Islamic Caliphate Declared: What Does It Mean?

On the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan this year, June 29, 2014, the al-Qaeda breakaway group ISIS or ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (i.e., Greater Syria or the Levant)—which has seized vast tracts of Iraq and much of northern Syria—formally declared the creation of an Islamic transnational state, or caliphate. In doing so, the group changed its name to just the Islamic State (IS), as the caliphate is to rule Muslims the world over.

The group's chief, who's borne the pseudonym Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was declared to be the new caliph or leader of the Islamic State—now Caliph Ibrahim. A spokesman for the group "called on those living in the areas under the organization's control to swear allegiance to al-Baghdadi and support him. 'The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's authority and the arrival of its troops to their areas,' [the spokesman] said" ("ISIS Declares Creation of Mideast Caliphate Across Iraq and Syria," CBS News, June 29, 2014).

Baghdadi then called for Muslims to rally to his new state and to conquering the Christian West, saying: "Those who can immigrate to the Islamic State should immigrate, as immigration to the house of Islam is a duty . . . Rush O Muslims to your state . . . This is my advice to you. If you hold to it you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills" (quoted by Damien McElroy, "Rome Will Be Conquered Next, Says Leader of 'Islamic State,'" The Telegraph, July 1, 2014).

Longtime desire to reestablish the caliphate

The desire to reestablish the caliphate is driven by the goal of joining all Muslims under a single rule—as in the days of Islam's founder, Muhammad, and his immediate successors or caliphs in the seventh century. Under that rule everyone is to strictly adhere to sharia—Islamic law and jurisprudence—and follow the way of jihad or holy war to conquer the globe.

The caliphate was declared by a succession of Muslim empires over the centuries, the latest being that of the Ottoman Turks, which ended with World War I. Yet these are viewed as corrupt, and the desire of the Islamists today is to restore the initial "righteous" caliphate.

Islamist terror groups the world over, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc., "all profess the revival of the caliphate, the regime that was installed by Muhammed's righteous successors, the caliphs, and has become the iconic model to be emulated by all future generations of Muslims" (Raphael Israeli, From Arab Spring to Islamic Winter, 2013, p. xiii). (See "20-Year Plan for a Global Caliphate".)

During and after the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011-2012, momentum seemed to be building toward the formation of a caliphate, particularly with the ascendance of a Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohamed Morsi, to the presidency of Egypt. Yet with the military coup in Egypt last year that ousted Morsi and instigated a major crackdown against the Brotherhood, the momentum toward a caliphate appeared to have stalled.

But now, with millions of Islamic extremists across the Middle East still pressing for that Muslim dream, where one door closes another opens (although the door in Egypt is by no means truly closed, as the population there remains predominantly Islamist).

So what are we to make of this new development?

A number of Islamist groups and prominent clerics are not supportive of the declaration of the Islamic State, as it's viewed as premature and a cause for infighting between Muslim groups and states. But significant support has come in from far quarters. No doubt a great deal of blood will be shed over this among Muslims and between Muslims and the non-Islamic world.

In considering the matter we should ask: How did the new Islamic State come to be, and what are its prospects for success as a revived caliphate? Or might another group receive wider acceptance in the role? And does Bible prophecy tell us anything regarding such developments?

The rise of ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

The al-Qaeda contingent in Iraq, headed up by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the mid-2000s, went through several incarnations before eventually becoming the Islamic State of Iraq, or ISI, which came to be headed up by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2010, when American forces were withdrawing from the country.

The group's extreme brutality and killing of fellow Muslims created a divide between it and al-Qaeda's international leadership, which considered Zarqawi and his followers too extreme and criticized them for alienating people from the Islamist cause.

Furthermore, Osama bin Laden's successor Ayman al-Zawahiri maintained, as do many Islamist scholars now opposed to the current caliphate declaration, that a caliphate must follow the purification of the wider Muslim world, being then based on the consent of the public.

But, as Margaret Coker explains in The Wall Street Journal, Baghdadi and his supporters "reject this doctrine of an evolving religious and social consensus. They believe instead that a pure Islamic regime can be more swiftly imposed by force" ("The New Jihad," July 11).

And in fact, this is the way the caliphate has been imposed in past centuries.

The struggle came to a head in April 2013, when Baghdadi declared a takeover of the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda-linked rebel militia fighting against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, stating that it would be merged with ISI to form ISIS. The Nusra Front rejected the takeover bid and Zawahiri ordered Baghdadi to leave Syria and maintain operations in Iraq. But in a huge affront to al-Qaeda, Baghdadi said he would follow Allah instead and maintained the ISIS merger, whereupon Zawahiri formally disowned the group.

ISIS went on to take over sizable parts of Syria and Iraq, sweeping through in a brutal blitzkrieg. It took to social media to demoralize resistance by displaying its extreme brutality. This tactic helped ISIS to wrest control of the large city of Mosul and its environs in June of this year when the Iraqi army had to retreat due to massive numbers of desertions.

The conquest of this area put huge amounts of advanced U.S. weaponry into the hands of ISIS, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars looted from banks—making it far wealthier than al-Qaeda ever was. And with U.S. forces now gone from Iraq, the new Islamic State has a great deal of room to maneuver. It thus seems poised to change the Middle East, if not the greater world scene, in a dramatic fashion.

Striking fear in the hearts and minds of opponents

Joseph Farah, editor in chief of WND (the former WorldNetDaily), commented prior to the caliphate announcement: "Do I expect to see ISIS conquer the Middle East, North Africa, part of Europe and Asia in the 21st century? No, I don't. But I do expect to see enormous carnage and destruction and bloodshed as a result of this movement—far more, perhaps, than most other analysts project. There is a ferocity to ISIS that makes even al-Qaida uncomfortable. It has already captured more wealth and armaments, including chemical weapons, than all but a handful of countries in the world possess . . .

"Brutality difficult for Westerners to even imagine is the modus operandi of ISIS. It calls for a scorched-earth policy against its enemies—which includes Christians, Shiites, Alawites, Jews, non-believers and all non-Sunnis. ISIS leadership advocates and practices barbarism designed to strike fear into the hearts and minds of its opponents and anyone who doesn't stand with them in their strict Shariah Sunni code.

"Already the ISIS marauders have crucified victims, beheaded them and conducted mass executions of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. No atrocity is beneath them" ("ISIS Rising—What It Portends," June 23, 2014).

Farah compares the speed of their conquest with the original march of Islam and even Alexander the Great. "The success of campaigns like that requires that superior forces faint in fear of the coming hordes. You can see it's working already in Iraq" (ibid.).

Is the new caliphate viable?

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner gave a helpful analysis of the situation, dealing with the question of whether ISIS can maintain its rule and viability: "Analysts point out that seizing territory is one thing, governing it is quite another" ("'Jihadistan': Can Isis Militants Rule Seized Territory?" July 8, 2014).

Despite its remarkable military success in the wake of its psychological warfare, "Isis has effectively been 'punching above its weight,' to use a boxing analogy," its numbers of between 10,000 and 15,000 fighters being low compared to competing forces. Gardner quotes a pan-Arab newspaper stating, "Isis' ability to control lands has been based on deals with local militants willing to do the 'ruling' for them."

He further notes that Baghdadi and his followers do not seem, on one hand, to have learned from the mistakes of their predecessors under Zarqawi in Iraq in their brutal treatment of the populace, which failed to win hearts and minds. Regarding ISIS, "stories abound of harsh punishments imposed for the slightest of offences, women being confined to the home, public crucifixions, kidnappings and extortionate levies imposed on businesses . . ."

While Gardner on the other hand points out ISIS taking care of municipal needs like garbage collection, the mask of public service has since come off.

Gardner further states: "To succeed as a viable state, let alone as a transnational 'caliphate,' Isis will need access to oil and water." And ISIS/IS now has both, controlling refineries and major dams in Syria and Iraq.

Gardner argues that the new Islamic state is not going away: "The only force capable of permanently ejecting Isis will be the tribes in those regions [they rule], and they have little incentive to do so while the Syrian civil war rages on . . .

"Which leaves the prospect of a violent, extremist, well-armed, well-funded and religiously intolerant militia becoming a permanent part of the Middle East landscape, a sort of de facto 'jihadistan.'" And, he notes, like Afghanistan it would also be a springboard for increased attacks against neighboring countries and the Western world.

Several key advantages and others to carry on the cause

In spite of the denunciation received from some Islamic scholars and disapproval from al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations, this group nevertheless has much going for it in the Muslim world. One advantage is in the very declaration of the caliphate, as it's unlikely that a number of claimants would start declaring their own since that would minimize the whole idea of the pan-Islamic state.

Furthermore, the fact that ISIS/IS is actually carrying out major exploits and making massive gains, with the caliphate proclamation on top of that, can capture the imagination of the younger generation of jihadists.

As noted in Newsweek: "The brutal attacks of 9/11 were almost 13 years ago; many of the jihadist fighters on the front lines now were children then. They have grown up seeing Al-Qaeda on the defensive, with few successes of its own, while ISIS has stunned the world with its victories in Syria and Iraq" (Kurt Eichenwald, "Iraq's ISIS Is Eclipsing Al-Qaeda, Especially With Young Jihadists," July 7, 2014).

Indeed, at his site Intelwire author J.M. Berger points out regarding al-Qaeda that "one of its few practical remaining plays would be to squander the entirety of whatever resources it has left on an attack against the West, in the hopes of regaining its reputation" ("A New Day for ISIS," June 11). That should serve as a stark warning of great danger for the world even in the short term.

Since the proclamation of the new Islamic State, it has seen increasing voices of support by Islamists around the world. But even if the group falters in its bid to rule the broader Islamic nation, there are others who could still try to establish the caliphate.

There remains al-Qaeda of course. Then there's the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan—by which the caliphate potentially could acquire nuclear weapons. The Muslim Brotherhood still maintains a vast network of support in the Islamic world—and Egypt may yet eventually revert to rule by the Islamist majority, the economy there being presently in shambles. And Turkey's prime minister Recep Erdogan still dreams of a Turkish-led caliphate, as was the Ottoman Empire.

But with the caliphate already declared, a broad spectrum of Muslims from around the world may try to come together to help it succeed—and this could sway other Islamist leaders to support it. On the other hand, what some see as Baghdadi's big gamble in proclaiming the caliphate could backfire in a big way if things don't pan out for him. We will have to wait and see how matters develop.

As a preview of where things are headed, one of the first acts of the new caliphate was to issue a fatwa, or religious edict, ordering that "all women between the ages of 11 and 46 must undergo genital mutilation" (Agence France-Presse, July 24).

Again, it seems very likely that a lot of blood will flow because of the declared caliphate—both Muslims killing other Muslims and attacks being launched on non-Muslims.

Turning to the only reliable source for advance news

In the face of these events, if we want to know where the world is ultimately headed, we must turn to the only sure source of knowledge about the future—the Holy Bible, the very Word of God. Bible prophecy does seem to say, in Psalm 83, that a confederation of Middle Eastern peoples will come together with the intent of destroying Israel—apparently involving Arabs, Palestinians, Turks and others in the region.

Moreover, Daniel 11 refers to an end-time "king of the South" who will instigate a conflict with a power to the north—a revival of the Roman Empire centered in Europe—with the Holy Land caught in between.

Might the confederation and southern power in these prophecies be a restored caliphate? It seems quite likely. After all, the principal unifying factor among all these peoples is Islam—so a new Islamic empire bringing them together is not at all far-fetched.

Is the current Islamic State that power? Its leaders are so extreme that gaining a mass following among other Muslims poses a great challenge. Also, it does not yet encompass Egypt, which the southern power in Daniel 11 seems to include or even be based from. And perhaps the Islamic State won't reach that far in its current form.

Yet it could be that, just as the European Union of today seems to be the embryonic form of the coming European superpower, so the current Islamic State could be the embryonic form of a much greater caliphate to come. These developments certainly illustrate the desire of millions of Muslims to establish a caliphate.

Note again particularly the goal stated by the Islamic State to "conquer Rome and own the world." It could well be that this long-held desire of Muslims will lead to the conditions described in the latter part of Daniel 11, where the end-time king of the South provokes the king of the North into an invasion of North Africa and the Middle East.

Momentous and dangerous times lie ahead. Stay alert and turn to God and His Word with all your heart. No matter what happens, He will see you through!

20-Year Plan for a Global Caliphate

This plan was revealed to the world in 2005 by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein in his book Al-Zarqawi: al-Qaida's Second Generation. He had spent time in prison with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who went on to head up al-Qaeda in Iraq before his death in a U.S. bombing strike) and interviewed a wide range of al-Qaeda members.

The plan was questioned and belittled at the time, but the timeline has continued on track in various respects despite setbacks for al-Qaeda and other Islamists over the years.

Here are the steps as reported in a Der Spiegel article dated Aug. 12, 2005 (Yassin Musharbash, "The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants"):

• "The First Phase . . . 'The awakening' . . . supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 . . . The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby 'awakening' Muslims . . . '. . . judged . . . as very successful . . . The Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target.'"

• "The Second Phase 'Opening Eyes' . . . [2003] until 2006 [the period this report came out] . . . [making the West] aware of the 'Islamic community' . . . [and] recruiting young men during this period. Iraq [was to then] become the center for all global operations, with an 'army' set up there and bases established in other Arabic states."

• "The Third Phase . . . 'Arising and Standing Up' . . . from 2007 to 2010 [which was yet future when this was written]. 'There will be a focus on Syria' . . . The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and . . . in Israel are predicted . . . Countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger." (The focus on Syria should be noted, though it did not become a great rallying point until the Arab Spring came at the end of this period. )

• "The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013 . . . al-Qaida will aim to bring about thecollapse of the hated Arabic governments . . . '. . . lead[ing] to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida' . . . [And] attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism." ( Consider that the Arab Spring uprisings against various despots occurred in 2011-2012 .)

• "The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order." ( This is when a caliphate was declared, in 2014. The al-Qaeda old guard sees this as premature but still has a window of a few years. )

• The Sixth Phase . . . From 2016 onwards there will [be] a period of 'total confrontation.' As soon as the caliphate has been declared, the 'Islamic army' . . . will instigate the 'fight between the believers and the non-believers.'"

• The Seventh Phase . . . ' Definitive victory' . . . The rest of the world will be so beaten down by the 'one-and-a-half billion Muslims,' the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years."

Whether the fifth and sixth phases pan out remains to be seen, but the seventh can't happen, as Bible prophecy makes it clear that Islam will not come to dominate the world (though not for lack of trying).

In any event, more attention should have been paid to what Fouad Hussein wrote nearly a decade ago. It demonstrates that Islamists take the long view, realizing it will take decades to attain their goals. This thinking is foreign to Western leaders, who in their shortsightedness have grossly misjudged what's been happening over the past many years.

Why Does God Allow Evil to Exist?

Scripture: “The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate.” Romans 7:14b-15

God is good. But if we’re His creation, why are we so bad? When we try to do what’s right, our desire for sinful things often takes over. If God doesn’t like evil, why does He allow it to exist?

We Have Free Will

Sin entered the world after Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Since that day, all humans have been affected by evil. But why? It’s because God gives us free will. That means we have the freedom to make choices. For example, God “wants all people to be saved” (I Timothy 2:4), but He gives us the choice between eternal Salvation and eternal separation from Him. We get to choose between good and bad.

The Bible instructs us to “keep on doing good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers” (Romans 2:7). We make the choice between good and evil. When we see evil in the world, it’s a result of making the wrong choice.

We All Sin

When we make the wrong choices, we do evil things and sin. Evil is sometimes defined as wickedness. However, Christians consider evil to be an absence of goodness. God’s goodness is lacking when evil is at work on the earth. The Bible tells us “everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard” (Romans 3:23). When we do evil things, we’re lacking God’s goodness. Evil is darkness, so we need the goodness of God’s light to shine in our lives.

Evil Won’t Always Exist

Right now, God allows evil. However, one day God will create a “new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1), which will exclude evil. At that time, God will reign in glory with peace, justice, and mercy. Until then, the best way we can bring God glory is to choose Him over sin and evil. God “does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent” (II Peter 3:9). And His Word says, “I have made [people] for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7). Therefore, we can bring God glory by choosing His goodness over earthly evil. One day, we won’t even have to worry about evil in the world.

Will Everyone Accept Jesus?

Scripture: “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Matthew 7:13-14

Some Will Be Saved

When we think about praying for, and sharing with, friends and family members who reject Jesus, we love passages like 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is . . . patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” But this doesn’t mean that everyone will eventually repent and accept Jesus Christ. Jesus plainly said in Matthew 7 that most people don’t find the way to eternal life.

Is God contradicting Himself? Not at all. In 2 Peter 3:9, we learn that God wishes, or desires, that everyone would accept Christ. It doesn’t mean that it will happen. Sometimes God desires things and other times He decides they will happen no matter what. God decided that Jesus would die on the cross so we’d have an opportunity to accept Jesus and live in Heaven. Now, God is being patient with us because he hopes, desires and wishes that we all accept the free gift He gave us. But some may refuse the gift.

God Is the One Who Chooses

In Romans, Paul makes a bold statement about God’s sovereignty: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion’” (Romans 9:14-15).Paul goes on quoting God, a few verses later: “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” (Romans 9:20-21).

God’s ways are far higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:9), and in the end, we have to simply acknowledge that He is in charge, and believe that everything that happens is part of His great plan.

Don’t Stop Praying

You might say,“If God’s going to do whatever He wants, why pray?” Because God has instructed us to“Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17), and promises great blessings when we do. And even if only a few will be saved, don’t you want your loved ones to be among the few? Remember, “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9).

Is God's Temple Under Construction?

Many Jews long for it. A number are actively preparing for it. Bible prophecy says it will happen. Amazingly, it directly concerns you.

Before Jesus makes His prophesied return to earth, certain passages in the Bible appear to state that a third physical temple of God will be constructed or will be undergoing construction alongside an operational sacrificial altar, possibly directly on the ancient temple site atop Mount Moriah in the city of Jerusalem.

Since Judaism—a variant of the original Israelite religion established by God thousands of years ago—has adapted and functioned for nearly 2,000 years without an operating temple, one might be initially hard pressed to understand and appreciate the once-central role the temple of God played.

Let's review a brief history of the first and second physical temples to better understand the significance of what God is doing today. Let's also see how they may concern you!

The first physical temple in Jerusalem

First constructed and dedicated by King Solomon in the 900s B.C., the temple replaced the mobile sanctuary, commonly called the tabernacle, that was first developed during the time of Moses soon after the Exodus. This elaborate portable "temple" first served to house the resplendent Ark of the Covenant, which was placed in a designated space called the Holy of Holies—a space God's presence would occupy.

An estimated 15 to 20 stories high, the first temple complex made up about half of the city of Jerusalem at the time it was built. While the building was finished during the eighth month on the Hebrew calendar (1 Kings:6:38), it was not formally dedicated by King Solomon until nearly a year later in the following seventh month of the calendar, at the time of the annual Festival of Tabernacles (1 Kings:8:2; 2 Chronicles:5:3).

The finished temple, which towered over the city, meant different things to different people. Reflecting the future statement by Jesus that "a city that is set on hill cannot be hidden" (Matthew:5:14), the temple was specifically set on Mount Moriah by God to be "of great magnificence and fame and splendor in the sight of all the nations" (1 Chronicles:22:5, New International Version, emphasis added throughout).

To the ancient Phoenicians up north, the presence of a new regional superpower was most welcome. After becoming king, David ultimately united all of Israel, creating a regional military and political presence that could not be ignored. In fact, the new united kingdom that grew under King Solomon, David's son, stretched its borders far, shunting aside the Assyrians. The hated Assyrians now no longer dominated the Phoenicians, who were regional leaders in trade.

Now, with no more tribute being paid to the Assyrians, the Phoenicians were eager to forge strong ties with the burgeoning military power to the south, particularly since it seemed to win major battles effortlessly. Phoenicia thus was quick to recognize the victorious King David of Israel, sending diplomatic emissaries south with gifts of prized wood from the legendary cedars of Lebanon.

The Festival of Tabernacles dedication of this mammoth and glorious physical structure was an event of epic scale. Shortly before a dramatic dedication prayer by King Solomon, the priests carried the cherished Ark of Covenant, which contained the two stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments had been written by God Himself, into the new Holy of Holies.

As the priests withdrew from this sacred space, "the cloud filled the temple of the Lord. And the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled his temple" (1 Kings:8:10-11
, NIV)

The first temple dominated the early history of the united kingdom of Israel. But what does that have to do with you? Let's read on.

The once-proud temple destroyed

Tragically, despite this majestic and awe-inspiring beginning, the people of Israel and Judah ultimately allowed the beauty and magnificence of the physical temple to eclipse God Himself. They allowed, then promoted, its desecration. Despite many dire prophetic warnings from Moses to Jeremiah and more, first Israel, then Judah, turned to other gods, powerless idols of clay and stone (Ezekiel:8:5-17











). As a result, they would pay a severe price.

The consequences of these lawless actions finally reached a bitter climax. The prophet Ezekiel recorded a vision of a dreadful scene. Centuries after Solomon's magnificent dedication, the presence of God once again took the form of a cloud. God's mighty manifestation again "filled the temple, and the court was full of the radiance of the glory of the Lord" (Ezekiel:10:4, NIV).

But this time something terrible happened —all a result of Israel's manifold sins and rejection of God: "Then the glory of the Lord departed from over the threshold of the temple," rising to the east gate of the Temple Mount and then on to lift above the Mount of Olives (Ezekiel:10:18, Ezekiel:11:1, Ezekiel:11:22-23
)

With God's presence removed, the once-glorious temple became as an ordinary building. Without God's protection, ancient Jerusalem was doomed.

Finally, the previously unthinkable happened. "The city was besieged . . . the city wall was broken through" (Jeremiah:52:5-7

). The result? Just as prophesied, in 587-586 B.C. King Zedekiah was forcibly captured and taken captive to Babylon, together with multiple thousands of Jewish families, now simply the booty of war.

Shortly thereafter the captain of the guard for Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar returned to Jerusalem. There "he set fire to the temple of the Lord, the royal palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every important building he burned down" (Jeremiah:52:13, NIV).

The promises of disobedience had tragically come to life. Now virtually annihilated, the ruins of Jerusalem and its once-mighty temple became the habitation of crows and vultures (Psalm:79:1-2
).

However, all was not lost. God is merciful. And what came to pass has a direct impact on us today!

Rebuilt, yet not as before

Over time the political sands shifted. Decades later, the Persian Empire conquered the former Babylonian empire, and God caused its king to look favorably toward the captive Jews. Miraculously, King Cyrus of Persia was inspired directly by God to not only allow the Jews to return to their homeland, but to provide funds and supplies to rebuild the previously destroyed temple!

Accordingly, Cyrus the Great issued a decree in 538 B.C. to allow about 50,000 Jews, led by Zerubabbel, to return to Jerusalem and begin the rebuilding (Ezra:1:2-4

; Ezra:6:3-5

). This was no easy task, particularly given that the Jews now lacked the massive resources of an emerging superpower that Solomon previously enjoyed.

The Jews ran into numerous difficult challenges, and work lagged. In 520 B.C., nearly two decades later during the second year of the reign of King Darius (who succeeded Cyrus), God subsequently empowered the prophet Haggai to encourage and direct the Jews to again take up the rebuilding of the temple.

But as the rough-hewn walls of the second temple rose up, some of the older people present remembered the magnificence of the first temple and shuddered. Haggai again delivered a critical message from God: "Who of you is left who saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Does it not seem to you like nothing?" (Haggai:2:3, NIV). Obviously the second temple in 520 B.C. was a far distant second to the structure it replaced.

Prophecies of greater glory and destruction

But Haggai then uttered a critical prophecy: "What is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord Almighty . . . 'The glory of this present housewill be greater than the glory of the former house'" (Haggai:2:7-9

, NIV).

This, of course, is nothing less than the prophecy that Jesus Christ, the Creator of the universe, would come to this second temple in person! That was fulfilled many times, when Jesus—the desired of all nations (Isaiah:9:6-7
; Isaiah:42:6)—would proclaim and teach many priceless truths in the temple courts (John:7:14; Matthew:21:12-16



). What could be more glorious?

So this second temple had great significance, both for the ancient Jews and for us today.

The second temple would continue to be remodeled and transformed, finally undergoing massive redevelopment by Herod the Great some half a millennium after Haggai prophesied. This massive new structure finally physically eclipsed the temple built by Solomon in many respects. It was to this temple that Jesus Himself came.

But tragedy struck again. A few decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Jews collectively rebelled against the occupying Romans. They failed to trust in God, and they failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The result of the rebellion against the Romans was barbaric carnage, and a first partial fulfillment of Christ's warnings given on the Mount of Olives came to pass (Matthew 24).

During the Festival of Unleavened Bread in A.D. 70, the Roman general and future emperor Titus surrounded Jerusalem with four legions of battle-hardened soldiers. The engines of war ground for months until July, when the temple area was set ablaze and thousands were slaughtered.

The magnificent temple was gone. And so we come to today. What does all of this mean for you?

What lies ahead regarding a temple?

As we have read and understand, the first and second temples played major roles in ancient Israel that reach across the ages to us. As students of Bible prophecy know, the book of Daniel points out that a future terrible entity "shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering" (Daniel:9:27) and that the forces of this entity "shall take away the daily sacrifices and place there the abomination of desolation" (Daniel:11:31).

This was partially fulfilled at the time of the Syrian Greek ruler Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century B.C. But Jesus pointed to Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation as something future (Matthew:24:15). There was a measure of fulfillment with the Roman destruction that soon followed. But Jesus clearly connected the abomination prophecy with end-time events.

The prophesied cutting off of sacrifices and desecration presumably cannot take place without a functioning priesthood and a sanctuary area, which is part of what shows that a third temple with a functioning altar will likely stand in Jerusalem prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ.

But as significant as the construction of this temple would be in the march of end-time events, there is something far more significant in God's plan with regard to a temple being built.

Apart from the ancient physical temples of old, the Bible reveals the present construction of a temple that is of utmost importance to God. That temple has eternal consequences. God Himself is building it.

Where is that temple?

God is dwelling in a new temple

To answer that question, consider what the apostle Paul asked a gentile congregation in the Greek port city of Corinth some 2,000 years ago: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?" (1 Corinthians:6:19, New Revised Standard Version). He went on to emphasize this to the same congregation a few years later, when he told them "We are the temple of the living God" (2 Corinthians:6:16, NIV).

Why is this critically important to understand? The answer relates to the true definition of a Christian. A person can possess extensive biblical knowledge, can perform great acts of sacrifice and can demonstrate what appear to be major spiritual fruits, but that personmay not be a true Christian except for the inclusion of one crucial element.

Paul defines a true Christian in a letter that he wrote to the congregation at Rome: "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ [the same as the Holy Spirit], he does not belong to Christ" (Romans:8:9, NIV).

So a Christian is one who has living within him or her the Holy Spirit of God, making that person a living temple and part of the collective temple of all those in whom God's Spirit dwells, the temple now under construction that God is most concerned with!

While the gift of eternal life is just that—a momentous, unbelievable gift from God that cannot be earned—a Christian develops holy righteous character through overcoming trials and growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Peter:3:17). This holy character results from the construction and development of the living temple of God—reflected in our thoughts, words and actions.

Our own spiritual construction project

Paul tells us, "Offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship" (Romans:12:1, NIV).

How are we to do this? How are we to foster the development of our spiritual temple? Paul continues, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans:12:2).

The mind is where we truly surrender to God, where "we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Corinthians:10:5, NIV).

The Bible often gives us physical parallels to consider when we are trying to grow spiritually. In reviewing the building of the first temple, consider what David said about our motives for wanting to build our spiritual temple.

To be successful in our spiritual temple construction project, we must first acknowledge God as all-powerful, and then serve Him both with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind.

Why is a willing mind so important? Consider this critical fact: "The Lord searches every heart, and understands every motive behind the thoughts" (1 Chronicles:28:9, NIV).

Wholehearted devotion means we do it with all our might (Ecclesiastes:9:10). We don't hold back. As David prepared to set up Solomon for the construction of the first temple, we find that he publicly gave his "personal treasures . . . for the temple of my God , over and above everything I have [already] provided for this holy temple" (1 Chronicles:29:3).

Even though God is invisible, to succeed in our spiritual temple project we must deploy faith. Why? Because "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him"! (Hebrews:11:6, NIV).

Any construction project has milestones and outcomes to meet. Our spiritual temple construction project is no different. As we progress in our Christian construction project, together with the Holy Spirit living and working within us, we will begin to display and demonstrate critical milestones and outcomes. We find them listed in Galatians:5:22: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (NIV). What is the chief defining milestone? As Jesus Himself said: "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John:13:35).

Why is building a spiritual temple important? As noted earlier, a major purpose for the magnificent construction of the first temple was to bear witness of God's way of life. It was to be built "in the sight of all the nations" (1 Chronicles:22:5). Similarly, Jesus commanded His disciples to "let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven" (Matthew:5:16, NIV).

Finally, building a major construction project is tough work. If you don't know what you're doing, the construction of a spiritual temple can produce high anxiety.

But we have a spiritual construction manager onsite! He is prepared to help us with all directions and supplies. Paul declares this promise from God: "My God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:19, NIV).

The same words David told his son Solomon are true for us today as we conduct the construction of our spiritual temple: "Be strong and courageous, and do the work. Don't be afraid or discouraged by the size of the task, for the Lord God, my God, is with you. He will not fail you or forsake you. He will see to it that all the work related to the Temple of the Lord is finished correctly" (1 Chronicles:28:20, New Living Translation 1996).

Yes, God's temple is already under construction. Is He building it within you?

As America Retreats, a Dangerous World Emerges

The closing chapters of World War II took place in the spring and summer of 1945 with the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The United States became the dominant world power, with the world's largest economy producing a full 50 percent of world economic output at the time. Its army and the Soviet Union's Red Army were the two largest in the world. 

However, as sole possessor of the atomic bomb, the United States stood at the top. Only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), which obtained the bomb several years later, disputed American hegemony.

For half a century afterward, the United States played the role of the world's policeman, intervening in Korea, Vietnam, Africa, the Middle East, even the Caribbean, to thwart communist insurgencies, upstart dictatorships and other threats to peace and a balanced world order. By no means did America play this role perfectly, yet the free world did come to rely on the United States as the one power with the will and the might to extend itself in the cause of international justice.

Yet recent events show an America on the retreat, backpedaling, withdrawing and in general on the defensive. What has happened to the nation that most other countries have looked to for leadership in dangerous times? And what does it mean for the world?

"Leading from behind" leads to chaotic realignments ahead

Over the past decade, commentators across the world have noted this change. Past Good News articles have cited respected sources such as the British newsmagazine The Economist and the Financial Times, Germany's Der Spiegel and The Wall Street Journal, all of which have noted the seismic shift in America's willingness to involve herself globally.

Taking office in 2009, newly elected U.S. President Barack Obama lost no time in spelling out his new vision for America's role in the world.

The United States would no longer assert its authority abroad, he promised. America would play nicely in the sandbox of nations, not driving its own interests, and would rely increasingly on other nations to carry the burden of maintaining international order. "Leading from behind" was to become America's new role on the world stage.

Former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski is just one of many who are sounding the alarm on America's retreat and its implications. In his 2013 book Strategic Vision, America and the Crisis of Global Power, Brzezinski argues that the eventual demise of the United States as the one global superpower would leave a fragmented world, one even more dangerous than the world today.

If this were to happen by, say, 2025, he says, "no single power will be ready by then to exercise the role that the world . . . expected the United States to play. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive and somewhat chaotic realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers, in a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global well-being" (p. 75).

Ongoing crises in Egypt, Syria and Iran

More than five years of this thinking and the actions—or inaction—flowing from it has had its consequences.

Nearly two years ago, a September 2012 Wall Street Journal article focused on American inability to guide and influence global events: "The Obama Presidency has been an era of slowly building tension and disorder that seems likely to flare into larger troubles and perhaps even military conflict" ("The New World Disorder," Sept. 13, 2012).

The article noted how little the United States was able to influence the events of the Arab Spring, how America's passive approach to that year's turmoil in Egypt resulted in the ousting of Hosni Mubarak, a long-time U.S. ally, and his replacement as president by a Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohamed Morsi. Since that time, Morsi has been deposed by the military, but Egypt remains a seething cauldron of unrest and instability.

Regrettably, the past two years have seen the situation only deteriorate.

After Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used poison gas to kill hundreds of Syrian civilians, a clear violation of international law, President Obama drew a "line in the sand," threatening U.S. intervention if such weapons were used again. Russia's Vladimir Putin shrewdly intervened to defuse the crisis, and Obama backed off. Now Assad has again used poison gas against his own people, and the world just yawns.  

More than 160,000 people, mostly civilians, have died in Syria's continuing civil war, and the world seems powerless to stop the carnage.

Eschewing armed military intervention, the Obama administration has turned increasingly to economic sanctions, which it terms "the 21st-century use of force." No nation has felt the pressure of sanctions more than Iran, as America and the world seek to deter its open pursuit of its own nuclear capability. Sanctions have been in place for years, but how well have they worked?

In early May, veteran CBS newsman Steve Croft spent eight days in Iran, observing life in both urban and rural areas. "While we saw that the sanctions were causing considerable pain, we saw no evidence that the economy was on the verge of collapse," said Croft in his report. 

Among those he interviewed were two Iranian businessmen, leaders in Iran's budding Internet industry. Asked what effect U.S. and worldwide sanctions were having on their nation, both assured him that although the sanctions were causing pain, they would merely slow down, not halt, Iran's nuclear progress.

Earlier this year Iran again beat the United States and other Western nations in the international shell game of "watch the weapons." Outflanking and outmaneuvering U.S.-led negotiators, Iran's hardline leaders gave up virtually nothing, but gained a lifting of the most effective sanctions against them, including the unfreezing of billions of dollars' worth of Iranian assets.

Iran's former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made no secret of the contempt Iran's leadership has for the United States and European Union, and their long-range plans to destroy them.

And despite Iran's new president Hassan Rouhani being seen as more moderate, the real power lies with the religious clerics, the chief of whom recently expressed again the desire to eliminate the United States ("‘Jihad Will Only End When Society Can Get Rid of America': Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in Chilling Threat Towards U.S.," Daily Mail, May 26, 2014).

Yet the Iranians would start with getting rid of Israel, which they consider to be the Middle Eastern outpost of their hated enemies.

Israel-PA peace negotiations unravel

The United States has long supported Israel, seen to be the only true democracy and reliable ally in the region. But for decades, one U.S. administration after the other has pressured Israel to make peace with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Those efforts seemed to be progressing until recently. Mahmoud Abbas, viewed as a moderate in spite of being a Holocaust denier, became president of the Palestinian Authority in 2004, replacing the hardline terrorist Yasser Arafat. Years of painstaking negotiations seemed to produce a breakthrough earlier this year in which the Palestinian Authority signed on to 15 international agreements that, among other things, require the PA to respect human rights and punish war criminals. Israel began to breathe easier —perhaps peace might come after all.

But in late April Abbas did a complete about-face, signing a unity deal with two genocidal terror groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both pledged to the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish nation. Both groups have carried out decades of terrorist attacks against Israel, including the unrelenting firing of rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip. The international community considers leaders of both groups to be war criminals.

And where was U.S. leadership in all this? Writing for The Jerusalem Post, longtime Middle East observer Caroline Glick commented: "Abbas was only able to sign the Geneva Conventions on the one hand, and the unity deal with terrorist war criminals on the other, because he is utterly convinced that neither the US nor the European Union will hold him accountable for his actions. He is completely certain that neither the Americans nor the Europeans are serious about their professed commitments to upholding international law.

"Abbas is sure that for both the Obama administration and the EU, maintaining support for the PLO far outweighs any concern they have for abiding by the law of nations. He believes this because he has watched them make excuses for the PLO and its leaders for the past two decades" ("Time for Consequences," April 24, 2014).

She went on to explain: "The peace process is predicated on the notion that . . . if Israel would just surrender Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians, then . . . the Muslim world as a whole will cast aside their support for jihad and terrorism and everything will be fine. At least that is how Abbas analyzes the situation. And so far, the US has not disappointed him."

China flexes its muscles

As if worries over the Middle East were not enough, Asia and the Pacific Rim continue to supply more headaches for foreign policy advisors in Washington.

The People's Republic of China has astonished the world in the past 30 years with its vast, seemingly unstoppable economic growth. Chinese leaders are using their new strength to build up their military —to the dismay of both Japan and Taiwan. For decades, China has made it clear that it plans to reunite Nationalist China—the island of Taiwan—with the mainland, using force if necessary. Taiwanese leaders worry about the strength of U.S. commitment to their security in the event of a military strike by the People's Republic.

China has raised the tension level with Japan by recently claiming a vastly extended airspace. Its claimed new "air defense identification zone" covers most of the Sea of Japan and includes several small islands that Japan has long claimed as its own. When the United States raised protests in favor of Japan, a Chinese defense spokesman bluntly told America to "butt out."

American criticism of the air zone announcement is "completely unreasonable," Col. Yang Yujun, a Ministry of National Defense spokesman, said in late 2013 in response to a protest lodged by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The dispute, like so many in the world, remains unresolved, with the White House finding it can do little to influence the Chinese.

Russia undeterred

Recent months have witnessed a development in Europe not seen by the world since the late 1930s—the brazen takeover of part of a European nation by Russia. 

Smarting from the recent rejection of its puppet, Victor Yanukovich, as president of Ukraine, Russia brazenly fomented discontent among the majority Russian-leaning citizens of the Ukrainian province of Crimea, then simply annexed the region.

European nations that share a common Russian border feel threatened, none more than the three former Soviet republics of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, which gained their independence from Russia following the collapse of the Soviet empire in the early 1990s.

Estonia, with its large Russian-speaking population, is clearly worried. As reported by Reuters in late March, Russia has signaled "concern" over supposed mistreatment of the Russian-speaking segment there, as it did earlier with the Russian speakers of Crimea. History remembers that Adolf Hitler also used concern for German-speaking Czechs to justify his takeover of the Czech Sudetenland in 1938.

As of mid-May the Ukrainian crisis was worsening, with Russian sympathizers in control of many government buildings in Eastern Ukraine. Increased economic sanctions by the United States and Europe were doing little to deter Russian actions.

In fact, on May 21, 2014, Russia announced that, after years of negotiations, it had signed a $400 billion, 30-year agreement to supply China with natural gas. The deal provides Russia with an enormous cash flow from an emerging economic and military giant and provides a strategic buffer against the loss of any of Russia's western European markets while providing China with needed energy resources to help fuel its economy.

With the West alienating Russia with threats of economic sanctions, it only succeeded in driving Russia into further embrace with the world's other great totalitarian, anti-Western regime. At the same time, elements of Russia's Pacific fleet were beginning joint naval drills with the Chinese navy, and both governments announced closer financial collaboration.

Return to the Cold War?

One hears increasing talk of a return to the Cold War of decades ago. A New York Timesstory earlier this year quoted Stephen Hadley, President George W. Bush's national security adviser, stating it would be harder to recover from this clash than in the past because Mr. Putin is effectively rejecting the international order established after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"He wants to rewrite the history that emerged at the end of the Cold War," Hadley said. "We have fundamentally different approaches to what Europe is going to be" (quoted by Peter Baker, "If Not a Cold War, a Return to a Chilly Rivalry," March 18, 2014).

Many centuries ago God thundered a prophetic warning to America and the other nations descended from ancient Israel: "I will break the pride of your power . . . And your strength shall be spent in vain" (Leviticus:26:19-20
, emphasis added throughout).

Nowhere is this more apparent than in recent and current U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite more than a decade of warfare and more than a trillion dollars spent, Iraq is disintegrating into civil war. In Afghanistan, U.S. forces have announced a timetable for withdrawal, while Afghan President Hamid Karzai ignores America and even refused to meet with President Obama when he flew to Afghanistan on May 26, 2014.

Historians agree that the reason for the United States "winning" the Cold War in the early 1990s was its military and economic strength. Yet today we see that strength draining away. Though America still has the strongest military and the largest economy in the world, its enemies are catching up. The nation is steadily losing its advantages and ability to influence world events.

Where should we turn?

History does have a way of repeating itself. But what should be our attitude towards these events? In such a world, where is one left to turn? 

The same God who said, "I will break the pride of your power" also commands His people to remain vigilant in a time of growing world crisis. "Watch therefore," Jesus Christ told His followers when they asked him about the future (Matthew:24:42).

That same command applies to us today. America's decline on the world scene will have tragic consequences. It is high time we open our eyes to what is going on in the world around us, as ancient prophecies begin to be fulfilled in our headlines.