ALMOST 2000 YEARS AND STILL COUNTING – BLOG 2
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
April 4, 2011
I WLL RUN THIS PAGE ON EACH NEW BLOG IN THIS SERIES
II Peter 3:3,4 – Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, [4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
JESUS TOLD DISCIPLES THE END OF THIS AGE WAS A LONG WAY OFF!
Luke 21:9 – But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; BUT THE END IS NOT BY AND BY.
The Lord has been LONGSUFFERING FOR ALMOST 2000 YEARS SINCE THE CROSS, NOT DESIRING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH.
II Peter 3:8,9 – But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. [9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
ALMOST TWO DAYS SINCE THE CROSS,
LORD’S LONGSUFFERING CONTINUES,
SINCE JESUS’ SACRIFICE WAS MADE,
SCOFFERS SHALL SOON SEE IT END.
Matthew 24:3 – And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming,
and of the end of the world?
JESUS ANSWERED 3 QUESTIONS BUT NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER! THEY ARE LINGUISTICALLY SEPARATED FROM ONE ANOTHER BY THE FOLLOWING EXPRESSIONS IN LUKE’S OLIVET DISCOURSE:
(1) “BUT THE END IS NOT BY AND BY’ – LUKE 21:9
(2) “THEN SAID HE UNTO THEM” – LUKE 21:10
(3) “BUT BEFORE ALL THESE” – LUKE 21:12
(4) “UNTIL THE TIMES OF” – LUKE 21:24
(5) “AND THERE SHALL BE” – LUKE 21:25
The Olivet Discourse by Jesus is found in Luke, Mark, and Matthew. I have read hundreds of expositions of the discourse by many different men. I can truthfully say, without reservations or hesitation, that many positions are held on the discourse and wide differences do indeed exist between them. Some believe it was all fulfilled by 73 A.D., some say most of it was fulfilled by 73 A.D., and some say most of it is yet to be fulfilled. Some say it only applies to the Jews, and some say it applies to both Jew and Gentile.
In Part 1, an exposition of Matthew 24:1-6, Mark 13:7, and Luke 21:9 was given. The exposition revealed that the disciples asked Jesus three specific questions involving events associated with the establishment of his kingdom on the earth. They were: (1) When will Herod’s temple be leveled?, (2) What things can we look for to let us know your kingdom is soon going to be established?, and (3) What things can we look for to let us know the present age of Gentile domination is drawing to a close? He began by first addressing the signs that would precede the leveling of the temple of Herod.
He stated in Matthew 24:5,6, Mark 13:6,7, and Luke 21:8,9 that two things could be expected to draw their attention before the destruction of Herod’s temple: (1) Many would come claiming to be the promised Messiah, and (2) There would be many wars throughout the Roman empire, both internal, and around the vast expanse of its long borders. History confirms that is precisely what happened during the time frame before the destruction of the temple. Jesus was very clear in his instructions for them to NOT use these two things as the signs that would precede the other two questions they had asked, as he stated: “but the end (of the age) is not yet, but the end (of the age) shall not be yet, but the end (of the age) is not by and by.” So, having given them a partial answer to question one, which he will answer more completely later in the discourse, he launches into his answer to question two. How can I be sure he starts a new discourse in the next verse?
Luke 21:9,10 – But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
[10] THEN SAID HE unto them, Nation shall RISE AGAINST nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
The English words “THEN SAID HE” are “TOTE ELEGEN.” TOTE ELEGEN points to a new beginning in discourse, which has the effect of dissociating the repeated mention of the previous disturbances (From the Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume 1, Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, M.A., LL.D.) Simply stated, it amounted to Jesus saying, now that I have told you what would precede the temple destruction, I will answer your second question, the question “And what shall be the sign of thy coming,” or “What things can we look for to let us know you are soon to establish your kingdom?”
It is very tempting, and only natural, to assume that the “wars” predicted in Luke 21:9, and “Nation shall rise against Nation” in 21:10, are one and the same, but I assure you, that is not the case for three reasons. First, to begin the new discourse, he says “TOTE ELEGEN.” Secondly, he has just advised them not to use “wars and commotions” except for a sign the temple was about to be leveled. And, last of all, because of the two Koine Greek words translated as “RISE” and “AGAINST.”
The root word used for RISE is EGEIRO, and it means to come to life, to rise from sleep, or to come into existence. It is used in the phrases taken from the following Scriptures.
Matthew 14:2 – He is RISEN from the dead.
Matthew 16:21 – And be RAISED again the third day.
Matthew 27:52 – And many bodies of the saints which slept AROSE.
Matthew 27:63 – After three days I will RISE again.
Matthew 27:64 – He is RISEN from the dead.
Matthew 28:6 – He is not here: for he is RISEN, as he said.
Matthew 3:9 – God is able of these stones to RAISE up children unto Abraham.
The word used for AGAINST is EPI, and it simply means “UPON” or “ON.” One of the first things I learned in seminary was the use of the Greek prepositions.
They were all placed in positions relative to a cube, and the position of EPI was “ON” or “UPON” the top pf the cube. If a thing is “UPON” another thing, it is certainly resting “AGAINST” it, but the inference that the two objects are fighting “AGAINST” one another is not valid. EPI in the New Testament in the accusative is translated as UPON or ON some 219 times, as opposed to 33 times for AGAINST. Jesus would not advise them to disregard wars as a sign of his coming in one breath, and then tell them to do the oppo site
in the next, and indeed he did not, because he used TOTE ELEGEN to mark the beginning of a new discourse. He is answering the second question in verse 10, and advises that shortly before his second coming many new nations would come to life, rising one upon another, and ever increasing in number. Before the Great War I, the world consisted of vast colonial empires, and very few individual nations existed. Shortly before World War II, and much more rapidly after Japan’s surrender, new nations began to come to life like weeds across the earth, rising in number one upon another with the end of the colonial empires. When the United Nations began in 1945, some 51 nations became charter members. By 1989, as new nations were born one upon another, it had more than tripled to 160, and now the number of nations on the earth has reached 200. False Messiahs rose before Jesus, were here in the lifetime of Jesus, and have been numerous up to the present. There have been 24 that presented themselves to the nation of Israel since the crucifixion. I realize that in the last days they are to increase in number, but they have always been with us. Also, the worldwide wars and commotions reached an all time record high of 25 in 1987, but have steadily declined since the drop in communist influence in the developing countries after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
I tracked war declines yearly until 1993, at which time worldwide wars had declined to 10, but the number of nations had been steadily increasing since the end of World War I.
Changes in the Nation versus Nation Wars to Internal Conflicts during my Lifetime, giving Birth to many New Nations.
There have been some remarkable changes regarding the types of war that were fought in the 20 Century. From 1900 to 1910, wars of all categories were represented rather evenly, whereas from 1990 to 2000 most were civil wars.
Today there are few interstate wars with clearly defined parties, but civil wars have become increasingly internationalized. Few internal wars today take place without the intervention of foreign states. One illustrative example is the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where as many as five neighboring states are involved. The shift from interstate to civil war is perhaps the most significant change that has occurred in the last century. Of course civil wars have always existed, but only recently have they become the dominant type of war.
The period between 1914 and 1945 was profoundly marked by two world wars. World War I (1914-1918) was the first total war, mobilizing whole societies in order to supply the armies with soldiers and weapons. The late 1920s and early 1930s were fairly peaceful in Europe, but important conflicts took place in Asia, particularly in China. Most significant were the civil war between the Kuomintang and the communists, the Japanese occupation of Manchuria from 1931, and from 1937 the Sino-Japanese War. World War II (1939-1945) started as a European war, but as a result of Japanese and American involvement, a major part of the fighting also took place in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Ocean.
The process of decolonization had important consequences on the overall number of wars as well as the types of war that were fought. Since 1975, there have been very few colonial wars or wars of independence. During the first half of the century, most colonial wars were about maintaining control over territory previously conquered by the European colonial powers. After World War II the number of wars of independence increased sharply, and decolonization was almost completed by the mid-70s when Portugal finally granted independence to Angola and Mozambique. Unfortunately, independence did not always lead to peace.
In Angola and Mozambique the result was civil war. East Timor was invaded by Indonesia shortly after independence was declared in 1975, leading to a second protracted period of colonial rule but this time under Jakarta. Vietnam is another example. France fought a war for almost ten years before the French forces were defeated and withdrew in 1954. The colonial war was followed by a civil war between communists and anti-communists.
This internal conflict became an international war during the 1960s as US involvement steadily increased. There was no peace in Vietnam until 1975.
Another important change that took place during the 20th century, is related to conflict locations. Before 1945, Europe was the most war-prone continent.
Most significant in this respect were the two world wars. Many wars outside the continent also had European involvement. After 1945 this situation changed drastically, when most wars were fought in the less developed countries of Africa and Asia. There are two main reasons for this development. First, decolonization and the wars of independence contributed to the increase of war in Africa and Asia. The second reason for this geographical shift can be related to the Cold War from 1945 to 1989. The emergence of the US and the Soviet Union as superpowers and nuclear protagonists deterred the two sides from engaging in direct, armed confrontation in Europe. On the surface there was therefore peace in Europe, but the tension between East and West was considerable. The nuclear threat did not stop the superpowers from intervening elsewhere in the world by conventional means. The Cold War was therefore cold only in Europe.
The US participated in the Korean War (1950-1953) and prevented communist-led North Korea from taking control over the entire Korean peninsula. China was directly involved in the war, and made a large contribution of troops to the communist side. American participation in the Vietnam War (1965-1975) was less successful. Deployment of considerable US forces could not prevent victory for North Vietnam. Again, the communists received substantial military support from the Soviet Union and China. The USSR assisted anti-western regimes in the Middle East and supported communist movements around the world. In 1979, Soviet forces intervened in Afghanistan to secure continued communist rule in the country. The occupation lasted for ten years. The US provided considerable support for the non-communist Mujahedin forces. The Cold War reinforced the ideological dimension of several local conflicts that became an arena for indirect confrontation between the Soviet Union and the US. Superpower intervention may have contributed to a prolongation of these wars, therefore making them more severe. But there are also cases where the superpowers acted as a restraining force on the adversaries, thus preventing further escalation.
This was the case during several crises in the Middle East.
The end of the Cold War had little effect when it came to ending wars. In fact it marked the return of war to the European continent, with the disintegration of Yugoslavia followed by wars in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1992-1995. Some of the new states in Eastern Europe, created as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, have experienced continuous unrest since their independence. Georgia and Armenia are examples of this. The secessionist republic of Chechny a is involved in
a war against the Russian army. Old conflicts that one thought would have been easier to solve after the Cold War are still going on, for example in the Middle East. In Africa, the 1990s brought new wars to Algeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda.
In November 2008 there were three ongoing wars between three small individual nations. The “EPI” in the Olivet discourse prophetically applied to nation rising upon nation as they increase in number, not to an increase in the number of wars.
Wars between nations as of 2011 have become internal civil wars, revolutions, or conflicts, rather than declared wars between nations.
Begin the Excerpt from THALES GROUP CASE STUDIES via the french blog Alliance Géostratégique
March 9, 2011
War between Nations and war among the people
“To be defeated is pardonable; to be surprised – never!” (Napoleon)
The move from the potential “wars between nations” of the second half of the 20th century to the “wars among the people” at the beginning of the 21st century has a profound impact on defence industry.
While Western armed forces were prepared for high-intensity, major conflicts, they now find themselves confronted with unforeseen threats – suicide bombers, car bombs, IEDs , etc.
The search for solutions to these new challenges has led to a major change in the equipment deployed on the ground and has created a new relationship between industry and the armed forces.
First, intelligence, protection and precision have become the new watchwords, creating a paradigm shift; from short, sharp military action based on complete airspace dominance and superior firepower, we have moved to a new type of war, where in order to win, armed forces must live and fight among the people and prepare themselves for the long haul.
Today’s top priority is probably the capacity to anticipate guerrilla operations. That is why intelligence has become so important; human intelligence, of course, but also intelligence that makes judicious use of technology: electronic warfare to intercept communications, optronic equipment mounted on drones to see beyond the horizon, night vision goggles, and tools to store, analyse and deliver usable information.
Better protection for soldiers has become essential given the increase in the number of IED attacks. Improved armour, vehicles that can resist violent explosions, ways to detect explosives, and devices to detect and jam remote-controlled IEDs are now key components of the defence industry’s portfolio and the focus of extensive research and development efforts.
Finally, if armed forces are to be deployed for the long haul, they must win the trust of the people. Avoiding collateral damage is therefore a top priority.
This is why raw firepower has taken a back seat to precision: missiles, shells and rockets must now strike their targets with metric precision.
The second consequence of these new conflicts is a change in procurement priorities.
The equipment acquisition process has evolved to keep pace with emerging needs on the ground. Crash programmes and Urgent Operational Requirements have gathered momentum, thus creating another paradigm shift. Whenever possible, armed forces prefer “off-the-shelf” technologies to those that take several years to develop.
Western countries are no longer fighting wars alone, so interoperability between armed forces and the ability for allies to constantly exchange information with one a
nother have become indispensable. This has brought a growing emphasis on standards (NATO standards in particular), which defence contractors are duty bound to understand and apply.
Defence contracts are incre asingly b
ased on non technical capability based requirements reflecting as closely as possible the needs of the Armed forces.
One example is the NATO ISAF contract that Thales won in 2006 for supplying & operating the Allied Forces telecommunications infrastructure in Afghanistan. This involved developing, transporting, installing and operating a system made up of 400 ISO containers and 2,000 tons of equipment at 60 points of presence throughout the country, with stringent requirements expressed in terms of availability, number of simultaneous communications and bandwidth.
Even though the defence industry has been profoundly affected by these new forms of combat, it would be a mistake to only focus on asymmetric conflicts. We cannot exclude the possibility that wars between nations will return or that even newer forms of conflict will emerge. So we have to maintain our level of preparedness.
Current experiences point to the following conclusions: Maintaining a technological advantage remains essential. Indeed, defence industry’s past investments have brought us a set of skills and technologies to face the new challenges of “wars among the people”. Similarly, short-term demands should not undermine our capacity to make today the technological investments which are needed to face future threats and be ready for future conflicts.
As the title of this article indicates, in order to avoid being taken by surprise by the next war, defence contractors must not anticipate either wars between nations OR wars among the people, but rather wars between nations AND wars among the people.
Jean-Yves Battesti
Senior Strategist
Thales Land & Joint Systems Division
This article has been published on the french blog Alliance Géostratégique
Lord willing, in BLOG Part 3, I will be giving additional proof of what has been put forward in TWO BLOGS. So if you have reservations about the conclusions drawn in this BLOG, hold your fire until you read BLOG 3
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site.
However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.