Islamic State Babylon, Last Days revival

"With a mighty voice he shouted: 'Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!' " (Rev 18:2).

The whole prophetic narrative of the Bible is in many ways a tale of two cities: Babylon and Jerusalem. There are times when Babylon masquerades as Zion -- a false city of God with a false Messiah leading her. And there are times when Zion in her apostasy has appeared as Babylon. But in the final conflict of the last days, these two cities will be literally pitted against each other. Zion will briefly succumb under the might and pride of Babylon, to rise again in eternal glory. It was in Babylon where Nimrod first built the tower of Babel, the first organized rebellion against God; and it was there that God first entered into open judgment of flesh and humanity en masse. And it is here likewise that His purpose with sin and His true people will likewise be fulfilled. Babylon was also called Su-anna, "the holy city". Yet "the holy city" is Jerusalem, thus making Babylon a fake Zion. Herodotus says the city was square, just as new Jerusalem.

Unfulfilled Prophecies: "Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah" (Isa 13:19). And yet Babylon was never suddenly overthrown like Sodom and Gomorrah in their fiery destruction. It was conquered by the Medes and Persians and fell into decline, but it was not violently destroyed. Likewise: "The Lord will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and settle them in their own land... They will make captives of their captors and rule over their oppressors... On the day the Lord gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!... All the lands are at rest and at peace; they break into singing" (Isa 14:1-4,7).

When Babylon is ultimately destroyed, Israel will finally be at Peace and will dwell in safety. Israel has been a nation since 1948, but not for one day has the nation of Israel known real peace or ease. It has never been able to claim all the lands God promised the Israelites, and Israel's Arab neighbors have been a constant threat and danger.

There is the assumption by many that all the OT prophecies about 'Babylon' were fulfilled in the overrunning of Babylon by the Medes. However, there are many details of those prophecies which did not have a total fulfillment, and thus what the Medes did as but a partial, incipient fulfillment of what is going to come in the last days. This also requires that 'Babylon' be understood as literal Babylon -- for it was against her that the prophecies were uttered in the first place. And quite clearly, the prophecies of Revelation against 'Babylon' are extensions of those of the Old Testament. We therefore are encouraged to see the 'Babylon' of Rev as the Babylon of the prophets -- ie literal Babylon.

Unfulfilled details, which require a latter day fulfillment:

• Literal Babylon decayed due to the ravages of time, whereas Babylon was to fall "suddenly" in her prime (Jer 51:8; Rev 18: "one hour"). This must be future in its fulfillment. Rev. 18:22; 14:8 both speak of "Babylon is fallen" as applying to a latter day scenario. And yet these words come directly from Isa 21:9 and Jer 51:8, prophecies about literal Babylon being destroyed suddenly -- a destruction which is clearly future, seeing the city was never so suddenly destroyed in the past. The suddenness of the destruction is a keynote of these prophecies.
• It is not true that Babylon has been uninhabited "forever". "The city of Babylon has never ceased to exist. Although its name was changed on two occasions, it has never been totally unpopulated. Hillah presently has 250,000 citizens and was built almost entirely of bricks from the parts of the old city of Babylon" (Joseph Chambers, A Palace For The Antichrist 146). Note too that the Babylonian Talmud was written by Jews living in Babylon in the 6th century AD. 1 Pet 5:13 implies there was even an ecclesia there in the first century.
• "For the Lord will have mercy upon Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And the people shall take them [the Babylonians], and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors" (Isa 14:1,2). This passage has never been fulfilled yet. It will be in the last days; and at this time, as Is. 14 goes on to detail, Babylon [literal Babylon, in the context] will fall.

Other prophecies about the sudden destruction of literal Babylon -- which can only be latter day in their application -- are also the basis for the words of Rev about latter day Babylon. Consider: (a) "Thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me: I shall not sit a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children" (Isa 47:8), compared with: "How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously...for she hath said in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow" (Rev 18:7). (b) "But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood" (Isa 47:9), compared with: "Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death and mourning" (Rev 18:8). (c) "Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up" (Isa 47:13), compared with: "For by thy sorceries..." (Rev 18:23).

The Babylon of Rev is the Babylon of Jeremiah and Isaiah, literal Babylon, which awaits her full punishment. This conclusion is strengthened once it is appreciated how the harlot Babylon of Rev 17, loud, gaudy, decked with jewelry and painted face, is replete with reference to Semiramis, the goddess / mother of Nimrod, and one of the patron gods of literal Babylon.

The antichrist is a mimic of the true Christ; his kingdom is a parody of God's Kingdom. And the King of Babylon claiming "I am and none else beside me" are the very words of Yahweh -- the King of Babylon is clearly to be identified with the man of sin, who sits as God in God's temple (2Th 2). But the similarities run deeper. The Babylonian epic of creation is a parody of the Genesis account; the flood has its counterpart in the epic of Gilgamesh; and the Code of Hammurabi, an early ruler of Babylon, was clearly an anti-law of Moses. And Saddam Hussein's supporters greet him as the Messiah of the Arab world (Chambers 45). Now Saddam may pass off the scene, but the point is that a similar charismatic leader could arise and be the antichrist.

The accounts of the latter day invasion of Israel all feature a single charismatic individual, who will be destroyed personally by the Lord Jesus at His coming. This is Paul's "man of sin", Daniel's aggressive king of fierce countenance, Ezekiel's Gog, the chief prince. It is also the person referred to by Micah: "And this man [Messiah] shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land" (Mic 5:1,2). The Lord Jesus will save His people in the latter days from an "Assyrian". It has been shown that Assyria and Babylon are used almost interchangeably in Scripture. Gog was a Jew who apostatized and went to live in Assyria / Babylonia, according to 1Ch 5. This is why he has the appearance of spirituality; and he may even be an Arab Christian. 2Th 2 describes him as "the son of perdition", exactly the phrase used about Judas, the false disciple of Jesus. Notice how Tariq Aziz [Iraqi foreign minister at the time of writing] and other leading members of the Iraqi cabinet are in fact Arab Christians, not Muslims.

Daniel 2 Papal and Muslim "legs"

Papal and Muslim "legs"

"There are two great antichristian religious systems of deceit revealed in the book of Revelation. The 'great western antichrist' of Roman Catholicism (Rev 17; 18) and the 'great eastern antichrist' of Islam (Rev 9). This has been the majority position of historic Protestant interpretation (Historicism) for centuries (though later writers often see this with more clarity). Dr Lee gives us evidence of this in 'Calvin and Islam', citing Calvin as follows,

"In our own day, indeed [1550], very many people begin to waver -- when they consider the long continued dispersion of the Church. As if this had not been regulated by the purpose of God!... The pretext of the Romanists which they make in extenuation of the tyranny of their idol [the Papacy] -- is that it was not possible for Christ to forsake His bride. But here, the weak have an assurance on which to rest -- when they learn that the disfigurement which they see in the Church, has long since been foretold. The impudence of the Romanists, on the other hand, is clearly exposed. Because Paul declares that when the World has been brought under the rule of Christ -- a defection will take place....

"The minds of ancients were so bewitched -- that they believed that Nero would be Antichrist! However, Paul is not speaking of one individual -- but of a kingdom that was to be seized by Satan, for the purpose of setting up a seat of abomination in the midst of God's Temple. This we see accomplished in Popery.

"The defection has indeed spread more widely! For, since Mohammed was an apostate, he turned his followers, the Turks, from Christ.... The sect of Mohammed was like a raging overflow, which in its violence tore away about half of the Church. It remained for [the Papal] Antichrist to infect with his poison the part which was left."

Yet, in the words 'the Lord Jesus shall slay' in 2Th 2:8 -- Calvin insists Paul "predicted the destruction of the reign of Antichrist... He will be annihilated by the Word of the Lord... Paul does not think that Christ will accomplish this in a single moment... Christ will scatter the darkness in which Antichrist will reign, by the rays which He will emit before His coming -- just as the sun, before becoming visible to us, chases away the darkness of the night with its bright light.

"It does seem that the fourth iron kingdom was in fact both the pre-Papal and the pre-Islamic undivided Pagan Roman Empire, as well as the later Western-Roman Papal and the contemporaneous Eastern-Roman Islamic Empire into which it then subdivided. Indeed, both 'Mahomet' and 'the Pope' -- as we have already seen -- Calvin called 'the two horns of Antichrist.' Thus they correspond to the two legs of the later Roman Empire Islam and the Papacy.

In fact, when the classic historicist position is studied, the fulfillment in the case of Islam and Rev 9 is seen to be so striking and well attested that "'even advocates of other approaches who are adamant in their rejection of the historicist system of interpretation have admitted the convincing nature of this particular identification' (Steve Gregg, commenting on Rev 9:1-6 in 'Revelation: Four Views' 176)."

Since the Papacy (Roman Catholicism) and the powers of Islam are both blaspheming and agitating against Israel today, it surely does seem that we are still in the "two legs" interpretative section of the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of future empires, and very, very close to the image's feet becoming shattered by Christ's return.

Osama Bin Laden

Compared to the professional analysts, we Christadelphians are completely unqualified as journalistic fact-gatherers on the world news scene. We don't directly interview world leaders or investigate material facts.

But when it comes to analyzing the facts that these people gather, Christadelphians have the distinct advantage of approaching matters from a point of view that is radically different from everyone else in several important ways. This advantage allows us to analyze a situation in ways that others cannot possibly do, and if this advantage is used properly (and that can be a very big "if" !!) then it can help us to better understand the reasons why we are to act the way that God calls us to act.

The following is my own analysis of the situation, particularly relating to the motives of Osama Bin Laden and other militant fundamentalist Muslims.

I start by asking you to think about five dates in history: 586 BC, and 70, 1948, 1967, and 1973 AD.

You already know what I am referring to with regard to each date. The destructions of the Temple in 586 BC and again in 70 AD. The emotional response that we have to these dates is one of sadness and lamentation. Then comes 1948. The establishment of the modern state of Israel, and the miraculous victory of little infant Israel against the combined Arab armies. The hand of God working in the nations. The fig tree budding. What a wonderful prophetic sign. Then comes 1967. The miraculous Six Day War. Again the hand of God working, with Israel regaining control of full Jerusalem including the Temple Mount. And finally 1973. Israel's miraculous recovery after nearly being annihilated in the surprise Yom Kippur War. Again we see the hand of God working.

But how do Muslims feel about these last three dates?

In the early years, and by that I mean roughly from the 1920s to the 1970s, most Muslims were adamantly opposed to the idea of the existence of a modern nation of Israel. They wanted to drive Israel into the sea, and to deny it any recognition of statehood.

But over time the attitude of many average Muslims softened, and they began to accept the notion of a modern nation of Israel in its present location. Militant Muslims therefore had a battle on two fronts. First was the Israelis, and they were certainly willing to attack them and anyone who supported the Israeli "right to exist". Second were these "soft" Muslims. That is, Muslims who were willing to recognize Israel, in deed if not in word. Many of these "soft" Muslims also have had and continue to have a gradual adoption of and toleration for many Western societal mores.

Most Westerners have no appreciation for the amount of "domestic" terrorism that goes on within many Middle Eastern countries, where militant Muslims are adamantly opposed to the current "moderate Muslim" regimes. Egypt and Saudi Arabia in particular are beset with this problem, and it has been an important feature on the political scene of many other countries. For example Iran, which was "moderate" under the Shah, "fundamentalist" under the Ayatollah Khomeini, and is wrestling its way back to being "moderate" despite enormous internal pressure from the fundamentalists.

My point is that all of the politicians and journalists are talking about Bin Laden trying to scare or terrify the Western public, and how that's not going to work because we are a better people than that, and that Bin Laden and his kind of people underestimate our courage, love, and resolve.

In doing so these Western leaders either don't understand or are misrepresenting Bin Laden's motives.

Bin Laden and other militant Muslims have one ultimate goal with two parts, and use the violence of terrorism as a two-sided tool.

The two sides of the tool are (1) to encourage and embolden their fellow Muslims, and (2) to get the United States and others to make a semi-rational determination that the cost of supporting Israel outweighs the benefits. The ultimate goal is to achieve a worldwide Islamic society, but as this is so far off it is far more important to concentrate on the two immediate steps or parts of this goal. They are (1) to replace the "moderate" Muslim leadership currently in place in many Middle Eastern countries, and (2) to eradicate Israel. This second part can be further broken down into two steps. First, get nations such as the United States to stop supporting Israel, because with American backing the eradication of Israel is considerably more difficult, and then the second step of the actual eradication of Israel.

I would like to deal with this issue of Bin Laden's motives by asking: whose thinking is he trying to change and how?

His primary audience is NOT the people that he is attacking, but rather his fellow Muslims, most of whom are spectators. His hope is that these people will be emboldened and encouraged by his actions, and that every Muslim will become more fundamentalist. He knows that he can't start with a big victory against Israel and the United States and others. What he wants right now is a small victory so that others will join his cause, thus making his organization and its allies strong enough to achieve a big victory in the future.

His SECONDARY audience is the "western" nations, and even here he knows that he is not going to scare us to the point that we are afraid to come out of our homes. He knows that we will never become this afraid. BUT he knows that we will demand more security, which costs much in the way of time, money, and sacrifice of the individual liberties that we cherish and have become so accustomed to. He is implicitly using a carrot-and-stick approach against Western society. "Support Israel, and I will attack your civilian population as much as possible. Abandon Israel, and I will leave you alone, which means that you can open up your society again and live a better life for yourselves." I am setting aside the fact here that if we did as a society stop supporting Israel he would in fact not let up on his terrorism. He would simply continue to use terrorism to achieve the next step along towards his ultimate goal. I can set aside this fact because I am dealing here with his implicit approach at this time, and not with what he would actually do if his approach were to become "successful" (that is, help him to achieve his goals).

President Bush and Vice President Cheney and others have been all over television the last few days talking about Bin Laden's hatred for the American way of life. Yes he does find the American way of life objectionable because in many ways it acts contrary to the Muslim ethic, but that has almost no relevance to the question of what fuels Bin Laden's internal fire. He is far more upset about Muslims adopting Western ways than he is about Westerners having Western ways.

This also brings up an important point about what this war against terrorism might hope to accomplish. Bear in mind that just as he will not make "us" afraid but will impede our movements, any war against Bin Laden and other militant Muslims will at best accomplish the same thing. No amount of force will scare these people into rethinking their basic position. But it is possible to constrain their movements, to make it far more difficult for them to operate.

My own speculation that stems from this realization is that this will only delay the inevitable, as the relentless march of technology makes massively deadly weapons easier and easier to obtain. How long until a small group, operating underneath the "radar screens" of the nations, acquires nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons? Such a group need not even be Muslim. Certainly the Japanese sect that released nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system a few years ago was not Muslim. So at best we can eradicate and prevent the formation of large terrorist organizations who have at least some level of state support. But we can never stop the "lone madman" or the very small group.

There are terrorist groups out there that are not Muslim. But the Muslim ones are the ones that perpetrated this attack and that are the greatest near-term threat. And so while in theory we should be thinking about all of the terrorists that are out there, in practice we should concentrate upon understanding the thinking of these militant Muslims.

My note at the beginning regarding our unique perspective needs explaining here. Our world view is neither Ameri-centric or freedom-centric. Therefore, we can consider this situation not as the world does, but from the perspective that considers Bin Laden's motives to be very much like the motives of Cain and his "seed" (that is, those who have persecuted and murdered the prophets of God, and God's Son).

The Apostle Paul wrote that "as to zeal, [I was] a persecutor of the church" (Phi 3:6) and that he was also "a persecutor and violent aggressor" (1Ti 1:13). He was thinking that he was rendering service to God. He didn't hate Christians because he envied their freedom and wealth. He thought that he was doing God a favor by eradicating these blasphemous followers of the blasphemous Nazarene. The motives of militant Muslims are similar.

My point is that when we hear President Bush or ANY commentator talk about this attack on the American way of life, they are avoiding the real issue. The real issue is nothing less than the veracity of Islam, and the question must therefore be asked of us: when we take a stand and say that Islam is false, what do we suggest is true? The American ideals of freedom and democracy? Christianity, as in Christendom? Or True Christianity? This is why we must realize that when we speak against what has recently happened we must be careful to point out that in doing so we are also standing against the false teaching of the world in all its forms. We speak against Islam because it is patently false, and while militant Muslims are certainly worse, this does not change the fact that all Islam is false. And so are the eastern religions, many of which by their fundamental nature do not breed militarism. And so is Christendom, which in the past has bred much militarism and today does so only occasionally. All of these are false regardless of whether they compound their error by adopting violence to promote their viewpoint.

We stand against all systems of thought that are false, including those who are militant as well.

At the same time we must be careful to note that we are not militant. We appeal to people's intelligent reasoning and deliberation, and we never threaten force against anyone as a means of coercing them into adopting our way of thinking. We don't even threaten people with eternal hell-fire torment. This of course is a byproduct of our theology, but nonetheless the fact remains that we do not threaten people at all in any way.

And so IF people start to become suspicious of us as a group because we are relatively small and quite fundamentalist, point this out to them. Being fundamentalist and being militant are two entirely different matters. All or virtually all militants are fundamentalist, but not all fundamentalists are militant.

New Book Islamic State ISIS in Bible Prophecy

http://www.lulu.com/shop/duncan-heaster/the-islamic-state-in-bible-prophecy/paperback/product-21778153.html

Product Details

ISBN

9781291997941

Copyright

Duncan Heaster (Standard Copyright Licence)

Published

27 August 2014

Language

English

Pages

121

Binding

Perfect-bound Paperback

Interior Ink

Black & white

Weight

0.23 kg

Dimensions (centimetres)

14.81 wide x 20.98 tall

God sent the Muslims to kill the Trinitarians

The trumpet sounding of the fifth angel is followed by a star falling from heaven unto the earth with a key to open the bottomless pit. On the opening of the pit, the sun and air is darkened by the ascending smoke, out of which pour a cloud of locusts. They are commanded to avoid any green foliage, and attack only those men who have not the seal of God in their foreheads. This they do for some months, moving as cavalry under the direction of a king. The sounding of the sixth angel is followed by the releasing of four angels bound in the great river Euphrates. They lead a vast horde of cavalrymen to battle, as a result of which, the third of men are killed. The Eastern Empire is thus brought to an end, but even this tragedy does not cause the rest of mankind to cease from their sin and blasphemy against Almighty God

The "star" was Mahomet. It is appropriate to the symbol, that Arabia, the region from whence Mahomet originated, is noted for the remarkable depression of the Arabah, the Jordan Valley and the area around the Dead Sea. This is the lowest point of the earth's surface which is above water, so that the term "abyss" is appropriate to it. Mahomet was born about the year 570, and belonged to the Koreish clan, whose special privilege and duty it was to guard the sacred Black Stone at Mecca.
Mahomet was still a young man when he commenced his "great imposture," declaring that he was a "prophet" in communion with God, and had been appointed to set before the people the true religion. The people of Mecca, who made no small gain out of the Black Stone, drove Mahomet from the city, and he fled to Medina. Mahomet wrote the Koran, and proclaimed the tenets of Mahommedanism. Gradually the number of his converts increased. Proclaiming his belief in one God, he declared open war upon the Trinitarians of the Greek and Roman Catholics. As his power grew, he sent ambassadors to the court of Constantinople, and when they were contemptuously rejected by the authorities of the eastern Roman Empire, he decided to overthrow it by force. The way, or shaft to the abyss was domination of the Middle East. Accordingly he laid claim to Arabia, and then made preparations for an attack on the bastionof the eastern Empire. He died in 632 before he could accomplish this, and was succeeded by Abubeker, the first Caliph.

ISIS, Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, Insurgency, Significance in Bible prophecy, end times, sunni and shia division

ISIS, Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, Insurgency, Significance in Bible prophecy, end times, sunni and shia division . Duncan Heaster talks at Riga Bible Center about the significance of ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the sunni and shia division and the current insurgency in northern Iraq, in the light of Bible prophecy and prophetic predictions, eschatology and end times Biblical prophecies- as a sign of the times of Christ's return soon. The Old Testament prophecies predict a revival of Assyria or Al-Sham, the latter day Assyrian will invade Israel in the last days and take Jerusalem before the Jews repent and Jesus returns. Free Bible with commentary or book Bible Basics from http://www.biblebasicsonline.com . A production of Carelinks Ministries http://www.carelinks.net .