Is the United Nations Fulfilling Ancient Biblical Prophecy?

The biblical authors were inspired when predicting that an end-time coalition of nations would come against a Jewish Jerusalem.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks at the U.N. General Assembly, Thursday, Dec. 21, 2017, at United Nations headquarters.

By Michael Brown Published on December 22, 2017

On December 21, 2017, the UN stood against one city on the planet: Jerusalem. Twenty-five centuries earlier, the prophet Zechariah wrote these words from the Lord, “I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle” (Zech. 14:2). Did the UN just move us one step closer to fulfilling this ancient prophecy?

Before answering this question, let’s look at the events on the ground.

The UN’s History of Hostility Toward Israel

First, the UN once again distinguished itself for hypocrisy by targeting Israel for its criticism. In this case, it’s America’s support of Israel. Meanwhile the UN remained silent on many major issues.

What has the UN been doing during the horrific war in Syria? Where has the UN been during the attempted genocide of Christians in the Middle East? Decades earlier, what did the UN have to say about Tiananmen Square in China? Or Saddam Hussein’s chemical warfare against the Kurds? Yet when America recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the UN is an uproar.

As I noted previously, groups like UNWatch.org have documented the UN’s policy of singling out Israel for rebuke and condemnation. But they virtually ignore mass atrocities committed by other nations, including Israel’s neighbors.

For instance, during the UN General Assembly’s 61st session (2006-2007), “the time spent by ambassadors on enacting the 22nd anti-Israel resolution of the year was time not spent on passing a single resolution on Sudan’s genocide in Darfur.”

Groups like UNWatch.org have documented the UN’s consistent policy of singling out Israel for rebuke and condemnation.

Remember when Sudanese Christians were being slaughtered en masse by Muslim soldiers and gangs? That’s when the UN General Assembly spent its time enacting 22 anti-Israel resolutions.

In 2015, as noted by Israeli journalist Noga Gur-Arieh, “At the closing of the 59th UN Commission on the Status of Women … only one political resolution was passed; one that accuses Israel of mistreating Palestinian women, in all aspects of life.”

A similar resolution was passed in 2016 by the same UN Commission.

So, of all the nations on earth, the UN singled out Israel for its alleged mistreatment of women.

That’s why Abba Eban, Israel’s legendary diplomat, once remarked, “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.”

Ambassador Haley Calls Out the UN

Second, in anticipation of the UN vote, the United States handled things exactly as it should have: with a strong word of rebuke and warning.

After all, different international leaders did not simply called President Trump and say, “We strongly differ with your recognition of Jerusalem.” Instead, in the most public forum available, 128 nations stood together to condemn America for doing was what right and righteous, declaring our decision “null and void.”

Nikki Haley’s words to the UN before the vote said it all:

To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN’s disproportionate focus on Israel. It’s a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in turn is harmful for the entire world.

Good for you, Mrs. Haley. Call the UN on the carpet.

Then, after articulating all the good our country does around the world, along with its support for the UN, she rebuked the UN for disrespecting America.

The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations, and so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”

And finally: “America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do and it is the right thing to do. This vote will make a difference in how Americans look at the UN. And this vote will be remembered.”

Here, here, Ambassador Haley!

The Unique Group of Nations That Stood With Israel

Third, the 7 nations that stood with Israel and the US today are a most unusual group. They include Guatemala, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Togo, and Palau. Honestly, now, how many of us had heard of all these countries before? And how many of us could locate some of them on the map?

Whether it was out of economic dependence on the USA, a connection to Israel, or something else, we should remember these for good in the days to come. They did what was courageous and correct.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

As for the countries that abstained (35 in all), two (the Czech Republic and the Philippines) already stated they are considering relocating their embassies. A number of African nations have developed solid ties with Israel. Some might have considered their need for American dollars. Others might have remembered Israel’s kindness to them (such as Mexico, which was greatly aided by Israel after their disastrous earthquake in September, although Mexico did use its floor time to speak critically).

Already, “U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley invited representatives of countries who didn’t vote in favor of the United Nations General Assembly’s Jerusalem resolution to a reception as ‘thank you for your friendship to the United States.’”

Donald Trump has always appreciated loyalty.

The UN’s Vote and the Bible

But what of the matter of ancient prophecy? Is there a connection between the UN’s vote and the Bible?

I would say yes, for at least three reasons: 1) The vote confirms international hostility towards a Jewish Jerusalem. 2) The vote reminds us that the biblical authors were inspired when predicting that an end-time coalition of nations would come against a Jewish Jerusalem. 3) The vote tells us that, just as Scripture indicates, the city of Jerusalem alone is the whole world’s business (see Zech 12:3).

Of course, this does not set a time frame for a united attack on a Jewish Jerusalem. We don’t know if “all nations” (in the words of Zechariah) means every nation on earth or simply a worldwide coalition. But, after watching the last 2,500 years of history, coupled with the UN’s anti-Jerusalem vote this week, it’s hard to read the Bible and think that the writers just guessed things right.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Sandra Miljkovic

    i get that many Christians – including Christian leaders and influencers we respect – feel joyous, emboldened and righteous on this matter seeing as history, Jerusalem and the Holy Land are at the heart of the matter. But I’m sorry to say that using this as an opportunity for applauding the United States and her UN ambassador, as if they were benevolent models of holiness and righteousness, is taking this sentiment way over the borderline between the two realms of bare-fact and embellished-fiction.

    So in an attempt to depict the two faces of US politics, and in keeping with the tone of the article, I rewrite paragraph 4 of this article:

    **What has the [US] been doing during the horrific war in [Yemen]. Where has the US been during the attempted genocide of Christians [and Yazidi] in [Iraq ]. Decades earlier, what did the [US] have to say about [Iraq’s daily use of ‘CW’ against the Iranians ]. Or, [America’s own] chemical warfare against the [inhabitants of the Bikini Islands]. Yet when [She] recognizes Jerusalem as capital of Israel, [she claims her sole motivation is that ‘its the right thing to do’ despite a much lauded America First Strategy, not to mention a lengthy history of US ignoring the rule of international law when it didn’t suit her profiteering interests].**

    Ms. Haley did not merely speak a truth boldly. She presented a popular sentiment from her ruling majority to an international diplomatic audience condescendingly & without a trace of diplomacy. She did not merely face an evil union of nations fearlessly, she asserted a narrative of American exceptionalism over an international and democratic rule of law. Although this brand of moral ‘bravado’ can be much prized in hollywood and war-time propaganda, it leaves no room for brotherly foot washing.

    Facts matter. Context matters. Rhetoric matters. Ideally they should all exist together. Unfortunately, most are weaponized (consciously or not) for ‘sanctimonia’ and strategic effect.

    • Dean Bruckner

      Our special forces are operating in most of the world, killing jihadis. I’m sorry your animus against Israel blinds you from seeing the genuine deep affection and loyalty that God-fearing Americans have for Israel.

      You go right ahead and do some brotherly foot washing of the so-called Palestinians. The most likely outcome of that will be for them to separate your head from your body, after they have used you until they are tired of you.

      • Sandra Miljkovic

        American special forces are arming and training a significant percentage of jihadi’s. In reality, US and western policy in the the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another (in Syria, for example), and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while, simultaneously, supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. The move for recognizing Jerusalem is not some purely spiritual or moral decision; it serves to placate a disgruntled voter-base as well as to further destabilize the middle east and feed the cash-cow called ‘terrorism’. This is my sole point for commentary; I can accept facts and decisions made by sovereign nations, but I refuse to further ingest the air-brushed mythology of a great and honorable nation that works solely for the good of the world (when, in reality, what the mouth is spewing is in complete and utter contrast to what the hand is doing).

        • Dean Bruckner

          Sandra, if you look long enough, you will eventually find what you are looking for, especially in as large and diverse a field of human conflict as the American experiment and the clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. And the alloy of human motivation does not invalidate the genuine motives that do exist.

          You seem to have a secular, liberal world view, in that the primary actors in the stage that we call the world are humans and human organizations. You find secular, human motives at the root of these conflicts. You neglect the real spiritual forces and motives that move the leaders and nations of the world inexorably toward its prophesied conclusion. Ironically, your world view does not see.

          Listen again to what Lincoln said of the civil war. The Democrats of his day, like those of our day, were ready to cut and run, and assign all motives to human actors–as you do here. They have always blamed America, as you do here.

          But Lincoln had a different view:

          One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern half part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

          Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged.

          The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?

          Fondly do we hope — fervently do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.”

          — from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, paragraph breaks added for readability

          What do you make of the American Civil War? Would you describe it exactly as you describe America’s current role in the world? I believe you would. Please prove me wrong.

          • Sandra Miljkovic

            It seems to me you are referring to that dichotomy that many of us stub our toes on because we cannot grasp how two seemingly opposing truths can exist simultaneously. Divine Sovereignty & Human Responsibility. We Christians tend to overemphasize one truth (God’s sovereign will) or the other (human responsibility).

            Yes, God actively decreed every detail of this reality, and He is sovereign over all. But even though God is sovereign, man still has real responsibility and freedom in the choices he makes and the action he takes. These choices are his. And, they will genuinely affect and modify real lives (from individuals to entire societies). Every command in Old & New Testaments attest to the reality of human responsibility. Look at King Saul, for example. He was chosen by God for a divine calling. God eventually regretted choosing Saul, for Saul chose to turn from Him (1Sam 15:11).

            The correct approach is to learn to live with the mystery by accepting the reality of both truths involved and holding them in tension because of, and within, the authority of God’s Word.

            By doing this, you cannot assign your bad choices to guiltless pre-determination and Devine Will. Nor, then, would you call a responsible view on human actions and behavior a ‘blind’ worldview.

    • Patmos

      What in the world are you even talking about? Troll.

      • Sandra Miljkovic

        “We are told it is the greatest country on earth. The thing is, we will never reconsider that narrative the way you are doing just now, because to us, that isn’t propaganda, that is truth. And to us, that isn’t nationalism, it’s patriotism. And the thing is, we will never question any of it because at the same time, all we are being told is how free-thinking we are, that we are free. So we don’t know there is anything wrong in believing our country is the greatest on earth. The whole thing sort of convinces you that a collective consciousness in the world came to that very conclusion.”

        “Wow,” a friend once replied. “How strange. That is a very quiet kind of fascism, isn’t it?”

        – The Myth of American Innocence

      • Concerned Christian

        Hey, do you just say that to anyone that doesn’t agree with you?

        I thought I was the special one.

    • ARB

      I do not comprehend how one can conclude that the United Nations has any right to decide where any of its member nations places its embassy, much less consider that the “international rule of law”. The UN is only an organizational entity, freely joined for the purposes of expedient diplomacy, and the UN presuming to vote as if they could negate American decisions is absurdly arrogant, out of place and utterly lacking in any diplomacy of its own nor possessing any respect for America’s sovereignty. America is not subservient to the whims of the United Nations; and to simply recognize and assert that fact is not American exceptionalism, but only the smallest exercise of national self-determination which is the right of any sovereign nation.

      • Sandra Miljkovic

        You seem not to be aware of the fact that Washington, more than any other power, pushed to develop the modern international community of laws and treaties. It’s exceptionalism is evident in it’s ‘unwritten’ proviso that it still reserves the right to defy those very same laws with impunity, while holding all other nations accountable to an international community based on these laws when it suits it’s purposes (eg. ignoring the Security Council & Geneva Convention on Yugoslavian issues (also a sovereign nation) but basking in it’s support when near-identicle issues arise in Ukraine et al).

        You cannot truly believe that the Jerusalem issue is merely about moving the location of an embassy from one building to another. Such an argument is merely employed by the ‘diplomats’ as one would use a lollipop to distract nagging children. Jerusalem is vitally important to Jews, Muslims and Christians. It’s also a powder-keg within the international peace process. So much so that it was placed firmly in the United Nations Resolution 181, which was issued in November 1947, established Jerusalem as a separate entity to be governed by an international regime. The issues surrounding this city are so profound and so sensitive that it’s breathtaking how tunnel visioned, cavalier and bombastically they are being handled by American histrionics.

      • Doug

        I’m old enough to remember the Cold War. Back then the Soviet Union was almost the only country to use its Security Council veto, and used it regularly. It said its sovereignty wasn’t subservient to the whims of the United Nations. So in those days the common view of this by Americans was ‘Russia bad; veto bad’. My own opinion is that the veto can gore one’s ox or another’s. Not good or bad, at least in God’s eyes. [This is a thread about God, isn’t it?]

    • Said Flores

      ‘she asserted a narrative of American exceptionalism over an international and democratic rule of law’

      Seeing this as something bad is where your flaw of thinking is.

      • Sandra Miljkovic

        Could you expand a bit more on your comment; I don’t think I follow your meaning?

        • Sandra Miljkovic

          ‘Cause either this can sound like a perfect duplication of the thinking behind ‘Mein Kampf…. Or, you’re forgetting that Joseph always did what was right. Not quite a strength in the American portfolio.

          If it’s easy enough to throw Joseph’s coat over your shoulders, would it not also be as easy to place King Saul’s crown on your head. A crown God also removed.

          • Doug

            Sandra, Can you name a country that meets Yahweh’s standards of conduct?
            If it’s permitted to bring him into the discussion.
            🙂

          • Sandra Miljkovic

            Nope. However, there’s currently only one that professes to carry a mandate for global stewardship; carrying out this self-assigned, dictatorial ordinance in a manner that’s in complete juxtaposition to the standards of the freedoms they profess to safeguard. Would you not say this is a fair assessment?

          • Doug

            It’s a fair assessment to note that man’s government of himself always falls short of his promises. That was “assesed” in advance at Jer 10:23. Which is even less popular with any existing government than yours is, because it covers the general case. 🙂
            Do you see a better one on the horizon?

          • Sandra Miljkovic

            I’m not certain I fully follow your meaning, so feel free to correct me if I’ve misunderstood. It seems to me that, as with another commentator on this thread, you are referring to the ostensible dichotomy of two truths: ‘God’s Sovereign Will’ vs ‘Human Responsibility and Freewill’. Do go read my comment, if you’re interested in my position on this. For, scripturally, both truths are to be firmly held.

            Jer 10:8 says ‘…ALL are senseless and foolish…” Why, then, when you specifically quote scripture to attest to Man, and his government’s, imperfection and flaws, do you seemingly defend how the United States lauds itself over other nations. Conducting itself in blatant arrogance through it’s actions and rhetoric as if it is the right hand of God. By what ordinance does America believe it’s flaws can be justified by God’s Sovereign Will whilst simultaneously judging, condemning and destroying other nations (through forced regime changes, wars and economic bribery) for falling short. By what measure does the United States judge it’s own actions? Is every American action heavily adjudicated under God’s Word? Is every American leader submitted to Christ; does every voter insist on this? When the answer to these questions is an obvious ‘No’, why do those who identify themselves as American Christians, seem to place ‘American’ first and ‘Christian’ second? Quick to justify the idol through scripture.

            America is a secular nation. God still uses it, despite this, no question. However, I’d not be so quick to justify all actions as if humans are mere automatons. We are still accountable. We are still to be obedient. We cannot justify all our actions as being predermined and without ‘cause for rebuke. According to Jeremiah, all are senseless and foolish. All need to come to submission and realignment with God.

          • Doug

            Czarist Russia and France are two other nations that have thought of themselves as “God’s country” also.
            The government I personally would like to see operating here is the one at Mt 6:9,10. No mention there of any other.
            If that happens, wouldn’t it take care of your complaints about America?

          • Sandra Miljkovic

            They ARE all God’s countries and at various points within Christendom societies were very cognoscente of that. My point all along has been that we should behave as such; especially if we operate under His banner. But you cannot claim a moral high ground (even as a secular nation), behave like boors and scoundrels and then pat yourself on the back for being progressive (as a secularist) or being at the forefront of the move of God.

          • Sandra Miljkovic

            I too look forward to the Millennial Kingdom. Until then, though, we’re his hands and feet right now. I don’t believe Christians should be in any way Machiavellian; thinking the ends justify the means.

          • Doug

            I’ll reply to both your posts of the 28th instanter here. [Always wanted to use that word!]
            You say you look forward to the establishment of God’s kingdom, but your posts concern themselves with improving man’s governments. You say one; you “do” the other. A renowned religious teacher said a man can’t serve two masters without betraying [at least] one. That doesn’t worry you?
            Sometimes when I’m explaining Holy Spirit to someone I use the analogy ‘It’s God’s hand and arm.’ It’s what he uses to do things. That is evident from our first information about it. “In the beginning God created … Now the earth was a formless void … with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.” NJB
            In Hebrew, one word means breath or wind or spirit, as in an “invisible active force”, which one source calls it. Like electricity. Like Yahweh’s holy spirit. Without it, you and I physical creatures wouldn’t have come to be, from a purely spirit person. That void would still be formless. John 4:24.
            So for myself I would shy away from calling a government or myself his “hands and feet”. In case Someone is listening, you see? Anyone who could have Gen 1:1 written about himself without blushing doesn’t need our help, as we learn from Lu 19:40.
            Let me further my point by correcting a small error of yours. You say countries have been “cognoscente” of being ‘god’s country’. You meant of course “cognizant”, a verb form. The noun cognoscente can mean someone who claims a higher level of knowledge than hoi polloi, often in an arrogant way. But the highest level of knowledge – “epignosis” in Greek – the Bible reserves for God, as at Rom 10:2 in an Interlinear. Countries aren’t aware that Someone might be watching.
            The ultimate moral high ground is Yahweh’s alone I believe. You may disagree, but humor an old man for a moment. Isn’t it what John had in mind when he distinguished “children of God” from “children of the devil”? 1John 3:10. And notice the marks he sees: living uprightly and loving his brother. Has there been, ever, a country that behaved uprightly toward its own citizens and never went to war against others?
            Finally, I asked if the realization of Mt 6:9,10 would take care of your complaints about man’s governments. I do want to know your answer.

          • Sandra Miljkovic

            It seems to me that you do not hold the ‘Twin Truths’ / ‘Parallel Truths’ of ‘Human Responsibility’ and ‘Divine Sovereignty’ as reality. When I discuss the evident lack of concern for the former, you accuse me of neglecting the fact of the latter. This makes a discussion impossible. The need for acknowledgement of both truths is mandatory in order for us to have any meaningful discussion.

            So, do you believe that there are two parallel truths in our human reality? Do you believe God decrees all but that we too will bare full responsibility for our choices, thoughts and actions? I feel it may be best if we first settle this foundational keystone to our entire discourse before I respond to the bulk of your latest comment.

          • Doug

            “God decrees all” followed by any qualifier is self-contradictory. How about this, instead?
            God decreed to the man he created, ‘Here’s Paradise. Go, live in it.’
            In helping man adjust, God added, ‘Eat whatever you want, except of that tree over there.’
            Two commands, and free will to exercise. Man used that will to disobey one command, on information from someone who was not his God.
            Consider now just what happened there. The Instigator called God a liar. Man bought into the lie. [I tell your son, ‘Sandra doesn’t know what’s good for you. I do.’ How do you feel about that?]
            By giving commands, God exercised his right to rule, over his own creation. The Instigator denied that right, on the grounds that God could not benefit his creation as much as he could.
            God carried out the punishment, which included putting man and his descendants on their own – to exercise their free will without hindrance.
            How has that turned out?
            Today, man bears full responsibility for his actions. The evidence I see is that he is unhappy with the outcomes, but won’t give up the exercise.
            If you want to find a “truth” in there, go for it. I’m concerned with the outcomes. I don’t like them, and many others don’t, either.
            That alternative government I mentioned won’t tolerate commands other than the implied original one: Obey God, good; disobey, bad.
            We DO NOT LIKE being told that. That’s the truth. Does that government have a carrot to complement the stick? That was to have been my next question. But, your answer to the first is, ‘Nope. Doesn’t interest me. Have my own agenda.’

          • Sandra Miljkovic

            Best said by Charles Spurgeon:

            ““That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory, but they are not. The fault is in our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and I find that in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.””

          • Doug

            Ah, I see.
            Calvin, who was discredited long ago. For his rigidity, arrogance and brutality.
            Spurgeon likewise was full of himself.
            Best said by the Teacher. “Happy are the meek, since they will inherit the earth.”

          • Sandra Miljkovic

            I appreciate the time you’ve taken in writing all this time. It’s been interesting and a learning experience. I think, however, at this point I’d like to simply agree to disagree. May you be blessed.

          • Doug

            The mainstream response! 🙂
            Never mind me and my thoughts, keep the Bible in mind. You’ll need it, when all other philosophies have proven empty.

          • Sandra Miljkovic

            Biblical too, but glad to hear it’s also mainstream as I, personally, battle with learning when to let circular discussion rest. Thanks, again, for being my sounding board. I appreciated hearing your thoughts.

  • NellieIrene

    The UN has outlived its usefulness. It’s resolutions are the epitome of virtue signalling writ large. Even it’s “charitable” work could best be done by the private sector with less overhead and more money getting to where it is truly needed. I think the UN is little more than an elite clubhouse. And America, through her financing of it, has taken money out of her taxpayers pocket and made unjust men and women rich. That money could better be spent elsewhere. It needs to go.

    • Susan Merrifield

      I agree. The UN should leave USA soil, and the USA should leave the UN.

  • Dean Bruckner

    How could it end any differently? Jerusalem is the epicenter of God’s plan for the world, and so it is Satan’s as well. It must end this way.

    That said, I read this week that China is now involved in the war in Syria, and that just a few days ago, Iran ran its first convoy on the new supply route through Iraq to Lebanon, courtesy of the Shia controlled government in Iraq and Hezbollah controlled area in Lebanon. Russia is there too, as are France and the UK. And the U.S. of course.

    God is refining the nations, separating those who will stand with Israel and those who won’t. If Donald Trump had not won the election, The U.S. would likely be right there with the God-haters.

    God help us!

    • Doug

      “God’s plan”. Dean, you and I make plans, which may come to nothing. James 4:13-15 But, shouldn’t we see God as having purposes, which must come to pass?
      In that case, what about Yahweh’s original purpose for man, at Gen 1:28? No Jerusalem mentioned or needed, it seems.

  • BRAVO!! Michael! BRAVO!!

  • ARB

    As a Christian, I am required by conscience and consistent interpretive practice to read this prophecy quite differently.

    Christ Himself quotes Zechariah 13, “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered;” and explains this prophecy as referring to Himself, and the scattering of the apostles after He would be arrested; the chapter continues to describe how the Lord would cut off two-thirds of the land to perish, and one-third refined in the fire to become God’s people. I find it far more plausible that this prophecy refers to the Jewish converts to the early Christian church (the 1/3), with the remaining 2/3 cut off to perish shortly thereafter during the era of the Jewish-Roman wars and in particular the Siege of Jerusalem during the Great Revolt; from this it would reasonably follow that Zechariah 14 describes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the diaspora, and immediately thereafter the Judgment, with very little room in between for prophecy regarding the UN.

    • Kevin Quillen

      thank you for a voice of reason. the modern end time scenario makes the church look foolish and ignorant. you are a breath of fresh air.

      • Said Flores

        Then what is this which we are seeing now?

        • Kevin Quillen

          simply a fallen world. ALL Bible prophecy HAS BEEN fulfilled.

          • Said Flores

            Has Jesus returned already also? And what about all the things that Jesus said must happen before He returns? Luk 21

          • Kevin Quillen

            I will not debate online. If you are serious look up Don K Preston on you tube and listen to some of his videos for a start. Also visit preterist archives dot com. Please do the research before you decide.

          • Doug

            MODERATOR:
            Kevin:
            Your disguised link is dead, it seems. Although the first time I tried it my browser said it was possibly a malware site.
            Moderation needed?

          • Kevin Quillen

            make it preterist archive dot com there is no “s” on archive.

          • Doug

            I added the s. Sorry. Got it now.

          • Doug

            Said, many interpretations of Mt 24,25, Mr 13, and Lu 21 are based on incorrect translations of Mt 24:3.
            “Tell us, when is this going to happen, and what sign will there be of your coming…” [NJB]
            The Greek word underlying “coming” is parousia. The bible itself helps us to translate this differently.
            At Php 2:12, Paul commends the congregation for being godly when he is absent, not just when he is present.
            “your obedience must not be limited to times when I am present. Now that I am absent…” Ibid.
            The underlying words here are parousia, presence, and apousia, absence. [The a- or ap- prefix in Greek makes a negative.] The same at 2Cor 10:10,11. Parousia is found some 24 times in the Greek mss. In each case it translates best as presence, not coming. Cf. e.g. 1Cor 16:17; 7:6,7; 2Pet 1:16.
            This means Jesus could be here already. How is that possible, when his presence should mean the end of badness, not a continuation of it? And, why don’t we see him? What do you think?

          • Kevin Quillen

            do the research.

          • Doug

            Ps 37:29?

          • Kevin Quillen

            do the research. Don K Preston videos on you tube is a good place to start. Also preterist archive dot com

          • Doug

            Got it. Now I know what “preterism” is, to its adherents.
            In grammar of course it’s the absolute past tense. Neat.
            Anyway, Ps 37:29, NJB. “but the upright shall have the land for their own, there they shall live forever.”
            Maybe I’m just a whiner, but I don’t see fulfillment of that anywhere. Neither v.28, a necessary precursor. Still plenty bad guys; plenty death; not a “land” that any sane person would want “for ever”.
            Exegesis please?

          • Kevin Quillen

            if you are really interested, go watch a few Don K Preston videos.

          • Doug

            I’m very interested in this prophecy, because it’s exactly what I want for myself. Other people, too, I imagine.
            I’m not the only one who sees a contradiction with your statement about “ALL prophecy…” Thought you might have more to say about that. I know the Bible does. Sorry.

          • momlzkcj

            So when I go to the zoo, the lions and lambs will all be in the same pen?

    • Dean Bruckner

      You go right ahead and read these prophecies “quite differently.”

      But when you see Antichrist standing, and demanding worship from all people, exactly 3.5 years after making a covenant with the Jews, I expect your interpretation will need an upgrade. Sure, Titus was an antichrist, just as was Antiochus Epiphanes, and Hitler, and Obama. But they were all just warmup bands playing before the main event.

      I hope you have the flexibility of mind and heart, and the faith, to endure persecution on that day.

  • Jason McCord

    Perhaps not the ending of the world But, ….And just as it is appointed for people to die once and after this judgment, so also the Messiah, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him. Hebrew 9:27-28.

  • Doug

    We could note that the UN is an attempt of men to run their own affairs without considering Yahweh. Is this godly? Not according to Dan 2:44. [Nor Genesis, for that matter.] Moreover, this is true of all of mens’ governments that I know of, beginning with Nimrod’s.
    As to the Jerusalem of concern to God today, it is in a different place, out of mens’ hands. “But the Jerusalem above is free, and that is the one that is our mother.” Gal 4:26, NJB.

  • Doug

    We all know [something] about Har Magedon, Greek from a Hebrew term meaning “Mountain of Megiddo”.
    Do we know all we need to about what immediately precedes it?
    Rev 16:14,16, NJB, emphasis added. “and in fact [the foul spirits, v. 13] were demon spirits, able to work miracles, going out to ALL the kings of the world to call them together for the war of the great day of God the Almighty … They called all the kings together at the place called in Hebrew Armageddon.”
    Any Apocalyptic literalists among you might like to know that Megiddo is literally ‘a high place’ – a hill – above a large valley. As such it has always had great strategic and tactical value; at least three history-making battles already have been fought there. Har, in Hebrew, can mean hill or mountain, but there never has been a mountain there. Despite this, most exegeticists use the more common “mountain of Megiddo”. In that case, it’s symbolic language for a literal place. Revelation’s writer indicates at the beginning that God “signified” the visions, or gave them in signs. [Douai. See Vine’s, under “signify”, Rev 1:1. See also Interlinear Bibles.] Later RCC translations ignore the Greek word, without explaining why so little of the book can be taken in any literal sense.
    One source lists its height as 70 feet, but that doesn’t include ongoing excavations by biblical archaeologists. Not much “mountain” left.
    Cut to the chase. Can we see the mountain plain and hill as the site of the last battle between Yahweh [‘in this corner’] and all the rulers of the earth [‘and in this corner’]?
    Can we see the site as being symbolic of ‘earthwide’?
    Can we see that Yahweh wins?
    Can we see then that a Christian needn’t concern himself overmuch with the Trumps, Putins and Kims of the day?
    A more pressing concern is, How do I make sure that God sees me on his side when the hammer falls?

  • benevolus

    These are the nations heaping damnation upon themselves as nations. By this, I am referring to the sheep-and-goat judgment, a judgment against nations who have been a burden and a yoke to Christ’s brethren (read: the Jewish people and Israel). This judgment pertains to which nations will survive into the Millennial Reign. It is not a judgment of individuals, but nations. People are either saved, or they aren’t.

    • Doug

      If individuals survive into the millenial reign, won’t it be because they learned to obey God rather than men? Acts 5:29
      If so, of what use to them will be any government but his? Is there at least a partial answer at Dan 2:44?

Inspiration
Why We Need the Wise Counsel of Good Friends
Casey Chalk
More from The Stream
Connect with Us