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
If you own stock in a company, you are keenly aware of one thing: If the company goes out of business, your dividends disappear. You can’t expect to be paid when the company that is supposed to pay you no longer exists!God made promises of forgiveness to Israel, but at the end of 1 and 2 Kings the nation was in exile. Had God gone out of business? What happened to the promises He made? The books of 1 and 2 Chronicles retell the story of God’s people in light of their return from exile. More than a repetition of 1 and 2 Kings, Chronicles allows us to re-read this part of their story with the knowledge that God brought them back, just as He promised. These books show that God planned to save enough Israelites who would return and reconstitute the nation decades after they went to Babylon. In His wisdom, He coordinated the collapse of the Babylonian empire (Jer. 25:11–12), and orchestrated the rise of Cyrus, king of Persia (Isa. 44:28). It was God’s plan all along, and He was faithful to complete it.But more important than this change in their physical circumstances was a change in their spiritual condition. God used the exile to lead Israel back to Himself for forgiveness. Their restoration to the land would coincide with their restoration to faithfulness, and it started with the rebuilding of the House of the Lord (2 Chron. 36:23). The Temple was the focus of Israelite worship. It was the place where God promised to meet His people, receive their sacrifices, and forgive their sins! In raising up Cyrus to rebuild the Temple, God began with what mattered most: returning His people to Himself. Solomon’s prayer (2 Chron. 7:14) anticipated that Israel would always find their God in business, ready to forgive them when they turned to Him.
Go Deeper Are you having a difficult time accepting God’s forgiveness? Turn to promises He made to His people and remind yourself that He has a plan. In Christ He has forgiven you! Extended Reading: 2 Chronicles 36
Pray with Us King Jesus, we pray that Your wonderful promises of forgiveness and restoration will spur us to seek a closer communion with You. Our hearts are full of gratitude. Thank You for Your salvation!
1 Corinthians 13 In this week’s lessons we learn how Jesus perfectly carries out the biblical understanding of love, and how we, as His disciples, are called to show that same kind of love to others.
Theme
The Way of Love
It would not take a great spiritual genius or even a great literary genius to pick 1 Corinthians 13 as one of the greatest chapters in the Bible. It deals with love, and according to the very teaching of the chapter love is the greatest of all the things one could be considering (v. 13). Love is greater than hope. It is even greater than faith, without which it is impossible to please God.
This is interesting in view of other key chapters. Romans 8 speaks of our deliverance from sin and looks forward in hope to our ultimate glorification. It asks, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ” (v. 35)? The answer is no one. Nothing can separate us from Him. That is the Christian’s hope. It is glorious. Yet according to 1 Corinthians 13, love is greater than hope.
In Hebrews 11 the author of that book brings forward example after example of people whose lives were characterized by faith. They believed God and acted upon their belief. They grew strong. They conquered kingdoms. They endured persecutions. This was all by faith. Yet in 1 Corinthians 13 we read that love is greater even than faith.
When I come to this chapter I think of a sermon preached by Emil Brunner, the Swiss theologian. It was on 1 Corinthians 13:13, which speaks of “faith, hope and love.” Brunner said, “We are people who have problems. We have a problem in our past, a problem in our present and a problem in our future. The problem in our past is sin. We are sinful men and women. The problem in our present is alienation. We cannot get along with other people. The problem in our future is death. We are going to die. What are we going to do about these problems?”
Then he came to “faith, hope and love.” He said, “These words are God’s answer. Faith is the answer to the problem in our past. We are sinners, yes, but sinners who have been justified by faith. Hope is the answer to the problem in our future. We are going to die, but God’s answer is the hope of the resurrection. Love is the answer to the problem in our present. We are alienated from God and one another, but love overcomes alienation.”
I suppose this chapter speaks to us in such a forceful way because it deals with this present problem. We have a problem in the past, but it is easy not to be bothered by things in the past. We have a problem in the future, but we tend not to be bothered by the future. How different is the present! Every day of our lives and in many ways it is evident that we have a great problem now. When we get up in the morning and greet the other members of our family, we have problems communicating. We have problems at work. We have problems at lunchtime and in the afternoon. Our days are just filled with problems. And here is the apostle Paul speaking about a way of relating to other people which is the way of love.
The first section of 1 Corinthians 13 (vv. 1-3) deals with the importance of love. The second section (vv. 4-7) deals with the nature of love. The third section (vv. 8-12) deals with the permanence of love. At the very end we have the verse with which I began, pointing out that love is supreme.
Study Questions
Explain how, according to Emil Brunner, faith, hope, and love relate to our past, present, and future.
Dr. Boice divides the chapter up into three parts: the importance of love, the nature of love, and the permanence of love. If you were going to teach a Bible study on this chapter, how else might you choose to outline it?
Application
Reflection: Why do you think the Bible considers love to be even greater than faith or hope?
For Further Study: In order to love others, we need to first learn what it means to love God by loving His house and desiring to abide in His presence. Download for free and listen to James Boice’s message on Psalm 84, “The Psalm of the Janitors.” (Discount will be applied at checkout.)
We may then beg for the forgiveness of what has been amiss in our prayers.
Lord, we have not prayed as we ought: Romans 8:26(ESV) who is there who does good and never sins? Ecclesiastes 7:20(ESV) Even when we want to do right, evil lies close at hand; and if we have the desire to do what is right, we seem not to have the ability to carry it out: For we do not do the good that we want, but the evil we do not want is what we keep on doing; Romans 7:18-21(ESV) so that you might justly refuse to hear, though we make many prayers. Isaiah 1:15(ESV) But we have a great High Priest, who bears the guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts; Exodus 28:38(ESV) for his sake, take away all that guilt from us, Hosea 14:2(ESV) even all the guilt and iniquity of our holy things, and receive us graciously and love us freely, Hosea 14:4(ESV) and deal not with us according to our folly. Job 42:8(ESV)
He replied, Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.
Mark 7:6-7
Those are insightful words. With our Lord’s keen perceptiveness, He plunges right to the heart of the issue. When the Pharisees ask Him. Why do your disciples not observe the traditions? He points out to them, first of all, the effect that the observance of tradition has upon our lives. It produces hypocrites. You hypocrites, He says. I am sometimes amazed as I read through the gospels at the bluntness of Jesus’ language! In fact, Matthew’s account tells us that the disciples said to Him afterward, Do you realize that you offended those Pharisees?
But notice what He is doing here. He is pointing out the result of traditional worship. And He utilizes the word of the prophet Isaiah to show us what it is like. According to Isaiah, there is that which consists of right words but wrong attitudes. Everything outward is right, but inwardly the mind and heart are wrong. That, Jesus says, is hypocrisy–to look as if you are doing something religious and worshipful and God-related, but inside to have an entirely different attitude.
A few years ago, many of us were puzzled and offended when young people would say to us, in one way or another, We don’t want to come to church because churches are filled with hypocrites. Some of us could not understand what they meant. We knew there might be some churches that were filled with hypocrites, but not ours! We had honest difficulty with this. We could not see where there was any hypocrisy in a thoroughly Bible-centered, evangelical church such as ours. But what they were saying was this: You use great words–wonderful words–but you don’t really mean them. You talk about love, but you don’t love. You talk about forgiveness, but you don’t forgive. You talk about acceptance, but you don’t accept. And they were right.
That is what tradition can do to us. It externalizes religion, makes it outward instead of inward. As long as we are fulfilling the prescribed outward form, we think we are acceptable before God. That is the terrible danger of tradition. This particular form that Isaiah mentions here–right words and wrong attitudes-is widespread among Christians. We all suffer from it at times, and we ought to recognize it and admit it. And it has resulted in what is probably the most deadly danger to the evangelistic message of the church–the self-righteousness of Christians–thinking that because we do things in the right way, and say the right words, and believe the right doctrines, we are thus pleasing to God.
Father, I confess the many, many times I have done the outward things with the inward heart far removed. Thank You that You know me, and You have already made provision for my forgiveness. Teach me to worship You in spirit and in truth.
Life Application
Hypocrisy is a routine accusation made against professing Christians. Are we taking this critique seriously? What is a major obstacle that deters us from authenticity?
53When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there. 54As soon as they got out of the boat, people recognized Jesus. 55They ran throughout that whole region and carried the sick on mats to wherever they heard he was. 56And wherever he went—into villages, towns or countryside—they placed the sick in the marketplaces. They begged him to let them touch even the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed.
1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”
6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ” ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ “
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)
20He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ 21For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’ “
24Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27“First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
28“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
29Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
30She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.
Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went to meet Him, but Mary stayed at the house. Martha then said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.” (11:20–27)
When word reached Martha that Jesus was coming into the village she went to meet Him, but Mary stayed at the house. The actions of the two sisters are in keeping with the picture of them in Luke 10:38–42. Martha was the bustling, active one (“distracted with all her preparations”; Luke 10:40), Mary was the quiet, contemplative one (“seated at the Lord’s feet, listening to His word”; v. 39). According to Jewish custom, those who suffered the loss of a loved one remained seated while the other mourners consoled them. But Martha, in keeping with her forceful personality, left her house and went to meet Jesus as He approached. When Martha reached Him, the disturbing thought that had been uppermost in her mind (and her sister’s; v. 32) for the last few days came pouring out: “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.” Although obviously heartbroken, she was not rebuking the Lord for failing to prevent Lazarus’s death. As noted in the previous chapter of this volume, the sisters’ message had arrived too late, humanly speaking, for Jesus to have returned to Bethany in time to heal him. Martha’s words were simply a poignant expression of grief mingled with the faith she expressed in her next statement: “Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” That confidence, however, evidently did not extend to Jesus’ ability to resurrect her brother, as her later hesitation when the tomb was opened makes clear (v. 39). She seems to have had faith in the Lord’s power to heal, but not in His power to raise the dead (perhaps the possibility had not even crossed her mind). Nonetheless Martha recognized that Jesus had a special relationship with God. She was therefore confident that through His prayers some good could still come out of the tragedy. Jesus responded by assuring her, “Your brother will rise again.” He meant that Lazarus was going to be resurrected immediately, but Martha missed the point. She assumed that Jesus, like the other mourners, was comforting her by pointing out that Lazarus would rise again at the end of the age. Martha, however, was already familiar with that truth, and so she replied, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” The resurrection of the body was taught in the Old Testament (e.g., Job 19:25–27; Ps. 16:10; Dan. 12:2), and affirmed by the Pharisees (though not by the Sadducees; Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:6–8). It was also, as Martha knew, the teaching of Jesus (cf. 5:21, 25–29; 6:39–40, 44, 54). Ironically, while she believed Jesus had the power to raise her brother in the distant future, she did not think that He could also do so immediately. Challenging Martha to move beyond an abstract belief in the final resurrection to complete faith in Him, Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life.” This is the fifth of the seven “I AM” deity claims in John’s gospel (6:35; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 14:6; 15:1, 5). Martha’s focus was on the end of the age, but time is no obstacle for the One who has the power of resurrection and life (cf. 5:21, 26). Jesus will raise the dead in the future resurrection of which Martha spoke. But He was also going to raise her brother immediately. The Lord called her to a personal trust in Him as the One who alone has power over death. Jesus’ next two statements, “he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die,” are not redundant. They teach separate, though related, truths. The one who believes in Jesus will live even if he dies physically because He will raise him on the last day (5:21, 25–29; 6:39–40, 44, 54). And since everyone who lives and believes in Him has eternal life (3:36; 5:24; 6:47, 54), they will never die spiritually (see the discussion of 8:51 in chapter 32 of this volume), since eternal life cannot be extinguished by physical death. As a result, all who trust in Christ can exult, “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” (1 Cor. 15:55). When Jesus challenged Martha, “Do you believe this?” He was not asking her if she believed that He was about to raise her brother. The Lord was calling her to personally believe that He alone was the source of resurrection power and eternal life. R. C. H. Lenski writes,
To believe “this” is to believe what he says of himself and thus to believe “in him.” It is one thing to hear it, to reason and to argue about it; and quite another thing to believe, embrace, trust it. To believe is to receive, hold, enjoy the reality and the power of it, with all that lies in it of joy, comfort, peace, and hope. The measure of our believing, while it is not the measure of our possessing, since the smallest faith has Jesus, the resurrection and the life, completely, is yet the measure of our enjoyment of it all. (The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel [Reprint; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998], 803)
Because of His infinite love for Martha’s soul, Jesus pointed her to the only source of spiritual life and well-being—Himself. Martha’s affirmation of faith in Jesus stands with the other great confessions of His identity in the gospels (1:49; 6:69; Matt. 14:33; 16:16). It anticipates John’s purpose statement for writing his gospel: “These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:31). Martha emphatically (the Greek text has the personal pronoun in addition to the verb) declared three vital truths about Jesus: Like Andrew (1:41), she confessed that He was the Christ, or Messiah; like John the Baptist (1:34), Nathanael (1:49), and the disciples (Matt. 14:33) she affirmed that He was the Son of God; and finally, like the Old Testament had predicted (cf. Is. 9:6; Mic. 5:2), she referred to Him as He who comes into the world—the deliverer sent by God (Luke 7:19–20; cf. John 1:9; 3:31; 6:14).
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). John 1–11 (pp. 462–465). Moody Press.
“I Am the Resurrection and the Life”
John 11:17–26
On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. “Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
About fifty years before the birth of Jesus Christ a letter was written by a well-known Roman, Sulpicius Severus, to the great orator Cicero on the occasion of the death of Cicero’s beloved daughter Tullia. It is a magnificent letter. It expresses deep sympathy. It reminds the orator that his daughter had only experienced a lot common to mankind and had passed away only when the freedom of the Republic was itself failing. It is warm and moving. But in spite of these great qualities the letter contains nothing of a hope of life beyond the grave. In reply, Cicero thanks his friend for his sympathy and enlarges upon the measure of his loss. A century later the apostle Paul was in contact with Christians who had become similarly discouraged by the death of their friends, as the result of which he too has left us a letter. But Paul’s letter is different. True, it acknowledges sorrow; but it also breathes hope. It deals with death, but it also knows the comfort of a resurrection. In it Paul writes, “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.… Therefore encourage each other with these words” (1 Thess. 4:13–14, 18). These letters present a remarkable contrast, for they throw into relief that new awareness of the future life introduced by Christianity. Cicero was not unaware of Plato’s arguments for immortality or of any of the other arguments advanced in his day, but these were poor comfort in face of the cruel horror of death. Paul, on the other hand, moves in a new spirit of hope and confidence.
A Troubled Believer
Before we look at Christ’s statement regarding the resurrection and of himself as “the resurrection and the life,” we need to look at the one to whom he spoke it. For the person to whom he spoke was Martha, and Martha is an excellent example of a certain type of believer, of whom we have many today. These do not distrust the Lord, but neither do they believe with that full confidence that would allow them to lay aside their care and rest in his good provision. They believe, but they are always troubling themselves with questions of “How?” and “Why?” and “What if?” and so miss the blessing that could be theirs if they would only believe more simply. Such faith always attempts to limit God or, which is the same thing, to scale down his promises. Notice that Martha limited the Lord’s working both to time and place, for she said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died” (v. 21). We need to recall here that Jesus had deliberately delayed his return to Bethany for two days so that he eventually arrived in Bethany four full days after Lazarus’ burial. Some have felt that Jesus delayed until Lazarus had died (and have imagined this to be cruel), but a careful thinking through of the days will show that this probably was not true. If we number the days one through four, we can reconstruct what happened. On the first day, as Lazarus was getting worse, the sisters sent to Jesus. Apparently Lazarus died some time after the departure of the messenger and was quickly buried, so that this day counts as the first of the four in which he lay in the tomb. Quick burials were customary in such a hot climate. The next two days Jesus stayed in the area of the Jordan; that is, days two and three. Then, on the fourth day, Jesus returned to Bethany and performed the resurrection. Lazarus was therefore already dead by the time word of his illness reached Jesus; Jesus knew of it and therefore delayed his return, not that Lazarus might die but for an entirely different purpose. The reason Jesus delayed his return from the Jordan was that there might be no doubt that Lazarus was dead and that there might therefore be no cause for doubting the miracle. Thus we know that from the beginning he intended to perform it. Martha did not see this, however, so when Jesus returned to Bethany her first words were a bit of rebuke. And they expressed her own limited faith, as I have indicated. “If you had been here,” she said. That is, she felt that Jesus could have done something four days earlier but that he could not do what was obviously necessary now. True, one verse later Martha says, “But I know that even now, God will give you whatever you ask” (v. 22). But we know that her “whatever” did not include a resurrection, for she was quick to rebuke Christ later when he asked that the stone be rolled away from the tomb of Lazarus. Moreover, Martha also clearly tried to limit Christ by place; for she said, “If you had been here,” that is, in Bethany. It implied that Jesus could not have healed her brother from a distance. A little later she does the same thing when she reacts to Christ’s promise concerning her brother—“Your brother will rise again”—by saying, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (v. 24). In the same way many of us also seek to limit Jesus. We believe that he is able to do all he says he will do—but not now and not here. At least we do not expect him to and are genuinely surprised or disbelieving when he does. The second characteristic of Martha’s strange faith is that she treated the words of Christ impersonally. The first recorded words of Jesus after his return to Bethany were a tremendous promise. He said, “Your brother will rise again” (v. 23). But instead of taking this in the best and most personal sense—as a promise that Jesus was about to restore her brother to her—Martha pushed the words off into the future as though to say that they had no relationship either to herself or her situation. This is also what we do with Christ’s promises, many of us. We believe them, in a sense, that is, as they apply to others or to a far distant time. But we do not receive them personally. For us, the glorious promises of God become something like a mighty fleet that has been put in moth balls, or like antiques in the attic. They have value, we suppose; but practically we get nothing out of them. The story is told of a gentleman who visited the home of a poor French couple a long time ago where he saw a note for one thousand francs papered to the wall. He asked them how they got that particular piece of paper. They answered that they had found a poor soldier, who had been wounded, and that they had nursed him in their home until he died. He had given it to them. It was such a nice memorial of him, they thought, that they had caused it to be plastered to the wall where they would always be able to see it. Naturally they were surprised when they were told that it would be worth quite a little fortune to them if they would turn it into money. Unfortunately many Christians do that with God’s promises. But they should not—that is the point. As Spurgeon once wrote, they should have “grace to turn God’s bullion … into current coin.”
A New Revelation
We have looked at Martha, then. Let us now look at Jesus and at the way in which he dealt with her. She had come expressing a poor kind of faith, a faith that was half faith and half doubt. Even her words had a hint of rebuke about them. But Jesus did not get angry with her for her weak faith, or rebuke her in turn for her attitude. He could have said, “Martha, Martha, what poor thoughts you have of me. I have been with you for a long time and you still do not know that I am both willing to and will raise your brother.” He could have said something like that, but he did not. Rebuke in a time of great sorrow is not helpful, and is uncalled for. Besides, it would even have been misunderstood; for Martha thought she was expressing great faith in Jesus when she said, “But I know that even now, God will give you whatever you ask” (v. 22). Instead, Jesus used the opportunity to teach Martha more of himself. He said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die” (vv. 25–26). What did Jesus teach Martha? His first words were words to her condition specifically. She had attempted to push the resurrection off to the last day. Jesus replied by saying that he himself was the resurrection and that, therefore, wherever he is there is life. In this case, the Lord Jesus Christ was present physically; so there was going to be physical life. Lazarus would live again. When Jesus returns physically at the end of this age, there will be a physical resurrection then also. At other times, as today, Jesus is present spiritually; so there is a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one. If you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, you have experienced this resurrection. You were dead in trespasses and sins, but you have been brought to life by Jesus. Likewise, all who know the Lord Jesus Christ will experience a physical resurrection. So at this point, having spoken directly to Martha’s situation, Jesus goes on to develop his teaching. “He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die” (vv. 25–26). These comments can mean any of three things. First, both halves of Christ’s saying can be taken spiritually. If we do this, the sense would be, “Whoever believes in me, though he were spiritually dead, yet shall he become spiritually alive. And whosoever is spiritually alive and continues to believe in me shall never die spiritually.” The advantage of this interpretation is that it takes the terms in the same sense. If it is followed, the major thought is that the one who believes in Christ, having received the eternal life of God, will never be lost. The second interpretation is one that takes the first half of Christ’s words physically and the second half spiritually. It would give us a meaning somewhat like this: “He who believes in me, even though he should die physically, yet he will live physically [that is, there will be a final resurrection]. And whosoever is spiritually alive and believes in me shall not die spiritually.” The advantage of this interpretation is that it relates to Martha’s problem directly—the problem of physical death answered by physical resurrection. The disadvantage is that the terms, particularly the term “life,” must be taken in different senses. The third interpretation takes both halves of Christ’s statement physically, that is, as applying to the time of Christ’s second coming at which time those who are alive will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air while those who have died will be raised physically. This, while true, does not seem to relate to the situation in John 11. But if it were the meaning of the verses, we would have to read them like this: “He who believes in me, though he shall have died physically by the time of my return, yet shall he be raised. And whoever is a believer and is still living at the time of my return, shall never die physically but shall be caught up to heaven.” This was the interpretation of C. H. Spurgeon and some other commentators. Which of these is to be preferred? It is probably impossible to say with certainty; for, since the statements involved in each view are true in themselves, each could be possible. In my opinion the second is the most likely in that it begins with Martha’s situation but then goes on to present a higher principle. If this is the case, then Christ’s promises are all-inclusive. There is a promise of spiritual life and physical life. There is a promise of life now and also life to come. Moreover, it is clearly stated that this life is only for those who believe on Christ and who are therefore members of his covenant people.
A Direct Application
This brings us to our conclusion, which is at the same time (let us note) the conclusion that Jesus pressed upon Martha. It is a conclusion in the form of a question: “Do you believe this?” (v. 26). Jesus had made a statement (“I am the resurrection and the life”); he had elaborated upon it. Now he asks, “Do you believe this? Do you really believe it?” This is the question I would like to leave with you also. Do you believe Christ’s teaching? As you think about it, notice that Jesus speaks of faith and not feeling. He did not say to Martha, “Do you feel better now, Martha? Have you found these thoughts comforting? Do you feel your old optimism returning?” According to Jesus it was not how she felt that was important, but what she believed. Feelings are deceiving. Moreover, they come and go. On the other hand, faith is an anchor fixed in bedrock. To believe the words of Jesus is to believe in One whose promises are absolutely trustworthy. Notice also that Christ was specific. He did not say, “Martha, do you believe generally?” He said, “Martha, do you believe this? That is, do you believe the specific truths I have taught you?” I ask that question of you. I trust that your answer may be different. Do you believe this? You should be able to say, “Yes, Lord, I believe it. I believe all that is written in your Book. “I believe in one great God, who has made this earth and has placed me upon it. I believe that I am sinful. I believe that this same God in love and wisdom sent the Lord Jesus Christ to die for me that I might be saved. I believe that Jesus existed with God and as God from the beginning, that he became man, that his death was a substitutionary death for me by which my sin has been removed as far as the east is from the west and on the basis of which it will be remembered against me no more. I believe in Christ’s historical, literal, and bodily resurrection, by which God has demonstrated that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is acceptable to him as an all-sufficient atonement for the sin of his people and in which he has also given a foretaste of the coming resurrection of all who believe on him. I believe in the person and power of the Holy Spirit. I believe that he opens blind eyes to see Christ and moves rebellious wills to embrace him to their salvation. I believe that he illuminates the written Word of God so that those who are saved can understand it and obey it. I believe in the fellowship of the saints. I believe in the church. I believe in God’s providence, by which nothing enters the life of the Christian that is not the product either of God’s direct or permissive will. I believe that God chastises his children. I believe that he is determined to perfect the character of Jesus Christ in all who are united to Christ by faith. I believe that Jesus will one day return from heaven even as he was seen to go into heaven—bodily and in time. I believe that in that day there will be a final resurrection of believers to the life of heaven and of unbelievers to judgment. In hell there will be suffering. In heaven there will be a life of blessing prepared in advance by God for those whom he has chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.” There is much more that can be said, of course. But every Christian should be able to say at least that. “Do you believe this?” You should be able to echo the teaching of the written Word in answer to the question of the living Word, rounding it off with a hearty, “Yes, Lord, I believe all that is written in your Book.”
Boice, J. M. (2005). The Gospel of John: an expositional commentary (pp. 849–854). Baker Books.
25, 26. Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never, never die; do you believe this? Here follows another great I AM, the fifth one. There are seven. For the others see on 6:35; 8:12; 10:9; 10:11; 14:6; and 15:5. Subject and predicate are again interchangeable. Jesus is the resurrection and the life; the resurrection and the life, that is Jesus. Both the resurrection and the life are rooted in him (cf. Rom. 6:8, 9; 1 Cor. 15:20, 57; Col. 1:18; 1 Thess. 4:16). Note the order: first resurrection, then life; because resurrection opens the gate to immortal life. Jesus is the resurrection and the life in person (see on 1:3, 4), the full, blessed life of God, all his glorious attributes: omniscience, wisdom, omnipotence, love, holiness, etc. As such he is also the cause, source, or fountain of the believers’ glorious resurrection and of their everlasting life. Because he lives we too shall live. With him removed, nothing but death is left. With him present, resurrection and life is assured. The Prince of life is ever the conqueror of death. Not only is he this by and by in the resurrection on the last day; he is this always. That is exactly the truth which Martha failed to grasp. Hence, Jesus placed emphasis upon it here, in order that the spark of hope might be kindled once more in Martha’s breast, and that it might be fanned into a briskly burning, open flame. What Martha scarcely dared to hope was about to become real, for he, who was the Prince of life also at this moment, was victor over death, over death in every form. The remainder of this glorious I AM is a systematic development of the opening words. Jesus is the resurrection; hence, “he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.” Jesus is the life; hence, “everyone who lives and believes in me shall never, never die.” This is beautiful parallelism, synthetic in character. The second clause reinforces the first, but does not merely repeat it! First, the believer is pictured at the moment of death. One naturally thinks of Lazarus, but what is said is true of every believer who dies physically. The words are: “He who believes (abidingly) in me (note present participle ὁ πιστεύων followed by εἰς; and see on 1:8; 3:16; and especially on 8:30, 31a), though he die (physically), yet shall he live (possessing everlasting life in glory). Next, the believer is pictured as he lives here on earth, before death. We read: “And everyone who lives (spiritually; see on 1:3, 4; 3:16) and believes (abidingly) in me, shall never, never die (shall most certainly never taste everlasting death; shall never, never be separated soul and body from the presence of the God of love).” See also on 3:15–17; 6:47. Even physical death fails to quench the believer’s real life; on the contrary, such death is gain, for it introduces him into the full enjoyment of life. In the first clause believing is followed by living. The life of heaven is meant. It is true, of course, that even here on earth the believer has a foretaste of this heavenly life (3:36; cf. 3:16).—In the second clause living and believing (a kind of hendiadys: living by faith) is followed by never dying. We have here an instance of litotes: shall never, never die really implies: shall most certainly live forever, yes forever. Note the strong negative: shall never, never die (οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). The whole is beautiful parallelism, in which the second clause confirms and strengthens the first. The arrangement, moreover, is climactic. This will be seen immediately: that the believer at death enters upon life in the state of perfection is comforting, but not unfamiliar; that the believer residing here on earth is given the assurance that he will never, no never die, is astounding! Cf. also Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 4:16. Thus gloriously the miracle itself (11:38–44) is introduced and illumined, so that when it occurs it shall be viewed not as an end in itself but as an illustration of what Christ is and wishes to be for all those who trust in him. Thus, the miracle will be seen in its true character, namely, as a sign, pointing away from itself, to Christ, and making him manifest in all his glory. An unbeliever rejects both propositions of this glorious I AM (i.e., both 11:25b and 11:26a), and also the statement in which the two are rooted (11:25a). He is of the opinion that death ends all. Hence he cannot accept the statement: “He who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.” He also conceives of physical death as being the real thing, the grim reaper; hence, for him the idea that this death could ever be robbed of its real power is nonsense. It is by faith, by faith alone, that these great truths are accepted. Hence, Jesus demanded that Martha should personally appropriate what she had just now heard from his lips, namely, that as a result of what he is—namely, the resurrection and the life—the life of a believer ever conquers death. “Do you believe this?” says Jesus to Martha.
Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Vol. 2, pp. 149–151). Baker Book House.
The Lord shall open unto thee his good treasure. (Deuteronomy 28:12)
This refers first to the rain. The Lord will give this in its season. Rain is the emblem of all those celestial refreshings which the Lord is ready to bestow upon His people. Oh, for a copious shower to refresh the Lord’s heritage!
We seem to think that God’s treasury can only be opened by a great prophet like Elijah, but it is not so, for this promise is to all the faithful in Israel, and, indeed, to each one of them. O believing friend, “the Lord shall open unto thee his good treasure.” Thou, too, mayest see heaven opened and thrust in thy hand and take out thy portion, yea, and a portion for all thy brethren round about thee. Ask what thou wilt, and thou shalt not be denied if thou abidest in Christ and His words abide in thee.
As yet thou has not known all thy Lord’s treasures, but He shall open them up to thine understanding. Certainly thou hast not yet enjoyed the fullness of His covenant riches, but He will direct thine heart into His love and reveal Jesus in thee. Only the Lord Himself can do this for thee; but here is His promise, and if thou wilt hearken diligently unto His voice and obey His will, His riches in glory by Christ Jesus shall be thine.
Description:Dr Clark begins a new series on the book of Philippians. In this episode, he introduces the book’s writer, historical setting, and occasion.
J. Warner, drawing on his experience as a detective, explains why the differences between the four Gospel accounts are typical of genuine eyewitness testimony and should not be viewed as contradictions. He argues that these variations provide valuable, nuanced perspectives and demonstrate the authenticity of the reports, offering a fuller and more robust picture of historical events.
“Solus Christianus, nullus Christianus.” In clumsy English: “A solitary Christian is no Christian.”
The Latin phrase was coined by Tertullian, an early church father. It makes a strong, exaggerated claim: alone you cannot be a Christian. Chalk it up to Tertullian’s character or perhaps to the lawyer in him; he was a spiritual rigorist, a religious maximalist.
Solitude in the Bible: Two Examples
Let’s make sure we understand Tertullian, though. He was not denying that there are moments, even periods of time, when Christians are alone and either struggle with their own demons or crawl with great solitary effort to align themselves with God’s will. Consider two important examples from the Bible.
Many years after he had cheated Esau of both his birthright and their father’s blessing, Jacob was returning to the land of his father. The night before he was to meet his brother, Jacob encountered a mysterious figure and wrestled with him all alone the entire night (Gen. 32:24-30). He fought with God, it is implied, and in the process got his name and character changed — no longer “he who acts crookedly” (Jacob), but “the one to whom blessing comes,” as the famous 11th century rabbi Rashi put it, “through lordliness and openness” (Israel).
Jesus, too, was alone in the final battle over whether he would do the impossible: drink the bitter cup of suffering in obedience to God. He was in Gethsemane, and he took with him his three trusted disciples, Peter, James, and John (Mark 14:32-42). He asked them to stay awake with him while he agonized in prayer a stone’s throw away. He needed them. Three times he came to them, and three times he found them asleep. Judas’ kiss was the next thing that happened to him (Mark 14:44-45). The decision to let himself be crucified for the salvation of the world happened in utter solitude.
The Christian Journey Is Communal
Solitude is important in the life of a Christian. And yet there is more than a grain of truth in Tertullian’s phrase. Think of the Christian hope for fulfillment in the world to come. Its most potent image is that of a city — both the people and the built environment — located in the new creation. Each person and the entire world are brought to fulfillment as a community, not each person and each thing on their own, separated from others. A good image for the ultimate purpose of God with creation is “home” — a planetary space in which God, humans, and all creatures are — and feel — at one with each other.
The end of the Christian journey is communal. So also is the journey itself, which was Tertullian’s main point. I often travel internationally, and when I worship with Christians in other countries, like many others, I am struck by a palpable bond between us. Come the Lord’s Day, I join my spiritual siblings on the other side of the globe, and though we may differ in many ways, we nonetheless sing and pray, read Scripture, and share in the Eucharist as a single people of God. We are not monads, living in our own world. We celebrate our God and our salvation as communities.
Wrestling Together
For many years now, I have enjoyed another way of not being a solitary Christian, though less orderly and sometimes a bit more combative than is a typical worship service. For some of us who work at the Yale Center for Faith & Culture, which I direct, Wednesday from 1-2 pm is a sacrosanct hour. No business meetings or teaching interferes with it.
We come together to read, discuss, and debate the Scripture. We take a book of the Bible and study it together slowly. (Right now, we are nearing the end of Genesis, and we have been reading and discussing it for about a year and a half. Prior to Genesis, we read the Gospel of Mark; it took us almost a year to go through its 16 chapters.)
Each of us is both a student and a teacher. We read from different translations, consult the original, ask questions; we cast a glance or two at commentaries; we disagree; we argue; we laugh; we talk about how the text challenges, offends, comforts, or leaves us puzzled. Together, as a community of Bible readers, we wrestle with the text and the text wrestles with us. Most importantly, it makes us wrestle with God and with our own darkness and turpitude. Alone, I wouldn’t get half of what I get from reading and discussing the text together.
I did not know how hungry I was for more intense and focused wrestling with myself and my relationship with God until the poet Christian Wiman and I started our correspondence. We are friends, and on our regular walks we would talk about all sorts of things: family, politics, education, philosophy, poetry, you name it — and always faith. Our conversations were always pleasant, sometimes puzzling, occasionally memorable. But then came an email from him that started our correspondence and changed the stakes of our conversation: “I don’t know what faith means anymore. I’m fifty-six years old with a pile of books behind me and an experimental bone marrow transplant ahead of me, and I don’t know what faith means.”
What does faith mean, really? To him? To me?
Each of us in our own way is a “lonely man of faith,” as the title of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s book on faith in the modern world puts it. Like those of Abraham and Moses, the religious experiences of such persons are “fraught with inner conflicts and incongruities”; they oscillate, Soloveitchik continues, “between ecstasy in God’s companionship and despair,” when they feel “abandoned by God”; and they are often “torn asunder by the heightened contrast between self-appreciation and abnegation.” You will find a record of just such religious experiences in our correspondence, published in Glimmerings: Letters on Faith Between a Poet and a Theologian.
Becoming a Better Christian
Our distinct accounts of faith survived our correspondence largely unscathed. But something invaluable happened that I don’t think could have happened in any other way, at least to me. I was forced to think hard and articulate carefully what I believe and how I experience God and myself with God. I read Chris echoing it to me and sometimes challenging it. I saw him offer fresh ways of responding to God that opened new vistas on what a life of faith could be, and I appreciated them even when I thought I ought to push back.
I would like to think that I am a better Christian as a result of our exchanges. I am convinced at least of this: I grow more when I wrestle with myself before God together with a friend than when I do so alone.
In Glimmerings: Letters on Faith Between a Poet and a Theologian, award-winning authors, world-renowned scholars, and Yale Divinity School colleagues Christian Wiman and Miroslav Volf exchange letters on the challenges of faith today and the presence of divine love that persists through it all.
Psalm 119:40“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
The place where we worship, be it the privacy of our home, a hiking trail, or a crowded church service, matters little to God. He can never be limited to one place or confined to a building. What does matter is how we worship.
God desires to meet us in the very depths of our innermost being. He is not interested in the externals of singing and raised hands, nor is He concerned with how well we can harmonize. Our worship services may sound beautiful, but if we focus on the external while leaving the internal untouched, God is not pleased.
The prophet Isaiah said, “…these people draw near with their mouths and honor Me with their lips but have removed their hearts far from Me” (Isaiah 29:13). Whenever we draw near to worship, yet fail to acknowledge the scope and reality of our sinfulness, the magnitude of God’s holiness is veiled, and our worship is diminished.
True worship requires honesty regarding our spiritual condition—one that aligns with biblical truth—or else it becomes lackluster and, eventually, meaningless. However, when we allow the Spirit of truth to use the Word of truth to influence our worship, a rich communion takes place.
Today, the Lord is seeking worship that encompasses an internal bending of the knee and rending of the heart, and shows itself not only in song, but also in fervent prayer, supplication, and thanksgiving. That is the spiritual worship in which God delights, and in which we glorify Him.
– Pastor Jack
Have you been blessed by Pastor Jack’s Devotions? Email us now: CLICK
“Bless the Lord, O my soul.” He is in real earnest, and again calls upon himself to arise. Had he been very sleepy before? Or was he now doubly sensible of the importance, the imperative necessity of adoration? Certainly, he uses no vain repetitions, for the Holy Spirit guides his pen; and thus he shews us that we have need, again and again, to bestir ourselves when we are about to worship God, for it would be shameful to offer him anything less than the utmost our souls can render. These first verses are a tuning of the harp, a screwing up of the loosened strings that not a note may fail in the sacred harmony. “And forget not all his benefits.” Not so much as one of the divine dealings should be forgotten, they are all really beneficial to us, all worthy of himself, and all subjects for praise. Memory is very treacherous about the best things; by a strange perversity, engendered by the fall, it treasures up the refuse of the past and permits priceless treasures to lie neglected, it is tenacious of grievances and holds benefits all too loosely. It needs spurring to its duty, though that duty ought to be its delight. Observe that he calls all that is within him to remember all the Lord’s benefits. For our task our energies should be suitably called out. God’s all cannot be praised with less than our all. Reader, have we not cause enough at this time to bless him who blesses us? Come, let us read our diaries and see if there be not choice favours recorded there for which we have rendered no grateful return. Remember how the Persian king, when he could not sleep, read the chronicles of the empire, and discovered that one who had saved his life had never been rewarded. How quickly did he do him honour! The Lord has saved us with a great salvation, shall we render no recompense? The name of ingrate is one of the most shameful that a man can wear; surely we cannot be content to run the risk of such a brand. Let us awake then, and with intense enthusiasm bless Jehovah.
Spurgeon, C. H. (n.d.). The treasury of David: Psalms 88-110 (Vol. 4, p. 276). Marshall Brothers.
Ver. 2.—Bless the Lord, O my soul. Repetition, in Holy Scripture, is almost always for the sake of emphasis. It is not “vain repetition.” Our Lord often uses it: “Verily, verily, I say unto you;” “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” “Feed my sheep … Feed my sheep.” And forget not all his benefits (comp. Deut. 6:12; 8:11, 14, etc). Man is so apt to “forget,” that he requires continual exhortation not to do so.
Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. (1909). Psalms (Vol. 2, p. 382). Funk & Wagnalls Company.
Ver. 2. Forget not all His benefits.—Remembrance of God’s benefits:— I. SOME OF THOSE THINGS WE HAVE TO REMEMBER.
The pardon of sin.
The various providential mercies we have received during our lives.
The hope of a renewed life beyond the grave. II. SOME OF THE ADVANTAGES ATTENDING THIS RECOLLECTION OF THE DIVINE GOODNESS.
It will convince us of the fact of God’s providential care of us.
It will preserve us from undue despondency under the adverse providences of God.
It will help us to connect the thoughts of God with every detail of our common life. III. A FEW DIRECTIONS FOR THE DISCHARGE OF THIS DUTY.
Take no step in life without a previous reference to the law of God.
Remember those seasons of life in which Divine providence appeared for you in a remarkable manner. All have such seasons: your first settlement in life—your going out into a situation—the choice of a trade or profession—the first definite step.
Remember that it will be utterly inexcusable hereafter if we pass through life without the recognition of God. (W. G. Barrett.) Motives to gratitude:— I. SOME OF THE MERCIES WHICH WE ARE CALLED ON TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
The possession of life.
The continuance of bodily health and enjoyment.
Protection from numerous dangers, and the supply of constantly returning wants. II. THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHOULD BE MADE.
Grateful emotions should be felt in the heart.
The devout and grateful aspiration of the heart to God.
The offering of praise and thanksgiving in public, that others may be encouraged, and may unite with you in the delightful exercise.
Corresponding devotedness of life to God must accompany these feelings of the heart, and these public expressions of thanksgiving. (Essex Remembrancer.) Why we should bless God for His mercies:— I. FOR THE SAKE OF THE MERCIES THEMSELVES. Are they not worth it? Is there a year, a day, an hour, which is not crowded with them? II. FOR THE SAKE OF THE GIVER. If they came from a dear earthly friend, should we not prize them for friendship’s sake? If they flowed from royal bounty, would we not be profuse in our praise and feel burdened with a sense of our obligation? But all our mercies are the gifts of God our Heavenly Father; they are the purchase of infinite love; they flow to us through Christ. We can render no returns for them save gratitude, praise and service. III. FOR THE SAKE OF OUR EXAMPLE—OUR INFLUENCE ON OTHERS. The tone and tint of our religion go very far in impressing others. One happy, bright, ever rejoicing and praising Christian will impart cheer and life to a whole circle, while one gloomy, despondent, ever-mourning disciple will chill a prayer-meeting, and often a whole church. IV. FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. It is their birthright. It is honouring to God their Saviour. It is in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the Cross. It is the spirit of the heavenly world. It is the first notes of the song everlasting that will resound through all the mansions of glory and give expression to the gratitude and harmony of the redeemed. (Homiletic Review.) The believer gratefully recounting his mercies:— I. THE EXHORTATION GIVEN. Show that you do not slight the benefits which God has bestowed upon you, but hold them up, and evidence your gratitude before God and the Church.
Publicly.
In private.
By your actions. II. THE BENEFIT DECLARED. “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities.” Not a part of them; not the greatest sins which we may have committed, to the exclusion of the less. III. THE COMMUNICATION MADE. “Who healeth all thy diseases.” And truly our diseases are many. Look at the disease of the understanding. Although it may be brought by tuition to the comprehension of much that relates to our redemption, it is nevertheless totally incapable of comprehending Divine things, unless God heals it; for the understanding is so corrupted by sin, that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them.” And how is this done? The operation of the Spirit of God consisteth in letting light into the understanding—the light of life—Jesus Christ our Lord. So there is the rectification of the will. Though our wills are naturally stubborn, and we are inclined to turn to that which is opposed to God, and to turn from God, yet let but the Holy Spirit enter into our understandings and our wills, and then we find rectitude. Thus He “healeth” our will. He further gives a direction to our affections. For the affections of the heart are all alienated. But God the Holy Spirit communicates an impulse to the soul, whereby the poisonous influences of this terrestrial atmosphere are so far counteracted that they shall not be fatal to our souls. IV. A DELIVERANCE ACCOMPLISHED. “Who redeemeth thy life from destruction”—i.e. from the consequences of sin, from the love of sin, from the fear of death; and from eternal torment. V. THE RECEPTION OF A PROMISED BLESSING. “Crowning” the soul here denotes the application of these wonderful mercies, which God has communicated to us in Christ. It signifies the enjoyment of them all. It further signifies power over sin and Satan. VI. THE GRATIFICATION OF THE SPIRITUAL APPETITE. “Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things.” VII. “THY YOUTH IS RENEWED LIKE THE EAGLE’S.” This expression is used to signify, that saints, through the grace of God, even in old age become “fat and flourishing,” “steadfast and unmovable,” “fruitful in every good word and work.” They “run and are not weary, they walk and do not faint”; and they rejoice in the approach of their end. (T. B. Baker, M.A.) The memory:— By “memory” two things are designated, which are really very distinct; the one is the power of bringing past experience into consciousness; and the other is the power of retaining past experience in the mind out of consciousness. Suppose I meet a friend. He says to me as we meet, “What is the Latin for door?” I answer at once, “Janua.” The question has brought this Latin word at the moment into my consciousness, and we say that I remembered it. But if I am a Latin scholar there are thousands of Latin words in my mind; not in the sense of being at present in my consciousness—because all the Latin I am conscious of at the moment is “janua”—but in the sense that I am capable of bringing them into consciousness when required. Perhaps it would be a good thing if in English these two powers were designated by two words instead of one. They are in other languages. This is the difference in German between “erinnerung” and “gedächtniss”; and in French between the word “souvenir” and “mémoire.” Perhaps in English the power of bringing past experience into present consciousness might be called “recollection,” while the word “memory” might be reserved for the other power of keeping past experience in the mind out of consciousness. This latter power of keeping past experience in the mind out of consciousness is in some respects the most extraordinary feature in the whole realm of psychology. You might put it in this way, that at the back of our present consciousness—I mean the consciousness of the moment—there stretches within us a vast treasury or magazine in which past impressions are stored. In some people it is larger, in others smaller; in some minds it may be slight, in others well arranged. You can hardly help thinking of it, in some people, as comparable to one of the huge warehouses of this city, where the passages are like streets for length, and there are ever so many departments, but everything is in its own place. Things that are like one another are found near one another, and the master has complete hold over all his possessions. But where is this storehouse? Has it a local habitation? Is it in the head, or where is it? Perhaps there is nothing which is so antagonistic to a materialistic view of the human mind. You know materialism holds that thought is simply a movement of matter; but if so, in what form do these modifications of matter continue so as to be remembered? If they were additions to the matter of the brain, however slight, they would very soon expand far beyond the holding power of the skull. If they were marks, like tracks or other marks, they would soon be covered up, so as to be wholly irrecoverable. The spiritual view looks on mind, as a whole, as a mystery; and it refers, especially this aspect of memory, to the region of mystery, and that is obviously where it belongs; and though in the act of remembering, as perhaps in every mental act, the mind uses the brain as its organ, the brain is no more to be identified with the mind than the musical instrument is to be identified with the person who is playing. “Great,” says St. Augustine in his confessions, “great is the force of memory, O my God; a large and boundless chamber! Who ever sounded the bottom thereof?… And men go abroad to admire the heights of mountains, the mighty billows of the sea, the broad tides of rivers, the compass of the ocean, and the circuits of the stars, and pass themselves by.” The second power to which the name of memory is applied is the power of bringing past experience into present consciousness. Now, in comparison with the great magazine which I have described, this power of memory takes place on a very limited stage. It is as if in front of this silent magazine there were erected a platform, to which the images of the magazine could at any time be summoned. The summons occasionally is very slight. All that is necessary often is that a passing thought should appear on the platform, when immediately a thought like it comes from within. Perhaps a whole bevy of them may come. For instance, one will go home at the holiday time to his native place, and will take a walk in some scene of beauty which he used to frequent in his boyhood; and as you go along at every step the images of the past will throng out on you, the faces of your companions and their merry talk. “On this seat,” you will say to yourself, “I used to sit with so-and-so by my side; at that turn of the road I once thought on such a subject; across the ravine some one’s voice once called to me.” Images will pour out of the past on you in a perfect tumult, and you will be astonished at the vividness and minuteness of the reproduction. At other times, however, the summons has to be louder and more urgent. Sometimes, when you call for the images of the past, they will not come. Perhaps the wrong ones come, and you have to order them back to their places again. However loud you call they will not come, and you may have to go into the magazine, and search about in odd corners, and tumble things over, and at last you say, “Ah, there it is; I remember.” Or perhaps after all your searching you are baffled, and you say, “No, I am beaten; I cannot remember.” If we remembered everything we should be embarrassed with our riches. As a rule, older impressions push out newer ones, though in old age this law is reversed, although in every mind there are some memories that never become dim: “Time but the impression deeper makes, As streams their channels deeper wear.”
But the rate at which memories become dim and sink out of sight is extremely different in different minds; and one of the excellences of what is called a good memory is to have a large domain of reminiscence permanently within one’s grasp. Every man of great ability thus holds sway over a wide domain of acquisition and experience. Another excellence of memory is the power of committing things rapidly to heart, as we call it. This also varies exceedingly in different persons. In some it has been almost miraculous. It is said, for instance, that the scholar Scaliger committed the Iliad to heart in three weeks, and even more astonishing feats of memory have been accomplished by men who were not in the least distinguished in other directions. And a still more curious thing is that such persons have sometimes been able to retain the things they thus rapidly committed to memory. But, as a rule, what comes quickly goes quickly. An advocate, for instance, may get up quickly details of a complicated case, and perhaps along with that the outlines of a whole science, for a particular occasion, but as soon as the occasion is past, the whole thing goes out of his memory. Perhaps the most enviable excellence of memory is the copious and ready delivery of its contents as occasion requires. It is this that makes the happy historian, because, as he writes, he can recall parallel incidents from other histories. It is this that makes the good speaker, because, as he speaks, his memory calls principles and illustrations unto his mind from which he can select what is most suitable. It is this that makes the fortune of the conversationalist; whereas the speaker who has not this quality of memory makes all his best remarks to himself on the way home after the occasion is past. The conditions of a good memory are very simple and are worth remembering. The first is, that we must attend to things as they are entering the mind. The more we attend to them at the time they are entering the mind, the more easily will we remember. Then, secondly, we remember what we have repeatedly attended to. The oftener we think of things, the more likely are we to remember them. But most important of all is emotion—to mix things as they enter the mind with emotion. Now, this will easily guide us to the religious use of memory, and I cannot help regarding it as a fortunate circumstance that we are discussing this subject to-day, because there is no day so consecrated to memory as the last Sabbath of the year. “Forget not all His benefits.” That is the first religious use of memory. I am sure none of us can look back over the past year, however carelessly, without observing how good God has been to us, to our families, to our Church; but we shall remember these benefits the better the more we attended to them at the time when they happened. Even, however, if we did not attend to them then, we can compel the memory to give them up. We can go into the magazine which I described, and search for what we have lost or forgotten. We can go back to the beginning of the year, and trace downwards till to-day the footsteps of our Almighty Guide. Then the other great religious use of memory, especially on a day like this, is to remember our sins. Some of them, like God’s mercies, can he seen the moment we turn our eyes in that direction, because all of us during the year have committed some sins that burn in the memory. Others may need to be called up out of the place where they are loitering because at the time they were not much observed, our consciences not being keen. It is only as we look back on a day like this, over an important stretch of life, that we see how little use we have made of golden opportunities; how little we have grown; how little we have done; how seldom we have prayed. It is no pleasing task thus to recall our sins of the past, but it may be a very salutary one. Better to recall them now than to recall them in a place of woe. Do you remember the first word spoken to one in that place? What did Abraham say to the rich man? It was, “Son, remember.” Memory is the worm that dieth not. (J. Stalker, D.D.) Count up your mercies:— I. THE PHILOSOPHY, WHICH UNDERLIES ALL TRUE PRAISE OF GOD, is exceedingly slender in its analysis; there is no ponderous weight or tedious intricacy in its development.
Grateful thanksgiving is the most reasonable of all human duties, for the earliest instincts of our redeemed nature turn us towards the immediate acknowledgment of our vast spiritual favours received. The common courtesies and interchanges of civilities in life require the outward expression of gratitude.
This decent duty is easily performed. Peace is very uncertain and hard to attain, for the devil is continually coining out accusations against each believer. Repentance in ourselves has sometimes to be sought carefully, and with as many tears; for the heart of man remains stony, and is frequently in exposure by reason of regnant corruption. Gratitude is so spontaneous and natural, that a generous and manly soul has often to check its profuse outflow by some external force of reserve. It is actually harder to repress it than to exercise it; one is compelled to be sullen, morose, or malicious, in keeping it back.
Praise is the oldest duty in performance on the records of the race. Before faith was required in the human heart, before there was the least reason for repentance, when our first parents dwelt in primal purity within the undefiled precincts of Paradise, even then they cherished the spirit of thankfulness, and sang their songs of simple adoration. Hence the privilege of “blessing” the Lord is older than justification, older than sanctification, older than prayer, older than sacrifice.
Grateful praise is the longest-lived of all human obligations. It is a duty and a privilege which will never end. As the supreme truths of celestial knowledge, and the supreme felicities of glorified enjoyment, which God means to give to the redeemed, are disclosed, our souls will assuredly swell with a fresh enthusiasm, our voices will grow tremulous in the expression of a new exultation. Thanksgiving is to enter into the serene perpetuity of eternal communion with each other and with God. II. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES WHICH ACCRUE FROM THE HABIT OF GRATEFUL PRAISE?
We need not go far to find vivid illustrations of the effects produced upon one’s temper and heart by a songful spirit of grateful acknowledgment. We will admit that there is much to test human patience all around us; but the question is, What are we going to do about it? We can treat the world in one of two ways. We can carp at it, and grow morose in our feeling; or we can rise cheerfully above it, and diligently seek for those kind mitigations which Divine wisdom has made to accompany all our vexatious experiences. We can wear our lives out discontentedly, finding fault with everything that is an annoyance to us; or we can labour trustfully on, recognizing the good, and ingeniously endeavouring to counteract and balance the evil. What we think, settles what we shall become.
But now add to this, that a determinate cheerfulness of praise really seems to modify work. Gratitude transmutes our disciplines into evidences of love. It is related of one of the most distinguished clergymen in England, that he always read at the family altar, on Saturday evening, this one hundred and third psalm. But his wife died. For a moment he waited; and then he said quietly, “I see no reason why we should not choose our usual song to-night.” There is in the writings of old Thomas Fuller one curiously quaint paragraph, which I have often wanted to quote: “Lord, my voice by nature is harsh and untunable, and it is vain to lavish any art to better it. Can my singing of psalms be pleasing to Thy ears which is unpleasant to my own? Yet, though I cannot chant with the nightingale, or chirp with the blackbird, I had rather chatter with the swallow, yea, rather croak with the raven, than be altogether silent. Hadst Thou given me a better voice, I would have praised Thee with a better voice; now what my music wants in sweetness, let it have in sense—singing praises with my understanding. Yea, Lord, create in me a new heart, therein to make melody, and I will be contented with my old voice, until, in Thy due time, being admitted unto the choir of heaven, I have another, more harmonious, bestowed on me.” He does the best work, in this moping, croaking age, whose cheerful face gives the benediction of a happy heart wherever a heavy step is treading along just behind him. Think of the martyr Ignatius exclaiming, “Oh, would that I could do what would make all the earth adore Thee, and psalm to Thee.” (C. S. Robinson, D.D.) Yesterday’s mercies forgotten:— What recollections have we of the sunsets that delighted us last year? The energy of an impression fades from the memory and becomes more and more indistinct every day. We constantly affirm that the thunderstorm of last week was the most terrible one we ever saw in our lives, because we compare it, not with the thunderstorm of last year, but only with our faded and feeble recollection of it. (John Ruskin.) Insufficient gratitude:— It is no less certain, however, that we are not so wide awake to the wrongfulness of insufficient gratitude. We are all prone to let ourselves off too easily in this respect. We let slip the memory of benefits conferred, or we fail to see our obligation for acts of unselfish service rendered to us by our best friends. We take things too much as a matter of course, not only in human relationships, but in the sphere of religion. Dante has a place in the Inferno for those who were sullen and gloomy in God’s sweet air; failing to perceive or acknowledge the Divine benefits on earth, they were condemned to continue sullen in the under-world. We are not ungrateful, but our gratitude costs us little. (R. J. Campbell.)
Exell, J. S. (1909). The Biblical Illustrator: The Psalms (Vol. 4, pp. 257–261). Fleming H. Revell Company; Francis Griffiths.
“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” —Samuel Adams (1779)
Welfare recipients to be disallowed from sending money overseas: “The American people, our generosity has been taken advantage of,” summed up Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as he explained new welfare restrictions. Welfare recipients in Minnesota, especially, are being scrutinized, and the new policies are aimed at reducing fraud in that state. Among several actions, Bessent will use the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to investigate at least four Minnesota businesses that facilitate money transfers. Transfers over $3,000 to “areas of concern,” which include Somalia, will be reported as part of a “geographic targeting order.” Bessent also added that he will be pushing for welfare recipients to be disallowed from sending remittances overseas. The secretary contends that those on welfare sending money overseas are either receiving too many benefits or are part of the fraud conspiracy.
Omar blames Trump admin for “confusion and chaos” in investigating fraud: The congresswoman from Somalia and Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, opposes the surge of DHS agents to her state to root out fraud. More than 2,400 DHS agents, including ICE and dedicated investigators, are now stationed in the Minneapolis area. Omar says these DHS forces are unnecessary as the fraud is a “serious problem that needs serious people to address it.” The Department of Homeland Security certainly seems serious about rooting out the fraud that some estimate may top $9 billion in stolen funds. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson retorted that Omar is “more concerned about Somali fraudsters being held accountable for their crimes than she is about the fraud taking place.”
Supreme Court will hear trans sports case: On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — concerning prohibiting transgender-identifying males from competing in girls’ sports. The first involves an adult male who sought to compete on the Boise State University girls’ cross-country team and was barred from doing so under Idaho law. The second considers a middle-school-age boy who has been barred from competing on his school’s girls’ track and field team in West Virginia. Appeals courts in both cases have sided with the plaintiffs against the state bans, ironically citing Title IX anti-sex discrimination rules. Twenty-seven states have enacted legislation banning males from competing in girls’ sports. SCOTUS has the opportunity to correct the false notion that there is no biological difference between male and female.
U.S. strikes in Syria: On Saturday, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that the U.S. carried out “large-scale” strikes against ISIS targets in Syria. The reason for the strikes was an “ongoing commitment to root out Islamic terrorism against our warfighters, prevent future attacks, and protect American and partner forces in the region,” CENTCOM said in a statement. “Our message remains strong: if you harm our warfighters, we will find you and kill you anywhere in the world, no matter how hard you try to evade justice.” This represents the second strike against ISIS targets in Syria since December 19. That initial strike was in response to an attack six days prior on U.S. military members in Syria, in which three Americans were killed. No word on whether the current situation in Iran is connected to these strikes.
Judge tosses libel lawsuit against SPLC over its hate map: The Southern Poverty Law Center won a court case allowing it to continue to fraudulently use its “hate group” smear. U.S. District Judge Corey Maze wrote in a decision that the Dustin Inman Society “cannot prove actual malice” in the SPLC labeling an anti-illegal immigration group as an “anti-immigrant” hate group. The society’s leader, D.A. King, had successfully argued in an early stage that the SPLC smear was libelous, as the group is anti-illegal immigration, not anti-immigrant. At that stage, the SPLC let the cat out of the bag with its argument that its “hate group designation is not capable of being proved false, but is an opinion.” The SPLC suffered a blow last year when the FBI cut ties with the increasingly propagandist group that has long outlived its usefulness.
Golden Globes go anti-ICE: Hollywood actors continue to beclown themselves as patsies for the radical Left, with the most recent example coming on Sunday at the Golden Globe Awards ceremony in Beverly Hills. Actors and entertainers such as Mark Ruffalo, Ariana Grande, Wanda Sykes, and others sported small circular pins featuring the words “Be Good” on their lapels. The pins were in honor of Renee Good, the radical left-wing activist killed in Minnesota after she hit an ICE officer with her vehicle. Ruffalo, an avid anti-Trump critic, blasted the president’s actions on enforcing our nation’s immigration laws while falsely asserting, “We’re in the middle of a war with Venezuela that we illegally invaded.” He added, “He’s telling the world that international law doesn’t matter to him. The only thing that matters to him is his own morality, but the guy is a convicted felon, a convicted rapist.”
GM’s EV losses rival Ford’s: It’s not just Ford that has lost big bucks on electric vehicle production. General Motors will be absorbing a $6 billion hit thanks to slumping EV sales. With the EV tax credit ending last year, GM — one of the most ambitious American automakers to lean into EV production — is feeling the sting of its bet on electric. Back in 2020, GM announced its plan to invest $27 billion in EVs over the next five years, with the goal of having the vast majority of the vehicles it produces be electric by 2035 — a nod to the climate cult’s pipe dream of net-zero carbon emissions. The fact of the matter is that efforts to force-feed American consumers a product they don’t want and often can’t afford have had predictable results.
Jew-hatred in Mississippi: John Horhn, mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, says the fire at Beth Israel Congregation Synagogue over the weekend is being treated as an act of terrorism. Firefighters responding to the alarm called in arson investigators and a suspect is in custody, but the attack is still under investigation and no one has been charged at this time. This is not the first time this synagogue has come under attack; it suffered a Ku Klux Klan bombing in the 1960s. No one was harmed in this latest attack, although two Torahs were destroyed and five more were heavily damaged. One Torah came through the attack unharmed due to being stored in a glass case; it had previously survived the Holocaust.
Maritime piracy surging across the globe: Despite increased maritime security measures, a large EU anti-piracy mission, and the recent ceasefire in the Middle East, piracy has been on the rise worldwide. “The U.S. Navy reported four-year highs for piracy in the Gulf of Guinea off the West African coast and in the Singapore Strait,” The Washington Times reports. The Houthi terrorist group continues to be a major contributor to the piracy problem around the Horn of Africa, with Somali pirates often joining them. Incidents of ship attacks have been reported in the Western Hemisphere as well. Gangs in Haiti, Panama, and the Yucatan Peninsula have attacked vessels and abducted crew members for ransom. With all of these being strategic shipping regions, piracy affects trade. As the International Maritime Bureau’s Cyrus Mody confirmed, “When this happens, it has a direct impact on the price consumers find on the shelves.”
Headlines
Trump administration revokes more than 100,000 visas in first year back (Fox News)
Report: Newsom’s lack of oversight cost California $33 billion in fraudulent unemployment payments (Washington Stand)
Barbie with autism being introduced by Mattel (CBS News)
Humor: Liberals begin chugging Everclear at 7 AM to protest RFK’s warning against drinking at breakfast (Babylon Bee)
The Executive News Summary is compiled daily by Jordan Candler, Thomas Gallatin, Sterling Henry, and Sophie Starkova. For the archive, click here.
The misinformation and gaslighting about the ICE shooting in Minneapolis is off the charts. So let’s set the record straight.
I began my article last Thursday with this paragraph:
Renee Nicole Good, 37, was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday when she accelerated her car and struck an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer. She had already obstructed ICE agents’ work and traffic on a public street and then refused to comply with another officer’s orders to get out of the vehicle.
Those facts remain correct, as further corroborated by two additional videos that emerged in the days that followed. Nevertheless, Democrats and their Leftmedia allies are still deliberately lying about it to foment anger and rebellion against Donald Trump and his administration. Let’s look at this in three parts.
Evidence
This video is cellphone footage recorded by Jonathan Ross, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who shot Good. The video makes several things clear: Good purposefully obstructed traffic and disobeyed direct orders from ICE officers, she struck Ross with her vehicle, and her “wife,” Rebecca, cockily antagonized Ross and the others before yelling “Drive, baby, drive!” a second before Renee accelerated into Ross.
By the way, the first shot went through the windshield, not the side window.
“Put it all together,” says Byron York, “and in the view of a number of experts, it added up to a legally sufficient reason for Ross to fire his weapon.” Ross did not have a duty to wait until Good successfully veered away before deciding whether his life was in danger or not.
This second video shows the three and a half minutes immediately preceding the shots fired. The Goods were obstructing traffic, and Renee was likely the one blaring the car horn for at least that long. Witnesses say they were at it all morning.
What will Rebecca Good’s video show from her perspective? She was later seen sobbing and admitting, “I made her come down here; it’s my fault.”
It is a tragedy that Good is dead, and I’m certainly not saying she intended to kill, harm, or even actually hit Ross with her car. At best, however, Good was reckless, and she deliberately put herself into conflict with federal agents, which can yield harm or death.
It’s also worth noting that Ross is no trigger-happy new recruit. He’s an 11-year veteran who was seriously injured by another car last year.
In a perfect world, that confrontation wouldn’t have happened. Maybe ICE officers could have de-escalated better. Maybe it would be less antagonistic to not wear masks or draw a firearm in that situation. But those are all armchair quarterback questions that I can ask from the comfort of my office, not the cold line of duty that morning.
Unfortunately, they’re also the kinds of questions that might lead Democrat officials in Minnesota to pursue criminal charges against Ross. As Minneapolis Democrat Mayor Jacob Frey falsely asserted, “You had a person that was definitively trying to just get out of there. They were trying to leave the scene. That is not a person who is trying to run an ICE agent over.”
Uh, watch the videos again, Mr. Mayor. In my opinion, the three videos utterly demolish the Left’s narrative.
Radical activism
The Goods were part of a left-wing group called ICE Watch, which trains radical activists to do far more than the name says — they learn how to harass, resist, and obstruct ICE agents in the course of their lawful duties to enforce federal immigration law. “Good was a trained ‘ICE Watch’ activist,” writes David Strom, “and she has spent the morning trailing ICE officers and impeding their efforts. She appears to have recently moved to Minnesota, specifically for this reason, and was leading a caravan of vehicles that morning.”
The group aims to do one or both of two things: Make illegal alien roundups harder and provoke headline-grabbing confrontations that “discredit” law enforcement. And it’s pushing for more recruits after Good’s death. Two sympathizers are U.S. Representatives Ilhan Omar and Angie Craig.
Strom also says, “ICE Watch is funded by major nonprofits such as the Tides Foundation, which got government grants through USAID.”
The line between protest and crime is fairly clear. Holding signs and chanting or even yelling is protected speech. Obstructing traffic and officers is not.
“It’s not okay to impede and interfere with an officer,” argued Border Czar Tom Homan. “These are targeted enforcement operations. They’re arresting bad people. And [interfering is] illegal. Let’s remember what she did was a crime.” Furthermore, “If you look up this definition of terrorism, it could fall within that definition.”
Good was not “unarmed.” She was armed with a 4,000-pound vehicle, weapons that anti-ICE belligerents are using with increasing frequency.
“Saying this officer is a murderer is dangerous. It’s just ridiculous,” added Homan. “It’s going to infuriate people more, which means there’s gonna be more incidents like this.”
Gaslighting
That brings me to the last point — all the gaslighting by Democrats and the Left.
The Goods were not average women “trying to just get out of there,” as Frey claimed. They were not, as California Democrat Senator Adam Schiff argued, merely “at the wrong place at the wrong time.” It flies in the face of the evidence to say, as Democrat Governor Tim Walz did, that Good was shot and killed “for no reason whatsoever.”
For the record, I think Donald Trump is guilty of hyperbole in the other direction, saying that Good “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE officer.”
Still, the Goods trained for their “operation,” deliberately put themselves in harm’s way, antagonized and disobeyed officers, and behaved recklessly, which resulted in Renee’s death.
The gaslighting also includes outlandish alternate-reality scenarios. One meme depicts ICE vehicles as the tanks in Tiananmen Square, as if Good was the standing protester. Reality was exactly the opposite — the commie lesbian was driving the “tank,” and the ICE agent was standing in front of her.
Texas Democrat Jasmine Crockett, who seems intent on outdoing herself with mindless statements each day, compared the reaction to Good’s death with her own side’s decorum after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. “I remember when Charlie Kirk got killed,” she said. “Our response wasn’t to sit there and pretend like it was okay.” Wrong — the Left’s overall response was to argue that Kirk had it coming.
No, he was sitting down having a conversation when an assassin shot him in the neck. Good was confronting federal law enforcement. Those things are very different.
Conclusion
Most Democrats are demanding that ICE cease its operations in places like Minneapolis. If they were fully honest, they’d insist that we just stop enforcing immigration law at all. That, they claim, is the way to de-escalate and prevent future deadly confrontations.
By contrast, Vice President JD Vance got it exactly right: “Stop assaulting and stop inciting violence against our law enforcement officers. That’s the best way to take down the temperature.”
Douglas Andrews: Powell Gets a Probing — Unelected and unaccountable Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is being investigated for colossal cost overruns to the Fed headquarters’ renovation, but he ought to be probed for monetary malpractice.
Emmy Griffin: Deaths by Fentanyl Are in Decline — This deadly drug has become harder to find, and there are multiple explanations for this welcome development.
Thomas Gallatin: Somali Fraud Exposes Fallacy of Multiculturalism — Rampant welfare fraud by Somalis in Minnesota and Maine exposes that culture matters when determining American immigration policies.
Roger Helle: Bitterness Will Kill You — Holding on to bitterness and hatred is like drinking poison and hoping the other person dies. Forgiveness frees you from that poison.
New York Is Trying the Venezuela Model — New York City’s embrace of “democratic socialism” isn’t some bold new experiment. Mayor Zohran Mamdani is replaying a disaster we’ve seen a hundred times before.
Why Iran’s Protests Are Different This Time — Ben Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies discusses why the latest wave of unrest in Iran represents something fundamentally different.
SHORT CUTS
Yellow Journalism
“Mother of 3 who loved to sing and write poetry shot and killed by ICE in Minneapolis.” —CNN headline
Incitement to Violence
“Armed ICE agents in an unmarked vehicle detained three North Seattle neighbors. … This latest abuse comes on the heels of the murder of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis by federal agents.” —Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson
“We can all see that video and come to our own conclusions that that ICE agent murdered a woman in Minneapolis, and it is a glimpse into what has been a year full of cruelty.” —New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani
“When I look at that video, I see murder. And I think we should call it that.” —Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)
“ICE has been carrying out state-sanctioned violence in our communities. … And that has tragically led to this murder that we all watched on TV.” —Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
“This has now turned into what our greatest fear is and has been for a long time around ICE — that this will be used as an anti-civilian force that has no accountability. At the end of the day, what we saw [last week] is a murder, and murders in cold blood need to be prosecuted.” —Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)
“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not.” —Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
“Every single person in the United States of America … whoever you are, you have to worry now that an ICE agent is going to come and shoot at you and kill you.” —Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
Persona Non Grata
“The ICE agent walked away with a hip injury that he might as well have gotten from closing a refrigerator door with his hips. He was not injured. … Give me a break. No, he was not ran over. He walked out of there with a hop in his step.” —Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey
“Come on, guys. … I dropped an F-bomb. They killed somebody. Which one of those is more inflammatory? I’m going with the killing somebody.” —Jacob Frey
Democrats: The Party of Crime and Chaos
“We should not have ICE agents patrolling our streets. They’re not needed, they create chaos, and they even create deaths.” —Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Straight From the Horse’s Mouth
Q: “Do you have a job?” —Fox News’s Laura Ingraham
“[Democrats] could not care less about the Americans who have been victimized by criminal illegal aliens. And when they lose an election, they intentionally set out to create a hostile atmosphere in which events like what happened in Minneapolis Wednesday would take place.” —Gary Bauer
“Biggest difference between right and left… No one on the right wishes that woman were dead. The left would be jubilant if she had run over and killed that ICE agent.” —Virginia House Delegate Nick Freitas
“Only in a broken liberal city can you replace a SNOW DAY with a RIOT DAY.” —satirist Jimmy Failla
Spin Doctor
“We should spend a lot more time … looking at American citizens, looking at white men.” —Rep. Emily Randall (D-WA) regarding Somali fraud
Braying Jenny
“I get that there are [Venezuelans] that don’t like the leader, but guess what? There are a lot of people that don’t like our leader.” —Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX)
Non Compos Mentis
“U.S. in midst of ‘genocidal process against trans people’: study.” —Washington Blade headline
Political Futures
“[Marco] Rubio is what much of the Trump administration isn’t. He has what most of them don’t. He is articulate, polite, experienced, humble and self-possessed. He’s competent. He understands history. He thinks America is a force for good in the world. He’s been married to the same woman for 27 years. He’s never been a Democrat.” —The Wall Street Journal’s Matthew Hennessey
ON THIS DAY in 1737, John Hancock was born in Braintree, Massachusetts. He served as president of the Continental Congress and is perhaps most famous for affixing his very large signature to the Declaration of Independence. “There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses,” Hancock is said to have remarked. “And he can double the reward on my head!”
Iran at a turning point amid massive protests, with the future of the country at stake, as opposition leaders say Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has killed thousands of protesters; the focus is on President Trump, to see what action he will take next, as he says if the Iranian government keeps killing protesters, the US could strike Iran with “very, very powerful force;” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praises the protesters, and exiled Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi announces a new phase in the protests and calls what’s happening in Iran a defining moment, as he says Iranians are prepared to die for this cause, “and so am I;” how Christians are preparing to move into Iran if or when the regime falls; Chris Mitchell talks about Pahlavi’s contingency plan for a transition of power in Iran, concerns that President Trump could make a deal allowing the Iranian government to remain in power, how the Israeli Defense Forces are preparing for different scenarios involving Iran, what it could mean for the church in Iran if the government falls, and more; in Germany, the pastor of a Bible-believing church says he’s facing the worst persecution of his after being physically assaulted during a government raid on his home; and here in the U.S. a look at the movement for a memorial in Washington D.C. for President John Adams and his family.
There has been a significant political shift in Americans’ political party identification in the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term in office, according to a new poll.
The findings of a Gallup survey released Monday found that 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025 — a record number that surpassed the previous high of 43% measured in 2014, 2023 and 2024.
U.S. adults who identified as either Democrats or Republicans were tied at 27% each, according to the poll.
The rise in political independence reflects generational shifts, with younger adults today far more likely to identify as independents than in the past.
About 56% of Gen Z adults now call themselves independents, compared with 47% of millennials in 2012 and 40% of Gen X adults in 1992, the poll found.
Gallup, which has regularly asked political independents since 1991 whether they lean toward the Republican or Democratic Party, found that more independents said they lean Democratic than Republican in 2025.
Of the 45% of Americans who identify as political independents, 20% leaned Democratic, 15% leaned Republican and 10% did not lean either way, according to the poll. Compared with 2024, that reflects a three-point drop in Republican leaners and a three-point increase in Democratic leaners.
Factoring in party identification and leanings, about 47% of Americans identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, compared with 42% who identified as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents.
The shift ends a three-year period in which Republicans held an advantage in party affiliation, and more closely resembles the numbers seen during Trump’s first term, when Democrats held an average lead of about five points.
Gallup said the findings were based on interviews with more than 13,000 U.S. adults conducted throughout the year.
Benjamin Franklin famously said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters,” linking self-governance directly to the moral character of its citizens. He was essentially saying that only a godly society could keep itself from descending into violent failure.
“Iran has never been a Muslim country. They forced this ideology on people with guns and force for centuries. You are witnessing the end of Islam in Iran now. Persians are burning mosques. Never call a Persian Muslim, that would be an insult, This is Persian renaissance.” (Iranian born pro-democracy activist Amil Imani)
Mass ‘islamophobia.” The West is building mosques, Iranians are burning them down. So what do Iranians know that the West doesn’t? They lived it.
For the Islamic Republic of Iran, it’s all about Islam. And always has been. (Robert Spencer)
Iranians in occupied Iran are burning down religious institutions because they’re sick of Sharia Law.
Meanwhile terrorists in western countries are complaining about “Islamophobia” 😂😂😂
The core of the Iranian regime’s identity is Islam: The conflict between the Islamic Republic and the West isn’t primarily about nuclear weapons or geopolitics—according to Ayatollah Khamenei himself, it is fundamentally about establishing an Islamic order both nationally and internationally.
Islam is central, not incidental: Iran’s leaders consistently frame their struggle with America and the West in explicitly religious terms, making the Islamic nature of the regime intrinsic to its worldview and ambitions.
Khamenei’s recent statements underscore this religious framing: On December 27, 2025, Khamenei told an audience of Islamic student associations in Europe that the issue with Western powers is not the nuclear dispute but opposition to Iran’s plan to expand Islamic governance.
The regime’s motivation transcends politics: For the author, this means the Iranian government’s actions are driven less by conventional state interests and more by its interpretation of Islamic doctrine as a governing, expansionist force.
In Iran, they are burning the Mosques in a declaration they are done with Islam. You can understand why the BBC won’t show this… pic.twitter.com/g3mJjzJ1no
Daniel Greenfield:In an outpouring of Islamophobia, pro-democracy protesters in Iran have been accused of burning down as many as 30 mosques.
Video has shown the Al-Rasool Mosque in Tehran being set on fire on Friday, a ‘holy day’ for Muslims, in a show of troubling ‘Islamophobia’ which Iran’s Chief Islamic Judge warned would result in “maximum punishment”. That’s saying something for a regime which already chops off fingers and rapes female protesters before executing them.
It’s unknown what occasioned this ‘Islamophobia’ from protesters.
Perhaps it was the generations of oppression in the name of Islam.
Perhaps it was the constant state of Islamic terror, not at the hands of bombers or hijackers, but the regime that they installed.
Perhaps it was the mandatory ‘hijab’ that is celebrated by western liberals, but which brave Persian women risk their lives to tear off.
Leftists believe that Islam is a force of liberation. That’s why they supported the Islamic Revolution which took over Iran and imposed decades of death, terror and tyranny. The Iranian people know better which is why they’re fighting and dying for freedom from Islam.
Western liberals may call them ‘Islamophobes’, just as they condemned the protesters in East Germany and Hungary, but just as those who lived under Communism knew it best, who knows Islam better than those who are forced to suffer under it?
In the West, they’re building mosques, while in Iran they’re tearing them down.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 