The Politics of the Last Days
Vol: 60 Issue: 25 Monday, September 25, 2006
The Omega Letter pays close attention to politics because one cannot separate politics from Bible prophecy and still be able to rightly divide the Word as it pertains to the last days. Bible prophecy not only details the coming of Christ for His Church and His eventual return at the end of the Tribulation Period, but also outlines how it all comes about.
Bible prophecy for the last days looks at it from both the earthly and the heavenly perspectives. The coming government of the anti-christ rests on three ‘pillars’ his eventual control of the political, economic and religious aspects of human society.
Those are the ‘signs of the times’ given us so we could know when ‘it is near, even at the doors’, according to the Word.
There are other signs — Jesus also said; And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. (Luke 21:26-27)
But these signs deal mostly with the Tribulation itself and are given for the Jews (and those who are saved during the Tribulation Period) that will experience the full force of them as they unfold. They apply to the Age of Grace only in that they begin to come to pass during the Church Age:
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. (Luke 21:28)
But when asked what would be the sign of His coming, the FIRST thing Jesus said was, Take heed that no man deceive you. Deception and politics go together like peanut butter and jelly.
There is a story about a Senator who dies and finds himself standing before the Pearly Gates. St Peter gives him a choice between heaven and hell. The Senator looks around at Heaven, which is kind of bland, angels sitting on clouds playing harps, etc. Then he looks around in Hell, where he finds gambling, parties, country clubs and the like, with everybody having a great time.
Returning to the Pearly Gates, he tells St Peter that he chooses Hell. So be it, intones St Peter and the Senator is whisked back to Hell. Only this time, it is the REAL Hell, with demons, fire and brimstone and eternal agony. The Senator looks up Satan and says, What gives? I was here yesterday and it was an eternal party.
The Devil smiles and says to the Senator, Yesterday, we were just campaigning. Today you voted.
While the Olivet Discourse deals primarily with the Tribulation Period itself, the Apostle Paul focuses much of his attention on the last days of the Church Age. Paul said that ‘in the last days, perilous times shall COME.’ He wasn’t speaking of his own age, but the ‘last days’ which ‘shall come’.
He described the social conditions of an age characterized by the fact that men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (2 Timothy 3:2-5)
It is an uncomfortably accurate description of American politics and in particular, the politics of the American Left, and more particularly, the politics of the American Left in recent years. It makes the Left go ballistic when somebody says it out loud, but the best they can do to refute it is to say the Right exhibits many of the same characteristics.
And to be fair, they are correct. The Right does share many of the same characteristics but they vie for the same votes. That doesn’t change the fact the Left not only displays them ALL, they campaign on them.
It is the Left that campaigns on truce-breaking, ‘alternative’ families, opposing public expressions of Christianity, liberal social ‘reforms’ abortion on demand, legalized euthanasia, self-love, etc., mainly by accusing the Right of being too rigid, while claiming for themselves the high moral ground, even going so far as to co-opt Jesus into their campaign strategy.
Read Paul’s description. Take them one at a time. Which of those characteristics can you honestly say does not fit into the Left’s platform? Forget about Republican-Democrat labels. Look at the world view Paul describes and apply it where it fits the best.
The Democrats claim the Repubicans aren’t much better. And that is their defense. I agree with them. It isn’t that one side is not much better. It is that both sides are so close that the argument can be made in the first place. But not identical. When it comes to hitting ALL the points, the Left wins, hands down.
Watching Bill Clinton go ballistic on Chris Wallace during a Fox News interview, Paul’s outline kept reverberating in my head. Particularly 2nd Timothy 3:6-7: For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The former president accused Wallace of ‘sandbagging’ him by asking, several minutes into the interview, if he [Clinton] felt he had ‘done enough’ to get Osama bin Laden. But that question came in a context. The interview was ostensibly to be about the good Clinton has done since leaving office.
Wallace asked Clinton: In a recent issue of the New Yorker you say you re sixty years old and you re worried about how many lives you can save Is that what drives you in your effort to help?
It seemed a fair and respectful question, followed up by, Someone asked you he asked you if you could do more good as a former president than as a president and you said only if I live a long time.
Clinton said in reply, Yes, that’s true, from which Wallace followed up with, how do you compare the powers of being in office and what you can do out of office?
In his answer, Clinton compared some of his policies to those of George Bush, in the process bringing up the 9/11 attacks. Once that came up, Wallace then asked asked the next logical one;
When we announced that you were going to be on FoxNews Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President?
Clinton’s face turned red. He began hurling accusations. He accused ABC of being part of a ‘right wing conservative’ conspiracy. He accused Fox of being part of the same conspiracy. He attacked Chris Wallace specifically, claiming Wallace did FOX s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. . . . And you ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you re so clever
Wallace, clearly taken aback, tried to change the subject away from Clinton and bin Laden and BACK to the original topic, the Clinton Global Initiative.
Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative? Wallace asked him on THREE separate occasions.
But Clinton would have none of it. He kept steering back to how he had been the subject of a right wing conservative smear job, blaming the media, the 9/11 Commission, the ‘neo-cons’ and pretty much anybody who wondered why he didn’t do in eight years what he blamed Bush for not doing in eight months.
His angry performance, right down to pointing his finger in Wallace’s face, brought to mind ANOTHER eerily identical performance in January 1998, when, red-faced and angry, he pointed his finger at reporters and said, I did not have sex with ‘that woman’, Monica Lewinksy . . .
It was Clinton who sandbagged Wallace, and he did a pretty good job. Clinton never did go back to the original topic of the interview, his post-presidential accomplishments, despite three attempts on Wallace’s part to do so.
He never intended to.
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
And it is working. Just like it did in 1998. This morning, the liberal Left took up his banner. It’s all a right-wing conspiracy.
Perilous times, indeed.