In this program, we describe a frightening development that we’ve been predicting for a long time. Until recently, most people weren’t willing to believe that something like this was possible, but today, for some, things are looking different.
Download AudioNorbert Link
Current Events
by Norbert Link
In this edition, we are addressing the clash between Trump, Vance and Zelensky, and the consequences for the ongoing alienation between the USA and Europe, as well as Ukraine, Russia and NATO.
Throughout this section, we have underlined pertinent statements in the quoted articles, for the convenience and quick overview of the reader.
Europe’s Corrupt Economic System
In the book of Revelation, ungodly modern Babylon is described not only as a European political, military and religious system, but also as an economic power. Other passages in the Old Testament give us further information about this worldwide economic system in which true Christians must have no part.
A New Sheriff in Berlin?
Vice President JD Vance recently said in Germany: “We have a new sheriff in town,” referring to President Donald Trump in Washington. But is there also now a new sheriff in Berlin? Some might think so.
I’m talking about Friedrich Merz (CDU) who is to become the new German Chancellor, replacing the deeply unsuccessful Olaf Scholz (SPD). Trump congratulated Merz, and so did many other leaders. Trump also congratulated the AfD, as some other populist leaders on the right did as well. In Germany’s election last Sunday, the AfD reached a strong second place [one of five Germans voted for it], so that the CDU and the AfD would hold enough seats for a majority in Parliament. But Merz said he would not enter into a coalition with the “far-right” AfD.
Meaning, “the legacy globalist-right conservative Christian Democrats” would have to enter into a “grand” coalition with the left-leaning SPD to be able to rule Germany… the same SPD which under Scholz has been largely responsible for the terrible demise Germany is in.
In an insightful article following the election, Breitbart wrote on February 24:
“But as Germany experienced in the Angela Merkel era of such grand coalitions between left and right, ultimately, the government is dragged left — very left — as the junior partners hold the senior hostage with the threat that they can, at any moment, collapse the government if not indulged…”
So will Merz, in time, stick to or abandon his pledge to uphold the “firewall” or “Brandmauer” against the AfD? The AfD is open to a coalition with the CDU. In fact, the AfD stated in the past that Merz is even more right-wing than they are. They also state now that the CDU has effectively adopted most of the AfD’s manifesto in order to attract voters who might otherwise have voted for the AfD. Merz, it is stated, thereby shifted his party to the right, abandoning Angela Merkel’s politics.
Merz’s victory has been described as “one of the most remarkable comebacks in recent political history,” and Merz was referred to as “a corporate king in conservative clothing.” It has been known that Merz has long represented the interests of some of the world’s most powerful corporate and financial elites, most notably BlackRock in Germany until 2020. Germany will become the first country to be ruled by a former BlackRock official. BlackRock profits from sectors including pharmaceuticals, entertainment, media and, of course, war. BlackRock is the biggest asset management corporation in the world, which controls some $6.3 trillion in assets — twice Germany’s gross domestic product.
As first and foremost a businessman, Merz’s victory, we are told, will be celebrated in the boardrooms of BlackRock and other major corporations, granting them unprecedented control of Europe’s largest economy.
What political views does Merz have? Actually, this is very difficult to decipher. During a debate shortly before the election, Merz asked rhetorically whether people would continue to talk about NATO in its “current form” rather than about establishing an “independent European defense capability.”
Merz has been described as anti-American and anti-Trump. He said: “The EU must not come to Washington as a dwarf — because then it will be treated as one.” He also noted that America’s intervention in German elections was as brazen as Russia’s intervention. He sharply criticized Donald Trump’s administration and urged Europe to distance itself from Washington during a post-election panel.
But is this an accurate picture which really describes Merz’s position? It has been suggested that any disagreements in public would largely be a façade, as Trump’s and Merz’s interests and visions are allegedly similar. Merz aligned with the US on issues such as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, calling for the project’s cancellation long before the escalation of the Ukraine crisis. There may be disagreements as to how to deal with Russia and Ukraine… but we know from prophecy that both countries will unite in the end. Trump and Merz want Europe to spend more—a lot more—on defense, and both support the global “corporate elite.”
From a philosophical standpoint, Merz and the AfD are much more similar than Merz and the SPD. Will the push of the SPD in a grand coalition become so unbearable that the Germans will demand a dramatic change… which will ultimately end up in a coalition between the two right-wing parties?
Merz also made clear that he wants to become the conservative leader of Europe—thereby challenging Merkel’s protégée, Ursula von der Leyen. Will America’s withdrawal from European affairs give Germany, perhaps under Merz, the opportunity to become much more influential in Europe? Is Merz going to be used as an architect in that regard to allow end-time prophecy to develop in due course?
We will have to see how all of this will play out.
Current Events
by Norbert Link
In this issue, we address the ongoing and ever-increasing national and international uproar over Donald Trump’s “unwise” statements pertaining to Ukraine and his actions towards Zelensky and Russia; address developments in Brazil and Gaza; and report about long-overdue actions by RFK on vaccinations.
We dedicate a large portion of this issue to the election in Germany and introduce to you Friedrich Merz, presumably the next German Chancellor, addressing his past and his plans for the future. We also predict, however, that the new German government under Merz may just be a continuation of the past and still present disastrous government under Scholz.
Please view our new StandingWatch program, titled, “Is Germany Now on the Brink of Change?”
Throughout this section, we have underlined pertinent statements in the quoted articles, for the convenience and quick overview of the reader.
Is Germany Now on the Brink of Change?
With Friedrich Merz’s election victory, will there be a new sheriff in Berlin? It is assumed that he will become the new Chancellor, and coalition negotiations with the defeated left-leaning SPD are underway; because he currently does not want to enter into a coalition with the right-wing AfD. But what might happen in the future? And who is Merz anyway? What does he stand for, und what is his past?
Download AudioEurope in Biblical Prophecy
Many do not understand that, according to the Bible, the ancient Roman Empire would be revived ten times in Europe, and that the last seven resurrections would be a collaboration between the Catholic Church and the European Empire. All of these revivals have already taken place…except for the last one, which is unfolding before our eyes today and will culminate in the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. This sermon examines the European resurrections of the ancient Roman Empire in history, including the blasphemous mark of the beast and the demonic nature of the European revivals.
Current Events
by Norbert Link
We begin with Zelensky’s plea for a European Army in view of perceived Russian aggression towards NATO; and continue with the incredible hostility of hypocritical Europeans towards JD Vance and Donald Trump for pointing out the real dangers of censorship and dictatorship developing in Germany and other European countries. Vance’s speech in Munich has been described as “brilliant” and “glorious,” as well as “unacceptable” and posing “an extreme threat.”
Europe has also been “offended” by being told that a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine would not be dictated and decided by Europe. At the same time, it became obvious that Europe is deeply divided regarding the question as to how to proceed in the Ukraine matter. The alienation between the USA and Europe has never been deeper since the end of World War II. But there is also great concern regarding Trump’s wrong comments about Zelensky.
In other news, we report on Robert F Kennedy’s appointment as US Secretary of Health and Human Resources (HHS) and some positive movements towards ending mandatory vaccinations.
We close with an interesting article about “heaven.”
Please view our new StandingWatch program, titled, “America and Europe at Loggerheads.”
Throughout this section, we have underlined pertinent statements in the quoted articles, for the convenience and quick overview of the reader.
Baptism for the dead in God’s Church?
In 2 Corinthians 15:29, Paul utters a statement which is difficult to understand. He wrote: “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?”
Many explanations have been given as to what Paul might have meant—some good, some not so good, and some blatantly wrong. We addressed some of those explanations in a Q&A, which was written in 2006, https://www.eternalgod.org/q-a-3014/, which had the following headline: “Would you please explain 1 Corinthians 15:29, speaking of ‘baptism for the dead. Are we to be baptized for those who have already died?”
In that Q&A, we showed that the concept, practiced by some, to baptize someone for a person who had died without having been baptized is totally unbiblical. We said: “This practice is not based on God’s Holy Word. Baptism only makes sense when and so long as the person to be baptized is ALIVE. Baptism for a dead person, that is, vicariously, derivatively or by proxy, accomplishes nothing.”
In this Q&A, we will explore additional possibilities as to what Paul might have meant, and elaborate on what we have stated in the above-quoted Q&A.
When it comes to “vicarious baptisms,” “The Annotated Bible” by John Henry Blunt, copyright 1932, points out the following:
“But there is no ground whatever for believing that vicarious baptisms were in use until some heretics of a much later date invented them, and justified their invention by this text (1 Corinthians 15:29).” In a footnote, the commentary stated: “The Montanists of the second century, and not a few orthodox but ill-informed Christians also of the same period, were accustomed to administer baptisms to those who had died unbaptized… and the practice of baptizing dead persons by proxy appears to have been adopted by the later Marcionites as an improvement upon the earlier custom.”
The Ryrie Study Bible adds that this view and practice is “heretical.”
Returning to our above-mentioned Q&A, we then explored the idea, advanced by some commentaries, that Paul might not have been talking about a practice in the Church, but by others outside the Church, in which some Church members participated. Paul allegedly made the argument that if even those people practiced baptism for the dead because they believed in a resurrection from the dead (compare verse 20), why wouldn’t the Corinthians do so. We said: “… some commentaries advance the idea that a few within the Corinthian Church might have been involved in the practice of getting baptized for a dead relative…. as Paul… used ‘they’ rather than ‘we’ when speaking of it… To deny the resurrection, as the Corinthians did, and yet be involved in such baptism activities made no sense.’”
This presupposes, of course, that such practice was indeed known to the Corinthians, which is doubtful in light of Blunt’s above-quoted statements. In addition, it is also doubtful that Paul would have referred to (pagan) practices outside the Church to prove the resurrection.
We also mentioned the opinion, advanced by some, that the Greek can also mean “baptized because of the dead,” i.e. the reference is to the baptism of those influenced by the testimony of a Christian who had recently died, and in the hope of being re-united with him at the resurrection. This opinion is also given, as a possibility, by the Ryrie Study Bible, and it has some merit. The MacArthur Study Bible states:
“A reasonable view seems to be that ‘people baptized’ refer to living believers who give outward testimony to their faith in baptism by water.. who had subsequently died. Paul’s point is that if there is no resurrection…, then why are people coming to Christ to follow the hope of those who have died?”
Finally, we explained that in the phrase in verse 29 (“baptized for the dead”), the word “for” is “huper” in the original Greek. This word can also mean, “for the hope of” or “for the realization of.” 1 Corinthians 15:29 can be translated: “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for [the realization of, or the hope of] the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for [the realization of, or the hope of] the dead?”
We said: “When people were baptized, they were not dead, but still alive. At the time of their baptism, they were looking forward to their resurrection. Baptism was the first necessary step toward the realization of their goal–the resurrection of the dead. Without that hope, there would not have been a reason to be baptized in the first place. Subsequently those who were baptized died, sleeping in their graves and awaiting, in hope, so to speak, their resurrection from the dead.”
The Ryrie Study Bible offers another possibility as to how to understand this passage, which they describe as “most likely,” saying, “… it means being baptized in the place of those who had died; i.e., new converts taking the place of older ones who had died. Paul’s point is: unless one believes in the resurrection of the dead (rather than the Greek idea of ‘immortality’) what’s the point of such a practice?”
This is a valid observation. God’s Church will not die, and it has a Work to accomplish. Many have gone before us, doing their part of the Work, and have died. Others had to be appointed to take their place, to continue in the Work which has to be done. The Elberfelder Bible states in an annotation that the Greek word, translated “for,” can also mean “in place of.”
There is, however, another and perhaps most plausible explanation as to what Paul might have meant, when talking about baptism for the dead. Baptism symbolizes our death. As we said in our above-mentioned Q&A: “As Romans 6:3-4 explains, baptism–the total immersion of the person under water–points at the figurative death of the person. He ‘dies,’ spiritually speaking, in the watery grave. His old man dies (verse 6), and a new man arises out of the watery grave (Colossians 3:9-10). In a sense, the new man is ‘resurrected,’ figuratively speaking, from the spiritual dead.”
So we were dead before our baptism. But notice what happened when we became baptized. Ephesians 2:1 says: “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins…” Verses 5 and 6 continue: “… when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together…” And Ephesians 5:14 adds:“ Therefore He says: ‘Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light.’”
The concept that we were dead in sin and are now alive, after having been properly baptized, is stated time and again in Scripture. We read in Romans 6:13: “And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.”
Colossians 2:13 expresses the same thought: “And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses…”
The Bible explains that those who are not led by and have not received God’s Spirit, which is only given through the ritual of baptism, are “dead.” Christ said in Matthew 8:21-22: “Then another of His disciples said to Him, ‘Lord, let me first go and bury my father.’ But Jesus said to him, ‘Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead.’” Apparently, Christ was calling the person to the ministry, but he wanted to wait until his father had died, who was still alive but might have been advanced in years. Christ’s retort was that the time of the person’s calling was now, and that his spiritually “dead” relatives could look after and bury his spiritually “dead” father, once he had died.
We also find this statement in 1 Timothy 5:6: “But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives.”
Something similar might be expressed in 1 Peter 4:6, where we read: “For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” This could refer to Christians who died after the gospel had been preached to and accepted by them; it could also refer to the spiritually “dead” who accepted the gospel when it was preached to them, following God in the spirit, while being condemned by [unconverted] men in the flesh.
Paul’s statement, then, that there is baptism for the dead is indeed to be applied to those being spiritually dead. Baptism is for them; they cease to be spiritually dead and become spiritually alive, as he explains in Ephesians 4:22-24:
“… put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and… put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.”
Let us conclude with these marvelous words by Paul in Romans 6:2-6:
“How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.”
We were dead, but through the “baptism for the dead” (that is, the baptism for us), we became alive, now waiting for the first resurrection when Christ returns.
Lead Writer: Norbert Link
America and Europe at Loggerheads
JD Vance’s “glorious” speech during the Security Conference in Munich about some terrible conditions has angered many German and European politicians. He showed them a mirror, but they were unwilling to look into it. The alienation between the USA and Europe deepened when Trump called Putin and when the Americans and Russians met in Saudi Arabia, but without the Europeans and Zelensky. It reached a boiling point when Trump accused Ukraine of having started the war with Russia. The writing is on the wall. Can you read it?
Download Audio