Thursday, April 10, 2025

Wars and Rumours of Wars April 8, 2025 | Dr. Lonnie Shipman; Why are people looking for multiple wars before the Rapture and before the Tribulation?

 

Wars and Rumours of Wars

 | Dr. Lonnie Shipman

An excerpt from Israel in Crisis: Her Future Wars and Final Peace

Why are people looking for multiple wars before the Rapture and before the Tribulation? Phillip Goodman, in The Psalm 83 Prophecy, sees the underlying assumptions by others that bring an incorrect future speculation about Israel’s wars being fulfilled before the Rapture and Tribulation. He looks into details about the Gog and Magog war and compares and contrasts it with Psalm 83. 

Goodman notes the reasons speculators have suggested the Psalm 83 war precludes the Russian Invasion of Israel. Let us answer each objection with biblical clarity. 

 1. The nations listed in Psalm 83 are not named among the nations in the Magog invasion (Ezek. 38:1-7). Therefore, they cannot be part of that event and must represent another event. 

These researchers propose that Psalm 83 mentions the inner ring of nations around Israel (Palestinians and Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Arabs of the Sinai area, Arabs of the Gaza strip, and Iraq) while the Magog Invasion includes an outer ring of nations (Russia, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Turkey, Gomer [probably Turkey] and they are joined by “many peoples” (Ezek. 39:1-5). So, they are looking for a war that involves the inner ring of nations. 

Yet, since the invading nations of the Magog Invasion are all Muslim nations except Russia, it stands to reason that the “many peoples” could include the other nearby inner ring of Muslim nations with the outer ring. So, logically, all these nations could be involved in the Magog invasion. The text does not mention them but includes “many peoples” so it is not possible to be definitive.

In the War of Armageddon, the inner nations are also mentioned in many Bible passages. Joel 3 mentions Tyre (South Lebanon), Sidon (Lebanon), Philistia (Gaza), Egypt, and Edom (Jordan). Isaiah 11 mentions Philistia, Edom, Moab (Jordan), Ammon (Jordan), Egypt, and Assyria (Syria, Iraq). And Zechariah 14 mentions the inner ring of “surrounding nations” and Egypt. Thus, Armageddon will include the inner nations and other nations of the world. Consequently, this is a better answer for the Psalm 83 war.

 2. A prerequisite for the Magog invasion is that Israel must be “dwelling securely” in the land. Because of the danger of Israel’s surrounding nations, they must attack and defeat them to dwell securely.

This view presupposes that Israel is dwelling unsecured. Israel was in constant danger in her diaspora, and her people were persecuted and killed during most of the last two thousand years. However, after the infamous Holocaust, Israel gained their own homeland and built a land of unwalled villages where the people can dwell in relative security, so Israel views itself today as “dwelling securely.”

 3. As a result of this Psalm 83 conquest of the entire Middle East (the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq), Israel will capture and secure boundaries for themselves across the entire Arab lands promised to Israel by God in Genesis 15:18-21. This would include all the lands from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River. Some researchers believe they must capture the entire Middle East before the Rapture and before the Magog invasion.

When is the timing for the capture of the Psalm 83 nations? Here, Philip Goodman brings a solid biblical answer.

In Isaiah 11:11-15, Israel “swoops down” and captures the Psalm 83 nations. The passage says that this occurs when the Jews return a “second time” to the land of Israel. Is this second return the one of 1948? If so, Israel could conquer the Middle East nations at any time, as the Psalm 83 theory proposes. But this passage is actually describing events when Jesus returns at the end of the Great Tribulation.

Another solid Bible scholar, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, has informed us in his Israelology: 

The regathering spoken of in this passage is the one in faith in preparation for the Millennial Kingdom. This regathering in faith is specifically stated to be a second international regathering. The first regathering is the one which will be in preparation for judgment (1948 to the Tribulation), the second regathering will be in preparation for blessing

Goodman then sees the timing of Psalm 83 and Isaiah 11 happening together: “Therefore, the events of Isaiah 11, including the conquest of the Psalm 83 nations, take place at the time of the Second Coming of Christ in preparation for the Millennial Kingdom.”

With this telling insight into the theory of pre-Rapture wars, it is obvious that the pre-Rapture interpreters such as Salus, Rosenberg, and others are looking for an almost complete takeover of the entire Middle East by Israel. They believe Israel must conquer these nations to bring the Magog invasion and to cause Russia and her cohorts to want to come to Israel to take a spoil. These commentators see this as an attempt by Russia and her allies to get the oil-rich land from Israel. 

Yet, it is clear that Israel will not possess the greater Middle East until after the Tribulation period. Although she was promised the land as part of Abraham’s promise from God in Genesis 15 and the Land Covenant amplified this promise to Israel, she will not possess the entire land until the time of the Millennium. 

In Footsteps of the Messiah, Dr. Fruchtenbaum again gives great insight: “Following the regeneration of Israel at the Second Coming of Christ, God will fully carry out the Abrahamic Covenant concerning the land. …For the first time in Israel’s history, she will possess all the Promised Land.”

As a result, we can see the primary reason for speculation about wars mentioned in the Bible is to deal with details of the Magog invasion and the supposition that Israel will possess all the land of the Middle East, possibly before the Rapture. 

Yet, we have seen conclusively that these suppositions have been answered and that there is no war mentioned in the Bible to occur before the Rapture. And Israel will not possess their Promised Land until after the return of Christ at Armageddon. 

There is no event mentioned in the Bible as a prerequisite to the Rapture, or as an earlier requirement for the Rapture to happen, because it is an imminent event. The Rapture could happen at any moment. 

While future Middle East wars with Israel may occur, the biblical wars have either already been fulfilled in history (Jer. 49; Ezek. 32) or they will be fulfilled in the Tribulation period (Psalm 83 and Isaiah 17 will occur with Armageddon.)

And because of the confusion about the timing of events such as when Israel possesses their land, there is sometimes confusion about their related events such as the individual judgments of the nations. Yet, when we see these events in their biblical chronology, we can be assured about the timing of other events such as the timing of military conflicts. 

Thus, there are only four future wars for Israel and the Earth mentioned in the Bible: the Magog invasion of Israel (Ezek. 38-39; the World War I of the Tribulation beginning with the second Seal Judgment of Revelation 6:3-4; the middle Tribulation War in Daniel 11 (World War II of the Tribulation); and the Campaign of Armageddon in Revelation 19 (World War III of the Tribulation). 

All other wars and conflicts mentioned in the Bible have already been fulfilled in history or will be folded into and occur with these other conflicts.


Germany has been accused of violating basic Western values yet again, as a news editor in Germany faces a hefty fine and a seven month prison sentence for posting a meme mocking the government’s “hatred” of free speech.

 

German Journalist Given Seven Month Sentence for Meme Mocking Government’s ‘Hatred’ of Free Speech

06 May 2024, Bavaria, Waidhaus: Nancy Faeser (SPD), Federal Minister of the Interior and H
Armin Weigel/picture alliance via Getty Images

Germany has been accused of violating basic Western values yet again, as a news editor in Germany faces a hefty fine and a seven month prison sentence for posting a meme mocking the government’s “hatred” of free speech.

The Bamberg district court in Bavaria sentenced Deutschland-Kurier editor David Bendels this week to seven months in prison on probation and a fine of nearly sixty per cent of his annual income, or 210 ‘daily rates’, for posting an image on social media of Interior Minister Nancy Faeser holding an altered sign.

The common meme tactic of changing the words on signs held by politicians for satirical purposes was used to make Faeser’s sign read: “I hate freedom of speech”.

Bendels was initially convicted in November, and the ruling was confirmed on Monday, finding that he had committed “defamation directed against people in political life,” Die Welt reported on Tuesday.

According to Bendels, it is the first time in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany that a journalist has been threatened with prison for breaching the statute.

The Kurier editor also claimed that the prosecution was prompted after Interior Minister Faeser personally filed a complaint against him.

Bendels said on Monday that he plans to appeal the ruling, saying: “We will not accept this verdict and will defend ourselves against it using all legal means.

“The Deutschland-Kurier and I personally will continue the just struggle for freedom of the press and freedom of expression, which is indispensable for the continued existence of democracy in Germany, resolutely, stably and with all consistency.”

The ruling has also been criticised by opposition political figures, with the influential regional leader of the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Thuringia, Björn Höcke saying: “German politicians, responsible for the deindustrialization of our country and tearing its citizens apart from each other made Germany a laughingstock of the world.

“They armor themselves and attack freedom of speech again and again, ending our constitutional democracy. We have been warned by Donald Trump and Elon Musk: The enemies of freedom are found within the EU-governments!”

In Germany, fines are levied as ‘rates’, each rate the equivalent of one day’s self-reported income for the convict. 210 rates, therefore, would mean a fine payment of well over half of Bendels’ annual income.

In comparison, analysis from the Fines and Fees Justice Center (FFJC) found that in 2018, 49 per cent of fines levied in Germany were between 31 and 90 rates, meaning the fine against Bendels for posting a meme was far above average.

In December, he explained to the European Conservative that people in Germany with prison sentences of over 90 days are generally considered to have a criminal record, and therefore, his sentence would effectively represent a “muzzle” against him as a journalist.

“If we don’t stop this disastrous development, the journey one day will end in a left-green dictatorship of wokeness. Instead of swastika flags, rainbow flags will fly on all public buildings and places in Germany,” he said.

Follow Kurt Zindulka on X:  or e-mail to: kzindulka@breitbart.com

NY Schools Defy Trump – BLOCK Funding!..New York State Education Department has openly defied President Trump’s executive orders to eliminate DEI initiatives in schools

 

NY Schools Defy Trump – BLOCK Funding!


New York’s education officials face the loss of millions in federal funding as they defy Trump administration’s orders to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in schools.

At a Glance

  • New York State Education Department has openly defied President Trump’s executive orders to eliminate DEI initiatives in schools
  • Trump administration is investigating over 50 colleges for alleged racial discrimination and has already canceled $400 million in funding to Columbia University
  • Federal orders require state education officials to end DEI programs or risk losing Title I funding
  • New York education officials argue there are no federal or state laws prohibiting DEI principles
  • Critics claim DEI programs heighten racial tensions and divert resources from core educational needs

New York’s Defiant Stance Against Federal Orders

The New York State Education Department has issued an unequivocal rejection of the Trump administration’s demand to discontinue diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in public schools. While many academic institutions have responded cautiously to federal pressure, New York education officials have taken a more combative position, asserting that DEI initiatives remain legal despite executive orders threatening to cut federal funding. The confrontation highlights a growing divide in how educational institutions are responding to the administration’s aggressive campaign against programs perceived as emphasizing racial differences over merit.

Watch coverage here.


Daniel Morton-Bentley, deputy commissioner for legal affairs at New York’s education agency, directly challenged the administration’s authority in this matter. The state’s position appears firmly entrenched, with education officials prepared to defend DEI programs they claim address historical inequities in the education system, even as this stance potentially jeopardizes millions of dollars in federal education funding that supports disadvantaged students across the state.

Trump Administration’s Nationwide DEI Crackdown

President Trump’s executive orders represent a systematic effort to eliminate diversity initiatives throughout American education. The Department of Education is currently investigating more than 50 colleges for alleged discriminatory practices related to DEI programs. These investigations specifically target institutions with connections to organizations like The PhD Project, which works to increase diversity among business school faculty. Seven colleges face scrutiny for allegedly awarding race-based scholarships that federal officials consider impermissible under their interpretation of civil rights laws.

“We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.'” said Daniel Morton-Bentley.

The administration has already taken significant punitive actions, including canceling $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University. Other institutions, such as Johns Hopkins University, have also experienced substantial funding cuts. An administration memo warned educational institutions they could lose funding for considering race in admissions, scholarships, or any aspect of student life. The crackdown extends beyond finances to include immigration enforcement actions targeting foreign students at protest-active campuses.

Legal Arguments and Educational Priorities

New York education officials maintain that DEI initiatives aim to address historical segregation and discrimination in the state’s school system. The State Education Department argues that these programs “simply aim to level the playing field and redress the ongoing harms of segregation and centuries of legal inequity, exclusion and discrimination.” Morton-Bentley’s defense centers on the assertion that no federal or state laws expressly prohibit DEI principles, suggesting the administration’s demands lack legal foundation.

“There are no federal or state laws prohibiting the principles of DEI” said Daniel Morton-Bentley.

Critics counter that DEI programs focus excessively on racial categorization, potentially increasing rather than reducing racial tensions in schools. They argue these initiatives divert resources from core educational needs and may contribute to lowered academic standards. The administration’s requirements include assurances from schools that they are not imposing identity-based curricula and are promoting diversity of opinion. State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa’s refusal to provide such assurances has become a particular point of contention.

Stakes and Potential Consequences

The financial implications of this standoff are substantial. The Trump administration’s executive order specifically threatens to halt federal Title I funding to non-compliant schools—money that provides critical support for schools serving high proportions of children from low-income families. For New York, this could mean the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The dispute represents a stark difference in educational philosophy, with federal officials prioritizing what they describe as merit-based approaches and state officials defending programs they believe address systemic disadvantages.

“Simply aim to level the playing field and redress the ongoing harms of segregation and centuries of legal inequity, exclusion and discrimination” stated the SED.

The confrontation between New York education officials and the federal government reflects broader national tensions over how to address educational disparities. While New York has taken a notably defiant stance, education leaders across the country are navigating similar pressures, with college and university administrators generally responding more cautiously than K-12 leaders. As legal challenges appear likely, the ultimate outcome will shape educational policy and priorities for years to come.

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *