The Presidential Election 2008
Nov 05, 2008
I try to comment on governmental matters with a non-political and non-partisan viewpoint, staying within the areas of biblical morality and prophecy.
Yesterday was America's election of the 44th president, that is, the 43rd man to become president. President Clinton was the 42nd president; President Bush is the 42nd man to be president. Grover Cleveland was the 22nd president from 1885-89 and also the 24th president from 1893-1897. So George W. Bush has been known as the 43rd president, but he is actually the 42nd man to be president.
I have felt for many years that the 42nd would mark a major turning point in American history, primarily based upon the meaning of the number 42.
Israel had 41 camps in the wilderness under Moses, and the 42nd was in the plains of Jericho after crossing into the Promised land. You can count the 41 camps for yourself where they are listed in Numbers 33:5-48.
There were also 42 generations from Abraham to Christ listed in Matt. 1:1-17. Verse 17 says,
"Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ fourteen generations."
Yet if you count them as listed in Matthew 1:12-16, you will see that the final "fourteen" appears to be only thirteen generations. Jesus Himself was the 13th from Babylon, or the 41st from Abraham. But the text does not say that Jesus was the fourteenth generation from Babylon. It says "Christ." Jesus was the 41st generation, but the Body of Christ is the 42nd generation.
The 42nd camp of Israel was under Joshua, the Ephraimite. Jesus' Hebrew name was Yeshua, or Joshua, but He was of the tribe of Judah, not Ephraim the son of Joseph. Prophetically speaking, this means that Jesus the Judahite was not going to lead us into the Promised Land. It must be done under Yeshua the Ephraimite, because Ephraim is the holder of the Birthright (Gen. 48:16; 1 Chron. 5:1, 2).
Not understanding this little detail has caused much confusion among Christians who think that Jesus the Judahite fulfilled all prophecy at the cross in "the finished work of Christ." We know that He did not fulfill Pentecost at the cross, for that was fulfilled in Acts 2. Nor did He fulfill the feast of Tabernacles at the cross. He only fulfilled Passover at the cross. That is what was "finished" at the time.
The second coming of Christ is not apart from His body, for the birthright involves Sonship. In other words, the second coming of Christ is fulfilled by the Head being joined to the collective Body from all generations. That is why the dead overcomers must be raised at the feast of Trumpets. It is to join those overcomers from the past with those who are alive at the time of His coming, so that the complete body may receive the Head. Only in this way can this New Creation Man, this "Son," be presented to the Father on the 8th day of Tabernacles.
And so, this New Creation Man can be called "Christ," that is, "the Anointed One" that is called to rule the world. It is "Christ" because it has Jesus Himself as its Anointed Head. Without Him, it is just another body. Keep in mind that the Head is anointed in any anointing ceremony.
So this New Creation Man is the 42nd generation prophetically referenced in Matthew 1:17.
This helps us to understand the meaning of number 42 and its relation to 41. In applying these numbers to the American presidents, we see that we have just completed the cycle of 42 men being president. I have felt for many years that this would mark a great turning point in American history. During the recent presidential campaign, I told many people that if a woman or a black man were to be elected, this would indeed mark a major turning point, but if Senator McCain were elected, it would be no different from past presidents.
Some remarked that McCain might still win the election and then drop dead of a heart attack or something, leaving Gov. Sarah Palin as president. Yes, that was a possibility, but the election itself has proven this to be NOT the case.
What Will Obama's Election Mean for America?
First, I think Obama's election was far more than just a victory for the Democratic Party, or even for Obama's ideals and campaign promises. It was really an election lost by the Republicans that truly began with the invasion of Iraq. This is the event that made President Bush so terribly unpopular (at least after the initial "victory" with "mission accomplished.") Americans do not like getting tangled in lengthy wars. Long wars are unpopular wars; short wars are always welcome, if they benefit our bank accounts and support our life style.
Once it became clear that the Iraq war was going to go on for "generations," the people began to turn against President Bush for getting us into such a war. Senator McCain also supported the Iraq war and spoke of it as if it could go on for "a hundred years." He painted a happy face on it in the name of "security," but the fact is, the war itself had only made the "security" problem worse.
The world sympathized with America in our war to root out Osama from Afghanistan. But the world turned against us when we added Iraq to the list of enemies, even though Iraq was Osama's enemy and would not allow Al Qaeda to operate in Iraq. We overthrew Osama's enemy, Saddam Hussein, and gave Al Qaeda an unlimited number of Iraqi recruits by this second war.
So the Iraq war was the primary source of American discontent with the Republican Party. In the past year, this issue was eclipsed by the economic issue, but the war was what made Bush unpopular and ensured a Democratic victory yesterday.
I find it amusing when presidents take credit for good economic times, and their enemies give them credit for the bad times. The fact is that the economy is run by the Federal Reserve System, not the president. The Fed prides itself on being "independent," but it takes no responsibility for the destruction of the economic system. To hear the presidential candidates speak about it, one would think that the economy rises or falls on a president's tax policies. Sorry, it has very little to do with tax policies.
As for the "security" problem, this goes back at least to 1948 when the Israeli state was formed with American and Christian support. That is what created the Middle East irritant. The Jewish terrorists of the day invented letter bombs and poisoned Arab wells with typhus in order to succeed in their Zionist venture. Their terrorism worked so well that Yassir Arafat decided to try it out for himself.
He discovered that the hypocritical West would object to Arab terrorism, but not to Jewish terrorism. So the Arabs became the bad guys, and the Zionists were able to portray themselves as the victims. Arafat discovered that he could not fight a propaganda war in the West as long as Jewish influence dominated the press, and as long as Christians assumed that the Jews were fulfilling the prophecies of biblical "Israel."
The West managed to gain control over most of the Arab states through the oil trade, but the Arab people themselves totally resented the lopsided favoritism for the Zionists. This fact of life has not changed and will not change. It is doubtful that an Obama presidency will change this either, even if he were a "secret Muslim," as many have charged.
Obama will find it difficult to extract us from Iraq. Like the sign in the store says, "If you break it, you have bought it." And as for the economy, he can't fix it by altering some tax policies. So not much will change, in spite of the rhetoric.
Dr. Stephen Jones