There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
The greater afflictions we have been under for sin, the greater is the sin if we go on in it.
You have struck me down, but I have felt no anguish; I have refused to take correction and have made my face harder than rock, Jeremiah 5:3(ESV) and the rod has not driven the folly out of my heart. Proverbs 22:15(ESV)
You have disciplined me with the rod of men and with the stripes of the sons of men, 2 Samuel 7:14(ESV) yet I have not turned to him who struck me, nor have I inquired of the LORD of hosts. Isaiah 9:13(ESV)
When some have been overthrown as Sodom and Gomorrah were, I have been as a brand plucked out of the burning; yet I have not returned to you, O LORD. Amos 4:11(ESV) And when your hand has been lifted up, I have not seen it. Isaiah 26:11(ESV)
The more vows and promises we have made of better obedience, the greater has been our sin.
Nehemiah 7:73-8:18 In this week’s studies, we see that Nehemiah not only wanted to rebuild the wall, but also the nation.
Theme
Reading God’s Word First
In the eighth chapter of Nehemiah we see the starting point for any true national renewal. It is the Word of God.
Verses 2-12 tell of a great public assembly in which Ezra the priest read the law of God to the people and of how they were affected by it. The people showed extraordinary reverence for the law, for they rose in respectful silence when Ezra opened the scroll. When he prayed they responded, “Amen! Amen!” and worshiped God. As the account unfolds we discover that the reading of God’s law led to national revival.
That is what we need in the United States, too. But instead of honoring the Word of God and hungering after it as the people of Judah did in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra, our country seems intent on doing everything possible to keep the Bible and even religion itself from public life. It is strange that this should be so, since our country was founded with a conscious attention to and respect for biblical principles.
We have been told that our founding fathers were for the most part unbelievers or at best deists. But while there is some truth to that, it is nevertheless also a distortion.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was a deist, but that does not mean that he utterly discounted the Bible. On the contrary, he said, “The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty.”1
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was a skeptical unbeliever, but he believed in prayer. He inaugurated the practice of prayer before deliberation which still prevails in Congress.
George Washington (1732-1799) gave strong testimony of faith. In a small prayer book composed when he was about twenty years old Washington wrote:
O most glorious God . . . remember that I am but dust, and remit my transgressions, negligences and ignorances, and cover them all with the absolute obedience of thy dear Son, that those sacrifices (of sin, praise and thanksgiving) which I have offered may be accepted by thee, in and for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me….Direct my thoughts, words and work; wash away my sin in the immaculate blood of the Lamb; and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit.”2
John Witherspoon (1723-1794), the president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) and the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence, wrote, “He is the best friend to American liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion.”3
Andrew Jackson (1767-1845), the seventh president of the United States, said, “The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests.”4
Each of these men, though possessing various degrees of spiritual understanding and differing in their ecclesiastical traditions, recognized that a nation is only as strong as its underlying faith in God and that the Bible is essential for survival.
How far we have fallen away from that! How much we need to rediscover Scripture!
1Cyril J. Barber, Nehemiah and the Dynamics of Effective Leadership (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1976), 122.
2William J. Johnson, George Washington, the Christian (Nashville: Abingdon, 1919), 23-28.
3Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1977), 296.
4Barber, Nehemiah and the Dynamics of Effective Leadership, 112.
Study Questions
What is the starting point for revival?
When Ezra read the Word of God to the assembly, what do you observe that indicates the people’s respect for Scripture?
Application
Reflection: How does the United States dishonor God and His Word in our national life?
Prayer: Pray regularly for God to be merciful and send genuine revival to our country and throughout the world.
For Further Study: Download for free and listen to James Boice’s message, “The Greatest Revival in History.” (Discount will be applied at checkout.)
For Further Study: Do you desire more holiness in your own life? Do you long to see a mighty working of God in our churches, communities, and nation? The book of Nehemiah not only talks about leadership, but revival as well, anchored as it must be in the Word of God. Do you know someone who could profit from these studies in Nehemiah? James Boice’s expository sermons are available in paperback. During this series, you can order his book, Nehemiah, for 30% off.
As Christianity declines in the West, churches from the old mission field are the ones defending historic Christianity and are evangelizing Europe and America.
[While I’m in Ecuador, I’m posting columns and articles that I wrote in the early 2000’s for Tabletalk Magazine, which kindly gave me permission to do this.]
This one is a little dated. For example, the Methodists have split over the issues we described, with the “Global Methodists” holding strong. But I think the points about Christianity not being just another cultural religion, the dangers of cultural conformity, and the way Christianity transforms culture need to be said today.
The old mission field brings Christianity to us
Missionaries from Europe and America took Christianity to the ends of the earth and evangelized Africa and Asia. Now, as Christianity declines in the West, churches from the old mission field are the ones defending historic Christianity and are evangelizing Europe and America.
Now that the American Episcopal church is embracing homosexuality and rejecting historic Christianity, many conservative congregations from that body are breaking away and affiliating instead with a North American mission from the Anglican church of Nigeria.
When the liberal state church of Sweden refused to ordain pastors who would not accept the ordination of women, the Lutheran bishop of Kenya stepped in and ordained a cadre of new conservative pastors.
At the Methodists’ recent General Assembly, in which congregations from all around the world had equal representation, an American-led attempt to revise the denomination’s moral teachings against homosexuality was thwarted by Methodists from the Third World.
Meanwhile Korea, which may have more actual Calvinists than anywhere else in the world, has nearly caught up with the United States as the world’s leader in sending out foreign missionaries.
Whereas Europeans become ever more secular and Americans, while still religious, tend to be eager to water down Christianity, Christians in the so-called Third World affirm traditional morality and historic Christian doctrines.
They are standing strong in the faith even as they often face brutal persecution and martyrdom. The violence against Christians comes mostly at the hands of Muslims, particularly in Africa. Nevertheless, African Christians are winning the battle with Islam. They are doing so with the Gospel, even though Muslims have historically been considered the most resistant of all religions to Christian evangelism. As Islamic scholar Ahmad al-Qataani complained to the al-Jazeera network, “Islam used to represent … Africa’s main religion.” But now, “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.”
As Christianity declines in the West and the North, it is accelerating in the East and the South. We should not be surprised.
Christianity is not a cultural religion. Other religions of the world are. To become a Muslim is to adopt a new culture. Under paganism, from animism with its tribal customs to the more sophisticated Hinduism with its caste system, religion serves to sanctify the culture and its practices.
Christianity, in contrast to nearly every other world religion, is a universal faith that proclaims a Gospel for “every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).
The temptation has been to turn Christianity into just another cultural religion, one that gives supernatural sanction to the cultural status quo. That is what happened, arguably, with medieval Catholicism. It continued with state churches and American civil religion.
True Christianity, though, resists cultural captivity. It posits a transcendent moral law that is above and beyond human laws and customs, giving a framework by which cultures can be judged. In doing so, trans-cultural Christianity has managed to shape and transform human cultures.
When Christianity comes to a culture, it changes that culture. It made the Greeks and Romans stop their custom of infanticide. It challenged the barbarian cult of the warrior, which it channeled into Christian chivalry. Christianity did have a profound influence in the rise of Western civilization and America in particular. It did so not by sanctifying a particular society but by criticizing its evils, inspiring its ideals, and providing a spiritual infrastructure for self-government, education, and civic virtues.
Today trans-cultural Christianity must work against the Africans’ predilection for tribal revenge codes, Asian group conformity, and American consumerism.
Even though Biblical Christianity must resist cultural conformity, many American churches have actually embraced cultural conformity as a strategy for church growth! They do not see that surrendering to the culture means instead the disappearance of the church. That the current American culture is swallowing up the church—effacing its doctrines, ignoring its morality, and erasing its history—is precisely why the churches of the Third World see us as in need of their help.
Christianity is a missionary religion. Europeans learned the Gospel from missionaries just as the Africans did. Patrick went to the Irish and Augustine of Canterbury went to the English. Boniface won over the Germans when he chopped down a tree sacred to Thor and did not get hammered. Evangelized Europeans and their American forebears would then send missionaries themselves, and now we are coming around full circle.
But we would do well to think of ourselves in the same way we used to think about the lost people of the mission field. We have become the new heathen. We Americans are the ones now in thrall to primitive superstitions, such as believing in the power of positive thinking and having faith in ourselves. We are the ones held by back a narrow materialistic worldview that has little conception of the supernatural. We are the ones with brutal customs, such as aborting our infants, neglecting our children, and abandoning and sometimes euthanizing our elders. We have simple, pounding music, and we are uneducated about the realities outside of our tribe. With our limited mindset, we have trouble grasping the truths of Scripture.
But the grace of God brings the light of Jesus Christ into heathen darkness. Even into our heathen darkness.
Illustration: Boniface (1905) by Emil Doepler – Doepler, Emil. ca. 1905. Walhall, die Götterwelt der Germanen. Martin Oldenbourg, Berlin. Page 16. Photographed by Haukurth (talk · contribs) and cropped by Bloodofox (talk · contribs)., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5216022
The guys explore eternal security by contrasting views on the possibility of losing salvation. They affirm that true believers persevere, are sealed by God, and cannot fall away. If you hate sin and long for righteousness, you belong to Him. He who calls you is faithful—He will hold you firm.
When Paul told Agrippa the plain, rational truth about Christ’s death and resurrection, Agrippa pushed it away. All Paul’s persuasiveness was not enough to make him move more than a little towards becoming one of those despised Christ-followers. For the godly Covenanting minister Alexander Wedderburn, this was not merely an exchange between two long-ago figures. Wedderburn was deeply concerned that in and around the church, too many people are still “almost” Christians. Rational though Christianity is, Wedderburn was painfully aware of those who would only pick and choose the bits of the faith they like, and who therefore remain at as much of a distance from the Saviour as if they were committed non-believers. His appeal therefore in the following updated extract is to realise the shamefulness of being “almost” and not “altogether” a Christian, and to strive to reach Christ really and truly.
“Almost” should make us humble
All of us are committed to doctrinal principles which lead us to be altogether Christians, but we must face the question in point of practice. The Lord could complain of many as He did of Ephraim in Hosea 7:8, “Ephraim is a cake unturned,” that is, raw on the one side and burnt on the other. In some things, they are Christians (especially the things that are consistent with their self-interest), but in other things they deny it, especially in things that are most difficult, and of most absolute necessity.
Why should this make us humble ourselves?
It includes a secret contempt of God
If you cut and carve the laws of your sovereign, taking what you like, and rejecting what you please, you despise the authority that commanded them. To do something at the command of God, and to refuse to do other things, must flow either from some apparent iniquity in the law (which is highly insulting) or from despising the authority that commanded it, and both reflect on God.
It is something God hates
To be a Christian in part, and not altogether, is something God loathes. This was the church of Laodicea, which was neither cold nor hot, but lukewarm. It had some degrees of heat, and some of cold, and God threatens that He will spew her out of His mouth something His stomach loathes.
It means you are pulled two ways
This puts you to serve two masters — to be for God in some things, and for His enemy in other things. “A double-minded man,” says James, “is unstable in all his wayes,” a man who has a mind and a mind. That man must be like Israel in Elijah’s time, lurching between two incompatible alternatives.
It means you never do enough
You may lose out on heaven, even though you do great things for God, because of not doing more. Some things are absolutely necessary for salvation. If we are never so righteous in our dealing with other people, yet, “he that believes not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the only begotten Son of God.” Now how lamentable is it, to do much for Christ, and yet come short of heaven for not doing more?
It means you are already losing out on the best bit of Christianity
To be only partly a Christian deprives you even now of the sweetest part of Christianity. The peace and joy promised in the gospel is attained by performing the most inward duties of it, while neglecting these makes many find godliness a kind of labyrinth to them, as if they are continually breaking open shells that have no kernel in them.
All these laid together evidence what kind of reasons we have for self-humbling, if we are only “almost a Christian.”
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. (8:3–8)
Suddenly, the Lord’s teaching was interrupted by scribes and the Pharisees. As noted above, those two groups appear together frequently in the Synoptic Gospels, but nowhere else in John’s gospel (John does not mention the scribes). The scribes (sometimes called lawyers) were the experts in interpreting the Law. They were usually, but not always, Pharisees, who along with the Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes were one of the four major religious sects in first-century Judaism. The Pharisees were noted chiefly for their strict adherence to the Mosaic Law and their oral traditions. Though few in number (about 6,000 at the time of Herod the Great according to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus), they were the dominant religious influence among the Jewish people. With the exception of Nicodemus (3:1ff.; 7:50–51; 19:39–40), the Pharisees are always hostile to Jesus in John’s gospel (4:1; 7:32, 45–52; 8:13; 9:13–16, 40–41; 11:46–53, 57; 12:19, 42; 18:3). (Later, some would come to believe in Him [cf. Acts 15:5]—most notably the zealous Pharisee [Acts 23:6; Gal. 1:14] Saul of Tarsus.) The Pharisees viewed Jesus’ popularity with alarm. They feared both losing their influence with the people, and retaliation by the Romans if Jesus’ followers started a revolt (John 11:47–48; cf. 6:15). (For more information on the Pharisees, see the exposition of 3:1 in chapter 8 of this volume.) Bringing with them a woman caught in adultery, the scribes and Pharisees barged into the crowd of people listening to Jesus and set her in the center of the court. Addressing Him with mock politeness as “Teacher” (or “Rabbi”) they exclaimed, “This woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.” Then they demanded a ruling from Him: “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” The last clause is emphatic in the Greek, and could be translated “You … what do you say?” or “What’s your opinion on this?” The seventh commandment forbids adultery (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18), and Leviticus 20:10 prescribes the death penalty for those who commit it: “If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Jesus Himself upheld the Old Testament condemnation of adultery (Matt. 5:27; 19:18). In fact, He made the prohibition stronger, condemning not only the physical act, but also the lustful attitude that conceives it (Matt. 5:28). From a purely legal standpoint, then, these men were correct in saying that the woman deserved to die. But the circumstances suggest that they had something else in mind. By its very nature, adultery is a sin that involves two people—yet the Pharisees were accusing only the woman. The obvious question was: Where was the man? Those who had apprehended the woman had certainly seen him too, since she had been seized in the very act. Why had they not also arrested him and brought him before Jesus, since the Law demanded that both guilty parties be executed (Lev. 20:10)? And if justice was all they sought, why bring the woman to Jesus at all? Why not try her in their own courts, where such cases would normally be heard? Jesus was not a judge (cf. Luke 12:13–14) or a member of the Sanhedrin. Nor was there any legal difficulty that would necessitate consulting a rabbi; it was an open-and-shut case. The Pharisees’ motive was obvious: they were merely using the woman in an attempt to trap Jesus. There was something far more important to them than seeing justice done; they were testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. As was so often the case, they were trying to force Jesus to say something that they could use to destroy Him (cf. Matt. 12:10; 16:1; 19:3; 22:34–40; Mark 8:11; Luke 10:25; 11:53–54; 20:20–40). The woman’s accusers thought they had the Lord between a proverbial rock and hard place. If He objected to stoning her, He would be guilty of opposing the Mosaic Law, and thus discredit His claim to be the Messiah. On the other hand, if He agreed with her accusers that she should be stoned, His reputation for compassion toward sinners (cf. Matt. 9:11; Luke 7:34; 15:2; 19:7) would be destroyed. Further, the Jewish leaders could then report Him to the Romans as having instigated an execution in defiance of Roman authority (cf. John 18:31). The challenge brought by the scribes and Pharisees also raised a deeper issue—namely, how divine justice and mercy are to be harmonized. God is holy (Lev. 11:44–45; 19:2; 1 Sam. 2:2; Ps. 99:9; 1 Peter 1:15–16), and His “Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). The Law knows nothing of forgiveness (Rom. 3:20; 8:3; Gal. 2:16; 3:11; James 2:10). It declares, “The soul who sins will die” (Ezek. 18:4) because “all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law” (Rom. 2:12), “for the Law brings about wrath” (4:15). How then does God forgive sinners without violating His holy law? The answer is, through the Lord Jesus Christ. His sacrificial death fully satisfied the demands of God’s justice; as Paul wrote to the Romans: “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Those who put their faith in Him are “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith” (Rom. 3:24–25), because “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24; cf. 3:18; Isa. 53:4–6, 10; Matt. 20:28; John 10:11; Rom. 4:25; 5:8–10; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:14–15, 21; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; Eph. 1:7; 5:2; 1 Tim. 2:5–6; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:28; 10:11–12; 1 John 2:2; 3:16; 4:9–10; Rev. 1:5; 5:9). In Jesus Christ divine justice and mercy harmonize. Because His sacrificial death paid the penalty for the sins of all who believe in Him, God can “be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26); in Him “lovingkindness and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Ps. 85:10). God poured out His wrath against sin on Jesus so He can pour out His grace and mercy on those who believe. And Jesus was the lamb “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8 NKJV), not only in the prophetic sense, but also in the sense of application. All through redemptive history, all who were forgiven and given eternal life had the future sacrifice of the Son of God applied to their sins. The dramatic scene in the temple courtyard had reached its climax. The woman, her sin publicly exposed, was humiliated, terrified, and about to be stoned. The scribes and Pharisees were jubilant, thinking they had caught Jesus in an impossible dilemma. The crowd was hushed, watching intently to see how Jesus would react. But He, for the moment, surprisingly did nothing. Seemingly oblivious to what was going on, Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. Because the text does not say what He wrote, some speculate that the Lord was acting out Jeremiah 17:13: “Those who depart from Me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters” (NKJV). Others suggest that He wrote the words He would say in verse 7, or part of the Law (such as the prohibition against being a malicious witness in Ex. 23:1). Perhaps the most popular view is that He listed the sins of the woman’s accusers. What Jesus wrote is obviously not essential to the story, however, since it was not recorded; all of those suggestions are speculation. The scribes and Pharisees were no doubt puzzled by Jesus’ silence. Perhaps they thought He did not know how to reply, so, thinking they finally had impaled Him on the horns of a dilemma, the scribes and Pharisees persisted in asking Him. Always the master of the moment, Jesus remained silent, allowing them to reveal unmistakably their hatred and hypocrisy as they insistently pressed their attack. At last, He straightened up, no doubt gave His opponents a piercing glance, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” After making that startling and unexpected statement, He calmly stooped down once more and wrote on the ground, and said nothing. The Lord’s reply was simple, yet profound. It upheld the Law, since He did not deny the woman’s guilt, and broadened the Law’s power by exposing the sins of the accusers. It also avoided the charge of instigating an execution in violation of Roman authority, since the Lord put the responsibility back on the accusers. And it mercifully spared the woman from being stoned for her sin. Jesus knew that according to the Law, the witnesses to a capital offense were to be the first to throw stones at the guilty person (Deut. 13:9; 17:7). Obviously, they could not have been participants in the crime, or they too would have been executed. Jesus was not making sinless perfection a requirement for carrying out the Law (or else no one could have done so). It may be, then, that the woman’s accusers were themselves guilty of adultery (if not the physical act, certainly the lust of the heart [Matt. 5:28]). Jesus’ masterful answer neither minimized the woman’s guilt, nor denied the Law’s sanctity. But it cut the ground out from under the scribes and Pharisees by revealing that they were unfit to be her judges and executioners. They were guilty of the hypocrisy that the apostle Paul condemned in Romans 2:1: “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things” (cf. Matt. 7:1–5).
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). John 1–11 (pp. 325–329). Moody Press.
6–8 The Pharisees’ question was emphatic: “You, there! What do you say?” Jesus made no reply but “bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.” There have been several conjectures as to what he wrote. Some say he may have simply made marks in the dust to cover his embarrassment; or, as has also been suggested, he may have started to make a list of the sins of those who stood in front of him. It was, incidentally, the only occasion on record that refers to his writing. When his questioners kept pressing him for an answer, Jesus finally stood erect and replied, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Then he resumed his writing. His reply put the dilemma back on his questioners. In this particular offense there would normally be no witnesses, since its nature would demand privacy. Either the witnesses became such by accident, which would be unusual; or they were present purposely to create the trap for Jesus, in which case they themselves were guilty; or they condoned the deed, and this would make them partners in it. According to Jewish law, in any case of capital punishment the witnesses must begin the stoning. Whether Jesus by his statement implied that they were guilty of condoning or of committing adultery with this woman, or whether he was speaking about past personal guilt is uncertain. In either case, each one of the accusers would either have to admit that he was guilty or else refrain from demanding the woman’s death.
Tenney, M. C. (1981). John. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John and Acts (Vol. 9, p. 90). Zondervan Publishing House.
7 Jesus does not deny that the woman’s offense is worthy of the punishment decreed by the Law of Moses. What he does question is the moral competency of her accusers to carry out the penalty. In effect he says, “Go ahead and administer the proper penalty, but only if you have never committed the same offense.” If we understand “without sin” in a general sense as referring to any sin at all, then it is even more evident that none of them would be able to initiate the punishment. That the accuser must be the one to cast the first stone is the clear teaching of Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7.
Mounce, R. H. (2007). John. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Luke–Acts (Revised Edition) (Vol. 10, p. 471). Zondervan.
7 Evidently the accusers felt that Jesus’ silence arose from an inability to evade giving them the opening for which they were looking. So they pressed their question (“they persisted in questioning him,” BAGD). But Jesus stood up and invited any one among them who was sinless to throw the first stone (normally the witnesses were to initiate a stoning, Deut. 17:7). This answer completely disarmed them. It could not possibly be construed as a rejection of the law; Jesus specifically enjoined that a stone be thrown. But his limitation on who might throw it effectively prevented any harm coming to the guilty woman. The saying “does not deny that she may be stoned, but insists upon the innocency and therefore the competence of whoever stands forth against her as accuser and witness.” If, for example, the witnesses were guilty of not giving a warning (as the facts of the case make almost certain), then the woman could not be convicted on their evidence. For anyone to take part in a stoning on the basis of such evidence would be to incur the guilt of “joining with the wicked.” The words of Jesus are both an appeal to conscience and a warning to the hearers that their own lives might very well be at stake. If they stoned the woman, they must be very sure of the witnesses.
Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel according to John (p. 784). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
7 In the face of Jesus’ silence and apparent disregard for their question, the scribes and Pharisees “kept on questioning him,” presumably asking the same question again. Finally “he straightened up and said to them, ‘The one without fault among you, let him first throw a stone on her’ ” (v. 7). His words seem to presuppose that the woman has already been tried and convicted, for according to Scripture, when a person has been convicted on the testimony of at least two witnesses, “The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people” (Deut 17:7, NIV). If the woman has indeed been “caught in the act of committing adultery” by the requisite two witnesses (see v. 3), and if the witnesses are indeed present (as would seem to be the case), then Jesus is inviting one of them to do what the law requires. If for any reason the actual witnesses were not present, then anyone who picked up a stone in response to Jesus’ words would in effect be taking on himself the role of witness against the woman. The law required that such witnesses not be “malicious” or “lying” witnesses (see Deut 19:16–18). Jesus’ version of that requirement is that this person be “without fault,” a term denoting not so much abstract “sinlessness” (in the sense in which later Christian theology has believed Jesus himself to be sinless), as simply personal integrity before God in the matter at hand. That is, whoever takes on himself the role of witness-executioner must be confident before God that he is doing the right thing—hardly an unreasonable demand.
Michaels, J. R. (2010). The Gospel of John (pp. 498–499). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
7, 8. And as they kept questioning him, he stood up and said to them, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her. And again he bent down and wrote (or: traced figures or letters) on the ground. Unabashed by the first silence, the persecutors kept on pressing for an answer. We can imagine that their conversation was on this order, as they stood there, crowding the Lord: “Well, what do you say … do you agree with Moses … what do you say … shall we stone her, as the law of Moses requires … or shall we release her … what do you say … what do you say?” To add weight to his answer (cf. 7:37) Jesus arose. He then gave a reply such as only he was able to give. He did not make light of her sin. Neither did he either expressly or by implication abolish the seventh commandment. He did not even in so many words set aside the law which demanded the death-penalty for offences such as these. On the contrary, without in any way implying that he personally desired her death, he proceeded upon their presumed assumption, as if the law of Moses were to be literally applied in this given case—which even they themselves, of course, did not really want—; but then he showed them that they were not fit to execute the very law which ostensibly they were so eager to carry out! What caused his cheeks to burn with indignation was the fact that these men, intent upon committing the sin of murdering the very Messiah, posed as if they were shocked by the infinitely lesser (though still grievous) offence of this woman! Hence, he said: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” The reference is to Deut. 17:7: “The hand of the witnesses shall be the first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.” These scribes and Pharisees were acting in the capacity of witnesses and accusers. Yet the sin of the accused was as nothing in comparison with their perverseness.
Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Vol. 2, pp. 38–39). Baker Book House.
And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.Isaiah 46:4
The year is very old, and here is a promise for our aged friends; yes, and for us all, as age creeps over us. Let us live long enough, and we shall all have hoar hairs; therefore we may as well enjoy this promise by the foresight of faith.
When we grow old our God will still be the I AM, abiding evermore the same. Hoar hairs tell of our decay, but He decayeth not. When we cannot carry a burden and can hardly carry ourselves, the Lord will carry us. Even as in our young days He carried us like lambs in His bosom, so will He in our years of infirmity.
He made us, and He will care for us. When we become a burden to our friends and a burden to ourselves, the Lord will not shake us off, but the rather He will take us up and carry and deliver us more fully than ever. In many cases the Lord give His servants a long and calm evening. They worked hard all day and wore themselves out in their Master’s service, and so He said to them, “Now rest in anticipation of that eternal Sabbath which I have prepared for you.” Let us not dread old age. Let us grow old graciously since the Lord Himself is with us in fullness of grace.
How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? See:
How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? See:
How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See:
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See:
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence? Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3 See:
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is notacceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See:
How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? See:
How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). See:
Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. See:
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See:
How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See:
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See:
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See:
Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See:
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See:
First published: 11 September 2011 Re-featured on homepage: 19 September 2025
References
Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003. Return to text.
Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004. Return to text.
Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The Way of the Cell: Molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. Return to text.
Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986. Return to text.
Crick, F., What Mad Pursuit: A personal view of scientific discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. Return to text.
Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993. Return to text.
Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005. Return to text.
As quoted in Dizikes, P., Missing links, Boston Globe, 23 October 2005; boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/23/missing_links. Available via web.archive.org. Return to text.
If it weren’t for the addition of a single word in Luke’s account of Jesus telling his disciples to pick up their cross and follow him, it’s possible we would think our Lord referred to a one-time, no-turning-back decision to deny oneself and die, whether it be (literally) a martyr’s death, or (figuratively) the moment we’re saved as we die to our old nature and follow Christ.
For some, this death to self does become evident in literal cross-bearing. Most of the disciples and many believers throughout history have fulfilled this command in this way.
But that word daily in Luke 9:23 removes the call to costly discipleship from the realm of choices grand and spectacular, making sure we realize self-denial and cross-bearing impinge on our day-to-day choices.
“If anyone wants to follow after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me,” Jesus says.
The vision of taking up a cross every day means the way of Jesus is one of suffering on the path the glory. The vision of self-denial is one of transformation and joy that can only be had by allowing God to strip us of everything sinful as he frees us to become the person he’s always intended.
A Prayer to Die
A few months ago, I began asking the Lord every morning to give me chances that day to die to myself, and for the Spirit to help me recognize those opportunities. He has never failed to answer this prayer. Not once. Every time I’ve asked him to show me opportunities to die to myself, he’s come through. Annoyingly so. On occasion, I’ve thought it might be best to stop praying this prayer, as I grew tired of the spiritual discomfort.
What has been most illuminating about praying this way is how mundane some of the daily choices are. The opportunities to take up one’s cross seem almost pitifully small. Surely there are bigger and more impressive examples of cross-bearing and self-denial than the mere willingness to be inconvenienced, or the decision to set aside something I want to do for the sake of what someone else requires in the moment, or the choice to forgo something I desire and think I deserve so as to serve someone else.
The chances to deny oneself and pick up one’s cross every day seem so tiny, which must be one reason I’ve so often overlooked them. In times past, I would make a series of small selfish decisions every day, and because I saw them as small, I minimized their selfish roots. I would react to interruption and inconvenience with ambivalence at best or frustration and resentment at worst, or I would demand my way so as to fulfill “small” wants and “insignificant” desires, assuming in these cases that some grandiose gesture of self-denial wouldn’t matter because the selfishness in my “needs” was so minimal (if I even recognized the selfishness).
And yet it’s the small decisions of daily life that make us what we are. The Spirit uses those seemingly insignificant daily decisions to transform us more into the image of Christ. Likewise, it’s the small decisions, the daily acts of selfishness that, combined over a lifetime, turn us into little beasts.
A house can fall because of an earthquake, but it can also collapse after years of being eaten away by termites, the little creatures you think are tiny and insignificant until the full extent of their power affects the structure.
The Selfishness of Selflessness
I also experienced a strange and ironic turning of selflessness back into selfishness. I noticed how the call to self-denial can in itself be twisted into a method of self-magnification. Almost immediately, as I began recognizing the daily opportunities to deny myself and pick up my cross, I felt a twinge of pride in setting aside my own interests for the sake of others. I’m on the path to self-denial. This is what it looks like to follow Jesus.
And that little turn is one of Satan’s most ingenious schemes, to twist the call to self-denial into an occasion for self-righteousness, to deceive us into applauding how we’ve dethroned the self when instead we’re seated on the throne with a firmer grip than ever before.
The prayer to find ways to die every day can in itself turn into inordinate self-focus if not directed Godward. It is Jesus I’m following, and he is the One who must have my attention. My focus isn’t to be on myself as the follower. Neither should I look for ways to feel better about myself as the self-denier or crossbearer. It is looking to the glory to come, standing in awe of the One who has called us and who promises to sustain us, trusting in magnificent grace that saves and transforms—that must be the reason for daily death.
Death to Life
We die daily because we believe there is joy on the other side of the cross, life on the other side of this tomb. We must bury the old self every day because, like a zombie, it keeps wanting to return and claim its territory, when Christ has already dealt that old nature its mortal wound and promises one day to eradicate every selfish stain and free us for everlasting happiness.
And so, the prayer to die daily is just another way of saying, “Lord, help me to see the opportunities to follow you.” We wish to submit ourselves to the death of certain ambitions and attitudes, to kill off our sinfulness and selfishness, to mortify all wrongheaded desires and decisions, and to rise every day in the Spirit, awakened to the majesty of a Savior who promises nothing else than glory. Try it yourself. Lord, help me see the ways you’d have me die today. I guarantee he’ll answer that prayer.
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.”
John 6:37 demands discussion of a point passed over briefly in the last study. It is found in the first half of the verse, the half that reads, “All that the Father gives me will come to me.” This is one of the great statements in the Bible of the doctrine of “the efficacious calling” of the sinner by God, or “irresistible grace.” It is the teaching that all those whom God has chosen inevitably come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This means that God’s grace will not be frustrated,that the plan of salvation will come to a perfect completion, and that Jesus Christ will not have died in vain. This teaching necessarily belongs with those looked at earlier, for it is part and parcel of that Reformed system of doctrine that holds to the biblical teaching on man’s total spiritual depravity and the necessity of God’s electing grace. Moreover, a little thought will show anyone who is willing to face these questions fairly that it must be this way. If we should attempt to make salvation ultimately dependent upon some act of man, no matter how small that act is, then nothing can be certain where salvation is concerned, and a statement like this—“All that the Father gives me will come to me”—is impossible.
Alpha and Omega
Let me explain what I mean. If Jesus Christ died not knowing if men would believe in him or not, and without the guarantee by God that they would believe, then it is entirely possible that no one would have believed and that his death would have been for nothing. He would have died, but no one would have been saved. You cannot have it both ways. Thus, God either determines who will be saved and sees to it that they are saved, or there is at least the possibility that no one will believe in Jesus. And if there is the possibility that no one will believe, or even that some whom God has chosen and given to Jesus will not believe, then John 6:37 is untrue and ought not to appear in the Bible. Some have tried to avoid this conclusion by introducing the factor of God’s foreknowledge. They argue that God in his omniscience foresaw that some would believe and therefore sent Jesus Christ to die for them. But that does not help anyone out of the difficulty. In fact, it makes the difficulty worse. For, instead of making the salvation of an individual depend upon the depraved will of man, it actually makes even the death of Jesus Christ himself depend upon the will of man. For if God had foreseen that none would believe, then Jesus would not have come and died and the great drama of salvation would have been nipped in the bud—and all because of us! We would have been dictating to the Savior. Instead of this reasoning, we must come back to the great biblical principle that God is not only the author of salvation in the sense of being the One out of whom the plan flows, but also the author in the sense that, like any good author, he finishes the story. Thus, God brings the plan of salvation to its perfect conclusion by irresistibly drawing men, women, and children to himself. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the author and the finisher of our faith. Moreover, this is precisely what John 6:37 is teaching.
Cords of Love
As I say this, however, I am aware that there has been some disagreement even among Reformed theologians, as to how God does this. There have been various theories. Everyone is agreed that if God is drawing men and women to himself irresistibly, he is nevertheless not coercing them. He is not forcing or manipulating men. The Bible says that he draws us with the cords of love. But how does he do this? That is the question. One of the theories advanced to answer this question is that God so orders circumstances that by ordering them he leads the will to do what he desires. What are we to say to this theory? Certainly, we may say that on a human level this often is true. We see it, for instance, in the raising of our children. I did this with my two-year-old daughter. We were at church for a supper meeting at which the children were to eat together while the adults began their meeting. My daughter did not want to eat. In fact, she would not! I sat down at the children’s table, telling her that I was tired—which I was. When she would not eat, I asked for a plate for myself and had it piled high with lots of red Jell-O. I took the first bite. It was all I ate, but as I ate it I remarked how good it was. I took another spoonful, but as I took it I passed it by her nose. Her mouth opened, and the Jell-O was gone. “You ate my Jell-O,” I exclaimed. That was a good joke to her. She brightened up, and soon she was eating it all. In a few minutes she pointed to the meat. She wanted some of that. She drank some milk. Finally, she had not only finished dinner, she had even had seconds and thirds on the Jell-O. That is bending the will toward its own best interests through circumstances. The difficulty with this theory is that it does not do justice to what the Bible has to say about the will as it is since the fall of man into sin. Before the fall this theory would have been operative. But since the fall, it is not. Here we must remind ourselves about the character of people’s inability to choose God. Our inability is not physical; it lies deep in our nature. We will not believe. But this lies so deep in our nature that for all practical purposes the “will not” actually means “cannot.” This is why the Bible speaks of man as being “dead in trespasses and sins.” He is as unable to save himself as a dead man is unable to return himself to life. Therefore, no matter how propitious the circumstances may be, the answer is always the same. It is to reject Jesus.
Rebirth
What would it take for a dead man to respond physically to the voice of Jesus? The answer is that it would take something like a resurrection, a miracle. That was true in the case of Lazarus. Lazarus had been dead four days. Jesus called, and Lazarus came forth. Why? Because Jesus did a miracle in raising him to life. In the same way it requires something like that miracle if a man or woman who has been dead in sin is to believe on Jesus. This is what the Bible teaches. Therefore, a second, better theory is that God calls people to himself irresistibly by means of a miracle. It can be described as a resurrection. More often it is described as rebirth. Have you never heard someone say that the birth of a baby is a miracle? Of course you have, and it is. It is this same miracle that God does spiritually in the life of anyone who comes to believe in Jesus. The order is this: (1) God chooses, (2) God regenerates, (3) the individual believes. Moreover, it is because God alone is active in the first two steps that the calling of God is 100 percent effective. Here are some verses that teach this. First, James 1:18: “He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.” This verse speaks of the moment at which the Christian life begins as the moment at which a child is conceived. It is telling us that this is done according to the will of the Father and not of the child. Who ever heard of a baby deciding on the time or place where it should be born? The idea is preposterous! Yet it is no more preposterous than the teaching that you and I become children of God by deciding that we would like to be born into God’s family. If you are a believer in Jesus Christ, it is because the matter of your faith in Christ was decided first of all by your heavenly Father. He engendered you. Moreover, we are told that the means by which he did that was the Word of God, the Bible. The second important verse to tell about our spiritual conception and birth is John 1:13. This verse tells us that those who are born again are born “not of natural descent [blood], nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” This teaches that there are three ways by which a man or a woman does not become God’s child. It is not by physical birth. This is the significance of the phrase “not of blood.” We do not associate birth with blood today, except in the phrases “noble blood” or “blue blood,” but blood was associated with birth in antiquity; this is the sense in which John is writing. No one becomes a child of God simply because his or her parents are children of God. No one inherits the relationship. Then, too, no one becomes a child of God through emotion. This is the heart of the phrase “nor of human decision.” A person can be moved to tears in a revival service, for example, and still not be born again. Finally, it is not of his own will either; for, according to John, no one becomes a believer merely by sitting down and deciding entirely in himself that he or she will believe. We cannot do that. Well, then, how do we come to believe? The answer is that we come to believe simply because God first does a miracle in order to make us alive spiritually. A person must believe. You must accept Jesus if you are to be saved. But the question is: Why do you accept him when another person does not? Or, why do you reject him when another comes to him? Is it anything in man? Of course not! If that were the case, there could be boasting in heaven. Salvation is not of man, salvation is of God who intervenes. Men believe because God has first regenerated them, rather than it being the other way around.
Birth from Above
A third important verse on this subject is John 3:3: “No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” In one sense this verse merely repeats what I have been saying. It tells us that a person must experience spiritual birth if he or she is to see spiritual things (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14). But it is also true that it adds a bit more. For one thing, there is a choice of words in the expression “born again” that is a clue to the fuller meaning. There are two words for “again” in the Greek language. One word is palin, which refers only to the repetition of an act. This is not the word used. The other word is anothēn, which means both “from above” and “again.” Clearly, by using this word, John expressed the idea that the new birth must come from God alone and not from man. Moreover, even the idea of repetition (“again”) is not mere repetition. For anothēn also means to have the act repeated by the same one who acted the first time. In other words, just as God made Adam alive once by breathing into him the divine breath so that he became a living soul, so it is necessary for God to breathe into a man the second time in order that he might be brought to life spiritually. It is hard to miss the fact that this is precisely what is involved in the quickening of a dead soul, for a few verses farther on Jesus speaks of the fact that the new birth takes place by means of God’s breath or spirit. He says, “No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and of the Spirit” (3:5). God’s spirit is his breath. His breath must fill our spiritual dust if it is to be animated. The last verse is 1 Peter 1:23: “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” There are many images for the Bible in the Word of God. The Bible calls itself a lamp to our feet, a light to our path. It is a hammer, a rock, a mirror, a sword. It is milk for the infant. It is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. These are all great and good images, but none is so bold or striking as the image for the Word of God that occurs in this verse from 1 Peter. Here it is sperm, the male life germ. Peter is saying that God uses his Word to engender spiritual life in an individual, just as the human father implants his life within a woman in the act of engendering a child. What happens when a man or a woman is born again? First, God takes the ovum of saving faith and gives it to the individual; for we are told that even faith is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Next, he sends forth the seed of his Word so that the living Word pierces the egg of faith and engenders life. In this act a new spiritual life comes into being. And if anyone should inquire after the mother, the answer is that the church fulfills this function. For it is within the womb of the church that the Word is preached and in which the embryo can grow until it comes to the point at which the new life becomes visible and the cry of confession announces the reality of new birth.
It Matters
If you are a Christian, this is a great truth for you, for it is a truth that gives tremendous importance to what you become in Christ and to what you do. God has a plan. So if he has chosen you and called you to himself in the course of his day-by-day unfolding of that plan, then where you are and what you do where you are matters. Here is an illustration. According to any system of theology that places the ultimate decision in salvation with human beings, salvation is something like getting on a train that takes you away from your environment. It comes from somewhere else, passes through your town, and goes on to glory. Grace is involved, of course. God did not have to send the train. But still, your efforts are involved. You have to get on, and it takes you away. What I have been teaching is different. According to this system, you are not even on the platform. You are at home. But God comes on the train; he gets off; he goes to your house; he does a miracle in your life. And then, he instructs you to live for him there, because that is important to him. If you see that, you will realize that the most important thing in this entire universe is, not what is happening in the halls of our heads of state or in the laboratories of the world’s most brilliant scientists, but what is happening in you now. This gives importance to whatever you do. It means, you matter. Are you saying, “But I am far too insignificant; I am not important”? In the world’s eyes, yes, that may be true. But it is not true for God. In Shakespeare’s King Lear there is a dungeon scene in which a number of selfish nobles are about to put out the eyes of an old man named Glouster. It is a wicked deed, and they are doing it for their own selfish ends. On the stage with them is an exceedingly minor character in the play. He does not even have a name. In the list of dramatis personae he is just called a servant. No one has been paying any attention to him. Nevertheless, in this one scene he rushes across the stage to defend Glouster. At once one of the nobles turns about and simply cuts him down with his sword. Then they go on and blind the old man anyway. Who is important in this scene? The world answers, “the noble.” But if this were real life and we were looking at the play from God’s perspective, the right answer would be, “the servant.” For he did the right thing at the right moment. We do not see this great drama of life clearly. God is the only One who knows the end from the beginning. We do not know the importance of our role, but we do know that he has created us and called us so that at this particular moment in the drama, in the play called “Time,” we might take the part he has given in a way that is honoring to Jesus Christ. Will you take that role? Will you live for him? This is the spiritual meat of the text that tells us that all whom the Father has given to Jesus shall come to him and that no one who comes will be cast out.
No One Driven Away
John 6:37
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.”
The record of John 6:37 is one of the great texts of the Word of God: “whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” This verse swings the broad gates of heaven wide open and promises that Jesus will receive all who come to the Father by him. It means that the gospel is for you if you will hear it and come to Christ. It is for you personally. Years ago in the Midwest there was an old German farmer by the name of Klein. He was an ungodly man. Although he lived across the street from an Evangelical Lutheran Church, he never went in; and, of course, he did not believe the gospel. To his way of thinking, the gospel was for other people, not for him. One day, however, the Bible school of the church began to teach the Bible school children the chorus of the hymn that goes:
Grace! Tis a charming sound,
Harmonious to the ear;
Heav’n with the echo shall resound,
And all the earth shall hear.
Saved by grace alone!
This is all my plea:
Jesus died for all mankind,
And Jesus died for me.
From his listening post across the street Mr. Klein heard the children sing. He heard most of the words clearly. But when they came to the line “Jesus died for all mankind,” he thought they were singing “Jesus died for old man Klein, and Jesus died for me.” The thought that Jesus died for him personally finally sank into his heart. Klein crossed the street to the church, attended services, and eventually committed his life to the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the message of John 6:37. Put your name in that song and say, “Jesus died for Mary Jones, John Smith, Paul Brown, Betty Harris, or whatever your name might be.” Jesus died for you if you will come to him.
Belief and Trust
Before we go on to see just how wide this text is—how wide heaven’s gates are flung open by it—we need to explain, first of all, what is meant by the word “come.” Jesus said, “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” What does it mean to come to him? One answer to that question is that Jesus is clearly talking about faith. To come to Jesus means to have faith in him. This channel of salvation is always spoken of in the Bible. “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith,” Paul wrote to the Ephesians (Eph. 2:8). “Without faith it is impossible to please God,” said the author of Hebrews (11:6). Faith in Jesus is commitment to Jesus based upon a belief that he is who he said he is and that he will do what he has promised to do for everyone who trusts him. The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon once wrote about faith: “Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure. It is not an unpractical, dreamy thing; for faith trusts, and stakes its destiny upon the truth of revelation.… Faith is believing that Christ is what He is said to be, and that He will do what He has promised to do, and then to expect this of Him.” Since Jesus said that he was dying for the sin of mankind and that he would save any who would commit themselves to him, saving faith is therefore just believing this and putting your life into the hands of the Savior. Look at the same thing another way. What is faith? Faith is a simple thing. It is the eye that looks to Jesus, just as the eyes of the Israelites looked to the bronze serpent in the wilderness and were healed. Faith is the hand that grasps, just as Jacob grasped hold of the angel of the Lord, who wrestled with him by the brook Jabbok, and would not let go until he had been blessed. Faith is the mouth that feeds upon Christ, feasting on the bread of life and quenching its thirst with living water. Again, faith is clinging to Christ when it seems that this is all one can do. Faith is building on Christ so that a worthwhile structure begins to grow on that foundation. Faith is stepping out by faith in Christ when there seems to be nothing to step on, just as Peter stepped out onto the waters of the Sea of Galilee at Christ’s bidding. Faith is trusting Christ and proving his promises. Sometime ago a man introduced himself to me with the remark that he was a “C and E” Christian. I did not know what he was going to say, but I sensed what was coming. “What do you mean?” I asked. “Christmas and Easter,” he answered. “I am the kind of Christian who goes to church on Christmas and Easter.” I could easily have insulted him, but I held back and instead reminded myself of another Christian, an old saint from England, who called herself a “T and P” Christian. She wrote these letters in her Bible opposite promises that she personally had found to be true. The letters stood for “tried and proven.” Which are you? Are you a “C and E” Christian? In most cases that is no Christian at all. Or are you a “T and P” Christian, one who has tried God’s promises by faith and has proved them personally? I feel at this point that someone may say, “But I do not think that I can do even one of these things. I want to look up to Christ, but I cannot look. I want to grasp hold, but I cannot seem to do it. I want to feed on him, but I seem to lack the will even for that. I cannot seem to cling, build, step out, or prove his promises.” But can you not simply let go then and fall into the waiting arms of Jesus? Suppose there is a fire and you are trapped on the third-story ledge of a building. The building is burning down around you and will soon fall. You are clinging to the ledge for dear life. Below are the firemen with their net. Well, can you not let go and fall into the net that will save you? That is all God asks. Merely release your hold on all that keeps you from him—whether this is your desire to run your own life, your own fine opinion of yourself, your low opinion of yourself, your good works, whatever it is—and fall into the net of salvation, into the waiting arms of the Savior. Jesus said, “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away.”
Who May Come?
Let me make it even more personal. Who, according to this text, may come to Jesus? The answer is: anyone. How may they come? The answer is: in any way. When may they come? The answer is: at any time. How can it be more universal? The first half of verse 37 is written in the abstract—“All that the Father gives me will come to me.” This is the part of Christ’s sentence that deals with election. It is plural, designating a great number. It is abstract, for we do not know who those who are called by God are. The second half of the verse, however, our half, is both singular in number and personal—“him.” It is Jesus’ way of saying “You,” whoever you may be, and however and whenever you may come. Even if you are a great sinner, you may come. The Bible tells us that Jesus did not come to call the righteous “but sinners to repentance.” What is your sin? Murder? Adultery? Theft? It does not matter. If you will come to Jesus, you will be received. “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” Children of Christian parents, you who have been running away from the God of your father and mother, you may come! “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” Backslider! “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” You who are indifferent! “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” Some time ago I met a man who was indifferent toward Jesus Christ. He told me that he came to Tenth Presbyterian Church occasionally, adding that this was “whenever my friends think I need a dose of religion.” That kind of exposure to religion will innoculate you against true faith and will lead you (with a false sense of well-being) to a Christless eternity. Religion saves no one. Christ saves. So Christ is for you if you are indifferent. Come to him. Jesus said, “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away.”
How May I Come?
Then, too, I want you to see that there is no restriction on how a person may come, just as there is no restriction on who may come. How may you come? The answer is: in any way. Some come running. I have seen that many times. The gospel is preached; these persons respond like Zacchaeus, who climbed a tree to get a saving view of Christ, or like Peter, who jumped vigorously into the sea and swam toward him. For these persons, the gospel is like a key in a lock, or a quarter in a soft-drink machine. The results are immediate. Moreover, they seem to come in the fullness of faith into a full knowledge of the gospel. Often, Catholics who have not believed in Christ personally come in this way, for they often have a true sense of God’s sovereignty, righteousness, wisdom, and other attributes to begin with, and the gospel makes all of it fall into place. Others come limping to Christ with poor, halting steps. They want to believe; they think they believe, a bit, in part; then they are not too sure, on the other hand, that they do want to come. It makes no difference. These may come too, for the words of Jesus do not specify how we may come any more than they specify who may come. Coming is for anyone. Perhaps you are one who has been holding back, resisting faith, just as Paul, Augustine, C. S. Lewis, and many others have resisted. It makes no difference here either, so long as you eventually commit your life into the hands of Jesus Christ. Let me give you a personal illustration of this point. Some time ago, at the University of Pennsylvania, workers for Campus Crusade for Christ began speaking to a young black student who was apparently a Christian but who did not seem terribly interested in Christian things. His chief interest was in making the freshman basketball team, and he had been working toward this goal all through the fall of his freshman year. Actually he was resisting the gospel, but the Crusade staff did not know this then. They invited him to a fall conference at which I was speaking. He did not want to go. He had no money, he said. They gave him a scholarship. He then said he did not have a way to get there. The staff offered him a ride. When he arrived at the conference he had eaten no dinner, so he decided to go out for hamburgers instead of going to the first meeting. His dinner did not take up the entire time of the meeting, however, so he came in when it was just about halfway through. I did not see this student enter but, apparently, just as he came through the door (wondering whether he would make the freshman basketball team—the final tryouts were to be held on Monday) I said, “God loves you, whoever you are; he offers you a plan for your life.” This word struck him as directly from God. He sat down and listened. He committed his life to the Lord, and he became the most effective witness of Christ’s saving grace to the black community on the campus. It does not matter how you come. You may come boldly, limpingly, reluctantly. The important thing is that you do come. Will you do that? Will you commit your life to Jesus?
When May I Come?
Finally, the words of Jesus are broad also as to when you may come. You may come at any time. You may come as a child. I am glad that children hear and respond to the gospel. Some say that you cannot preach to children, but that is untrue. Children can understand an enormous amount if someone will just take time to teach them. And they can follow Jesus. Are you a child? If you are, and if you can understand what I am saying, you should know three things: (1) you are old enough to sin, (2) you are old enough to die, and (3) you are old enough to come to Jesus. It is wonderful to come as a child. If you come as a child, you have a whole lifetime ahead of you in which Jesus can mold you into the kind of person he would have you be and can train you for the kind of work he has for you to do. I am glad that Jesus called me when I was young, for most of the decisions of my life, even at a young age, were made in view of that call and in view of the fact that I felt led to a preaching ministry. Children, will you not believe in Jesus and follow him? You may be one who is saying, “But I have missed all that. I could have come as a child, but I did not come. Now I am old, and it is hard to change. It is too late for me.” No, it is not too late! I will admit that there are increasing difficulties associated with advanced age. There are habits of mind. A young mind generally is more open. But God is equal to these difficulties, and men and women in old age come also. Why not you? If a number of those who have lived long lives before believing in Christ will come to Christ, why should you not be among them? You may not be able to do very much for Jesus because of your age, but he can do everything for you. Yours can be a great testimony. Though you will have only a short time on earth to serve him, you will have an eternity through which you can praise him. Spurgeon once wrote, “Oh, my dear hearers, come to Jesus! Come in the morning when the dew is on your branch, for he will not cast you out. Come in the heat of noon, when the drought of care parches you, and he will not cast you out. Come when the shadows have grown long, and the darkness of the night is gathering about you, for he will not cast you out. The door is not shut; for the gate of mercy closes not so long as the gate of life is open.”
Will You Come?
Will you come to Jesus? The time is now; the place is wherever you find yourself at this moment. A number of years ago I was in Egypt and stood on the banks of the mighty Nile River. Egypt owes her life to the Nile, so much so that the Egyptians have a proverb about it: “Egypt, the gift of the Nile.” The Nile brings water, which makes the country one great oasis in the midst of the desert; the yearly inundations have long provided fertilization for the rich, dark soil. Nothing is greater or more valued in Egyptian life than the Nile. Yet for all its importance, the Nile is free and abundant to anyone who finds himself by its banks. Any dog, any cow, any person can drink of the river of Egypt and drink all he desires. So, too, with the grace of God. The river of God’s grace is freely flowing. All may drink of it. Will you drink? You need only stoop down and scoop it up.
Boice, J. M. (2005). The Gospel of John: an expositional commentary (pp. 487–498). Baker Books.
China to Evacuate 400,000 Ahead of Super Typhoon Ragasa After Philippines, Taiwan Hit The massive storm, carrying sustained winds of 134 mph and gusts topping 183 mph, made landfall Monday over Panuitan Island in the northern Philippines’ Cagayan province. The country’s weather bureau said Ragasa, known locally as Nando, still posed “a high risk of life-threatening storm surge” with waves expected to exceed 10 feet in low-lying coastal areas.
The High Price of Chinese Investment Presented as a groundbreaking project when Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled it in 2013, BRI was initially touted as a cooperative model aimed at preventing neo-colonialism – a sort of “modern-day Silk Road.” The reality has been starkly different. Far from being a friend to developing nations, China has ensnared them in debt-trap diplomacy, effectively holding their economies hostage while pillaging natural resources and ravaging the environment.
Report: Soros Funneled $80m To Groups Praising Violent Protests Billionaire megadonor George Soros has funneled more than $80 million to organizations that praised terrorists or urged protest violence in America, according to a new report by the Capital Research Center. The Capital Research Center report said Soros— through his Open Society Foundation—has distributed tens of millions to groups that engage in or endorse actions that meet the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism.
Scientists Printed Viruses Designed by AI and They’re Successfully Reproducing A team of researchers from Stanford University and the Arc Institute in Palo Alto, California say they’ve created viruses with AI-designed DNA that can target and kill specific bacteria. And these aren’t just simulated possibilities — they’re real and already slaying germs in the lab.
UN Schedules Gaza Meeting During Rosh Hashanah: An Unprecedented Case of Religious Exclusion The United Nations Security Council has sparked controversy by scheduling a critical meeting on the Gaza war during Rosh Hashanah, one of Judaism’s holiest holidays. The timing appears designed to prevent Israeli officials and observant Jews from participating in discussions about Israel’s ongoing conflict with Hamas.
Anti-Hamas militia to Israelis: ‘Happy Jewish New Year!’ An armed faction in the Gaza Strip that is positioning itself as an alternative ruling force to Hamas released a holiday message to Jewish Israelis and Jews worldwide ahead of Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, which begins Monday evening. Ghassan Al-Dahineh, deputy head of the Abu Shabab militant group, posted a Facebook message in Arabic offering holiday greetings to Israelis and the Jewish Diaspora. “On the occasion of the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashana), I extend my sincere best wishes to our Arab Jewish brethren in particular,” Al-Dahineh wrote, apparently referring to Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews whose families lived in Islamic countries across the Middle East and North Africa for centuries.
How is it that progressives support Hamas’s regressive agenda? How is it that the most regressive movement since the Second World War has become the darling of the world’s progressive and LGBTQ groups? Under Sharia law, it is not only illegal but punishable by extreme measures, including torture and execution. In Gaza, gay men are hanged on lamp posts or thrown off rooftops. So how is it that a movement that advocates Sharia law …..
Hamas documents reveal secret UK contact with terrorists London’s envoy assured Hamas that funding for Gaza projects would continue despite terrorist designation. It took place a few months after London declared Hamas a terrorist organization in November 2021.
‘Britain’s last chance’: Nigel Farage promises mass deportations in UK to save a ‘broken nation’ Polls predict Nigel Farage’s Reform UK could reshape British politics, with immigration and national identity at the heart of his campaign: ‘Entire areas no longer speak English, this is the last chance!’ Farage has a new top priority: saving what he calls a “broken Britain” from the influx of immigrants entering the kingdom. “The country is in a very bad place. It’s a mix of anger and despair. It’s no surprise that protests broke out outside the hotels. We are in economic decline. Social order is breaking down. Culturally, we are unraveling. It’s as if our leaders have forgotten who we are, and when we question it, they do everything to suppress free speech online. We will not accept that.
OpenAI and NVIDIA announce strategic partnership to deploy 10 gigawatts of NVIDIA systems Strategic partnership enables OpenAI to build and deploy at least 10 gigawatts of AI datacenters with NVIDIA systems representing millions of GPUs for OpenAI’s next-generation AI infrastructure. To support the partnership, NVIDIA intends to invest up to $100 billion in OpenAI progressively as each gigawatt is deployed. The first gigawatt of NVIDIA systems will be deployed in the second half of 2026 on NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin platform. NVIDIA and OpenAI today announced a letter of intent for a landmark strategic partnership to deploy at least 10 gigawatts of NVIDIA systems for OpenAI’s next-generation AI infrastructure to train and run its next generation of models on the path to deploying superintelligence.
“I’ve Never Talked To A Democrat Who Ever Wanted To Listen…” This past summer, I tried to open a line of communication with a West Coast relative. We exchanged a few letters. I tactically steered the conversation away from the political. Here was the closer salvo from my relative: Jimmy, on a completely personal level, and in different times, I think we could have been very good friends. At this point in our history, I find what you say in your blogs and Kunstlercast to be outrageous, deceptive, and ugly. I disagree with almost everything you hold dear politically, and even if, for instance, we agree about the horrors of Big Pharma, your worship of Kennedy makes me ill. Your language falls right into all the clichés of the far right ideologies I loathe. Maybe someday things will change. For now, this is the last you’ll be hearing from me.
California Bans Most Law Enforcement, Including Federal Agents, From Wearing Masks The first-of-its-kind law, which would go into effect in January 2026, was immediately criticized by Trump administration officials, who have instructed federal agents to ignore it. That sets the stage for a showdown in court. “The impact of these policies all across this city, our state, and nation are terrifying,” Newsom said. “It’s like a dystopian sci-fi movie. Wait…what?
US lawmakers push for increased military cooperation with China during rare visit the first official delegation from the House of Representatives to China since 2019 is currently visiting China and will remain in the country until Thursday. The outlet noted that the delegation, which is led by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, met with Premier Li Qiang on Sunday and with Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun and Vice Premier He Lifeng on Monday. Smith told Dong, “We are the first delegation from the United States House of Representatives since 2019 and we feel strongly that there should be more frequent visits and more robust conversation.”
Putin Offers US A Temporary Nuclear Control Deal “To Prevent New Arms Race” Vladimir Putin on Monday has offered President Trump a temporary nuclear arms control deal that would extend the status quo by one year, at a moment the future of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, is hanging by a thread. This would allow time to negotiate its further extension, likely by another five years. This would be “if the US reciprocates, to prevent a new arms race,” Putin stipulated.
China On Cusp Of Commercializing US-Pioneered ‘Holy Grail’ Fusion Energy China has spent up to $13 billion developing fusion energy since 2023 and could commercially replicate star power to generate electricity by 2030, becoming the first nation to master what’s commonly dubbed “the holy grail of energy solutions.” Doing so would give the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) “the potential to reshape global geopolitics” and “dominate a new energy era,”. This cannot happen, said Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas), who chairs the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s Energy Subcommittee. “Fusion energy technologies must be developed and deployed by nations that uphold democratic values, transparency, and international cooperation—not by authoritarian regimes that might exploit energy dominance as a weapon,”
Gabrielle becomes second hurricane of 2025 Atlantic season, swells affecting Bermuda, U.S. East Coast, and Atlantic Canada Tropical Storm Gabrielle intensified into a hurricane on September 21, 2025, becoming the second hurricane of the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season after Erin. The storm is forecast to undergo rapid strengthening and could become a major hurricane early this week as it passes east of Bermuda. Swells and rip currents are already affecting Bermuda, the U.S. East Coast, and Atlantic Canada.
‘Wicked’: Teachers subject students to ‘Witchy Wednesday’ indoctrination …”The series, which is aired during mid-week morning announcements, is produced by students providing ‘religious instruction’ on spells, magic, moon worship, and other witchcraft rituals,” the legal team explained. And it has cautioned officials against making any such indoctrination mandatory. Further, since that one religious perspective has been promoted officially by the school, now any Christian students “who wish to share their Christian beliefs” must be allowed to do so in the same manner.
Antifa Designated ‘Domestic Terror Group’ As White House Declares War On Radical Leftist Groups President Trump signed an executive order designating the Antifa movement a “domestic terrorist organization” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s political assassination nearly two weeks ago. The White House has signaled its intent to designate Antifa as a terror organization over the past week (read here & here), but now it’s official as reported by The White House’s Rapid Response X account:
Will there ever be a Palestinian State? Do the Palestinians have a right to form a state? If a one-state solution were implemented, what would happen to the Palestinian population? Why is compromise impossible with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority? The Danube Institute asked Yossi Dagan, the head of the Shomron Regional Council, about the fading prospects of the two-state solution.
The New York Times publishes a scary but false narrative of a climate crisis in Europe …In an article published last Wednesday, The New York Times claimed: “Severe heat this summer killed three times as many people in European cities as would have died had humans not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels.” “This is false,” Watts says. These are not real additional deaths, but estimates based on computer simulations. Stating the obvious, which seems to have escaped The New York Times, Watts explains that “computer models are seriously flawed and can be tuned to yield virtually any desired outcome.”
The covid response was not a mistake The Covid response was not an error, and it was not the result of rushing to address a crisis due to an unknown pathogen. It was a lot of people, mostly professionals in the field, systematically and collectively doing what they knew was wrong, David Bell writes and systematically lays out the facts. “When laid bare by maths and statistics rather than sponsored modelling, the covid response looks horribly like incompetence that was not completely unintentional,” he says.
‘Prophet’ Muhammad’s Parades of Power Take Over America’s Streets — From New York to Texas The Islamization of America is no longer creeping — it’s marching. Across New York, Chicago, Houston, and Atlanta, Islam’s “Prophet” Muhammad is now being glorified in full-scale parades — floats of Mecca and Medina rolling down American avenues, Islamic flags raised high, and military-style processions shutting down our streets. Just days before the anniversary of 9/11, New York City Mayor Eric Adams even hosted a City Hall celebration for Muhammad and pledged to make his birthday an official city holiday.
“Your love of liberty — your respect for the laws — your habits of industry — and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness.” —George Washington (1789)
Jimmy Kimmel (sort of) returns tonight: The Walt Disney Company, which owns ABC, announced yesterday that Jimmy Kimmel will be returning to his eponymous late-night show this evening. Kimmel’s show was suspended last week after he falsely claimed that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a MAGA guy. What followed was outrage from many on the Left, erroneously claiming that Kimmel was a victim of free speech suppression, highlighting “threatening” comments from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. In reality, it appears that Disney made its decision after broadcasting groups Nexstar and Sinclair Broadcasting announced that they would not air Kimmel’s show due to his incendiary comments. However, with public pressure mounting, Disney reversed course. The problem is that Sinclair, which owns nearly 40 ABC affiliates, is still refusing to air Kimmel’s show until he apologizes to Kirk’s family and donates to Turning Point USA. Nexstar has yet to announce a decision.
Tylenol linked to autism? On Sunday, during Donald Trump’s address to the massive crowd gathered for Charlie Kirk’s memorial service, he said, “I think we’ve found an answer to autism — autism. How about that?” On Monday, Trump, flanked by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, said, “Don’t take Tylenol. Don’t take it.” He added, “ Fight like hell not to take it.” Why? Well, according to Kennedy, recent studies have linked pregnant women’s Tylenol use to autism. Kennedy noted that one in 31 children in the U.S. is affected by autism, which is five times higher than when the CDC first began surveying for the condition back in 1992. Despite Kennedy’s warning, scientists have been quick to point out that these studies have not actually identified a causal link between Tylenol and autism.
Homan bribery allegation or entrapment? White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt flatly denied allegations that Border Czar Tom Homan accepted a $50,000 payment from undercover FBI agents. The story originated from reporting by MSNBC alleging that Homan was offered the payment before the election in exchange for help securing government contracts after Trump took office. Leavitt explained that Homan never accepted the money and that the offer itself was an example of the weaponized Justice Department under Joe Biden. Others have pointed out that this was a field investigation in Texas, not a sting operation ordered by Washington. It’s difficult to see what charges could be leveled against Homan. Even if he had taken the money, a conspiracy requires two individuals who intend to commit a crime, and bribery requires a quid pro quo arrangement that did not occur.
The president can fire an executive branch employee: Donald Trump got another win from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday after the justices overturned a lower court’s injunction against his firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. The lower court had ordered Slaughter reinstated while her challenge to Trump’s firing of her proceeded through the courts. In overturning the lower court, the justices have not ruled on the merits of Trump’s argument that, as the head of the executive branch, he has the authority to fire individuals from so-called independent executive branch agencies. However, the justices’ action here indicates their interest in weighing in on the question of the constitutionality of independent executive branch agencies. As for Slaughter, she will now remain fired until her lawsuit is resolved.
Pentagon media crackdown: The right to a free press was enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution because the pressures and incentives on a government are so strongly directed toward controlling information. That’s why a recent change at the Pentagon is raising eyebrows. Journalists covering the Pentagon will be asked to sign a pledge not to publish even unclassified information that has not been authorized for release, or else risk losing access to the Pentagon. Leaks and unauthorized disclosures have already caused issues for Pete Hegseth’s Department of War in Trump’s second term (ahem — Signal), so the desire to stop leaks is understandable. Still, when constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley says an action poses a threat to core free press protections, it pays to listen.
Secret Service disables massive hidden telecom network in NY: “The potential for disruption to our country’s telecommunications posed by this network of devices cannot be overstated,” said Secret Service Director Sean Curran of the massive telecom network the Secret Service seized in New York in recent weeks. Law enforcement announced this morning that more than 300 SIM servers, comprising over 100,000 SIM cards, were discovered in abandoned apartment buildings at five sites. The operation was capable of sending over 30 million texts per minute, which could be used to disable communication networks in the Big Apple through distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. The timing of this announcement is significant, as 150 world leaders are arriving in the NYC area for the UN General Assembly this week. This operation involved substantial resources, which limits the possible suspects to geopolitical foes, with China at the top of the list.
DHS won’t comply with CA mask ban: On Saturday, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the No Secret Police Act into law. The law was intentionally aimed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, who often wear masks to protect their identity when conducting raid operations. The law would clearly put ICE agents and their families at risk from criminals. On Monday, Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called California’s law “unconstitutional.” In a posting on X, DHS observed a “1,000% increase in assaults” on ICE agents and called Newsom’s law “a disgusting, diabolical fundraising and PR stunt.” DHS will not comply with the masking ban, with acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli stating, “The State of California has no jurisdiction over the federal government. If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress.”
Congress says Russian kidnapping schemes in Ukraine amount to state-sponsored terrorism: Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) are co-sponsoring a bill that would add Russia to the short list of state sponsors of terrorism over its kidnapping of Ukrainian children. Currently, only Iran, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea bear that label. The reports from Ukrainian leaders say 19,546 Ukrainian children have been kidnapped and taken to more than 210 facilities in Russia, half of which are controlled by the government. The “Ukraine 5 AM” coalition says the number of kidnapped children is much higher, between 260,000 and 700,000. At 39 of the Russian facilities, older children are believed to undergo military training to join the Russian war machine in Ukraine. This bill represents an attempt to force the hand of President Trump, who has been slow to use harsh measures against Russia as he pursues a peace settlement.
Headlines
TPUSA announces star-studded lineup of campus speaking dates after Charlie Kirk’s murder (NY Post)
Woman in “Make America Kind Again” shirt decapitates Trump effigy (Not the Bee)
Russia and Iran set to sign new nuclear deal (Newsweek)
Greta removed from leadership of flotilla protesting Israel (Not the Bee)
Humor: AOC loses debate against cardboard cutout of Charlie Kirk (Babylon Bee)
Democrats in positions of power continue to eschew decency and morality. Their strategy is to advocate for the total opposite of any policy espoused by the Right. This applies to a range of issues — from abortion limits to tax cuts to deporting criminal illegal aliens — but their moral bankruptcy was laid bare over their ghoulish response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
On Friday, the House of Representatives voted on a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk. It passed 310-58. While the Republicans were united, the other side of the political aisle was split in ugly ways. Only 95 Democrats voted “Yes.” Meanwhile, 58 voted “No,” 38 voted “Present,” and 22 didn’t vote at all. As The Federalist accurately put it, 118 members of the Democrat Party refused to condemn a political murder and honor the legacy of a man who was an influential and inspiring figure in American politics.
Is it disappointing? Absolutely. Is it surprising? No, not really. The Party of Unity, Tolerance, and Democracy™ refusing to condemn political violence is what we now expect from the Democrats. They only want Republicans to turn down the rhetoric while they vigorously fan the flames.
In the immediate wake of Kirk’s murder, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) held a moment of silence to pray for Kirk, his family, and the country. But when asked by a Republican to pray out loud, some Democrat members started a ruckus, shouting “No!” While many Democrats have since denounced political violence in all its forms, their lip service has failed to temper the more radical members of the Left.
Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar made particularly despicable remarks. On Friday, CNN host Kaitlan Collins asked Omar about a video in which she claimed that “Dr. Frankenstein” (a.k.a. Charlie Kirk) was not a victim and that his “monster shot him through the neck” (i.e., Kirk was responsible for his killer). Collins tried to give Omar an out by saying that Kirk was a person, a husband, and a father; however, her appeal to humanity didn’t register. Omar doubled down on her disgusting rhetoric, replying:
What I find jarring is that there’s so many people willing to excuse the most reprehensible things that he said, that they agree with that, that they are willing to have monuments for him, that they want to create a day to honor him, and that they want to produce resolutions in the House of Congress honoring his life and legacy. I am not going to sit here and be judged for not wanting to honor any legacy this man has left behind. That should be in the dustbin of history, and we should hopefully move on and forget the hate that he spewed every single day.
What “hate” did Kirk spew? He said that there are only two genders. That man-woman marriage is ideal. That affirmative action and DEI are racist. That radical Islam is perhaps incompatible with the West. And that violence will ensue if Democrats and Republicans stop talking to each other. All of these are factually correct points. Suffice it to say, Omar would never have had the courage to debate someone like Charlie Kirk. Her ideas would quickly be dismantled and revealed for the garbage that they are.
Sadly, Omar wasn’t the only one to disgrace herself. After the House resolution, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also railed against Kirk, asserting, “His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated, and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans.” Like Omar, AOC would never have had the courage to debate Kirk, mostly because she’s all bluster, anger, and ignorance personified.
Former Democrat-turned-independent Senator Joe Manchin was horrified by AOC’s comments. He was particularly dismayed at her not reading the room and leaving her criticism for another day. “This is not the place and the time for that at all,” he stated. “If the Democrats — if AOC and the far Left, the extreme Left I want to say — believe that’s where the party, the Democratic Party, is today, then that’ll tell you why you lost people like me, and an awful lot. Now, let me tell you what you’ve lost. Since the last election, they’ve been doing their national tour and thinking, boy, that’s something, we’re really getting into something. The Democratic Party has lost more than 160,000 Democrats that have basically left the party since the November election. So if that’s the way the Democrat Party is going, it’s getting worse, not better.”
Omar and AOC were bad, but Texas Representative Jasmine Crockett may take the cake. While being interviewed by CNN’s Dana Bash, Crockett explained that she was deeply hurt that only two white Democrats voted “No” on the House resolution because, according to her, Kirk was a racist. Crockett then elaborated, “The rhetoric that Charlie Kirk continuously put out there was rhetoric that specifically targeted people of color.”
Crockett offered no specific ways in which Kirk was targeting people of color — in fact, she ignored more than a decade of counter evidence — yet she continued, “And so it is unfortunate that even our colleagues could not see how harmful his rhetoric was, specifically to us. And I can tell you that a month prior to him passing away, he had actually gotten out on his podcast, and he was talking negatively about me directly.”
Herein lies Crockett’s real grievance: Kirk dared to criticize her. Did he call for violence against her? No. Did he merely call her ideas bad? Yes. In August, Kirk weighed in on the redistricting fight in Texas, and his criticism of Crockett pertained to her overt racism against white people — which is a legitimate problem. Kirk was also particularly critical of the Democrat Party putting its thumb on the scale to eliminate representatives who are white. The Democrats were shameless about this leading up to the 2024 election. However, Kirk observing what Democrats stated overtly until five seconds ago was apparently racist.
Crockett ended her diatribe by saying:
So, if there was any way that I was going to honor somebody who decided that they were just going to negatively talk about me and proclaim that I was somehow involved in the great white replacement? Yeah, I’m not honoring that kind of stuff, especially as a civil rights attorney and … knowing that there were people that died, people that were willing to die, that worked to make sure that voices like mine could exist in this place.
So, to me, just like we wanted to make sure that those Confederate relics were taken down, the idea of a new age relic being propped up was something that I just could not subscribe to. And it is unfortunate that more of my colleagues, even on my side of the aisle, could not see the amount of harm that this man was attempting to inflict upon our communities.
Ironically, Crockett is one of the worst fomenters of inflammatory rhetoric. In March, she called wheelchair-bound Texas Governor Greg Abbot “Governor Hot Wheels,” and more recently she called President Donald Trump a “wannabe Hitler.”
Omar, AOC, and Crockett are members of the radical Left. They are the worst of the worst when it comes to division, strife, and vitriol. They also seem to be calling the shots. No wonder they are happy to obfuscate or gaslight when it comes to taking accountability for their words. Their “leadership” trickles down and warps the Democrats into an unrecognizable party.
Kirk Derangement Syndrome is now the leftist issue du jour. They won’t collectively and wholeheartedly denounce political violence, and they will happily sully a good man’s name. They are living in an alternate reality, looking wackier and more deranged with each passing day.
Douglas Andrews: Dropping the Gloves on Antifa — With the stroke of a pen, Donald Trump made it clear yesterday that antifa’s carefree days of committing acts of domestic terrorism might be numbered.
Nate Jackson: Weingarten Gaslights About Fascism — Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, has released a book perpetuating the lie that fascism is a phenomenon of the political right.
Michael Smith: The Rules Have Changed — The Democrat leadership guides a party that is on the short end of every 80/20 or even 90/10 issue. Leftists are afraid — and they should be.
Jack DeVine: A Sea Change on Political Discourse? — Will our politicians keep inciting political violence? Or will they, for once, listen to their bosses (us) and tone down the rhetoric?
Reader Comments
Editor’s Note: Each week we receive hundreds of comments and correspondences — and we read every one of them. Click here for a few thought-provoking comments about specific articles. The views expressed therein don’t necessarily reflect those of The Patriot Post.
Jimmy Kimmel Is Back After Mass Celebrity Panic — Disney has reinstated Jimmy Kimmel after suspending him last week over his Charlie Kirk comments. Meanwhile, celebrities who had nothing to say about Charlie’s free speech have been melting down and crying “fascism” over Kimmel.
The Left’s Debate Tactic — Nick Freitas realized that something specific had changed in how the Left approaches debate.
Memphis Residents Support the National Guard — Tennesseans have come out in support of President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Memphis in an effort to reduce crime.
What They Don’t Teach You About Native Americans — If you were taught the kinder, gentler version of Native Americans, this will open your eyes. We don’t honor them by pretending they were eternal victims.
SHORT CUTS
The BIG Lies
“Charlie Kirk assassin has been identified as MAGA.” —Rep. Dave Min
“The right-winger who didn’t want Charlie Kirk to speak did what right-wingers do and shot him.” —American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten
Non Compos Mentis
“One of the things I do want to point out … that honestly hurts my heart is when I saw the ‘No’ votes, there were only two Caucasians. For the most part the only people that voted ‘No’ were people of color.” —Rep. Jasmine Crockett regarding the resolution honoring Charlie Kirk
For the Record
“You look at every ounce of evidence that we have, and it is clear: [Tyler Robinson] is a person who grew up in a pretty normal family, actually had a pretty good home life, who was radicalized by the far Left, by the social networks of the far Left, by the ideas of the far Left, and got so far down the path of radicalization that he killed my friend. That is not a ‘both sides’ problem.” —JD Vance
“[Charlie Kirk] was killed because his words made a difference. Because he was showing people the light and he was killed by the dark.” —Elon Musk
Upright
“Charlie waged war not with a weapon, but with a tent, a microphone, his mind, and the truth. And the gates of hell could not prevail against him.” —Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
“We are the ones who build. We are the ones who create. We are the ones who lift up humanity. You thought you could kill Charlie Kirk? You have made him immortal. … And now millions will carry on his legacy.” —White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller
“My husband, Charlie, he wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life. … On the cross, our Savior said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ That man, that young man — I forgive him.” —Erika Kirk
“The more I learned about him, I thought, ‘This guy’s a modern-day Saint Paul.’ He was a missionary … an evangelist … a hero. He’s one I think that knew what Jesus meant when he said, ‘The truth will set you free.’ … The difference is the way, the mode, the style that he [debated] — always with respect. And not only was that a gracious kind of virtuous thing to do, it’s effective.” —Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan
“Charlie right now is in heaven not because he was a great husband and father, not because he saved millions of kids out of darkness on college campuses, not because he changed minds and chased votes to save the country, not because he sacrificed himself for his Savior. Charlie Kirk is in heaven because his Savior sacrificed Himself for Charlie Kirk.” —apologist Frank Turek
“[Charlie’s] deep belief [was] that we were all created, every single one of us, before the beginning of time, by the hands of the God of the universe. An all-powerful God who loved us and created us for the purpose of living with him in eternity. … And when [Jesus] returns, there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and we will all be together, and we are going to have a great reunion there again with Charlie and all the people we love.” —Secretary of State Marco Rubio
Winds of Revival
“I always felt a little uncomfortable talking about talking about my faith in public. … I have talked more about Jesus Christ in the past two weeks than I have my entire time in public life — and that is an undeniable legacy of the great Charlie Kirk.” —JD Vance
“It is better to be persecuted for your faith than to deny the kingship of Christ.” —JD Vance
And Last…
“The Christian citizen forgives so that the murderer is no longer a private enemy; the state punishes because the murderer is still a public enemy.” —constitutional law professor Adrian Vermeule
ON THIS DAY in 1779, an American vessel named *Bonhomme Richard* defeated the British warship *Serapis* off the coast of England. Despite the *Richard* ultimately sinking after the battle, her crew fought relentlessly, commandeering the *Serapis*. Asked to surrender midway through the battle, American Captain John Paul Jones famously retorted, “I have not yet begun to fight!”
Please join us in prayer for our nation — that righteous leaders would rise and prevail and we would be united as Americans. Pray for the protection of our uniformed Military Patriots, Veterans, First Responders, and their families. Lift up your Patriot Post team and our mission to support and defend our legacy of American Liberty and our Republic’s Founding Principles, in order that the fires of freedom would be ignited in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.
Multiple countries support a Palestinian state at a United Nations summit, even as the US and Israel boycott the meeting; Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon telling The 700 Club a Palestinian state is a reward for terrorism and “nothing good will come from these declarations;” President Trump to speak at the UN today and will meet with Arab and Muslim leaders to discuss the end of the war; Israeli forces press deeper into Gaza City as Israel tries get civilians out of harm’s way but Hamas blocks them from leaving combat zones; Israel and Jews around the world celebrate the Biblical feast of Rosh Hashanah, and Prime Minister Netanyahu sends greetings for the beginning of the Jewish New Year; Chris Mitchell talks about the Israeli view of a Palestinian state, whether it will actually happen, how it could lead to worse terrorist attacks than October 7th, Trump’s meeting with Arab leaders, and the significance of this year’s Rosh Hashanah celebrations; President Trump is urging pregnant women not to take Tylenol out of concerns of a possible link to autism in children, but medical experts disagree; and the President of Hope for the Heart Ministry describes their new reference book, “The Care and Counsel Handbook,” which has answers to 100 real life issues.
Does evil disprove God? If not, what is God’s purpose for evil? Why would a good God allow evil that seems to have no purpose, like the recent m*rder of Charlie Kirk? What is God’s ultimate solution to evil? Join Dr. Frank Turek in this LIVE presentation of, ‘If God, Why Evil?’ delivered at McNeese State Univ. (Lake Charles, LA) on TUES. 9/23 at 7:00 PM CT in the New Ranch Student Union followed by Q&A which will take place to honor the life and legacy of Charlie. Thanks to our generous donors, this event is FREE and open to the public.
President Donald Trump has delivered on his promise to designate Antifa, the leftist organization that has orchestrated dozens, maybe hundreds, of riots in opposition to MAGA in recent years, as a domestic terror organization.
“Antifa is a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law,” he said in his signed order on Monday.
“It uses illegal means to organize and execute a campaign of violence and terrorism nationwide to accomplish these goals. This campaign involves coordinated efforts to obstruct enforcement of Federal laws through armed standoffs with law enforcement, organized riots, violent assaults on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement officers, and routine doxing of and other threats against political figures and activists.
“Antifa recruits, trains, and radicalizes young Americans to engage in this violence and suppression of political activity, then employs elaborate means and mechanisms to shield the identities of its operatives, conceal its funding sources and operations in an effort to frustrate law enforcement, and recruit additional members. Individuals associated with and acting on behalf of Antifa further coordinate with other organizations and entities for the purpose of spreading, fomenting, and advancing political violence and suppressing lawful political speech. This organized effort designed to achieve policy objectives by coercion and intimidation is domestic terrorism.”
Trump said because of Antifa’s “pattern of political violence designed to suppress lawful political activity and obstruct the rule of law,” he designated it a “domestic terrorist organization.”
Trump had announced his planshortly after Charlie Kirk, a titan of the conservative movement often targeted by Antifa and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated by an alleged left-winger radicalized by transgender ideologies.
Tyler Robinson, the suspect, is accused of engraving bullet casings with slogans like, “Hey fascist! Catch!” and more.
There already had been a proposal in Congress to impose that declaration, and leaders now have endorsed it.
Fox News reported House Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., and other Republican lawmakers expressed strong support for Trump’s plan.
They also supported the idea of investigating those who fund the protests and riots.
Antifa, which erupted across the United States at the time of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis several years ago, at the time was blamed for the billions of dollars in damages Antifa riots and violence cost American families, business and cities.
One leftist network, in fact, had a reporter stand in front of a city block engulfed in flames and describe the destruction as fiery but mostly peaceful.
Reports reveal an alleged Antifa cell tried to assassinate police officers in July.
And in Georgia, more than 60 individuals were accused in 2023 of domestic terrorism and material support charges “over Antifa and eco-terrorist violence,” according to a report in the Federalist.
At the time it apparently was, the report said, the “first known Antifa case where law enforcement successfully ‘followed the money,’ raiding the Atlanta Solidarity Fund and its fiscal sponsor, The Network for Strong Communities, over charity fraud allegations for their alleged role in backing violent protests.”
Going forward, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security could make such local groups, leaders and even those funders a priority for their work against domestic terrorism.
WND had reportedthat the House of Representatives was at work on a parallel plan.
It is expediting legislation brought by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., to designate Antifa.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@wndnewscenter.org.
This article was originally published by theWND News Center.
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.Read more of Bob Unruh’s articles here.
With the deadline for a government shutdown less than a week away, there’s no clear agreement between the two major parties on how to move forward.
Government funding is set to expire on Sept. 30. Republicans have been broadly united in their support of a clean continuing resolution (CR), Washington terminology for a stopgap funding bill. President Donald Trump has also backed a clean CR.
Republicans cannot keep the government open on their own. Under Senate rules, Republicans will need the support of multiple Democrats in that chamber to avert a government shutdown, and Democrats have placed conditions on their support.
With both sides entrenched in their positions, it’s unclear how lawmakers will reach an agreement to keep the government open.
Here’s what to know.
Government Shutdown
A government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to fund one or multiple sectors of the federal government.
Every year, Congress must pass a total of 12 spending bills for various areas of federal appropriations, such as funding for defense, agriculture, education, and other outlays.
So far, Congress has not sent any of those finalized funding bills to Trump’s desk.
Government funding expires at the end of a fiscal year, Sept. 30.
Currently, the government is being funded through a CR, which Republicans passed in March, punting the government funding deadline to the normal Sept. 30 date.
U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) speaks to the press outside the U.S. Capitol, as the only Republican to vote against passing the House legislation to fund the government through Sept. 30 and avert a shutdown, on March 11, 2025. Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images
The minority party often uses government funding deadlines as an opportunity to win policy concessions or other demands from the administration.
Republicans Want Clean CR
Trump and other Republican leaders have pushed for the passage of a clean CR, which describes a stopgap funding bill that largely keeps numbers at their previous levels without the addition of many additional bill riders or new appropriations.
“The CR is simply a means to an end; it is a way to fund the government until you have an opportunity to do the appropriations process,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.)saidat a Sept. 19 press conference.
Majority Leader Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) speaks to reporters at a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 3, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times
Last week, House Republicanspassedsuch a bill in a 217–212 vote. It would extend government funding for around seven weeks, pushing the deadline to Nov. 21.
Two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.), voted against the bill.
Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) didn’t vote, butsaidshe supported a CR in a post on X.
The proposal wasrejectedby the Senate after it failed to garner enough support to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold, as was a competing proposal put forward by Democrats.
Democrats Demand $1 Trillion Funding Change
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said Democrats won’t give their backing unless Republicans agree to modify the health care sections of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut nearly a trillion dollars in Medicaid spending.
Those Medicaid cuts helped offset the cost of making the bill’s tax cuts for top earners permanent, which would make it difficult for Republicans to accept Democrats’ demands even if they were open to the proposal.
Republican backers of the bill say that its Medicaid cuts solely targeted waste, fraud, and abuse.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks to reporters at a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 3, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times
Democrats have pointed to Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than 10 million Americans will lose coverage under the bill and highlighted the potential impact the plan could have on small rural hospitals.
In exchange for their backing of a funding bill to keep the government open, Democrats are demanding an extension in subsidies for low- and middle-income Americans who purchased health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.
They propose reversing Medicaid cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The Democrats’ alternative CR, rejected by the Senate, would have carried out these aims.
Thune has criticized these demands.
“The suggestion by the Democrats that somehow they ought to be able to hijack a continuing resolution to attach a trillion dollars of policy … is completely out of any historical context of what continuing resolutions have been used for in the past,” Thune said.
And of course, Elibabeth Warren can’t face reality:
What’s Next?
With Republicans dug in on a clean CR, and Democrats dug in on rescinding key provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it’s unclear what comes next in the ongoing standoff.
On Saturday, Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.)askedTrump for a meeting.
On Sept. 17, Schumer said that Democrats “don’t have a red line” and are willing to discuss a way forward.
“We will sit down and negotiate if they will sit down and negotiate,”Schumer said.
Trump has encouraged Republicans to hold in their insistence on a clean CR.
U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on Sept. 19, 2025. Ken Cedeno/Reuters
In a post on Truth Social, Trump encouraged Republicans to “stick TOGETHER to fight back against the Radical Left Democrat demands” by voting in favor of a clean CR.
“Congressional Republicans, including Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson, are working on a short term ‘CLEAN’ extension of Government Funding to stop Cryin’ Chuck Schumer from shutting down the Government,”Trump said.
“Democrats want the Government to shut down. Republicans want the Government to OPEN.”
Compounding the difficulties of reaching an agreement, most of Congress is currently out of town.
The Senate isn’t expected to return until Sept. 29, while the House isn’t scheduled to return until October.
Unless Democrats reach an agreement to vote on the clean CR passed by the House last week, Republicans could face a choice between a government shutdown and an early return to Capitol Hill.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 
