Tag Archives: Charlemagne

#8

The body of a Palestinian baby who died of tear gas inhalation during protests, according to Gaza’s health ministry, is held by her mother at a Gaza City morgue on May 15, 2018 (AFP Photo/MAHMUD HAMS)

Last week, I posted an article showing how decisions made by the Trump Administration are inadvertently leading to the fulfillment of prophesied events.   I listed seven areas where this is happening, including the growing rift between Europe and the US; pressure on Germany to rearm; recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; tearing up the Iran nuclear deal; and the imposition of tariffs that will harm global trade.   Additionally, attacking Syria adds to the growing Shia-Sunni conflict and pulling out of the climate change treaty is separating the US from the rest of the world.

Since I wrote, there have been two other developments.

Number 8 took place on Monday, with the opening of the new US Embassy in Jerusalem.  Sixty residents of Gaza were killed that day by Israeli troops.   The responsibility for their deaths cannot be blamed on Israel, which is what the world’s press is doing.  The blame goes to Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that runs Gaza. They stirred up the mob and sent people, including young people, to their deaths.

But what happened makes it next to impossible for the US to broker a peace deal between Palestinians and Israelis, as Washington is clearly not even-handed.

The peace process started over forty  years ago.   Since 2003, all efforts toward a “deal” have been based on the “two-state solution.” The American goal has been the eventual establishment of two nations, side by side, living in peace.

This almost happened in 1993 when leaders of Israel and the Palestinians talked peace in Oslo.   The Israelis offered generous terms to the Palestinians, but the process stalled, as it always does, when it became clear that the Palestinians would not recognize Israel, as a political entity.   They want to take over Israel, giving third generation Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, the “right to return” to the lands they occupied prior to the establishment of the nation of Israel.   The “Right of Return” has been a constant stumbling block.

Now that the US cannot be an honest broker in trying to resolve these issues, somebody else will have to do it – and fairly quickly as the situation is deteriorating.

Enter Europe.

Bible students are aware that there is to be a final revival of the Roman Empire, prior to Christ’s Second Coming.   This may sound incredible, but it’s important to understand that a revival of the Roman Empire has been a constant theme throughout European history.   Rome fell in 476.   Less than a century later, Justinian, the Emperor in the East, tried to restore the Empire. In 800, the Emperor Charlemagne established the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted over a thousand years.   It was Napoleon who abolished the H.R.E., but then he himself wanted to revive the Empire, crowning himself a new Caesar and naming his son “King of Rome.”

More recently, Italy’s leader, Benito Mussolini, proclaimed the restoration of the Roman Empire in 1922, while Hitler, a little over a decade later, declared that his Third Reich would last a thousand years, just like the First Reich of the Holy Roman Empire.

Even after these violent attempts to restore the Roman Empire, the dream never died.   Twelve years after the collapse of the Third Reich, the Treaty of Rome brought six European nations together to form what is now the 28-member European Union.   A final union of European nations is prophesied to come together, perhaps out of the rubble of the present EU.   It’s also possible there could be a peaceful transformation from the present conglomeration to something else.

Bible prophecy shows this union will get involved in the Middle East peace process.  This is prophesied in Daniel 9:27, at the end of the Seventy Weeks Prophecy, a prophecy about the future of the Jewish people, written by the prophet Daniel in the sixth century B.C.   The last few verses deal with the coming of the Messiah.   It is a remarkably accurate prophecy about His first coming, even down to the year His ministry would begin and the day on which He would be put to death.   As many Bible commentaries explain, “seventy weeks” equals 490 years (70 x 7 days in a week; each day representing one year).   This period of time began with Persian King Artaxerxes’ decree, authorizing the Jews to rebuild the Temple.

  • The fourth decree was also by Artaxerxes Longimanus, issued on March 5, 444 b.c. (Neh. 2:1-8).   On that occasion Artaxerxes granted the Jews specific authorization to rebuild Jerusalem’s city walls.   This decree is the one referred to in Daniel 9:25. (Old Testament prophecy, Royal decree).

“After the sixty-nine weeks (the 63 + 7), the Messiah would be “killed” (Dan 9:26), an apparent reference to his crucifixion, and “the city and the Temple” of Jerusalem would be destroyed.   The “armies” (9:26) were the Roman people, who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. There is evidence of a gap between the 69th and 70th week, for what is predicted in 9:27 has not yet taken place.  The “ruler” (9:26) is the Antichrist, who will rise out of what may possibly be a revived type of the Roman Empire (7:8, 24-26)”.   (Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary, Daniel 9:27, page 319.   Published in 1990.)

Note the following from the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, page 1389 (1994):

“If it was a ruler of the Roman people who was to destroy Jerusalem (in AD 70), then it would be a ruler of the Roman Empire – in its final phase, i.e. the ten-toes phase of chapter 2 and the ten-horned beast phase of ch. 7 – who will conclude this covenant.” “ . . . the latter day ruler over the “Roman” people will “confirm” a “covenant” with the believing Jews for a stipulated period of seven years, permitting them to carry on their religious practices.” (page 1390)

The next paragraph adds:   “After about three and one-half years, the world dictator will break his agreement with the Jews.   Possibly he will feel secure enough in his autocratic position to carry out his original, secret plan to impose an absolute dictatorship on all the peoples of his empire, especially the Jews.   All pretense of religious toleration will be dropped as he aspires to display himself as the incarnation of all divine authority on earth.”   (II Thess 2:4)

Tyndale adds:   “ In the middle of the “one set of seven” (9:27), or “week,” he will take control of the Jewish temple and put a stop to worship, demanding that he be worshipped (cf. Matt 24:15;  II Thess 2:4).   But he will be destroyed at Christ’s second coming.”  (Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary, Daniel 9:27, page 319, 1990).

Again, it should be noted that this revived Roman system will broker an agreement between the Jews and the Palestinians, solving what has seemed like an insoluble problem.   Of course, it won’t really be resolved, as it only lasts three and a half years.   Clearly, America’s role as honest broker is about to be replaced by active European involvement.

For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman.   And they shall not escape.” (I Thess 5:3)

Unger’s Bible Handbook (1966) says this about this time period: “The final week of seven years constitutes the climax of Jewish history prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom, 27.   It is divided into two half periods (three and a half years each).   During the first half the “prince” (world ruler, “little horn” of 7:8, 24-25) will make a covenant with the Jews, who are restored in Palestine with a resumption of temple worship.   In the middle of the week the covenant is broken, worship for the Jews ceases (II Thess 2:3-4), and the time of Great Tribulation ensues.   The advent of Christ the Messiah consummates this period of desolation, bringing everlasting righteousness for Israel, 24, and judgment upon the “desolator,” the prince, and his hosts (Rev 19:20).”    (page 392)

US recognition of Jerusalem as the “eternal capital of Israel” was the catalyst for this.   Expect more violence, perhaps even threatening the very existence of Israel.   This will then force the Europeans to get involved, leading to “peace” which won’t last.

#9

Another development, on Thursday, may also be a significant development.

EU leaders, meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria, agreed that EU based companies will be prosecuted if they go along with the Trump Administration’s sanctions on Iran.   These sanctions follow Mr. Trump’s decision to tear up the Iran nuclear treaty that was agreed between the US, EU, Germany, France, the UK, Russia and China in 2015.

The 28-nation European Union is sending a clear signal that it will no longer be dictated to by the United States.

 

 

Advertisements

BORIS JOHNSON MAKES BREXIT MORE LIKELY

Boris Johnson

Donald Trump has a new rival, a fellow New Yorker no less.  Like Mr. Trump, the newcomer is causing just as much turmoil in political circles. He can even rival The Donald with his famous hair.

Boris Johnson (born 19 June, 1964, in New York) is a British politician, popular historian and journalist who has served as Mayor of London since 2008 and as Member of Parliament (MP) for Uxbridge and South Ruislip since 2015.  Mr. Johnson is a popular figure in British politics.

Mr. Johnson attended the same exclusive private school that Prime Minister David Cameron attended.  Later they both attended Oxford University at the same time.  They are two members of Britain’s elite and have been best friends for decades.  That could change now.

While Mr. Cameron is fighting to keep Britain in the European Union (EU), Boris Johnson on Sunday declared himself opposed.  Mr. Johnson will support the “Leave” campaign.  He is in favor of a Brexit, a British exit from the organization.

As the Wall Street Journal put it:  “Mr. Johnson is the most prominent politician to break with the prime minister ahead of the June 23 referendum.”

It should be noted that if the vote goes against Mr. Cameron, he will likely face a “No Confidence” vote in parliament.  If he loses, Mr. Johnson could be his replacement as prime minister.  Unlike Americans, the Brits don’t have laws precluding those born overseas from holding office.  Besides, Mr. Johnson’s parents were both upper middle class English.   Mr. Johnson recently wrote a biography of fellow Conservative Winston Churchill, a predecessor who also had definite American connections.   (His book, “The Churchill Factor” is well worth reading.)

If this sounds awfully like the 1930’s all over again, there are definite similarities, though nobody is threatening violence this time, not right now anyway.

The pro-European faction in parliament is led by Mr. Cameron.  He returned from Brussels late on Friday, promising the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time.”   The prime minister announced that agreement had been reached with EU leaders that will serve Britain well.  Consequently, Mr. Cameron will recommend Britain remain a member of the European club.

It came as a surprise on Sunday when Boris Johnson came out publicly against continued membership.  Like Mr. Churchill in 1938 he is concerned to protect Britain’s sovereignty in light of European developments toward a trans-national super-state.  This time it’s not Berlin that concerns him so much as Brussels, the capital of the EU.   But Berlin is a factor as the European project is dominated by Germany.

The European Union began with the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which pledges member countries to form “an ever closer union.”   This does not mean a United States of Europe along USA lines. This could never happen, as the dynamics are very different.   What is far more likely to emerge is something akin to the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted for a thousand years until it was broken up by Napoleon in 1806.

Dictionary.com defines the Holy Roman Empire as follows:

“a Germanic empire located chiefly in central Europe that began with the coronation of Charlemagne as Roman emperor in AD 800 . . . and ended with the renunciation of the Roman imperial title by Francis II in 1806, and was regarded theoretically as the continuation of the Western Empire and as the temporal form of a universal dominion whose spiritual head was the pope.”

The EU has been working toward something similar since its inception almost six decades ago.   It’s already the world’s biggest single market and trading power.   The common currency called the euro rivals the US dollar as a global currency.     Politically it’s more united than ever and there is some progress toward a European military.

For Britain, all this is bad news.  Not even the pro-EU politicians want the UK to be a part of a European super-state.  They want to keep their independence or, rather, what’s left of it.  They want to stay out of the euro and do not want to go any further toward an “ever closer union” or join a European military force.  Mr. Cameron received assurances from the other 27 members of the EU that Britain can stay out of all three.  He was also given some relief on the financial costs to British tax-payers having to pay benefits to EU migrants from the East, but only for seven years.

But anti-EU politicians and members of the public are still insecure about the future.

It’s not surprising really when you consider Britain’s history.  For centuries Britain looked beyond the seas to its colonies and, later, the Commonwealth and the United States, remaining outside of Europe, only getting involved when threatened by a Napoleon, the Kaiser or Hitler.

In 1962, former US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, observed that: “Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role.” In the same year, US President John Kennedy expressed his support for Britain joining what was then called the Common Market.  Canada’s Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, was very much against Britain joining, expressing his concern that it could mean the end of the Commonwealth of which Canada was a founding member.

America wanted Britain “in” so as to have a reliable pro-American voice in the European club.  The US also wanted free trade to boost American exports to Europe.

If the United Kingdom votes to leave the EU, there will likely be far greater repercussions than can presently be seen.  These will not just be economic.  44% of Britain’s exports go to other EU nations – a “no” vote could jeopardize these exports as tariffs exist on imports from non-member countries.

Other repercussions could include the following:

  1. The EU could be less co-operative with the USA.
  1. A British exit from the EU could encourage a Scottish exit from the UK, as it seems most Scots want to stay in the EU.
  1. Ireland would be negatively affected, with 40% of its imports coming from the UK and 17% of its exports going to Britain.
  1. Germany will become more dominant.  Only Britain and France are big enough right now to restrain the central European giant.  Take away Britain and it’s down to France.   France’s priority right now is Islamic terrorism. Germany will be able to go full steam ahead toward its dream of a revived European empire, already referred to by some as the Fourth Reich.  The Holy Roman Empire was the first reich (or empire), that lasted a thousand years; the Kaisers were the second reich; Hitler promised his Third Reich would last a thousand years like the first one, but it only lasted twelve.
  1. There will be a lot of bad feeling if Britain leaves.  Other EU members will not be inclined to bend over backwards to help the Brits through a difficult transition period.   Concessions on trade will be unlikely.  It could also end shared security arrangements at a time when there are increased security risks with Islamic militancy.
  1. International companies operating in Britain could move to other countries.  Many companies have based themselves in the UK to gain advantage in selling goods to other EU countries.  Faced with high tariffs to keep out non-EU goods, they are likely to move elsewhere, leaving greater unemployment in their wake.
  1. There is also a possibility that some other EU members may follow Britain out the door.   Whereas countries at the center of Europe have a long history of strong government from the center, those on the northern periphery have not.  Although some may sympathize with the British position, they may decide it’s not economically feasible to leave as trade with Germany and other nations is too great.

Some of the southern members may also opt to leave so that they can print their own money and boost employment.

Bible prophecy shows that a revived European super-state will include ten nations.

“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.  These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.” (Revelation 17:12-13)

However, this does not rule out the possibility of other countries being closely tied to the ten.  This would be very similar to the Holy Roman Empire where some territories were ruled directly from the center, but others were more loosely attached.

Additionally, dozens of countries around the world are tied to the EU through the Lomé Convention, named after the capital of Togo.  The agreement came into being a couple of years after Britain joined the EU.  It tied British former colonies to the European trading system, along with French, Belgian and Portuguese.  The EU is by far the leading world trading power.

It’s surprising then that there’s little interest in the outcome of the British referendum in the American media.  Any mention of the European Union solicits a big yawn.  But the reality is that Boris Johnson may out-Trump Donald Trump in the upheaval he may cause across the pond!

—————————————————————-

TRAGEDY IN KALAMAZOO

Kalamazoo is a big city that’s only an hour’s drive from where we live.  Saturday night it fell victim to the latest American mass shooting, when a 45-year-old Uber driver shot dead six people and seriously injured two others.  In between killing people, he picked up and drove passengers to their destinations.

The lack of motive is disturbing.  So is the following paragraph from the BBC’s website:

“One of the seriously injured, a 14-year-old girl, was believed to have been dead for more than an hour when she squeezed her mother’s hand as doctors were preparing to harvest her organs, police officer Dale Hinz told Michigan Live.”

 

 

WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT IS WRONG?

Obama Islam not the enemy

US President Barack Obama says the US is “not at war with Islam – we are at war with the people who have perverted Islam.”   (BBC website, February 18th)

The President continued to explain that socio-economic factors are behind extremist terrorism.   If more could be done to help young people in the Mideast find jobs, it would lessen the terror threat.   However, this conveniently overlooks the fact that major terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by affluent jihadists.   The idea that it’s all due to poverty and unemployment is a throwback to sixties liberalism.   Unfortunately, millions of people still think that way, endangering the rest of us.

This comes at a time when ISIS is wiping out Christians across the Middle East, determined to establish “Christian free zones.”

For an alternative view, let’s do something few politicians ever seem to do – look at history.

Muhammed died in 632 AD.   At the time of his death, the new religion he started was confined to the Arabian Peninsula.   By the end of the seventh century it had conquered the whole of North Africa and a great deal of the Middle East, including Jerusalem, Damascus and Antioch, pushing back the Byzantine and Persian empires.   Of course, it’s always possible that the young soldiers of Allah went far afield simply looking for jobs, but that’s not a conclusion you will find in the history books.

Once they had conquered North Africa, they crossed over into Europe, taking over the Iberian Peninsula and remaining there for a few hundred years, ruling what are now Spain and Portugal.   In 732 they reached the gates of Paris but were halted in their tracks by a military force led by Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne.   If this decisive victory had not taken place, there would be no problem between the West and Islam today, as we would all be Muslims!

Move forward 350 years.   By the end of the eleventh century, the Turks were a serious threat to the Byzantine Empire.   In 1065, the Turks took control of Jerusalem and massacred 3,000 Christians. Prior to the Turkish invasion, the Saracens controlled the area.   They had allowed Christian pilgrims to visit the Holy Land.   But the Turks made it impossible.   In 1095, Pope Urban II called on the countries of Catholic Europe to launch a Crusade against the Muslim Turks.   A series of crusades followed until 1291, when the Christians gave up on the idea of ruling the region.   It wasn’t until 1917 that a Christian power, Great Britain, would once again dominate the Middle East.

Islam continued its expansionist course, gradually taking more and more territory from what was left of the Eastern Roman Empire.   In 1453, its capital, Constantinople, fell to the Muslim Turks.   They have controlled it since.

Having conquered the Balkans, the Ottoman Turks twice reached the gates of Vienna at the very center of Europe.   Central European nations and the Catholic

Church defeated the Muslims, saving Europe from Islam.

This is not to say there has been peace between the West and Islam ever since.   During the period of global British domination, the British fought Islamic extremists in the Sudan in the 1880’s and 90’s, culminating in the battle of Omdurman in September, 1898.

For much of the twentieth century, Islam was kept at bay.  Until World War II, most Islamic territory was under European colonial rule.   By 1960 this had come to an end.   Iran, modern Persia, was the first country to see its government overthrown by radical Islam, in 1979.   From that date until the present, the West has been under constant threat from Islam, both Shia Islam (Iran) and Sunni Islam (al Qaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram to name just three).

With such a long history of Islamic imperialism, how can the president claim that the religion has been perverted by violent extremists?   Islam has been a constant threat to the West since its birth in the early part of the seventh century.  If anything, the first part of the twentieth century was an aberration, a brief interlude during which Islam was not pushing against the West.

“The rise and expansion of Islam was one of the most significant and far-reaching events in modern history and its impact continues to reverberate in our own times.”  (“The spread of Islam from 632,” Collins Atlas of World History, 2003)

Echoing down the centuries, the following statement remains true today.  “This expansion owed much to the enthusiasm and religious conviction of the conquerors but it was also facilitated by the war-weariness of the empires of Persia and Byzantium.”  (“The Spread of Islam”)   Today’s zealots are equally motivated, while the nations of the West, after more than a decade of wars in Islamic lands, are war-weary and clearly in denial about the serious threat to western civilization.

When you look back at history, the threat is clear.   In fact, it’s a greater threat now than it’s ever been, simply because there are so many millions of Muslims in our midst already.   Which brings us back to our politicians.   President Obama is not the only western leader saying that Islam has been perverted by extremists. Following the attacks in Denmark last weekend, the Danish prime minister said much the same thing.   The British, German and French leaders have expressed similar sentiments.

Because there are so many Muslims living amongst us today, politicians dare not risk upsetting them.   They need their votes.   A significant number of constituencies in the United Kingdom, for example, have very large Muslim populations, which could determine the outcome of the election scheduled in May.

The threat should be clear to anyone.   Western nations are asleep. But sleep does not last forever.   Eventually, it will be time to wake up.

Islam has been pushing against the West for centuries.   In modern times, the push of radical Islam has been going on since the fall of the Shah in 1979, half a lifetime ago.   When will the “King of the North” arise to fight back?

PRESIDENT’S SPEECH MISLEADS PEOPLE

 

islamic t shirt

Yesterday’s MEMRI newsletter showed a picture of young Indian Muslims outside of a mosque. They were all wearing ISIS t-shirts.

An accompanying article showed that the influence of ISIS is spreading. Four new jihadist groups are planning to wage holy war to bring about the caliphate in their own countries – Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and south Philippines. These lands are a long way from the main theatre of operations. The caliphate, however, must include all Muslims and would therefore stretch from North Africa through the Middle East and on into Muslim lands in the Far East. If they succeed they would be the greatest power on earth.

According to the British Daily Mail newspaper they have a five-year plan for global domination. The newly formed coalition against them says they have a three-year plan to bring them down.

islamic 5 year plan

President Obama spoke last night on the ISIS (ISIL according to the president and other spokesmen for the Administration) threat. He started by following the example of his two predecessors in deceiving the American people on exactly who is a Muslim and who isn’t. Mr. Obama said that “ISIS is not Islamic.” Then what is it? A branch of the Salvation Army?

Daniel Pipes of the Middle East forum proclaimed this statement “preposterous.”   (“ISIS is not Islamic?” September 10th)

Such statements only mislead the American people and their allies.

Not all Muslims are members of ISIS but where are the moderates? Are they out demonstrating against iSIS? Do “moderate” Muslim leaders come out and condemn the extremists? No, they don’t.

A Muslim friend of mine told me 45 years ago that the duty of every Muslim is to spread Islam wherever he goes. He was a new immigrant to England from India. Salman Rushdie, the author who was brought up Muslim but rejected the faith, told an audience in New York: “when a Muslim moves to Detroit from the Middle East, he is not here to take advantage of the American way of life to better himself; rather, he sees himself as part of the advance guard to spread Islam to America.” (paraphrased from memory)

Islam is an imperialist religion. Efraim Karsh’s “Islamic Imperialism” (2006) shows this clearly. It was from the very beginning. After Mohammed died in 632, it spread in all directions. Exactly one hundred years later, in 732, the Muslims had reached Paris and the whole of Europe lay before them. They were defeated by Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne. To the east, they had conquered the holy land. Persia soon fell to them. The Christian Byzantine Empire was continually pushed back until it fell in 1453. Whatever happened to all those Christians?

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there were further attempts to conquer Europe. The people of Vienna fought them off twice. Vienna is at the very heart of Europe so it shows how far the Muslim forces got.

Our leaders are not being honest with us when they continue to proclaim Islamic innocence. They continue to live in their idealistic multicultural world, when the evidence shows clearly that the experiment doesn’t work and that Islam is not compatible with western values!

WHICH ONE OF ITS PREDECESSORS WILL THE FOURTH REICH RESEMBLE?

eurozone

Germany is once again on top in Europe.

As an article in Britain’s “Daily Mail” showed some time ago, Angela Merkel has achieved in five years what the Kaiser and Hitler set out to do – and without firing a shot.

But now that the country is pre-eminent in Europe and effectively controls the eurozone, what is the new Germany going to be like?

Will it resemble one of the earlier reichs (empires)?

The first reich lasted almost a thousand years.  Named the Holy Roman Empire, it is generally dated from 962, when Otto the Great was crowned, but some will say it really began with Charlemagne, who was crowned by the pope on Christmas Day in the year 800.  It was dissolved in 1806 by Napoleon.

The second reich came together under Otto von Bismarck who united Germany in 1871.   It lasted until the abdication of the Kaiser in November 1918.

Hitler intended his third reich to last a thousand years, just like the first.  It was defeated in war only twelve years after he came to power.

Each of these reichs had its own unique character.

The Holy Roman Empire wasn’t holy, wasn’t Roman, and wasn’t really an empire.  It was rather a loose confederation of German states.  Some were directly ruled by the Emperor while others had their own king or duke but still owed some allegiance to the Emperor and the Empire.

The second reich came about when Prussia took over the rest of Germany following wars with Austria (1866) and France (1870-71).  Some territories kept their own kings, but all came under the authority of the greater empire ruled from Berlin by the Kaiser (Emperor), who appointed his own chancellors (prime ministers).  Under Kaiser Wilhelm II, this reich became very militaristic and eventually triggered World War I.

Most people are very aware of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler’s mad plan to impose German authority upon the world.  Fortunately, Hitler lost.  But the global conflict he started was far from a foregone conclusion.  Comparatively small Germany, with Japan and some other minor nations, took on the world and almost won.

Following World War Two, six nations in western Europe determined that conflicts like the two world wars should never happen again.  Their plan was to integrate the economies of the various European countries together in such a way that war became impossible.  In effect, Germany would be contained within a European federal system.

They signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957.  Today, there are 28 countries in the European Union, the world’s biggest single trading bloc.  The euro is now used more widely than any other currency.Treaty of Rome

On Germany’s Unification Day, German President Joachim Gauck called for Germany to play a greater role internationally, commensurate with its economic power.  Germany is now the fourth biggest economy in the world.  As the leader of the EU, which is the world’s biggest single market, its economic power is even greater.  But the country still is not flexing its muscles on the international scene.  The country’s figurehead president launched a debate by calling on Germany to become more involved.  He told the German people:  “Our country is not an island.”

A few days later, American Professor Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest magazine and Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College in New York State, explained in “The Local”  (Germany’s news in English) that “Germany is playing a larger role in the world than people appreciate.”

Professor Mead “urged Germany to lead a Holy Roman Empire rather than a Prussian conquest.”  “Are you going to have a King of Prussia or the Holy Roman Emperor?  The Holy Roman Emperor is the more sustainable.  It is the least work of the two.”

In effect, Professor Mead is calling for a loose confederation of nations in Europe.

However, although this might be the best long-term model, it seems more likely that a more centrally controlled system is forming.  The new “fourth reich” is more of an economic empire, but Germany is once again perceived as throwing her weight around.

“Former European Commissioner Günter Verheugen warns Germans not to act like know-it-alls when it comes to Europe.  In this interview with DW, he blames Chancellor Merkel for relations with Southern Europe turning sour.”   Mr. Verheugen called for “Germany to avoid arrogance on euro crisis.” (Deutsche Welle, October 14th)

Meanwhile, international financier George Soros, says: “Europe’s nightmare is getting worse and only Germany can make it stop.”  (Matthew Boesler, Business Insider Australia, October 2nd.)

While the world remains focused on the American debt crisis, Germany quietly goes about its business of restructuring Europe’s economies and uniting the continental countries that form the eurozone into a closer economic union with itself at the head.

Bible scholars have long understood that a revived Roman Empire will appear on the world stage immediately prior to Christ’s return.  While the United States is not involved in prophesied end-time events, this union of ten nations will play a major role.  You can read about it in Revelation, chapter 17.