The Judgment of America
The Kings of America
A lot of people have been asking me what I think about the current situation in Washington and what are the implications of this situation for ourselves as a nation. And so I wanted to speak to that issue because this is not about politics really, it's about us as a people. So I would like to make a few comments about that.
I think one of the things that is very apparent to all of us is the fact that all the kings of this nation are gathered in this process. In our nation, we recognize three sitting kings. The powers of the government are divided into three parts and each part is presided over by what are, essentially, kings. You know, we normally think of kings as monarchs in the old and traditional sense. But a king is anyone who rules - and we have three supreme areas of rule. They are independent and the rulers of each are independent even though there are built-in balances and checks between the three. So, we do have three sets of kings. We have kings in respect to the legislative branch. We have kings in respect to the judiciary. And we have kings in respect to the executive. And so, in this process, it ought to strike us pretty squarely that this is about the judgment of a nation.
God has gathered all the kings. I was sitting at home watching as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Rehnquist, was brought into the chambers of the U.S. Senate. He came in by invitation and he was escorted in by a bipartisan escort of Senators. And, when he came in, the oldest member of the Senate, who was presiding at the time over the process of the rule making and the establishment of procedure, got up from his throne, greeted the king of the Supreme Court, and ushered him to the throne to sit in judgment.
Then God had the Senators, the judges who would judge, sign their names in a book of record. And all the kings were present. Very formal. And the one to be judged is none other than the other king. Sometimes our eyes are so jaded and our senses so dulled by the proliferation of lawlessness that we have forgotten how God sees things. All the kings were present. The kings in respect to one side of the legislative branch, from the House, are the prosecutors. They've brought a charge. Some of the kings have brought a charge against one of the kings. And all the other kings sit in judgment whether as a judge or as judges.
The Sovereignty of the People
Now, what is the subject to be judged? The subject to be judged is the condition of the nation. For this President perfectly reflects what has happened to the nation in fifty years. Now, if you think that this is melodrama, here is the defense that is set forth of the President. I watched as Nicole Seligman, a brilliant lawyer - they obviously selected her for her adept and deft understanding of the Constitution and the issues constitutional. She defends the President in this way: She says, first, "Sovereignty is in the people." Now, you have heard me say this before, that this nation never established a foundation of godliness. It acknowledged that there was a Creator, an unspecified Creator, from whom the citizenry received inalienable rights. But it clearly states that the largest bundle of rights, and, therefore the right of sovereignty, is with the people.
When you have sovereignty with the people, you do not have sovereignty with God. Sovereignty does not come from God - it comes from the consent of the governed. We have so stated it in the highest declarations of our law. By the consent of the governed, the government exists. Not by the permission of God, not as delegates to do the will of God upon the earth, therefore, supreme power residing in God - this is about supreme power to govern residing in the people. And the only acknowledgment of God is that man has, under the terms of citizenry, he has certain inalienable rights because they are endowed in that manner by their Creator, whoever that Creator is.
Now, Miss Seligman rose up to defend the President and she reminded the Justice of the Supreme Court and the Senate of this fact. She began her defense of the President with that foundational fact. And that is, that the people are the Sovereign. And the question of whether or not his conduct is impeachable or whether or not the issues of impeachment or the articles of impeachment should be agreed with has to do with whether or not his conduct so aggrieved the people. It's a master stroke because she understands the condition of the people. It's a master stroke of defense. She shifted it away from whether or not the Congress has an independent right to judge this matter or whether or not they're simply to echo the sentiments of the people. She brought the highest pressure to bear on them which is the pressure of the electorate.
I listened with rapt attention to her defense and she fully and squarely brought in the issue of sovereignty - sovereignty of the people. And she cited Madison and she cited various and sundry Supreme Court Justices. She cited various Presidents and she said, "The issue before us is not your private sense of what the President did and whether or not, in your private sense, that was wrong. The issue before you is whether or not his conduct jeopardized the well being of the Republic."
Now, here's the dilemma for the prosecution. Whether by genuine concern for righteousness or political expediency, the prosecution, comprised of Republicans, are saying, "This conduct is wrong." But they're left with saying, "The conduct is wrong" based upon something like the obstruction of justice. And so the defense says, "Everyone understands that, at times, persons will act improperly. But, there's a question as to whether or not a private matter, like adultery, arises to the same level of serious concern as, say, murder or treason." And Dale Bumpers, former Senator from Arkansas, passionately presented that case and said, "This man's conduct is indefensible morally but he ought not to be impeached because everyone knows that a man will lie, to protect his wife and family and reputation, if he commits adultery." In folksy, erudite style, he spoke that message.
The Real Issues
It is my view that the President will not likely be convicted because the true matter cannot be presented to the American people. The true matter is this: Does the conduct of this man, of this President, so offend, not the people, but a holy God? And his role, as the king of this nation, allows that conduct to be reflective of a people so that he must be removed and the nation called to repentance that God might have mercy. That's the issue. But that issue cannot be presented because our laws and our procedures forbid it. There was a time when this issue would have been presented in that fashion. But in fifty years, the Constitution of the United States has been interpreted to mean everything but the presence of God or the acknowledgment of God. Now, this, body of Christ, is the issue.
We have, under the cover and cloak of lawfulness, become among the most lawless of peoples. First, we said, "No" to God in our public institutions. And there was undertaken and there continues to be a campaign to remove any reference to God in our public life. It's systematic, it's deliberate and it's ongoing. Even relatively empty symbols such as a nativity scene in a public park has been the subject of Supreme Court debates. Ten Commandments on courthouse lawns have been such debates. Symbols of the Christian faith in state seals has been this debate. Prayer in public school has been this debate. On and on. Any reference to God or Christ has been the subject of much litigation for fifty years.
But we didn't stop there and that's not the extent of this deliberate, systematic determined attack upon even the formal incidences of righteousness. By that I mean those things that, from the point of view of one who hears God and walks with God, would be considered, at best, second and third- rate points of interest for us. We really are not concerned whether or not there are nativity scenes in public parks. That's hardly a representation of Christ about which we can be excited. Whether or not the Ten Commandments are on the courthouse lawn is not something over which we are to fight. Whether or not there is prayer in public school is not a matter over which we should spend any energy. Because we understand that a relationship to God is a matter of the spirt and not of the flesh. And these are symbols for the restraint of the flesh and do very little, if anything, toward the establishment of the spiritual man or the spiritual mind. (see Col. 2:23)
But to the world, these are the trumpeted symbols of the Christian faith. And to uninformed, soulish, carnal expressions of the faith, they are the battleground. They ought not to be but they are. So the world engages us on that plane if that's the field of battle we choose. And from their standpoint, it is the battle to be fought. What it does, more properly, is that it explains the true condition of national life in relationship to God. But this has been going on for fifty years - fifty years within this nation. This has been going on for two thousand years, easily, in the world because of the spirit of antichrist - but I was merely speaking now of national events.
Sarah Weddington, a number of years back, argued a case called Roe v. Wade in which she argued to learned justices that there was a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment that would permit a woman quote unquote "sovereignty over her own body" so that she could do whatever she wills with her own body. That was the doorway through which the demon of blood was allowed into the nation in the form of the legal right of abortion. Now, the dis-ingenuity of the Supreme Court in this matter is appalling for, on one hand, a fourteen or fifteen year old girl might obtain an abortion without the consent of her parents or even letting them know about it. But the same child cannot get drunk without her parents being charged with dereliction of duty toward a minor. You can commit murder but you can't drink alcohol. So much for such lofted and vaunted rights of privacy. It's hypocrisy. But, it's legal. And because it's legal, it's right.
And the Bible clearly declares God's great displeasure against the sin of sodomy. Sodom, if you remember, was a city in the plains of Zoar that was destroyed along with five other cities for the practice, for the evil practice of homosexuality. Jude wrote, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 7) But it's legal within this nation.
Now, the point of this is not a political agenda. I am not a right-wing conservative. I am a representative of the kingdom of God. I'm telling you plainly that, if you don't see these things, you cannot understand what is going on. What is going on is, here is a king who has been raised since the drift, since the nation rose up and said, "No" to God and has continued to do so, and here is the king who represents that generation of lawless, God-less people.
Now, whereas it's his sin, he is the king and he is therefore representative. What is going on is a trial by representation because the sins of the nation are being publicly brought forth to be tried by the nation to see whether or not the nation has retained God in its knowledge. That's what's going on. Now, the issue before us is whether or not the nation has become lawless. Lawlessness is not the absence of law. Lawlessness is the absence of the standard of righteousness within the law. The Bible describes lawlessness at the end of the time of the judges as when "every man did what was right in his own eyes." (Jdgs. 21:25) And that's when God gave them a king though it was not in His heart to do so - a type of His giving the world over to the rule of the man of lawlessness.
Lawlessness is not the failure to do what's right. It's the definition of what is right. When you do what is right in your own eyes, then you are the standard of righteousness. What is the case for the defense of the President? What is right in the eyes of the people. What is right in our own eyes.
The Basest of Men
This trial is the next step in our judgment. The record of our condition before God as a nation is being established by our own hands. This is what's going on. I believe everyone who has the spirit of prophecy in them has been stirred by this thing whether or not you know why you've been stirred. You see major, formal, deliberate processes going on and you know in your knower that this means something more than whether or not the President will be convicted. You know absolutely in the depth of your being - you know it. Now, I'm telling you why. The record must first be certified against us as a nation and the certification must come by our own hands.
Some of you may remember comments I have made earlier about - I know I spoke this on television - what the Lord showed me the night that the President was re-elected. I was walking back to my bedroom and, I have an office in a room just off from there, and I wasn't really sleepy so I ducked into my office and I sat down to read. And I was immediately directed to Daniel 4:17. And it said, "This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He will, and sets up over it the basest of men." (Dan. 4:17)
And when it said, "the basest of men," I immediately knew what God's description of this President was: "The basest of men." I also spoke about this about a month after that in Texas. Shortly after that, the first of these instances, the Paula Jones incident, arose. That night, I had asked the Lord, "Lord, why is this so?" And He said, "I've given this man to you for your judgment as a nation." Now, at the time, I had no idea what it meant by "for the judgment of our nation" so I assumed - you know, when God hasn't told you, I guess it's not wrong to assume but when He does tell you, you must change your mind. We will always be curious. Daniel wanted to know. He wrote down all these things and he wanted to know and the Lord said, "Go your way. You'll sleep in the dust of the earth but in the end of the days, you'll be raised." (see Dan. 12:8-9,13) So, it's not wrong to want to know. We are not robots. God tells us something and we don't understand, we'll usually supply God with all the logic He needs.
But when He shows it to you plainly, then you scrap all of what you concocted before the light of the truth came. But that night, He told me that this man was given to us for our judgment. So, I assumed he would get us more involved in globalism and the like. And I've been watching that but he hadn't done a lot of that. He's been busy doing other things, I guess. But the Lord told me an odd thing that night. He said, "I waited until you had re-elected him."
The Lord told me that He had waited until the President had been re-elected by the people because we had to confirm our choice so that we would not say it was an accident. And He waited until the second term because we had chosen and we had chosen again. I'm well satisfied that this has absolutely nothing to do with Republican and Democrat, okay? This is not about being Republican or Democrat. And it really doesn't have a whole lot to do with the persons themselves.
What We Deserve
It has to do with what we have become and the offense that we have become to a holy God. Did we think that we could spill a river of blood and God not take note? Are we so foolish as to think that this is merely Democratic or Republican? Did we think that the least able to resist this murderous onslaught, that Almighty God would not hear the cry of their blood from the ground? Did we not think that? Did we think that, through the streets of our cities, the same parade as took place in Sodom could occur and the Almighty God just not be affected? How, how, how incredibly stupid we must be to think that God is mocked. Who do we think we are? Nations were destroyed for far less than we have regularly flaunted in the face of the Almighty God and we think after fifty years something was not going to be called forth in heaven? Who do we think we are?
I hear these foolish men getting up on TV and saying things like, "God owes America" because it's done one thing or another. God, the Almighty, owes man? No. This is a careful God who judges when the matter is ripe. The cup of our iniquity overflows. But even in His care, He brought us to a place where we could choose and choose again the representative through whom we would be judged. And we did. We said, "This man is us. We do not care about righteousness. We care about money. Leave us alone. We are concerned about money." That's our national god to which we will bow. Can you begin to imagine? When the season of our judgment comes after the certification of the record, do you want to know what will be the first of our gods to fall? We are so long in the neglect of the things of God that what could be plainly known is a mystery now to us. The record of our iniquities, of our sins, is being certified in our own hand and by our own words. We, the people.
What has taken place behind the cover of the Supreme Court has been the removal of the standard of righteousness from the law. That took place and has been taking place for fifty years. By now, the standard is gone. And these kings have done what was right in their own eyes for decades now. And I cite you just some of the more garish examples such as finding a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment that would permit you to murder fifty or more million of our most defenseless citizens. That has happened by the permission of the august body of rulers and we think there's a standard of righteousness in the law? We are now shown that a standard of righteousness in the law - if there were a standard of righteousness in the law and it were to be asserted - those asserting that standard would be laughed out of the Congress.
If one of the prosecutors stood up and said, "The issue before this nation is whether or not the adulterous conduct of the king over this nation should stand in light of the standard of the holy God. Our nation has been set for judgment by the Almighty and we would call this nation to repent. It must remove its reproach by removing its king and it must then call a time of fasting and prayer that peradventure God might have mercy and forgive our sins for he is but the representative of a nation laden with iniquity,"; and "We resolve that we would go back through our laws and right the serious wrongs that have been committed against the standard of righteousness." What would be the result if one of the prosecutors were to stand up and say these things?
What then do you think is the record against us? If such a thing cannot be done - and how many of us seriously think that this declaration of repentance can occur in this nation? And even if we think such a thing is possible, how many of us think it will be done? I hope any who think this would turn out well to be right - for all our sakes. But we are in a place where the record against us is being made and certified by our own hands. When it is done, when it is done, God will begin to judge according to the record. Have you been wondering when the market will fall? It's not just a vicarious judgment. It's a deliberate judgment because we are moving forward in a most orderly fashion, for God is a God of order.
That's what I see that's happening now as we observe what's going on. That's what I see happening. Was God to be recognized as God? That was always the issue. The judgment is this: "Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people." (Prov. 14:34)
The Global Picture
Now, this is a prelude to a greater matter. This is only the beginning of a greater matter. Most of the rest of the nations of the world are already lawless and without any standard of righteousness in their laws. There will come a man of lawlessness (2 Ths. 2:3) because he will have removed the ancient landmarks. (see Job 24:1-2)
The way for the man of lawlessness must be paved by nations falling into the abyss of lawlessness. He could not rule so easily if that were not the case. The next set of global events will actually be the greatest part of our judgment. We will be removed from such a place of priority among the nations. See, God raised up nations to do His will. History is not the story of disjointed events and nations lurching forward into the opportunities of destiny. History is His story among the nations.
You can see history in one of two ways: Either a series of events that largely are unpredictable and flukish or you could see the inexorable move of God through the history of men and nations. I choose to believe the latter because I choose to believe the Scripture that says, "This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He will," (and, in our case,) "and sets up over it the basest of men." (Dan. 4:17 - emphasis added)
To the secular, to Arnold Toynbee and Will Durant and other writers of history, they're observers of events and chroniclers without understanding of the mind behind history. But we who know God look for history to signify the nature of God moving through the affairs of mankind. God raised up the Roman empire and gave Pax Romana and Roman roads because there was a time when God would have the gospel be taken to the Gentiles. He raised up Paul and others to take the Good News to the far-flung reaches of the Roman empire because it was the time that God was going to the Gentiles. And Roman peace, Roman law, and, more particularly, Roman roads permitted it. The Romans took great pride in their removal of local bandits. They were greatly proud of Pax Romana, that you could travel anywhere in the Roman world because of the guarantee of Roman peace. And God had it so, that the Gospel might not be waylaid by evil bandits along the roads and waterways. Roman galleys regularly fought pirates in the Mediterranean to permit shipping to come and commerce by shipping uninterrupted.
God allowed the British empire to rise up in its season for exactly the same thing. The Roman empire enjoyed a long moment in the sun because it pleased God and only because it pleased God. And the British empire enjoyed the same favor for the same reason. It pleased God to reach into the domain of Kali, into the domain of the various gods and demi-gods of China and Japan and the Far East and to accomplish that by Pax Britannia, British peace, into the deep recesses of Africa, and into the wilderness of the Americas - to allow the gospel of the kingdom to come, essentially, into the whole earth. Pax Britannia permitted that.
Then after World War II, Pax Americana allowed for the evangelizing of the modern world. Nations rise because of the mercies of God. I remember the words of the poet laureate of England on the fiftieth anniversary of the rule of Queen Victoria. Rudyard Kipling wrote, "God of our Fathers, known of old, Lord of our far-flung battle lines, beneath whose awful hand we hold dominion over palm and pine, Lord God of hosts, be with us yet, lest we forget, lest we forget." How true the words of Kipling are for the American kingdom in our time.
"Lord God of hosts, be with us yet, lest we forget, lest we forget." For the nation that does not retain God in its knowledge condemns itself to an existence without God which is not to be the envy of the nations. When we have been removed from our place in the sun, we will be put adrift among the nations of the earth in a condition of lawlessness, suitable for rule over by a man of lawlessness. These are very sober times.