a transparent foreign policy, substantive dialogue and decisive leadership. In his 25 years of public service, McCain has demonstrated unwavering support for Israel, as well as a deep understanding of how America can help preserve its freedom.

Sen. Obama is more conditional with his foreign policy. In fact, the more he focuses on the abstract, the better his chances of winning. Some consider it anathema to criticize Obama's theme of "Change," but the type of change we can expect under his nebulous platform merits closer scrutiny. Consider the three major foreign policy differences between him and McCain: the Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and their plans to combat terrorism.

McCain, who clearly pledged to support the removal of Saddam Hussein, has long criticized the Bush administration's actions in Iraq, citing insufficient troop levels, tactical mistakes and limited access to linguists and special forces. He said, "The problem is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy, rather than taking initiatives to which the enemy must react."

Obama blames a "distracted" foreign policy in Iraq - allegedly fueling terrorism - for the lack of progress in the Middle East. But he overlooks the fact that every proposed peace accord has failed because of Islamic leaders' inability, and often their refusal, to eradicate terror. For all his masterful speeches, Senator Obama can only offer anti-war rhetoric. He sponsored legislation for a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq, regardless of the military assessment. And yet he recently told Iraqi FM Hoshyar Zebari that "an Obama administration will make sure we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq."

ON ISRAEL, Obama overestimates both the potency and the appropriateness of negotiating with terrorist regimes. Speaking to Jewish leaders in Philadelphia, he described Hamas as having "developed great influence in the Palestinian territories, but they do not control the apparatus of power, they are not legitimately recognized as a state." Al-Qaida does not "control the apparatus of power," and yet Obama agrees we must eliminate it. So why should Israel accept a Palestinian state run by terrorists? Because he believes that a peace accord is more central to the Middle East conflict than eliminating Islamic terror.

McCain understands that no lasting peace can come without removing the gravest threat to peace. That's why he insists on preconditions with Iran and Syria.

Obama, who seeks to engage Iran without preconditions, said "We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements." Comforting words. But why would Obama shun Hamas yet welcome diplomacy with Iran and Syria, which finance Hamas, Hizbullah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist regimes?

Equally misguided are Obama's views on Israel's security barrier. In a 2004 interview with the Chicago Jewish News, he said: "The creation of a wall dividing two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this administration in brokering peace." Aside from his clumsy reference to Palestinians as a nation, Obama misses the entire purpose of the barrier - to protect innocent Israelis from homicide bombers. McCain has supported the barrier since its inception. He openly criticized Oslo proponents, who were more fixated on a Peace Prize than on lasting peace. "The Oslo Accord failed because it was based on the premise that the Palestinian and Israeli peoples could live peacefully together," said McCain. "The security fence will test whether they can live peacefully apart."

THE EXPERIENCE gap must not be understated. During a time when Israel considers disarming Iranian nuclear facilities, Senator McCain remains the best hope for securing the joint interests of America and Israel. McCain has worked with every major Israeli leader over the past three decades. He understands Jewish history, believes that Zionism has preserved the sole democracy in the region, and agrees that military action is often necessary to combat the shelling of vulnerable towns. It's a significant advantage to have a president who knows the players and the landscape while serving as our chief negotiator.

Obama will depend heavily on surrogates like Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser under president Carter and longtime critic of Israel.

Voters will soon discover that Obama's sense of what is historically relevant translates into a delusion that radical Islamic terror can be pacified solely with financial and diplomatic pressure. Under a McCain administration, the US will maintain a leadership role in pursuing terrorism wherever it resides. McCain said: "The NATO alliance is strong, but the world in which it operates is fundamentally dangerous, insecure and chaotic."

Today's challenges require a leader who has confronted such dangers and is prepared to answer the call of duty yet again; not one who has a fragmentary perspective on national security.

Jewish values are consistent with McCain's belief that we must serve causes greater than ourselves in order to preserve our ideals. Is it likely that Republicans will end their 88-year drought and win the Jewish vote? Perhaps not. But more Jews than in years past will be giving the Arizona maverick a second look this November.

And that's a reassuring sign of Change.

The following are my own thoughts...........Pastor Jim

It is interesting to witness the race for the November elections. On one side are those who persistently refuse to open their eyes to the broader realities of the world and its geopolitical formations. Their focus remains inward toward economic issues and entitlement opportunities. The problem is, we live in a dangerous world. It is filled with something more than ethnic or religious hatred. We are seeing the arrayment of ancient and cosmic battlelines. It will not be the United States that finds itself at the epicenter, to coin a phrase, of the coming war. It will be Israel. Our national security will not depend on how quickly or severely we respond to terrorist threats or action, it will depend solely on our support of Israel and its right to exist. Will we endure in support, at least for the forseeable future? Or, will we wash our hands and fold ourselves around our own, superficial issues?

As it is, I do not believe anything will transpire in the Middle East until after the Presidential elections in November. Why? For one, President Bush knows that the support of the Republicn party is sitting precariously on the edge of disaster. He knows that a move against Iran, at theis time, would be perceived wrongly and that a backlash against McCain would occur. Second, Israel is not yet ready for the possibility of an expanded war that would target its people. Surely, if Iran began launching missiles at Israel, there would be no Desert Storm-like witholding of a vicious response. Third, Iran isn't quite ready either. The bravado coming from Tehran is preparatory, in instigatory. He will continue to posture until the world is worn down with his idiocy and any threat he might pose will be discounted for gibberish.

So when will it all happen...the Ezekiel 38-39 Perso-Russian alliance and attack on Israel? I do not presume to know. However, it is my gut feeling that we have at least one more year before everything breaks loose. I could be wrong, so don't wait around a year to get your act together with God, because when it all happens, it is not going to be pleasant. In the meantime, watch, pray, and vote...preferrably for Israel's future.
Pastor Jim

The Daily Two-Step

It was a long and tiring 4th of July, resulting in droopy eyes and a muddled brain from lack of sleep. Sunday wasn't much better. You see, Jean and I had been invited to some friends home for lunch, which was wonderful and delicious. However, when we left and began searching for the exit from the housing addition, a weird thing happened. I came to an intersection that I've stopped at dozens of times, an intersection that would lead us directly to our own front door; that is, if I turned to the right. As it was, I stopped and waited for some traffic to pass, then promptly turned left to go home. Jean said, "You want to go the other way." I said, "No, I don't." She said, "Yes, you do," and so on and so forth. It took a couple hundred yards to figure out I was clueless and had taken the wrong turn simply because I'm stubborn.

Jesus made a "stubborn challenging" statement in Matthew 6:33. It's one we know well; "Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." It is an amplification of the prayer he taught his buddies earlier in the chapter, something about praying.... "Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." For his will to be done, in the economy he has established in which men have the freedom to choose, there must be men who seek that will. The severe wrestling match occurs every time we choose to obey our own will above the Lord's. It may not cost us in the short term, but it eventually leads to some pretty severe challenges of leadership.

You see, the Lord offers us a pretty clear choice every single day. "Follow me, or follow yourself." Now, I don't know about you, but it seems that if I follow myself, I would basically be turning in circles all day. (No, I'm rested up and stopped speaking gibberish yesterday...just hang with me here...) In other words, I am not a proper leader for myself. I may be built to lead, but that leadership is meant to help OTHERS to follow whomever I am following. Get it? You cannot follow yourself and get anywhere. It is anatomically impossible!

Now, for us, the difficulty lies in wanting to be our own boss. We choose to place life-survival, i.e., eating, shelter, health, clothing, etc., in the position of supremacy. We think about it, we work for it, we allow life to consume our energy, thoughts, and even our dedication. God gets the left-overs. When that happens, we find ourselves wandering in endless, meaningless circles that have hardly any fulfillment at all. Jesus knew it would be that way, so he told us to establish someone else as our supreme leader....God Almighty!

In so doing, Jesus is not commanding that we give no thought to our food, clothing, health, housing, or life-purpose. He simply wants the first place we apply our energy to be toward him and his righteousness. If we do that, by worship, dedication, affection, and obedience, he promises to make sure the life-concerning issues are met. His will is done! Our will is overcome! All by the daily choice we make to follow his supremacy.

So, what's our problem? I mean, the creator of the world wants to create life for us everyday, yet we balk. Why? There are probably several answers, some more profound than others...but I think it has to do with a thing called RISK. Are we willing to risk giving up our supreme status to follow someone we cannot see? Is it too hard to give up the rule of daily life to a set of principles? Are we afraid that our self-workaholism will really be seen to be less valuable than a disciplined life of worship? Don't know, but it's food for thought. Think about it.
Pastor Jim
P.S. I fully understand the sin-nature issue and its mean involvement!