THE ROCK OF ALL AGES.

"...you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'" - Isaiah 44:8

Matthew Henry Commentary
2:31-45 This image represented the kingdoms of the earth, that should successively rule the nations, and influence the affairs of the Jewish church. 1. The head of gold signified the Chaldean empire, then in being. 2. The breast and arms of silver signified the empire of the Medes and Persians. 3. The belly and thighs of brass signified the Grecian empire, founded by Alexander. 4. The legs and feet of iron signified the Roman empire. The Roman empire branched into ten kingdoms, as the toes of these feet. Some were weak as clay, others strong as iron. Endeavours have often been used to unite them, for strengthening the empire, but in vain. The stone cut out without hands, represented the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, which should be set up in the kingdoms of the world, upon the ruins of Satan's kingdom in them. This was the Stone which the builders refused, because it was not cut out by their hands, but it is become the head stone of the corner. Of the increase of Christ's government and peace there shall be no end. The Lord shall reign, not only to the end of time, but when time and days shall be no more. As far as events have gone, the fulfilling this prophetic vision has been most exact and undeniable; future ages shall witness this Stone destroying the image, and filling the whole earth.- Daniel 2:33 Commentaries

His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. - Daniel 2:33

"The civil government structures in the western and eastern portions of the Empire were identical, but the military power structures in the two portions differed in some details. The civil governmental structure was the basically the creation of the Emperor Diocletian, as was the division of the Empire into western and eastern administrations. The Empire was divided into prefectures each governed by ministers called praetorian prefects. As shown below, there were two prefectures in the east and two in the west. The prefectures were divided into dioceses, each ruled by a vicar. The terminology is familiar because the Roman Catholic Church adopted the organizational structure of the Roman Empire. The dioceses might be divided into provinces ruled by governors.

The composition of the prefectures was as follows:

Western Empire

Prefecture of the Gauls: Gaul, Britain, Spain/Portugal and Morocco

Prefecture of Italy: Italy, Switzerland, provinces betweeen the Alps and the Danube, and the coastal lands of North Africa except for Egypt and Morocco

Eastern Empire

Prefecture of Illyricum: Balkans except for Thrace

Prefecture of the Orient: Byzantium, Thrace, Egypt and Asiatic territories" 
Souce: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/barbarians.htm

The Heirarchy of the Roman Empire now called the Roman Church. 

Vatican City is a landlocked state within the city of Rome, Italy. It is governed by the Bishop of Rome (called the Pope) are in fact clergymen. 

It is the smallest sovereign state in the world. 

Caesar Constintine began the "corporate takeover" by renaming all the old Roman offices, this evolution of name changing still occurs. Name changing allows a person to hide their tracks of origin. 

The Baptism of Constantine is a painting by assistants of the Italian renaissance artist Raphael. It was most likely painted by Gianfrancesco Penni, between 1517 and 1524. - WIKIPEDIA

Roman Empire offices & their modern names:

Roman Empire (Imperium Romanum) renamed: Roman Catholic Church

Curia (legal body of Senators) slight name change: Curia (legal body of Cardinals) 

Roman Emperor renamed: Roman Pope (head of all church and state affairs)

Civil government matters of state: Extra-Ordinary affairs (matters of civil-state governments)

Religious orders matters: Church "ecclesiastical" matters

Roman College of Senators renamed: College of Cardinals

Magistrate of College of Senators renamed: Dean of College of Cardinals 

Departments of the Roman Senatorial Curia renamed: Congregations

Political Ambassador renamed: Pro-Nuncio (highest civil ambassador sent to other governements, ie Wash.DC, London etc)

If a government has not signed a treaty with Rome which makes the Romans the head of the foreign country as certified in the Roman Code of Canon Law. This rebel nation which has no official ties has an ambassador called an Apostolic Delegate. The United States and the United Kingdom never allowed the Vatican to serve as their legal head until President Reagan quickly signed into law on January 10, 1984. This Treaty for the very first time in U.S. history recognized full diplomatic relations between the United States and the Vatican State.

In 1534 when the United Kingdom realized that the Treaty with the Vatican City-State made them subject to all the Popes rules they voided the treaty. Formal plomatic relations between England and Vatican State were broken. Full diplomatic relations with the the Pope's Vatican State were never restored for 448 years until 1982.

Roman Senators renamed: Cardinals

Roman Governors renamed: Archbishops

Roman Senator with no territory: Bishop (Code of Canon Law 376)

(Large) Roman Province renamed: Archdiocese

(Small) Roman Territory renamed: Diocese

Imperial Chair of Jupiter where Caesar sat renamed: Throne of St. Peter

Vestal Virgins renamed: Nuns

Pontifex Maximus (high priest of College of Senators) renamed: Supreme Pontiff of College of Cardinals

Pontiff or "high priest " of a pagan religious order (Zues, Apollo, Diana, Mars, Jupiter, Baal, Dionysys, Pythia etc) same name: Pontiff

A Pontiff (Latin: "pontifex") means bridge-builder or priest between man and the gods of the underworld. 

The Roman Calender and Holy Days of the gods renamed: Calendar Holidays of the Saints

Voice of the gods speaking through Caesar: Ex-Cathedra: Voice of God speaking through Pope

Meeting of the Pontiffs (high priests) of the pagan religious orders renamed: Ecumenical Council of the Bishops

Legal act of creating a god (of a living or dead human, as was done to most of the Caesars) "Apotheosis of the Gods" renamed: Canonization of the Saints 

A decree of Caesar (dictator for life): Pope's infalliable Dogma

Praying to a dead human god renamed: Praying to a saint

In the US the highest law of the land is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in the Vatican State the Constitution is called the Code of Canon Law.

Source:http://letsrollforums.com//heirarchy-roman-empire-catholic-t10440.html?s=cd784a1b03a0e397a56a0bb2aa2db02e&t=10440&highlight=vestal+virgins

The East–West Schism, also called the Great Schism and the Schism of 1054, was the break of communion between what are now the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches, which has lasted since the 11th century.It is not to be confused with the Western Schism (which is sometime called the "Great" Schism).- WikiPedia


Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery

The Catholic Church during the Age of Discovery inaugurated a major effort to spread Christianity in the New World and to convert the Native Americans and other indigenous people. The evangelical effort was a major part of, and a justification for the military conquests of European powers such as Spain, France and Portugal. Christian Missions to the indigenous peoples ran hand-in-hand with the colonial efforts of Catholic nations. In the Americas and other colonies in Asia and Africa, most missions were run by religious orders such as the Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, and Jesuits. In Mexico the early systematic evangelization by mendicants came to be known as the "Spiritual Conquest of Mexico."

Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican friar on the island of Hispaniola, was the first member of the clergy to publicly denounce all forms of enslavement and oppression of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.Theologians such as Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de las Casas drew up theological and philosophical bases for the defense of the human rights of the colonized native populations, thus creating the basis of international law, regulating the relationships between nations.


In the early years most mission work was undertaken by the religious orders. Over time it was intended that a normal church structure would be established in the mission areas. The process began with the formation of special jurisdictions, known as apostolic prefectures and apostolic vicariates. These developing churches eventually graduated to regular diocesan status with the appointment of a local bishop. After decolonization, this process increased in pace as church structures altered to reflect new political-administrative realities. - Source:Wikipedia

"Since the 16th century, genuine European colonial powers such as Spain, Portugal, France and Britain were distinguished by developing a concept of their world rule and basing it on the legacy of Rome. This does not mean that stragglers like Italy, Belgium and Germany did not produce their own forms of imperial thought and had specific colonial systems with which they caught up to the great historical empires."1

"They also participated in the virtually Europe-wide debate about the possible model function that the Roman Empire had for Europe. However, unlike the empires of the late 19th century, Spanish world rule was characterized by being pre-modern, and British colonial rule no later than 1750 held a geographical sway without example, which makes a thorough concept of empire and expansionism a precondition. Their shared reference frame was the Atlantic world, which as a historical concept for determining colonial practices had gained acceptance.15 In this case, "imperiality" and "globality" were one and carried by a Christian universalist, almost messianic claim to leadership. However, the price that Spain came to pay for its position as world-empire was high and due to the European constellation of powers. Its global superiority was offset by rejecting the claim to the imperial title of the Holy Roman Empire as a consequence of the division of the Habsburg inheritance."2

"The empires of the modern nation state were not exposed to a loss of unity associated with the global dimension. Their expansion drive was primarily conditioned by worldly factors such as profit and prestige, in any case not a concept of universal monarchy indebted to Christian salvation, peace and justice. The world empire thought of Charles V (1500–1558)  survived to the extent that the civilising mission of the modern European imperialisms became a transnational, but not primarily religious motor. Their driving forces were very different, not necessarily ideological but, in the French case, they constituted a part of the cost/benefit calculation."3

"The overseas as well as the continental colonial empires of Europe were together characterised by constructing their imperial rule over a developmental differential against the "Other" and, thus, significantly contributed to a changed self-perception of Europe in the world. Essentially, it was more about self-image than the image of others. Rule was alien rule over peoples perceived as being "subject". It had to be achieved with violent conquest and secured with colonial methods to guarantee economic, military and cultural exploitation. Therefore, the European claim to superiority legitimised the logic of the unequal interrelationship between colonial societies and a novel capitalism in Europe, especially the British "gentlemanly capitalists" whose global reach came to bear in a particularly pronounced form as the slave economy. Nowhere was the ambivalence between ruthless hegemonic ambition on one hand and concepts such as world citizenship, cosmopolitanism and human rights, which were derived from the Enlightenment, more clear than in slavery on the other hand. Slavery, which made use of the idea of the different natures of people, culminated in the race theories of High Imperialism. Probably no European colonial power remained aloof from this discussion, which with the help of medicine, anthropology, ethnology etc. was founded on pseudoscience, guided by practical benefit and brought the contradictions and perversions of imperialism to a climax."4

"Therefore, the concept of a "Europeanisation of the world" signifies the dilemma. On one hand, there are positive achievements, such as modern statehood, urbanisation, rationalism and Christianity, European thought systems such as Liberalism, Socialism and Positivism, which was received with great enthusiasm in France and England as well as in Brazil and Japan. On the other hand, there are negative legacies, such as Caesarism, racism and colonial violence. It can also raise the question whether European history between about 1450 and 1950 cannot be predominantly read as a history of expansion, especially if one treats the history of the empires beyond Eurocentrism as world history but without underlaying it with a universal theory and without constructing it as a historical unity. With the treaty to divide the world of 1494, a more intensive interaction of nation, expansion and "Europeanisation of the world" began that was not a unilateral creation of dependencies but a process of give and take with reciprocal influences beyond fixed imperial boundary drawing. According to this multipolar dynamic, Europe was not decentralised or provincialised, but Europe is equally unsuitable as the only perspective in the interpretation of the global modern period."5

"The Vatican has been the most powerful institution in Europe, and although its influence declined at the time of the Reformation it has made a significant recovery in the past two centuries. The Protestant nations of Europe that were religiously, politically and economically freed from a totalitarian Roman Church seem now to be blindly returning to her yoke.

The Vatican Bank’s tax exempt status in Italy has made it possible for her to manipulate many of the largest multi-national corporations This influence is however as nothing when compared with her power in Europe and in the world of politics and religion. A Jesuit priest writing in ‘Inside the Vatican’ stated, “Despite the importance of the papacy for the Catholic church and its prominent role in international affairs, its internal workings are little known to Catholics, to world leaders, or to the world at large.”*

This lack of knowledge is particularly evident when it comes to the role the Vatican is playing in the making of the EU. If the Protestant nations of Europe are to remain free, true believers on both sides of the Atlantic must address the issue of Rome and the EU and take it to our God in prayer. The alternative may well prove to be the return of the Inquisition.

It is the authors’ desire that this study of one of the most powerful institutions in the world today be carefully examined. Our purpose is to sound the alarm and to stimulate others to do so too."


* Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church, by Thomas J. Reese, Harvard University Press, 1996, 4

COLONIALISM AND NATIONALISM  IN SOUTHEAST ASIA by Rey Ty   

Introduction

"The major colonizers of Southeast Asia were Europeans, Japanese and the U.S. All in all, there were seven colonial powers in Southeast Asia: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain, France, the United States, and Japan.  From the 1500s to the mid-1940s, colonialism was imposed over Southeast Asia. 

For hundreds of years, Southeast Asian kingdoms had been engaged in international commercial relations with traders from East Asia (China), South Asia (India), and West Asia (the “Middle East”).  Asian sojourners also brought religion, customs, traditions, and court practices to the region. Hence, their relationship was economic and cultural at the same time. Moreover, local Southeast Asian rulers used and indigenized practices of kingship institutions from South Asia (rajadharma) and West Asia (sultanate).

European travelers did not only have economic relations with Southeast Asians but also imposed their political—and in some cases, cultural—domination over Southeast Asian peoples and territories. Hence, European colonialism covered a large chunk of Southeast Asian history. 

Aside from European colonials, Japanese and U.S. colonials controlled much of Southeast Asia. Japanese aggression took place during the “Pacific War” of World War II. The Japanese occupied much of Asia, including Southeast Asia.  The U.S. colonized the Philippines in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War of 1898. 

Southeast Asian response to colonialism was both collaboration and nationalism in all its forms.

Historical Background

Indigenous peoples practicing animism have lived in Southeast Asia (SEA) since historical times.  Later, people from China moved southward to reach SEA (Barton 26).  As early as 300 BC, the age of bronze and iron had passed from China into SEA (Fodor 64). The Chinese under the Sung Dynasty by the 12^thcentury had become involved more and more in international trade, including with SEA (Fodor 67). Hence, there were Chinese and Indian migrants who have reached and lived in SEA for a long time now.  The Chinese and Indian civilizations have greatly impacted SEA societies.  Many parts of SEA have been indianized from 500BC to 1000 AD (Barton 47).  

South and Southwest Asians used the monsoon seasonal-reversal wind route from Arabia and India to travel to Southeast Asia (Barton 46). SEA is home to several ancient civilizations, including the Angkor and the Sri Vijaya kingdoms.  At about 1300, there were two major kingdoms: the Sukhotai in Mainland SEA and the Majapahit empire in insular SEA.  During the 12^th to the 14^th centuries, there was an active spice trade in the region (Fodor 67-8).  

Hence, Southeast Asia was exposed to different civilizations, cultures and religions for thousands of years now: animism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism and Islam. Culture, trade, religion, and monarchy played a role in the state formation of SEAsian countries. 

COLONIALISM

Colonialism is alien or foreign political rule or control imposed on a people. Colonialism can take many forms: it can be political, legal, economic, cultural and social. A political, economic and cultural policy and practice by which several foreign states explored, conquered, settled, exploited, maintained and extended their control over large areas of foreign lands and its people who ceased to control their own territories, resources and national destiny. 

The age of colonialism began about 1500, following the European discoveries of a sea route around Africa's southern coast (1488) and of America (1492).  

LEGACY OF COLONIALISM

European, American, and Asian powers colonized SEA.  The major European colonizers in SEA included Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Britain, and France.  The American power was the U.S.A.  Europeans introduced Protestantism and Roman Catholicism to SEA.  During World War II, Japan was the only major Asian country that colonized SEA.

MOTIVES

There are three motives for colonialism: political, economic, and cultural.  Reasons for colonialism are manifold: to expand territory, to seek mercantilist profit, to import cheap raw materials, and to extract precious metals.  The booming economies needed an assured supply of raw materials, assured new markets and new places in which to invest. 

1. Political Aggrandizement

1. Aggrandizement of Political Power
2. Nationalism
1. Territorial Expansionism to Other Areas
2. Increased National Pride
3. Increase Military Might
4. Status as World Power
3. Intra-European Competition and Rivalry
4. European “Age of Discovery” = Southeast Asian “Age of Colonialism”. One phenomenon, two interpretations

First Circumnavigation of the World 

2. Economic Profits:

1. Commercial Enterprise and International Trade
2. Need to Strengthen the economy by increasing wealth
3. Mercantilism: Precious Metals
4. Accumulation of Capital
5. Sea Route to the East

Because the spice trade could make them wealthy, explorers were motivated to find a faster and cheaper sea route. The European routes were blocked by powerful rivals such as the Italian city-states of Venice and Genoa and later the Turkish merchants of Constantinople (present-day Istanbul). Their ships had control of the eastern Mediterranean where trade with the Arabs abounded. After Vasco da Gama's famous voyage around the Cape of Good Hope, the Portuguese had to battle Muslim forces and rival traders to gain a piece of the spice trade. The rulers of Portugal and Spain sought different routes to the Indies. While the Portuguese concentrated their efforts to the south and east, the Spanish sought alternative routes to the west. 

6. Search for Raw Materials, esp. Spices (Moluccas: Spice Islands”)

Spices such as pepper, cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger, or cloves were like treasures to Europeans. All these products were produced in India, Ceylon, and the Moluccas (known as the Spice Islands).  

7. 1800s: Industrial Revolution
1. Search for New Raw Materials
2. New Markets

3. Cultural

Colonialism is linked with the idea that the way of life of the colonizers are better than that of the colonized.  

1. “White Man’s Burden”

• Rudyard Kipling coined the term
• Englishmen Cecil Rhodes, "I contend that we Britons are the first race in the world, and the more of the world we inhabit, the better it is for the human race. I believe it is my duty to God, my Queen, and my country..."
• White Supremacy: whites are supreme beings
• The supposed or presumed responsibility of white people to govern and impart their culture to nonwhite people, often advanced as a justification for European colonialism.
• Duty to spread the ways of the superior beings to inferior beings with inferior ways of living
• Devaluation of indigenous cultures
• “Civilizing Mission”: Bring Civilization to the “uncivilized world”

2. Conversion to Christianity
• Spain and Portugal spread Roman Catholicism to their colonies by converting the indigenous peoples
• local religions are inferior

COLONIAL HISTORY

On June 7, 1494, the Spanish and the Portuguese signed the Treaty of Tordesillas that divided the world in two spheres. The imaginary line ran through the Atlantic: Spain gained lands to the west, including all the Americas, except Brazil, which was granted to Portugal. The eastern half including Africa and India was given to Portugal. In the absence of accurate measurements of longitude, the issue of where the line should be drawn in Asia refused to go away. 

Portugal (1511-1641/1975): The Portuguese were the first Europeans to dominate trade in SEA and the first to set up trading posts in military-occupied ports (Barton 50).  They defeated Moslem naval forces in 1509 and seized Malacca in 1511 (Barton 50), until the Dutch captured it in 1641. Southeast Asia felt Portuguese impact the least. The Portuguese controlled only the small territory of East Timor. 

Spain (1565-1898): Ferdinand Magellan reached the Philippines in 1521. Spanish expeditions from 1525 to 1536 claimed the Philippines.  In 1565, Spain conquered Cebu.  In 1571, Spain established the city of Manila and by 1600 it had gained control of most of the archipelago (Barton 50). The Katipunan (KKK)—Filipino  revolutionaries—under Andrés Bonifacio fought against the Spaniards and became the first Asian country to be independent in 1898, except that the U.S. took the reigns of power thereafter. 

Magellan: Magellan led the first circumnavigation of the globe. He was born to a family of lower nobility and educated in the Portuguese court. Just like Columbus who came before him, Magellan believed the Spice Islands can be reached by sailing west, around or through the New World. As Magellan did not get any support from the Portuguese monarchy, he sought and got the assistance of  the teenaged Spanish king, Charles I (a.k.a. the Holy Roman emperor Charles V) on March 22, 1518. Magellan got five ships. In September, 1519, he sailed with 270 men. His Italian crewmember, Antonio Pigafetta, kept a diary of and recorded the voyage. They sailed on to the Philippines, arriving on March 28, 1521. On April 7, 1521, he arrived in Cebu and befriended an island king—Datu Humabon. On April 14, 1521, Datu Humabon and 800 of his people were drawn in a mass baptism. Later, though, Lapu-Lapu killed Magellan in a battle in Mactan on April 27, 1521.  

Sebastian del Cano took over the remaining three ships and 115 survivors. The two remaining ships sailed from the Philippines on May 1 and made it to the Moluccas (Spice Islands) in November, loaded with valuable spices. Hoping that at least one ship would return to Spain, the Trinidad went east across the Pacific, while the Victoria continued west. On September 6, 1522, the Victoria and 18 crewmembers—including Pigafetta—arrived in Spain. It was the first vessel to circumnavigate the globe. 

Spain and Portugal used the Cross and the Sword. The U.S. beat and replaced Spain.  

The Netherlands (1605-1799 & 1825-1940s): The Dutch arrived in Indonesia in 1596.  Dutch colonialism was carried out initially by the Dutch East India Company (V.O.C.) from 1605 to 1799.  It’s main preoccupation was profits in trade through monopolies, not political rule. 

When it collapsed in 1799, the government of Netherlands took over VOC’s assets in 1825 and put Indonesia under its administrative authority, the process of which was completed in the 1930s (Wilson). The Dutch had taken control of most of the commercial islands in the East Indies and occupied Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes, and Java (Barton 50).  They built a port at Batavia and kicked out the Portuguese from the Indies, except for East Timor (Barton 50).   

The Dutch could not keep the Netherlands East Indies after WWII as they hoped to because the Indonesians fought a war of national liberation to set up a republic in 1945.  The U.N. recognized Indonesian independence in 1949. 

The Dutch acquired their empire to protect their trade. And they were after commodities. But not as raw materials: these were spices, for resale. The Dutch were 250 years in Indonesia.  

Britain (1824-1957): Britain acquired parts of its empire through, or to aid, its traders. Using their navies, the British penetrated SEA from the west side, while the French from the east (Barton 50). The British used force to annex Burma between 1826 and 1888 (Barton 50) in three Anglo-Burmese Wars. The British maintained Burma as a province of British India, unlike other colonies which kept their ethnic identities. Top British and middle Indian administrators ruled Burma.  In 1935, Britain consented to separate Burma from India and this was put into force in 1937 (Wilson).  In 1948, Burma negotiated with Britain for its independence. 

The British (Raffles) set up Singapore in 1819 and the Netherlands ceded Malacca to Britain in 1824 (Barton 50). Britain governed Penang (acquired in 1786), Singapore, and Malacca as the Straits Settlements from which Britain expanded into the Malay Peninsula from 1874 to 1914 (Wilson). The Malay States negotiated for and gained independence as the independent Federation of Malaya in 1957. Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore became part of Malaysia in 1963, but Singapore was told to withdraw in 1965 (Wilson). Brunei decided to stay out of the new country and is now an independent country. 

France (1859-1954): The French, under Louis XIV, exchanged embassies with Siam from 1600 to 1700.  European influence on SEA amplified. The French went to Vietnam in 1858 and seized Saigon in 1859 (Wilson).  By 1867, the French annexed Cochin China (the south) and Cambodia.  The French used Cochin China as the base from which they moved westward and northward.  By 1893, they set up protectorates over Annam, Laos, and Tonkin, all of which became the “French Indochina” (Barton 50). By 1907, the French completed their conquest of Indochina (Wilson). 

At the end of WWII, the French fought a war trying to maintain its control over its SEAsian territories.  French Indo-China ended with the French humiliation at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. At the Geneva Conference of 1954, Vietnam gained its independence. 

Myth about Thailand: There is a long-standing myth that Thailand was never colonized.  Factually speaking, though, Siam was being squeezed from the west by the British and from the east by the French (Barton 58).  Siam had to give up large chunks of land in exchange for keeping its territorial integrity. Only the middle core of Siam was unoccupied (Barton 58). 

U.S.A. (1898-1946): After the global triumph of the U.S. over Spain in 1898, the U.S. moved in to colonize the Philippines. Admiral Dewey defeated Spain in Manila Bay on May 1, 1898. Aguinaldo declared Philippine independence on June 12, 1898 and the Philippine Republic on January 23, 1899 but the U.S. did not recognize it. Hence, the Philippine-American War started in 1899 and went on for about 10 years.  About 400,000 to 600,000 Filipinos were killed and 10,000 Americans died. On Feb. 6, 1899, the U.S. Senate voted to annex the Philippines. On July 4, 1901, U.S. President McKinley set up civil government and appointment the Philippine Commission which was headed by William Howard Taft. 

Mark Twain was the most famous literary adversary of the Philippine-American War and he served as a vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League from 1901 until his death. The Philippines became a commonwealth in 1935 and independent in 1946 after World War II.  

The western colonial powers had economic, social, political, and cultural impact on the peoples and states of SEA. They brought about rapid changes in SEA.

EFFECTS

1. MASS ECONOMIC BITTERNESS
2. SOCIO-CULTURAL CLEAVAGE
3. ECONOMIC GROWTH

COLONIAL PARTNERS

1. COOPTATION
2. COLLABORATION

RESPONSE

1. NATIONALISM
2. STRUGGLE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION
3. ANTI-COLONIAL NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS
4. JAPANESE AGGRESSION
5. DECOLONIZATION

Nationalism, Decolonization, and Independence

Colonial experience had an impact on the rise of anti-colonial as well as anti-fascist (anti-Japanese aggression) nationalist fervor that spawned independence movements. Southeast Asian elites responded to western colonialism in a continuum anywhere from adaptation, collaboration, to resistance. The traditional elite failed in their struggle. Many Filipino intellectuals identified themselves with colonial Spain and the U.S.  

Cultural and indigenous religious movements surfaced and emphasized a national identity based upon traditional religious and cultural values. For instance, the Young Man’s Buddhist Association in Burma set up in 1906 aimed to bring down western influence. In Indonesia, the Sarekat Islam which was a nationalist political party (1912) aimed to bring Moslem Indonesians under its reformist agenda. 

Western-style political movements were created; they drew inspiration from western ideologies and models. Western education sons of the traditional aristocracy or the bureaucratic elite at the national level and school teachers, government officials and clerks at the local local level led nationalist movements. In Burma, University of Rangoon students formed the Dobayma Asiyone (“We Burman”) society in 1935. Dobayman Asiyone members  called themselves Thakins (“Master”).  Furthermore, Aung San, U Nu and Ne Win would rise to become key figures in independent Burma.   

In the Philippines, some leaders who were exposed to western ideals waged a revolutionary war against Spain. Others later cooperated with the U.S.  

In Malaya, educated Malays joined the civil service and worked closely with the British rulers (Wilson). 

Dutch-educated Indonesians formed the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI) in 1927. It later became a clandestine movement and the leaders went into political exile. 

In Indochina, only in Vietnam was the nationalist movement present.   

Communist leaders and parties rose in many parts of SEA. They were active in Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.   

Moreover, new economic, administrative and political elites emerged within which ideals of modernization and tradition competed.  New national identities were created; they drew upon traditional cultural symbols and western systems. Charismatic national leaders such as Ho Chi Minh and Sukarno embody national resurgence.

World War II in the Asia-Pacific Region

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Clark Air Base on December 7, 1941.  Japanese aggression took place in many parts of Asia and the Pacific, including Southeast Asian countries.  

Japan occupied Indochina through a treaty with the pro-German Vichy government in France (Wilson). 

In the Philippines, the last U.S. forces surrendered to the Japanese in May 1942. The Japanese set up an “independent” puppet “Philippine Republic”. On October 20, 1944, US forces returned to the Philippines.  On July 4, 1946, the U.S. granted independence to the Philippines. 

On March 29, 1942, Filipinos organized the Hukbalahap (People’s Anti-Japanese Army). In Southeast Asia, only the Filipinos fought the fiercest battle against the Japanese aggressors.  At its height, there were 260,000 anti-Japanese guerrillas.   

The U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Approximately 130,000 were killed, wounded, or missing, while 90% of the city was flattened.  On August 9, 1945, the U.S. dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki.  About 75,000 people were killed or injured, while more than 1/3 of the city was destroyed.  On August 14, 1945, Japan surrendered to the Allied forces in Tokyo, Japan." 

OPERATION PAPERCLIP



Operation Paperclip was the codename under which the US intelligence and military services extricated scientists from Germany, during and after the final stages of World War II. The project was originally called Operation Overcast, and is sometimes also known as Project Paperclip.

Of particular interest were scientists specialising in aerodynamics and rocketry (such as those involved in the V-1 and V-2 projects), chemical weapons, chemical reaction technology and medicine. These scientists and their families were secretly brought to the United States, without State Department review and approval; their service for Hitler's Third Reich, NSDAP and SS memberships as well as the classification of many as war criminals or security threats also disqualified them from officially obtaining visas. An aim of the operation was capturing equipment before the Soviets came in. The US Army destroyed some of the German equipment to prevent it from being captured by the advancing Soviet Army.

The majority of the scientists, numbering almost 500, were deployed at White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico, Fort Bliss, Texas and Huntsville, Alabama to work on guided missile and ballistic missile technology. This in turn led to the foundation of NASA and the US ICBM program.

Much of the information surrounding Operation Paperclip is still classified.

NEW WORLD ORDER after the HOLOCAUST.

The New World Order, which both Bushes, Clinton, Blair and Brown have all spoken of is well on its way. Indeed, the NWO has been on its way arguably since the 1060s, when the Normans conquered both Britain and Sicily. It was at that time, in my view, that the ahrimanic powers were given the English people as an instrument to prepare for the incarnation of Ahriman. In his remarkable lecture of 15.1.1917, one of the most comprehensive and illuminating lectures on history Steiner even gave, he said:
    "What is the aim of the secret brotherhoods? They do not work out of any particular British patriotism, but out of the desire to bring the whole world under the yoke of pure materialism. And because, in accordance with the laws of the 5th P-A period, certain elements of the British people as the bearer of the consciousness soul are most suitable for this, they want, by means of grey magic, to use those elements as promoters of this materialism.
Notice that Steiner says “certain elements”, not the whole people, but “certain elements”.

He goes on:
    No other national element, no other people has ever before been so usable as material for transforming the whole the whole world into a materialistic realm. Therefore those who know want to set their foot on the neck of this national element and strip it of all spiritual endeavour – which of course lives equally in human beings. Just because karma has ordained that the consciousness soul should work here particularly strongly, the secret brotherhoods have sought out elements in the British national character.
The British Empire has been effectively dead since the end of World War II. In 1947 India was given up and by 1964 almost all Britain’s African possessions had become independent. Of course one could argue that the British continued to dominate these newly independent countries economically in ‘indirect colonialism’, but the old formal Empire was over. In the 33 years from 1964, when Sir Alec Douglas Home, Macmillan’s successor and the last prime Minister in the old aristocratic mould, went out of office, until 1997, when the last signficant colony, Hong Kong, was surrendered, Britain seemed to be at the beck and call of the USA. After the Suez debacle in 1956 the French had decided never again to trust the Americans and took up a policy of resistance. The British establishment, by contrast, opted to do whatever America said. The only significant exception was Harold Wilson’s refusal to send British troops to Vietnam . Those 33 years also saw a tremendous decline in the British merchant marine. Generations of Britons had spent years on the oceans. This was no longer the case. Now they spent longer on beaches abroad and couches at home, on football terraces and online. In 1997 then, exactly 100 years after its  bombastic acme in Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, the Empire came to an end.


There remain of the once vast Empire only a few rocks here and there around the world, and it is only a matter of time before Gibraltar is returned to Spain and the Malvinas to Argentina. Britain’s imperial position was given as a major reason why the UK did not join in the construction of the EEC in the 1950s. The question before the British people now is: quo vadis ? where to? In 1973 Prime Minister Edward Heath (below, left) lied to the British people when he took the country into the EEC, arguing that the EEC was not a political project but merely an economic arrangement. It seemed as if the country had decided to turn its back on imperial remnants and Commonwealth and embrace the continent. But since  Margaret Thatcher’s government and the metamorphosis of the old Labour Party into the “New Labour”  of Blair and Brown, a new imperial project has hoved into view. Europe is now no longer seen as an alternative to Britain’s relationship with the USA. The Anglo-American elite and their allies in the elites of the continental countries, not least those here in Germany, have determined that N. America and Europe should be as one – a new Anglophonically-led empire with global military reach, ready and willing to take on ‘the East’, and I have tried to indicate today that that was always the intention since the start of the Cold War.

Source:The Roots of the New World Order – the development of the Anglo-American Imperial Idea 1900 – 2008

Watch and Pray; Sound an Alarm in Zion

"The Church of Rome is one of the major players in the “creeping totalitarianism” of the New World Order. Her designs on the EU are a major part of the unfolding global strategy. We need to watch and pray as the “Fourth Reich” emerges out of its embryo. A watchman of old was expected to guard against robbers and disturbers of the peace. We are all commanded to be watchmen, “to watch and pray”. There has been a dreadful apathy that has afflicted the household of God, an indifference to the clear threat to our ancient liberties and Protestant identity from both the EU and the Church of Rome. As watchmen of the Lord today we are to guard against false teachers and false religion. We are to watch and discern the actions and words of the one who would seek to supplant the Gospel with apostasy and tyranny. Our task under God is to sound an alarm, “blow ye the trumpet in Zion . . .let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand.” Now even more than in the days of old the commands of the Lord are to be obeyed, “son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.” As we make our stand, so also we pray expecting to see the power of God at work in Europe, “they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.” We owe the liberty that we yet enjoy to Jesus Christ the Lord. By His faithfulness and perfect sacrifice He has satisfied the demands of the broken law of the All Holy God. It is He, the Son of God, who has made us free. “If the Son of God shall set you free you will be free indeed.”

There is genuine unity of all true believers throughout the world. There is but one faith. All true believers are converted by the same Holy Spirit, and receive the same work of grace, which places them in the Beloved. In Christ Jesus we are spiritually one and called to stand fast in this liberty, and stand firm in His truth. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be ye not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”7



TO BE CONTINUED...

Blogger Footnotes:
1,2,3,4,5 - Quotes taken from Colonialism and Imperialism, 1450–1950
by Benedikt Stuchtey Original in German, displayed in English, Published: 2011-01-24 - http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/backgrounds/colonialism-and-imperialism/benedikt-stuchtey-colonialism-and-imperialism-1450-1950
6 - http://www.seasite.niu.edu/crossroads/ty/colonialism_%20in_se%20asia.htm
7 - http://www.the-highway.com/eu_Bennett.html

Christ and the Fulfillment of Prophecy

          One of the most compelling lines of biblical evidence for the amillennial position is how a number of Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the New.1 Setting these matters out carefully is important when treating the subject of the millennium, especially since dispensational premillenarians insist on a literal fulfillment of these prophecies in a future millennial age. If these prophecies have already been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, much of the dispensational case for a future earthly millennium simply evaporates. Dispensationalists tell us that these prophecies remain unfulfilled until Jesus Christ returns to earth to establish his millennial kingdom. Paul, on the other hand, told us, “What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened” (Rom. 11:7). Thus, true Israel, those Jews who have embraced Jesus Christ through faith, has already received the inheritance promised God’s people, since they are the children of promise (Rom. 9:6–8).

Christ, the True Israel

When we use the prophetic vision of Israel’s prophets and look to the future, what do we see? The prophets anticipated a time when Israel would be restored to her former greatness. Such a prophetic vision included not only the restoration of the nation but also a restoration of the land of Canaan, the city of Jerusalem, the throne of David, and the temple. The nation had been taken into captivity, the magnificent temple had been destroyed, and the priesthood had gone some five centuries before Christ’s first advent, so these prophetic expectations spoke of a reversal of fortune—the undoing of calamity that had come upon the nation. In fact, with apostolic hindsight Peter told of how “the prophets, who spoke. searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1Pet. 1:10–12).

The prophet Isaiah spoke of a future restoration of Israel in these terms:
“But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said ‘You are my servant’; I have chosen you and have not rejected you” (41:8–9). The same promise was reiterated in the next chapter of Isaiah (42:1–7), when the Lord declared of his servant, “I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles” (v.6).Isaiah continued to speak of this servant in chapters 44 (vv. 1–2) and 45 (v.4).

Dispensationalists, who interpret such passages literally, assign the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies to a future earthly millennium in which Israel will coexist with Gentiles under the reign of the Davidic king.2 Is this how the New Testament interpreted these messianic prophecies regarding the servant of the Lord? Who is this servant of the Lord—the nation of Israel or Jesus, Israel’s Messiah? The Gospel writers interpreted these prophecies from Isaiah as fulfilled in the messianic mission of Jesus. As Jesus cast out demons and healed the sick, Matthew saw in this the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies of a suffering servant who would take upon himself our infirmities and carry our diseases (Matt. 8:17 with Isa. 53:4). Luke spoke of both Israel and David as servants of God (Luke 1:54, 69). Yet, in Acts, Luke pointedly spoke of Jesus as the servant of God (Acts 3:13). After Jesus’s crucifixion, God raised him from the dead so that people everywhere might be called to repentance (Acts 3:26). Later on, when the Ethiopian eunuch read Isaiah 53:7–8 and asked Philip to whom this prophecy referred, Philip told him that this passage was about Jesus (Acts 8:34–35). But this is not all that is in view here. The prophet Hosea quoted God as saying, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (11:1). But Matthew told us that Hosea’s prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus’s parents took him to Egypt for a time as a baby to protect him from Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents” (Matt. 2:13–18). Thus, Matthew, not the “spiritualizing amillenarian” centuries later, took a passage from Hosea that referred to Israel and told his readers that it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

According to many New Testament writers, Jesus was the true servant, the true Son, and the true Israel of God. Recall as well that Isaiah spoke of Israel and the descendants of Abraham as the people of God. It was through the seed of Abraham that the nations of the earth would be blessed. Therefore, even as Jesus was the true Israel, he was the true seed of Abraham. Paul made this point in Galatians 3:7–8 when he said that “those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’” Paul’s words here are important for several reasons. First, they tell us that Abraham believed the same gospel that Paul preached to the Gentile Galatians. There has been only one plan of salvation and one gospel from the very beginning. This, of course, raises serious questions about the dispensational theory of distinct redemptive purposes for national Israel and the Gentiles. Paul also explained, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). From the beginning of redemptive history, the true children of Abraham, whether Jews or Gentiles, will be heirs of God’s promise if they belong to Jesus Christ, the true seed of Abraham.3 
          The ramifications for this on one’s millennial view should now be obvious. The New Testament writers claimed that Jesus was the true Israel of God and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. So what remains of the dispensationalists’ case that these prophecies will yet be fulfilled in a future millennium? They vanish in Jesus Christ, who has fulfilled them.

The Land of Canaan, the City of Jerusalem, and the Mountain of the Lord

When God established his covenant with Abraham and his descendants after him “to be your God and the God of your descendants after you,” he also promised the great patriarch, “The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God” (Gen. 17:7–8). According to classical dispensationalists, this promise was “an unconditional covenant made with Israel and therefore cannot be either abrogated or fulfilled by people other than the nation Israel.”4 In other words, God’s unconditional promise of a land to Abraham’s descendants is everlasting and therefore can be fulfilled only by the return of national Israel to her ancient homeland. At first glance, this appears to be a compelling argument, especially since the nation of Israel was formed in Palestine in 1948, amounting to a return of the Jews to the land of their fathers. But once again the critical question is, How did the authors of the New Testament view this prophecy?

To answer this question, we must first answer a different one. How did Israel’s own prophets understand this promise of a land that God made to Abraham? Once again, returning to the words of Isaiah, we find language such as this:

“Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy. I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy the works of their hands. They will not toil in vain or bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed by the Lord, they and their descendants with them. Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” says the Lord. (Isa. 65:17–25; cf. 66:22)

The promise of the land in Canaan made to Abraham was reinterpreted by Isaiah to mean a new heaven and a new earth, not just the land of Canaan. This is an easy claim to make, but what is the evidence for it? As we have seen, Joshua regarded God’s promise of the land of Canaan as provisionally fulfilled when Israel took possession after the exodus (Josh. 1:2–9; 21:43). Israel’s prophets, writing during the exile, when Israel had been cast from the land, universalized the promise of a land in Canaan to include a new heaven and a new earth, the fruit of the eschatological victory won by the suffering servant and conquering king.5 Because God swore the oath of ratification in the covenant of promise, God ensured that the everlasting promise entailed by the covenant would be realized. This would be true even if God’s covenant people disobeyed and lost their inheritance, receiving instead divine sanctions, such as being cast from the land.

The idea of land promised under the Abrahamic covenant was also universalized in several passages in the New Testament. In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul described the role of Abraham in redemptive history. Notice again the promise God made to Abraham: “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. The whole land of Canaan. I will give as an everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:7–8). In Romans 4:13, Paul saw the fulfillment of this as follows: “It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.” As Robert Strimple so aptly puts it, “Where in the Old Testament do you find the promise that Paul refers to here? Nowhere if you insist on a strict literalism. But you find it in Genesis 17:8 if you see that this is inspired apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament promise that Paul is giving us here.”6

The author of Hebrews made a similar point when he wrote that ultimately Abraham was not looking just to Canaan, even though he and his descendants after him lived in the Promised Land. Abraham “was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Peter also picked up on this prophetic expansion of the Promised Land when he wrote, “In keeping with his [God’s] promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness” (2Pet. 3:13). The inheritance promised to Abraham, which was couched in premessianic terms as a reference to the land of Canaan, was, after Israel took possession of the land under Joshua, subsequently reinterpreted by Isaiah, Paul, the author of Hebrews, and Peter as a new heaven and a new earth.7
         If the New Testament writers did in fact reinterpret the promise of a land in terms of a new heaven and a new earth, this raises great difficulties for premillenarians who assign these prophecies to an earthly millennial age—a halfway consummation yet to dawn—instead of understanding these promises in terms of a new creation and the final consummation. If this interpretation is correct, amillenarians are no less literal in their hermeneutic than the New Testament writers. This same pattern of a premessianic prophecy being reinterpreted in the New Testament also holds for those prophecies dealing with the city of Jerusalem and the mountain of the Lord. Like the prophet Isaiah, Micah gave us the following vision of what lies ahead: In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it. Many nations will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid, for the Lord Almighty has spoken. All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever. (4:1–5) In this amazing vision, Micah foresaw not only a glorious time for Israel but also a period in which the knowledge of the Lord will extend to the very ends of the earth. 

Dispensationalists are clear about how this prophecy is to be interpreted. This text, they say, along with a similar passage in Isaiah 2:2–4, refers to Israel’s future exaltation during the millennial age when the city of Jerusalem is the seat of God’s millennial government.8 But this is an erroneous interpretation because it ignores an important step in the interpretive process, namely, how the New Testament writers understood this prophecy in light of the coming of Jesus Christ.The pattern for how these premessianic images were interpreted should now be clear. We ask one more time, What did the New Testament writers do with these Old Testament prophecies?

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could not be more clear about how he understood this prophecy. Though Old Testament prophets spoke of the earthly city of Jerusalem, the New Testament writers did not say these prophecies would be fulfilled in a future earthly Jerusalem. On the contrary, the author of Hebrews said the prophecy was already fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

        You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.” The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (12:18–24) In Jesus Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem has already come, even now.9

This point is especially problematic for postmillenarians who see Micah 4:1–5 and Isaiah 2:2–4 as important texts supporting the idea that a millennial age, in which the nations will turn to Christ, is yet to dawn in this present age. Agreeing with amillenarians that this prophecy is fulfilled before the second advent of Jesus Christ, postmillenarians see this passage as finding fulfillment in the last days in which “a spiritually renewed church attracts the nations (v.2) to the Christian faith by the vitality and depth of its worship, doctrine and life.”10 

The problem with the postmillennial interpretation is simply this:
If it is self-evident that this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, why did the author of Hebrews speak of the fulfillment as a present reality? We can go a step farther. Strimple shows us that postmillenarians “must view Christ’s kingly reign as a failure so far.”11 This, it seems to me, is highly problematic. Yet, dispensationalists will undoubtedly remind us that the same author who said that in Jesus Christ the new Jerusalem has already come also said in the next chapter, “We are looking for the city that is to come” (Heb. 13:14). This is a problem for dispensationalists because they fail to distinguish between the earthly copy and the heavenly reality.12 The earthly city is a redemptivehistorical picture of a heavenly reality yet to come. A word of explanation is in order. The apostle John spoke of the new Jerusalem as though it were yet future (Rev. 21:2). When we look more closely at the text, however, we see that this heavenly city is even now coming down from heaven. The new creation, which will be consummated with the coming of Christ in judgment on the last day, has already been inaugurated and is a present reality for the people of God.13 But how can the new Jerusalem be said to be both present and future? To understand this, we need to distinguish between the earthly copy and the heavenly reality. The author of Hebrews distinguished between earthly and heavenly things: “It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence” (9:23–24). When we speak of the premessianic prophetic expectations regarding the city of Jerusalem and the mountain of the Lord as fulfilled in Christ but awaiting a final consummation at the end of the age, we are speaking of the earthly Jerusalem serving as a type or a copy of the heavenly reality, which now is realized in principle. If true, this strikes a serious blow to the root of dispensational and premillennial expectations about Jesus reigning over an earthly kingdom from a new Jerusalem. The earthly Jerusalem was intended to point us to Jesus Christ and to serve as a shadow of the realities to come when God makes all things new.

David’s Greater Son

Dispensationalists place great weight on their interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant, but the Davidic covenant is right behind it in terms of importance. Based on God’s promise that he would establish the kingdom of David’s son forever (2 Sam. 7:12–16), dispensationalists believe this promise was partially fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, with the final fulfillment delayed because of Israel’s stubborn refusal to embrace Jesus as her messianic king. This prophecy stated that the throne of David will be established forever. Since dispensationalists believe that such prophecies must be interpreted literally, this necessitates a literal rule of Jesus Christ on the earth during a future millennial kingdom. At that time the postponed kingdom will be finally consummated. John Walvoord feels so strongly about the literal fulfillment of this prophecy that he believes amillenarians commit exegetical fraud by spiritualizing literal prophecies such as this one.15
         Since no one wants to be guilty of such an offense, the safest course of action is to return to the New Testament interpretation of the Davidic covenant. Before we do so, we ought to note that the prophecy of 2 Samuel 7 does not stand alone. In the famous words of Isaiah 9:7, we read, regarding the coming Redeemer, that “of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.” In Psalm 2:7–9, we find the following: “I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.’” That a descendant of David would return to Israel and rule over his kingdom was a major aspect of the prophetic expectation of Israel and occupied a significant role in the New Testament. From the beginning of Jesus’s messianic mission, his identity as the heir to David’s throne was clearly established. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus’s link to David was established through the use of genealogy (1:1–17). In the birth narrative in Luke’s Gospel, Luke informed his readers that the angel Gabriel told Mary: Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end. (1:30–33)

According to Matthew and Luke, the prophecies of Samuel, Isaiah, and the psalmist were fulfilled in Jesus. But how does his birth fulfill the prophecy of an everlasting kingdom? The answer to this is also found in Luke’s writings, though not in the infancy narratives. When Peter delivered the Pentecost sermon, he preached to Jews who did not yet believe that Jesus was the Christ. To make his case, he had to demonstrate that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be. The two most effective tools to do this were the apologetic arguments from fulfilled prophecy and miracle. Therefore, Peter pointed out that the eternal kingdom promised to David’s son was finally realized in the resurrection of Jesus. Because Jesus conquered death and the grave, Peter could say with confidence: Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:29–36)

It was in Christ’s resurrection and ascension, therefore, that God fulfilled his promise that David’s greater son would rule the nations with an everlasting kingdom. People’s greatest foe is death, and in his resurrection Jesus emerged victorious. This is why his kingdom is everlasting and why he is both Lord and Christ. When dispensationalists complain that amillenarians spiritualize these great Old Testament prophecies by saying they are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, perhaps they should take this up with the apostles who did the very thing of which dispensationalists are so critical.

Christ, the True Temple

Jesus declared of himself, “One greater than the temple is here” (Matt. 12:6) and told the Samaritan woman that he could give her “living water” (John 4:10–14). Such declarations give us a major clue that the authors of the New Testament reinterpreted the premessianic understanding of God’s temple in light of the coming of Israel’s Messiah. The temple occupied a principal role in the witness of Israel’s prophets regarding God’s future eschatological blessing for the nation. When we see that this imagery pointed forward to Jesus, we can better understand the nature and character of the millennial age.

Let us consider the Old Testament expectations regarding the temple of the Lord. Both Isaiah 2:2–4 and Micah 4:1–5 speak of God’s future blessing on Israel in the last days when his people will go up to the temple on the mountain of the Lord and learn his ways. In Isaiah 56, we read of those who hold fast to God’s covenant (v.4) and love the name of the Lord and keep his Sabbaths (vv. 6–8). God will bring them to the holy mountain and the temple, which will be a house of prayer for all nations (v.7). A similar vision was given in Isaiah 66:20–21, which says that the Israelites will bring their grain offerings to God’s temple, and he will renew his priesthood. In Zechariah’s prophetic vision, we learn that one day Israel will once again offer sacrifices acceptable to God (14:16–19). With all this prophetic expectation in the minds of Jews living in Palestine in the first century, it is no wonder that Jesus’s declaration of God’s judgment on the temple—“Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down” (Matt. 24:2)—came as a shocking offense. How dare this man say that their expectation of a glorious temple was fulfilled in him! He said, ”Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19). It was not until after Christ’s resurrection that the meaning of these words became plain to his disciples. When he spoke of the destruction of the temple, he was speaking of his own body (John 2:22). This is what he meant when he said that one greater than the temple had come. Ezekiel prophesied that the temple will be rebuilt, the priesthood will be reestablished, sacrifices will be offered, and the river of life will flow from thetemple. How we interpret this prophecy will have a significant bearing on the question of a future millennial age on the earth.  It should come as no surprise that dispensationalists believe that this prophecy will be literally fulfilled in the millennial age. 

According to J. Dwight Pentecost:
The glorious vision of Ezekiel reveals that it is impossible to locate its fulfillment in any past temple or system which Israel has known, but it must await a future fulfillment after the second advent of Christ when the millennium is instituted. The sacrificial system is not a reinstituted Judaism, but the establishment of a new order that has as its purpose the remembrance of the work of Christ on which all salvation rests. The literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy will be the means of God’s glorification and man’s blessing in the millennium.16 Traditional amillenarians criticize such images of perpetual animal sacrifices and temple worship after the second advent of Christ, saying this would undercut his saving work, especially since these aspects of Mosaic economy werefulfilled at Calvary.17 So Pentecost is careful to argue that Ezekiel’s prophecy is not connected to a renewed Mosaic economy but to an entirely new order, one that commemorates the saving work of Christ in the past. But is this what the authors of the New Testament taught about these prophecies? We have already seen that the New Testament taught that Christ is the true Israel and David’s greater son. The Old Testament prophecies regarding Jerusalem and the mountain of the Lord are fulfilled in Christ’s church. The promise of a land, as we have seen, will be fulfilled in a new heaven and a new earth in the consummation. Likewise, the New Testament taught that Christ is the new temple and that a new order of commemoration involving the ceremonies typical of the earthly temple can only commemorate the types and shadows, not the reality. This presents a serious problem for dispensationalists, who argue, in effect, that redemptive history takes a U-turn in the millennial age, as the reality in Christ supposedly returns to the types and shadows of the Old Testament.

How, then, is the temple imagery from the Old Testament fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New? In Exodus 40:34, we are told that the glory of the Lord filled his temple. When viewed against the backdrop of redemptive history, we see how this pointed to Pentecost, when, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, the glory of the Lord filled his true temple, the mystical body of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 12:12ff.).18 If Christ’s body is the true temple and as Paul put it, “We are the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:16), what use remains for a future literal temple? That to which the temple had pointed is now a reality through the work of the Holy Spirit. Why return to the type and shadow?
It is also clear from Hebrews 8–10 that Jesus fulfilled the priesthood typology of the Old Testament in his death, and he put an end to the sacrificial system in his own blood once and for all. The author of Hebrews said, “We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man” (8:1–2). If the reality to which the Old Testament sacrifices and priesthood pointed is found in this true sanctuary and tabernacle in heaven, why look for a return to the shadows in the form of an earthly temple, which pointed us to this heavenly scene? Contrary to the view of dispensationalists, the prescribed New Testament commemoration of the ratification of the new covenant will not be found in a new order of temple worship, which includes a new temple, a new priesthood, and animal sacrifices, supposedly in an earthly millennial kingdom. At the Last Supper, Jesus told his disciples, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me. This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:19–20). He instituted the divinely approved method of commemorating his sacrificial work, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. In this way, the people of God feed on the Savior through faith and commemorate his dying on their behalf.

Jesus told the Samaritan woman that he could give her living water and that “whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst” (John 4:14). Jesus declared that he fulfilled the image Ezekiel foretold in chapter 37 of his prophecy when he spoke of water flowing from the sanctuary.19 If Jesus is the true temple of God, he alone gives us the “living water” that takes away the thirst of human sin and longing. Therefore, the dispensationalists’ insistence on a return in the millennial age to the types of the Old Testament sacrificial system amounts to a serious misunderstanding of the nature of redemptive history. By arguing for a new commemorative order based on Old Testament typology in the millennial age, dispensationalists see the future not as a consummation but as a return to the past. And this, of course, sadly obscures the person and work of Christ by seeing the ultimate reality not in him but in the types and shadows destined to perish when the reality entered the theater of redemption.

Extracted from the book entitled A Case for Amillennialism - Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger. You can download and read the whole eBook HERE in pdf format.