Category: THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

D.C. POWER

If I were the devil, the place for me would be Washington DC.

If, according to Scripture, Satan wants to rule the world, then the obvious hang-out, besides all the sources of disinformation and entertainment, would be the command center of the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth. I would claw my way to the seat of power, lying, cheating and scheming my way, and I wouldn’t care who I brought down to ruin in the process.

Only this can explain the madness and frenzy surrounding the presidency of the United States.

RAPTURE 15(b): SUPPER TIME

Greetings dear reader. Here’s a continuation of my post on the Bride of Christ in relation to the rapture…

There’s some disagreement as to the actual timing of the marriage supper mentioned in Revelation chapter 19. Is it immediately after the rapture, when the tribulation is about to commence; just before the middle of the tribulation when things will really begin to heat up on the earth, or is it towards the end, just before the physical return of Christ? Is it even after the return of Christ to the earth? 

220px-The_Four_and_Twenty_Elders_(William_Blake)

We’re introduced to the wedding supper by an angel in verse 9 of chapter 19. He speaks immediately after a great multitude in heaven declares that the “wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready” (verses 6-8). It seems to be a natural conclusion that this multitude in heaven, before Christ rides out of heaven on his white horse, praising God for the wedding and the wedding supper, must indeed be the raptured Church, meaning that the rapure occurred before or at least during the tribulation. But when we read the chapter a little more carefully we find some serious problems for this conviction, because the wedding supper is announced at some time after the destruction of the “great prostitute”, or false religion, is celebrated in verses 1 to 3. It’s the Antichrist and his ten henchmen “kings” who are the ones to destroy the prostitute:

They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire” (Revelation 17:16).

To think that the reference to the supper in chapter 19 is a random interjection; an “Oh by the way-don’t forget that the wedding will be before this” sort of reference to something which already happened years ago, and that it is not at all related to its position in the dialogue, is a hopeful assumption without reason.

Since Antichrist can only rule for the last three and a half years of the tribulation (13:5 with 17:12) and his destruction of the “great prostitute” is announced just before the wedding and the wedding supper are also announced, it would seem logical to deduce that the wedding supper of the Lamb is being announced after the mid point of the proposed seven year tribulation, because this is when Antichrist and the ten will gain power. There is therefore no certainty that the bride-if this is the bride in chapter 19- has been in heaven for the entirety of the assumed seven-year period.

There’s also no certainty that the bride is in heaven at all when the wedding and the wedding supper are being proclaimed. As the bride is merely mentioned in chapter 19 before Christ rides in glory to the earth, it’s assumed that she’s been in heaven for the entire tribulation, and that the supper is either occurring at this point or has already taken place. But is she actually, really there at all, even in chapter 19?

A great multitude shouts:

Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready” (19:7).

The multitude is speaking not of itself but is speaking in the third person: “his bride has made herself ready”. The KJV also uses the word “herself”, and doesn’t say “We have made ourselves ready”. In other words, the multitude seems to be shouting about other people, not about themselves or even those to whom they’re shouting. The bride is not located or pointed out in this chapter 19 scene. John does not say, “And behold, I saw the bride of the Lamb”. The wedding supper event is not described at all: it’s not in progress. If it’s already been held, it seems almost inconceivable that it hasn’t been at least mentioned or noticed by John. And how many grooms would have a wedding supper with his bride and then take her straight out onto the battlefield?

The angel tells John to write, “Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb” (verse 9).

We’re reading about a celebration of the invitation to the wedding supper, not the wedding supper itself. Again, if John was living through these events in real-time, it seems he would surely have described or at least mentioned the supper, if it had already been held, particularly as Revelation is written “For the churches” (Revelation 22:16). If Jesus Christ was seeking to reassure and inform the Church of his grand plan, why is there no description of the marriage supper?

Indeed, had the supper happened during the events of the tribulation, and since John was supposedly “raptured” at its commencement, he should have been a vital part of it. He would surely say something like, “And behold, I saw the wedding supper of the Lamb, and feasted with my fellow disciples”. Instead, though the bride has “made herself ready” in chapter 19, she’s nowhere to be seen, and her groom is on the way out the door to slaughter his enemies and gather his elect!

ARE THE ELECT NOT INVITED?

Context is always vitally important in interpretation of scripture. The context here in chapter 19 and the next chapter is that the great whore has been destroyed, the wedding supper of the Lamb “has come”, and the Lamb himself, Jesus Christ, is about to turn roaring lion and burst forth onto the world in the most spectacular event of the ages. He’s going to defeat his enemies, then he’s going to send angels to gather his elect from the four winds.

This gathering of the elect is described in the Olivet Discourse as happening upon the glorious, visible return of Jesus. Is it possible that Jesus Christ would hold that wedding supper without inviting his elect- those who had been bravely and faithfully opposing the Antichrist and refusing his mark, upholding the testimony of Jesus, and gaining great victory over the beast, the false prophet and the world? Would Jesus Christ really hold that wedding supper without them? I personally very much doubt it. We’re told that those who are invited are blessed (19:9). Are the elect-those who have withstood Antichrist, not blessed? Could they not be at least a part of his Church? They are, after all “his” elect (Matthew 24:31). And remember that once the groom in the parable of the ten virgins had taken his bride, the door was shut and no-one else was allowed to the wedding: there was only one collection of the bride by the groom-not two.

Could it be that the “elect” are Christ’s bride? Could it be that the gathering of his elect which we read about in the Olivet Discourse is the point at which the resurrection takes place and believers still living are gathered, as Paul shared in his first letter to the Thessalonians?

The entire issue of the bride thickens in chapter 21 of Revelation: it isn’t quite so straightforward as we think it is before we dive into the subject. Paul spoke of the marriage between a man and a woman as representing the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians chapter 5). He called the relationship a “mystery”, just as he called the rapture a mystery. We’ve seen how, in Revelation chapter 19 the “bride” has made herself ready for marriage, but when we get to chapter 21 we’re confronted with something of a challenge to our view of the bride, and also to the timing of that wedding.

It is after the new heavens and new earth appear at the start of chapter 21 that we find another mention of a bride. Here the bride is a city, or is it actually the Church metaphorically described as a city: the New Jerusalem? This is a difficult passage, because we evangelicals think of the New Jerusalem as a literal city which we will live in. But when an angel tells John that he will show him “the bride, the wife of the Lamb”, he shows him not a multitude of people, but a seemingly literal, physical city, with gates, walls, a river, trees, and all kinds of decorations. But how can the bride of Christ, the Church, made up of millions of believers, be seen as a literal city? Are both somehow synonymous, so that the Church along with the city are the bride? Or is there perhaps no literal city at all? It seems unlikely that there will be no cities in God’s creation for eternity: why could there not be a literal New Jerusalem? And if we look further into the chapter we see more reference to apparently literal, physical objects and actions. For example, “…its gates will never be shut” (verse 25). How can this be describing people?

It seems that this appearance of the New Jerusalem, which is described as being both “like” a bride (21:2) and as the bride herself (22:9) must be a thousand years after the glorious return of Jesus to the earth and after his thousand year reign (21:1-2). Each is seen by John to descend out of heaven at this time. Perhaps the bride has been based in heaven for the millennium but is transferred to the new earth after it. This is obviously a subject for debate, research and prayer: it is for now its own “mystery” which will only become clear when the time is right.

When does the bride make her first actual appearance, rather than being just spoken about? Is it in Revelation chapter 4, when John arrives in heaven to see the events of the tribulation? No. Is it in chapter 19, before the conquering, vengeful Christ rides out of heaven? No, it’s in chapter 21. It’s after Antichrist and the false prophet are thrown into the Lake of Fire (19:19-20); after those beheaded in the tribulation are raised (20:4); after the first resurrection (20:5) and after our introduction to the thousand year reign (20:6-10).

It’s true that the bride does indeed come out of heaven, but only just in time for the beginning of eternity after the millennium. In verse 2 of chapter 21 the city-the bride- appears, and she has been “prepared”:

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband”.

Remember that the bride of chapter 19 was also “prepared”, but she made no appearance at that point:

…his bride has made herself ready” (19:7).

It’s only when the New Jerusalem appears, after the millennium, that we’re told God is now living with his people:

Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them” (21:3).

THANK YOU DONALD TRUMP!

Thank you Mr. President! You continue to blow out of the water the false, empty claim that you only care for the rich…

serveimage

I’ve never purchased my own health insurance in the US-I’ve been blessed with good health, and I haven’t had the money to afford it. So when our last president (you know who) introduced the “affordable care act” and declared that failure to take part and pay for insurance would incur penalties, I didn’t take part, expecting to pay the penalties which I knew would cost less than the premiums. Early plans by some Democrats were to jail those who didn’t comply. And they accuse Trump of being a fascist! To give President Obama credit, I don’t think he intended to enforce that.

This tax season I found on my tax return a question about whether I had purchased health insurance. Expecting to pay Obama’s penalties, I found instead the following notice:

On January 20, 2017 President Trump signed an executive order called, Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal. This executive order allows you to file a tax return without paying a penalty even if the tax family did not have minimum essential cover-age) or show exemptions from coverage. By law taxpayers without coverage and without an exception are subject to a penalty, but because of this order the IRS allows you to instruct the tax software not to calculate it and not to include it in your return.

Thank you President Trump. You continue to fulfill my expectations-a rare accomplishment for a politician…

RUSSIA: FRIEND OR FOE?

My old friends in the UK, along with the bulk of their fellow countrymen who are similarly misled by a biased media, must be very confused about international relations these days…

Heart

They were convinced for decades that Russia was being picked on and unfairly accused of many things by warmongering Republicans in the US. They were certain that the Democrats, as the Labour Party in the UK, were the level-headed friends of the Russians, whereas the Republicans obviously wanted to nuke Russia out of existence at the earliest possible opportunity. Now they hear from the Democrats and their media that the hated new Republican president Donald Trump has been cozying up to the Russians, and that the Dem’s are using this as a reason to attempt to annul the last general election. Behold one of the last-gasp hopes to taint and weaken the victor.

Of course, there’s no actual evidence whatsoever that Russian hacking made the slightest difference to the vote count in the election. In fact, top intelligence officials, including Obama’s, have stated as much (note 1). President Obama himself-along with Mrs. Clinton-declared before the election that it was ridiculous and democracy-threatening of Trump to even suggest the election could be rigged. CNN proudly displayed Obama’s comment during the election campaign that Trump’s rigging assertion was “dangerous”:

“I want everybody to pay attention here. This is dangerous,” Obama said at a Hillary for America event in Miami Gardens, Florida.
“Because when you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people’s mind about the legitimacy of our elections, that undermines our democracy. Then you are doing the work of our adversaries for them” (see note 2).

But of course, such warnings were only made when the Democrats were convinced they were going to win-there’s been no such warning since they lost.

Does it make sense that Putin’s Russia would want to help someone like Trump-a Repbublican president who intends to make America’s military bigger than ever before-become president? Wouldn’t Putin rather have the weaker candidate-the friend of socialism?

Oh dear, what are British and American socialists supposed to think now: are the Ruskies friends or enemies? Please Mr Schumer, for goodness sake make up your superior mind and clarify this for us plebeians out here…

NOTE 1

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/01/05/clapper-no-evidence-russians-changed-votes-in-presidential-election-n2267531

http://freebeacon.com/politics/directors-rogers-comey-say-no-votes-changed-due-hacking/

NOTE 2

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/obama-donald-trump-rigged-election/index.html

TALKING POLITICS

Some believers tell the rest of us that we shouldn’t be involved in politics: we shouldn’t speak politics, and we shouldn’t run for office. That’s just “worldly” stuff, they say. Thank goodness George Washington and his peers didn’t see it the same way. I don’t either…so here I go…

microphonesymbol

Those actors and other big names currently attempting their own little revolution in the US should either hold their peace (was that polite enough?) and then run for office, or they should leave the country as they promised to before the election, and go somewhere where their brand of politics reigns, like Iran or North Korea.

If they don’t like the rules of the election, why didn’t they say something about the rules before the election, when they were convinced that their side was going to win? When you play a game with someone-let’s say a board game-you begin with the understanding that there are rules to be followed. You don’t start shouting about the rules and throw the board across the room when you lose. If you do, you can’t “legitimately” (to use a popular word these days) claim that you won the game. Both parties knew about the electoral college before the US election, which is why both candidates campaigned in such a way as to win the electoral college, with the media claiming that Trump had “no path to 270”. One candidate won, the other lost,  according to pre-agreed rules.

real-time_mri_-_speaking_english_ogv

I received a letter from that nice Inland Revenue Service about my lack of health coverage, and about how much money I’ll have to give them as a penalty. True, it’s my fault I didn’t obey the law-the rules-and sign up. But my impression was that Mr Obama’s intention in the “Affordable Care Act” was to help those who couldn’t afford coverage, not to slap huge “penalties” (fines) on them.

I’ve learned that many who have coverage end up paying large deductibles when they do get ill, and those who have government assistance to pay for the required coverage are only covered for the most basic procedures. For example, the government will pay to pull your tooth out, but not for a root canal. It is, as justice Kennedy declared enabling the Act to pass into law, a “TAX”, and governments can legally tax all they want. Somehow this particular tax was massaged and shoved down the public’s throat by dressing it up as compassion for the poor. I know from experience that free treatment or reduced costs were already available before the Act to those who couldn’t afford treatment, and that huge numbers of immigrants-including illegals-were also able to take advantage of those benefits. There was no “penalty” for those who didn’t have coverage, and nobody went untreated. Ergo, the Act actually made things worse, not better. Oh, the intricacies of politics!

Politics affect us all. And in a nation with the benefit, blessing and privilege of voting-of at least having a little say in who runs the country-believers should take an active interest, for many reasons. We have the ability to influence how millions of people are treated; what kind of society we have; whether godly standards are implemented or if immorality will dismantle our families and our homes; whether money will be used wisely or wasted; whether or not the nation and the world is secure; whether or not we have real freedom of speech or a creeping belief system attempting to shut down our minds and our way of life.

Yes, actors can say what they want-just as we all (in theory) can. That’s thanks to those of today and those of past generations who’ve shaped a relatively free society, by prayerfully getting involved, instead of ignoring the world they lived in.

Microphone symbol by Juan Jimenez