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
Would you want to know the future if you could? Which details would you like to know? Some would like to know the results of the next election, or the price of the Dow Jones Industrial Average on a certain day. But the future is a mystery, inaccessible to all but the God who controls all things. Of course, that doesn’t stop us from wondering, which leads to uncertainty.God uses His knowledge of the future to make an important point: He can be trusted. God did this during the time of Daniel by giving the king of Babylon a dream he couldn’t understand. Then God gave Daniel the meaning of the dream. The people of Israel had experienced the trauma of military defeat. The nation wondered, does God have a plan for us? Does He have a plan at all? Their reaction reveals typical human uncertainty. So, God took pains to show that He had things under control; He knows the future (Isa. 46:10).In a series of visions, God revealed the rise and fall of empires in the region. These were significant details which could not be predicted with such specificity by mortals. In doing so He made it clear that He had His hand on world events. The dream was trustworthy and so was the God who revealed it (2:25). In addition, God showed the powerful Babylonian king and the humble prophet how much they didn’t know!This prophetic dream covered more than just ancient times. It extended to the end of times as well, when God establishes a kingdom that will endure forever. This kingdom, promised to the nation during the days of King David (2 Samuel 7), represents a great victory over Israel’s enemies and the enduring hope of all who trust in God today.
Go Deeper Do you ever wonder about what’s next? Does it ever cause you to doubt whether God really has things under control? How do these prophetic visions calm your fears? Extended Reading: Daniel 1-2
Pray with Us We are in awe of the vision of the future You revealed to us in the book of Daniel! Lord, You are in control of the rise and fall of empires and of each individual human destiny. It gives us great comfort. Hallelujah!
Revelation 21 In these lessons we focus on heaven as the place where God and His redeemed people will dwell forever.
Theme
“The Lord Is There”
When I read these verses that talk about God being in this city forever, I think to something else that Ezekiel wrote about. Ezekiel, as I pointed out at the very end of his prophecy, gives that revelation of the new name for Jerusalem, “the Lord is there.” But that itself makes me think of something that occurs earlier in his book. In chapter 10 you have what is perhaps the lowest and most discouraging point in the entire prophecy. Ezekiel is standing on a height, perhaps the Mount of Olives, looking out over the city towards the west. And as he looks, it’s nighttime, and God gives him a vision of what’s happening in the city.
He sees the cherubim and the wheels beneath the cherubim, and he also sees the shekinah glory of God. He describes how, as he looks down on that city in the darkness of the Judean night, he sees the cherubim and the wheels rise up from the Holy of Holies, and the shekinah cloud of God that represents the presence of God moves with the cherubim out from the Holy of Holies into the Holy Place. And he describes how the cloud fills the Holy Place and then goes out of the Holy Place and into the inner courtyard. After this he sees that cloud move from there and into the outer courtyard. From here the shekinah cloud goes away from the temple, down through the eastern gate that led to the valley of Kidron and on up the mountain to heaven. And the glory of God left the city. Finally, when you come to the end of the prophecy, Ezekiel speaks of the new Jerusalem. He says that in that city, now named “The Lord is there,” the glory has returned, and will never depart again.
Revelation 21 ends with these words, “Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (v. 27). This is because the holy God does not co-exist with sin or sinful men. When the residents of the earthly Jerusalem sinned and refused to repent and seek God’s face in order that they might be healed, God left the city. But in this new city, where God has come to dwell forever with His people, the conclusion is not going to be as it was in Jerusalem of old. God will stay, and no impure person will ever enter it.
The appearance of this city of God, the new Jerusalem, is in a certain sense the culminating point of the entire Bible. This is the destiny for which we were created. But unless, by the work of Christ, you are a new creature, you can take it on the authority of the Word of God that you will never enter that city. So we need to search our hearts. We need to make our calling and election sure. We need to say: “Lord Jesus Christ, am I really yours? Have you really changed me? Have I been made a new creature? Is there that within me which is destined for that city, the new Jerusalem, and an eternity of fellowship with you, or am I only playing that religion?” If you’re only playing, the best thing I can say is that there is still hope. Revelation 22 goes on to say, “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life” (v. 17). You know where that gift can be found. It’s found in Christ. It’s found nowhere else. He is the water of life. He is the bread of life. He is the resurrection and the life. He is the Lamb. And if you want to dwell in that city with God’s people, you must come to Him.
Study Questions
What does Dr. Boice conclude is the lowest point in Ezekiel’s prophecy?
Why can the appearance of this city be said to be the culminating point of the entire Bible?
Application
Application: Knowing that nothing impure can abide in the new Jerusalem, what is present in your own life now that is incompatible with your citizenship in this heavenly city?
For Further Study: To consider some other themes that characterize heaven, download for free and listen to a message by James Boice on John 14:3, entitled, “Heaven.” (Discount will be applied at checkout.)
You are the Rock, your work is perfect, all your ways are truth and justice; a God of faithfulness and without iniquity. Deuteronomy 32:4(ESV) You are my Rock, and there is no unrighteousness in you. Psalm 92:15(ESV)
That he is just in the administration of his government, and never did, nor ever will do, wrong to any of his creatures.
Righteous are you, O God, when I complain to you, Jeremiah 12:1(ESV) and you will be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. Psalm 51:4(ESV)
Far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong; for according to the work of a man he will repay him. Job 34:10-11(ESV)
Your righteousness is like the mountains of God, even when your judgments are like the great deep! Psalm 36:6(ESV) And though clouds and thick darkness are all around you, yet righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne. Psalm 97:2(ESV)
I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything — all she had to live on.
Mark 12:43b-44
The religious performance among these scribes and Pharisees had reached such an absurd state of affairs that some of the Pharisees, before they made their contribution to the great collection box Jesus was watching here, actually summoned a trumpeter to go before them to get everybody’s attention. Then the Pharisee would come up and proudly deposit a bag of gold in the treasury chest. He wanted everybody to see his ample gift.
I heard about a dear man standing up in a meeting where an offering was taken who said, I want to give $100—anonymously. But in this passage Jesus said the one who really moved His heart and contributed tremendously to the kingdom of God was a little unnamed, unknown widow who had no influence, who had no outward posture of being worth anything. She came and put in two tiny coins that added up to no more than a penny; but because she loved the Lord her God with all her heart, all her soul, all her strength, and all her mind, she gave it. And Jesus said, She has done more for the kingdom of heaven than all the outward performances of all these others combined. What is that saying to us?
We are so intent upon the fact that God wants some kind of activity on our part. We think that the way to serve God is to do spectacular or showy things—to win a lot of people to Christ or to give our time or work in open ways. Yet the Scriptures tell us over and over that works are just the channel. God wants performance, but only if the attitude of our heart is right. If you cannot do anything outwardly, your attitude may still be right—your attitude toward your neighbor and friends and your children and your husband and your wife and your boss and those who irritate you. If your attitude is one of love, love received from the God who loves you, then you are advancing the kingdom of God far, far more than all that is done outwardly by the greatest saints of our day and time.
Is that not amazing! God says, You can serve me in the quiet of your home and by the gentle, sweet spirit that you display in the midst of pressures and problems. You have done more to advance the kingdom of God than those who get out and proclaim the word on public address systems everywhere. That is the way God sees life.
That is both discouraging and encouraging. It is discouraging for those of us who have a public ministry. We are mentally jotting down in the back of our minds how impressed God ought to be with our performance. But God is looking at our heart. This is encouraging for us to remember in those private moments when our attitude changes. Nobody was watching, nobody saw what we were thinking, yet, instead of being short and caustic and sarcastic, we were sweet and patient and gentle. Jesus says the kingdom of God is advanced by that attitude.
Lord, You have called me to this way of life, and You must empower it. Help me to be a loving instrument expressing Your quality of life today.
Life Application
What is Jesus’ view of pious religiosity? Why was it necessary for him to so severely denounce this sinful conduct in those proclaiming to know God? What’s our attitude?
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.”
32“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
35While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? 36David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: ” ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” ‘ 37David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with delight.
38As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, 39and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.”
41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,worth only a fraction of a penny.
43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
“The LORD is good to all.” No one, not even his fiercest enemy, can deny this; for the falsehood would be too barefaced, since the very existence of the lips which slander him is a proof that it is slander. He allows his enemies to live, he even supplies them with food, and smooths their way with many comforts; for them the sun shines as brightly as if they were saints, and the rain waters their fields as plentifully as if they were perfect men. Is not this goodness to all? In our own land the gospel sounds in the ears of all who care to listen; and the Scriptures are within reach of the poorest child. It would be a wanton wresting of Scripture to limit this expression to the elect, as some have tried to do: we rejoice in electing love, but none the less we welcome the glorious truth, “Jehovah is good to all.” “And his tender mercies are over all his works.” Not “his new-covenant works,” as one read it the other day who was wise above that which is written, yea, contrary to that which is written. Kindness is a law of God’s universe: the world was planned for happiness; even now that sin has so sadly marred God’s handiwork, and introduced elements which were not from the beginning, the Lord has so arranged matters that the fall is broken, the curse is met by an antidote, and the inevitable pain is softened with mitigations. Even in this sin-stricken world, under its disordered economy, there are abundant traces of a hand skilful to soothe distress and heal disease. That which makes life bearable is the tenderness of the great Father. This is seen in the creation of an insect as well as in the ruling of nations. The Creator is never rough, the Provider is never forgetful, the Ruler is never cruel. Nothing is done to create disease, no organs are arranged to promote misery; the incoming of sickness and pain is not according to the original design, but a result of our disordered state. Man’s body as it left the Maker’s hand was neither framed for disease, decay, nor death, neither was the purpose of it discomfort and anguish; far otherwise, it was framed for a joyful activity, and a peaceful enjoyment of God. Jehovah has in great consideration laid up in the world cures for our ailments, and helps for our feebleness, and if many of these have been long in their discovery, it is because it was more for man’s benefit to find them out himself, than to have them labelled and placed in order before his eyes. We may be sure of this, that Jehovah has never taken delight in the ills of his creatures, but has sought their good, and laid himself out to alleviate the distresses into which they have guiltily plunged themselves. The duty of kindness to animals may logically be argued from this verse. Should not the children of God be like their Father in kindness?
Spurgeon, C. H. (n.d.). The treasury of David: Psalms 120-150 (Vol. 6, pp. 378–379). Marshall Brothers.
Ver. 9. The Lord is good to all.—The goodness of God:— Goodness is the same quality in all beings which have understanding, in God, in angels, and in men; it is, and it must be, the same in kind, differing only in degree. Now goodness in us is a disposition and an endeavour to promote the welfare and happiness of others; and from this notion of human goodness we may frame some conceptions of the Divine goodness, and say that goodness in God is a disposition to bestow at all times and in all places upon all His creatures all the good which, according to their several natures, they are capable of receiving, and which it is reasonable that He, as the wise Governor and Preserver of the whole, should bestow upon each individual.
That God is good appears from the necessary connection between goodness and other Divine perfections. God is supremely wise, and knoweth, beyond a possibility of mistaking, what is best and most beneficial for the whole; He is almighty, and able to execute His purposes; and possessing everything in which happiness consists, He can be under no temptation to hurt and to oppress others.
To suppose that God is not good is to suppose Him weaker and more imperfect and worse than the worst of His creatures. In men every sin is general, and in particular every sin against the rules of goodness may be ascribed to the temptation of present profit or pleasure, to a power which the mind hath of fixing its thoughts entirely upon the object which it desires, and of overlooking the ill consequences arising from it, and in some measure to error and mistake. But God, if He were an evil being, would be disposed to evil neither by mistake, nor temptation, nor passion, nor advantage, and would choose evil purely as evil. And upon this absurd supposition, instead of the Best and Greatest, He would be the lowest and the meanest of all beings; for nothing can be great that is not good.
That God is good appears also from the goodness which is seen in His creatures, in men. Goodness in this world is exercised in some degree by many, and is esteemed and commended by almost all. If this disposition be found in some measure in us, it must be most eminently in our Creator, from whom this and all other virtues must be derived. It is the observation of a great philosopher that the artist loves the work of his hands better than his work would love him if it were endued with sense and reason; and that the person who confers a great benefit upon another loves him whom he obliges better than the obliged person loves him. To which it may be added, that parents generally love their children more than they are beloved by them. And yet, in all these instances, gratitude, one would think, should make the love of the inferior to be the strongest; but experience shows that it hath not this effect. These observations may be reduced to this general truth, that love descends more than it ascends; and we may be permitted, I think, to apply this to God and to ourselves, and to say that our great and good Creator and Benefactor loves us far better than even the most dutiful of us love Him.
The goodness of God appears in its effects, in the blessings which we receive from Him.
Another proof of the goodness of God is to be taken from the testimony of Scripture. (J. Jortin, D.D.) Objections to the goodness of God:—
Objections are taken from the evil that is in the world, which may be comprised under these two sorts, the evil of sin, and the evil of pain. God is either the author of all these evils, or at least He permits them. How can this be reconciled with His goodness, and how could they enter into a world created and ruled by a beneficent Lord, who is good to all, and whose tender mercies are over all His works? To this difficulty two general answers may be made, in which a humble and modest mind may acquiesce. (1) We are so incompetent judges of God’s providence that we ought not to charge Him with want of goodness from those evils which we see and experience. (2) In all questions of this nature it is the part of every prudent inquirer to consider the difficulties on both sides, and to embrace the opinion which hath the fewest. By this way of judging the question before us is soon decided; for there are many unanswerable proofs of God’s goodness, there are many absurdities which follow the denial of it; and the difficulties which attend it arise in all probability from our limited capacity and imperfect knowledge, which cannot discover the whole plan and system of Divine providence. (3) From these general answers let us now descend to a consideration of particulars. It was an act worthy of our beneficent Author to create a variety of beings endued with reason and capable of immortal happiness. But a rational agent must be a free agent; for to reason and to act require and imply choice and liberty; and every created and free being must have a power of sinning, unless he had the perfections of his Creator; which is impossible. Thus the evil of sin entered into the world in such a manner that it cannot be charged upon God and prove any want of goodness in Him. If we consider the evil of pain as the consequence of sin, we must acknowledge that we are deservedly subject to it, and that beings who act perversely and unreasonably ought to suffer for it. The pain to which the good are liable, if it be to them an occasion of exercising many virtues, and of qualifying themselves for greater rewards in a better state, is profitable and desirable. The pain to which the bad are exposed, if it may, as it certainly may, be useful to them to reclaim them from sin, and to remind them to seek happiness where it is to be found, is also of great advantage; and, if it have not this effect upon them, it is a punishment which they deserve.
The doctrine of future punishments, as it is contained in the Gospel, hath often and often been made an objection to the Divine goodness, and to the truth of Christianity. Yet it seems not hard to weaken all its force by the following suppositions, which are founded both in natural and in revealed religion. (1) There are, as we have shown, many plain, direct, and undeniable proofs of God’s goodness. (2) The punishment of sin is not to be accounted an act of arbitrary power, proceeding merely from Divine appointment; for in all government correction is absolutely necessary for the reformation of offenders, or for the good of the whole. (3) We are told that God hath committed all judgment to His Son, to Him who loved us, and died for us, and who cannot be supposed to join no clemency to justice. (4) We know also both from reason and revelation, that the recompenses and the punishments of the age to come shall be and must be infinitely various, and proportionable to the good and to the bad actions and qualities of men. (5) We are told likewise, that when judgment shall be pronounced every mouth shall be stopped, stopped not by outward violence, but by inward conviction. All nature shall assent to the equity of the sentence, and it shall be impossible to make any rational objection to it. (6) The doctrine of the future state of retribution is usually delivered in figurative expressions, which of course are somewhat obscure and ambiguous, and it is of the same nature as prophecy, which is never fully understood till the event explains it. So we must wait for the event before we can form a sure judgment concerning it; and in the meantime objections must be unreasonable, and may be rejected as such. (Ibid.) The goodness of God:— I. WHAT IS THE PROPER NOTION OF GOODNESS AS IT IS ATTRIBUTED TO GOD?
More general in opposition to all moral evil and imperfection, which we call sin and vice; and so the justice, and truth, and holiness of God are in this sense His goodness. But there is—
Another notion of moral goodness which is more particular and restrained; and then it denotes a particular virtue in opposition to a particular vice; and this is the proper and usual acceptation of the word goodness; and the best description I can give of it is this, that it is a certain propension and disposition of mind whereby a person is inclined to desire and procure the happiness of others; and it is best understood by its contrary, which is an envious disposition, a contracted and narrow spirit, which would confine happiness to itself, and grudgeth that others should partake of it or share in it; or a malicious and mischievous temper which delights in the harms of others, and to procure trouble and mischief to them. II. THIS PERFECTION OF GOODNESS BELONGS TO GOD.
The acknowledgment of natural light. “The first act of worship is to believe the being of God; and the next to ascribe majesty or greatness to Him; and to ascribe goodness, without which there can be no greatness” (Seneca).
The testimony of Scripture and Divine revelation (Ex. 34:5; Ps. 86:5; 119:68; Luke 18:19).
The perfection of the Divine nature. (1) Goodness is the chief of all perfections, and therefore it belongs to God. (2) There are some footsteps of it in the creatures, and therefore it is much more eminently in God. III. THE EFFECTS AND THE EXTENT OF IT.
The universal extent of God’s goodness to all His creatures. (1) In giving being to so many creatures. (2) In making them all so very good; considering the variety, and order, and end of them. (3) In His continual preservation of them. (4) In providing so abundantly for the welfare and happiness of all of them, so far as they are capable and sensible of it.
The goodness of God to men. (1) That He hath given us such noble and excellent beings, and placed us in so high a rank and order of His creatures. (2) That He hath made and ordained so many things chiefly for our use. (3) His tender love and peculiar care of us above the rest of the creatures, being ready to impart and dispense to us the good that is suitable to our capacity and condition, and concerned to exempt us from those manifold evils of want and pain to which we are obnoxious. (4) The provision He has made for our eternal happiness. (J. Tillotson.) Man’s care of God’s goodness:— “The Lord is loving to every man” (P. B. Version). Every man implicitly owns this when he says, “Life is sweet.” How much of unconscious enjoyment flows through us from day to day of which we take no heed, until some disturbance takes place, some obstruction occurs in the channel of communication with the world without. The blessing of sight, the joy of looking out on the green pasture and the trees—we can only fully appreciate when these windows of sense are darkened. We see the blessing and the joy of hearing by contrast with the deprivation of the deaf, and of speech by contrast with those of the dumb. If it were not for suffering, awakening reflection, we should ignore this great sum of unconscious good which the “long blue hours serenely flowing” have brought us from day to day. And then this good of reflection itself—how great! To hold up the magic mirror of memory, to see our past therein, not as it was when present, mixed with much that was painful and repulsive, but beautified, idealized, glorified by that poet-soul which is within us all. If we could all paint, or versify, or compose in music, we should all leave works of art behind us, the material of which should be drawn from our own experience. We should leave behind us songs like this ancient Hebrew psalm. Your own personal impressions must always be worth more to you than those of any other thinker, however profound. What, then, are our impressions about the world, about the existing constitution of things? May we venture to speak for one another on such a point, and say that while with each of us there are “mixed” impressions, on the whole the impression of good preponderates? We are governed greatly by our temperament in these matters; our minds are of different tone; but upon each and all of us, may it not be said, the world and life have left impressions of something exceedingly beautiful, exceedingly precious, though profoundly mysterious? In passing through a gallery of paintings, and studying the style of the different masters, we gain much insight into the turn of feeling and of fancy of the particular painters. One man steeps his views in light; another throws the sombre hue of melancholy thought upon rock, and river, and waterfall, and mountain height. One will suggest the majesty of Nature and the littleness of man; another will use the grandest effects of Nature but as the background to human passion and action. Each seer makes something different of the world and of man; each artist adds something to the world as we see it, or takes away something that we had found there. And all these different representations, suggesting feelings so various in the mind of the observer, from sadness to gaiety and exhilaration, unite in one point: they are all representations of that which is beautiful. And with all our diversities of natural feeling and experience—if we should try to describe the print that life has made upon our minds—we should, whether in stumbling accents or in eloquent strains, be describing something that has been, in part painful, in part pleasurable, but in both pleasure and pain profoundly interesting, unspeakably beautiful and holy; something in part severe, in part humorous in its expression, but in this mixture of severity and of humour, truly loving and gentle in its purport. These passive impressions teach us more than we can learn from books. Whether we leave our mark upon the world or no, it is certain the world leaves its mark upon us. And is it not the fact that the longer we live the better worth reading the inscription becomes? Do not men become more tolerant as they grow older? Does not the fact of evil give way before the far greater fact of good as the explanation of life? If men ever try to build up systems of theology again, they must choose out new ground and build on fresh foundations; on the ground and foundation of our text, that the Lord is loving to every man, and that His tender mercies are over all His works. Not only our passive impressions and the general pictures which insensibly form in our minds as the result of experience of the world—but in our active life we have evidence that points the same way. This little world within—what an undiscovered country it is still to every one of us! We never know what we can do till we try, the proverb says. We never know what we are until we have wrought ourselves into deeds. And the very power seems to come by the exertion. Cells full of energy seem to open in the mind at the touch of need, and not before. People are surprised at what they can do and bear upon an emergency. There is indeed a marvel in the life of mind, of soul. So long as we study this we shall be believers in miracles. All that is supposed to pass outside the mind that is marvellous can be but parables of the life of the soul itself. First and last, we must seek for God at that shrine; there the living oracles must be found; and it is the deepest superstition if we suppose that Scripture, however sacred, souls, other than our own, however inspired, can do aught for us except help us to bring to light and read a little more distinctly the inscription and record of God upon our own souls. The discovery of ourselves and of our vocation means some fresh discovery of the meaning of God to us. The return to Nature, the falling back on what is original in us, the exertion of ourselves according to the proper bent and direction of our faculties—all this, giving distinctness to the picture of ourselves, gives at the same time distinctness to the picture of the God who is good and loving to every man. Then we may extend these reasonings from ourselves to the rest of the creation. If I feel that God is good to me, I have a reason for believing that He is good to others like me. Some seem nearer to God and to know more of His secrets than I do. Others seem less favoured. Yet why should I doubt, concerning the most miserable and pitiable, that the tender mercies of the Eternal are over him, as over me? Thus may we reason from the particular to the general—from the truth learnt in our own hearts to the truth of the vast universe of which we form a part; and conversely. At times we may see more clearly the universal than the particular truth. We may see that the world is the expression of an infinite benevolence, we may need to see that our personal being is the expression of the same. Let us then remember that the great Power which throbs through the universe is the same Power which causes our heart to throb, our brain to think. So may we end in “Feeling God loves us and that all that errs Is a strange dream which death will dissipate,”
in endorsing from our own life-experience the words of the psalmist. (E. Johnson, M.A.) Universality of God’s goodness:— God’s pity is not as some sweet cordial, poured in dainty drops from a golden phial. It is not like the musical water-drops of some slender rill, murmuring down the dark sides of Mount Sinai. It is wide as the whole scope of heaven. It is abundant as all the air. If one had art to gather up all the golden sunlight that to-day falls wide over all this continent, falling through every silent hour; and all that is dispersed over the whole ocean, flashing from every wave; and all that is poured refulgent over the northern wastes of ice, and along the whole continent of Europe, and the vast outlying Asia and torrid Africa—if one could in any wise gather up this immense and incalculable outflow and treasure that falls down through the bright hours, and runs in liquid ether about the mountains, and fills all the plains, and sends innumerable rays through every secret place, pouring over and filling every flower, shining down the sides of every blade of grass, resting in glorious humility upon the humblest things—on sticks, and stones, and pebbles—on the spider’s web, the sparrow’s nest, the threshold of the young foxes’ hole, where they play and warm themselves—that rests on the prisoner’s window, that strikes radiant beams through the slave’s tear, that puts gold upon the widow’s weeds, that plates and roofs the city with burnished gold, and goes on in its wild abundance up and down the earth, shining everywhere and always, since the day of primal creation, without faltering, without stint, without waste or diminution; as full, as fresh, as overflowing to-day as if it were the very first day of its outlay—if one might gather up this boundless, endless, infinite treasure to measure it, then might he tell the height, and depth, and unending glory of the pity of God! The light, and the sun, its source, are God’s own figures of the immensity and copiousness of His mercy and compassion. (H. W. Beecher.) His tender mercies are over all His works.—On the mercy of God:— Mercy, as it is ascribed to God, may be considered and taken two ways. I. FOR THE PRINCIPLE ITSELF; which is nothing else but the simple undivided nature of God, as it does manifest and cast abroad itself in such and such acts of grace and favour to the creature. Which very same essence or nature, according to different respects, is called wisdom, justice, power, mercy, and the like. II. IT IS TAKEN FOR THE EFFECTS AND ACTIONS FLOWING FROM THAT PRINCIPLE BY WHICH IT DOES SO MANIFEST AND EXERT ITSELF. Which also admit of a distinction into two sorts.
Such as are general, and of equal diffusion to all.
Such as are special, and peculiarly relate to the redemption and reparation of fallen man, whom God was pleased to choose and single out from the rest of His works as the proper object for this great attribute to do its utmost upon. Now it was the former sense that was intended by the psalmist in the text, as is evident from the universality of the words. It was such a mercy as spread itself over all His works; such a one as reached as wide as creation and providence. It was like the sun and the light, to shine upon all without exception. And therefore we are not at all concerned here to treat of the miracles of God’s pardoning mercy, as they display themselves in the satisfaction and ransom paid down by Christ for sinners: for it would be a great deviation from the design of the words to confine the overflowing goodness of a Creator to the more limited dispensations of a Redeemer: and so to drown a universal in a particular. For the prosecution of the words there is no way that seems more easy and natural, and withal more full, for the setting forth of God’s general mercy to the creature, than to take a survey of the several parts of the creation, and therein to show how it exerts and lays itself out upon each of them.… How many and vast endearments might we draw from God barely as a Creator! Suppose there had never been any news of a Redeemer to fallen Adam; no hope, no after-game for him as a sinner; yet let us peruse the obligations that lay upon him as a man. Was it not enough for him, who but yesterday was nothing, to be advanced into an existence, that is, into one perfection of the Deity? Was it not honour enough for clay to be breathed upon, and for God to print His image upon a piece of dirt? Certainly it would be looked upon as a high kindness for any prince to give his subject his picture; was it no act of love, therefore, in God to give us souls endued with such bright faculties, such lively images of Himself, which He might have thrust into the world with the short and brutish perceptions of a few silly senses; and like the beasts, have placed our intellectuals in our eyes or in our noses? Was it no favour to make that a sun which He might have made but a glow-worm? no privilege to man that he was made lord of all things below? that the world was not only his house, but his kingdom? that God should raise up one piece of earth to rule over all the rest? Surely all these were favours, and they were the early preventing favours of a Creator: for God then knew no other title, He bore no other relation to us; there was no price given to God that might induce Him to bid Adam rise out of the earth, a man rather than a spire of grass, a twig, a stone, or some such other contemptible superiority to nothing. No; He furnished him out into the world with all this retinue of perfections upon no other motive but because He had a mind to make him a glorious piece of work; a specimen of the arts of Omnipotence; to stand and glister in the top and head of the creation. Wherefore all the hard thoughts men usually have of God ought by all means and arts of consideration to be suppressed: for the better effecting of which we may fix our meditation upon these two qualities that do always attend them: (1) Their unreasonableness. (2) Their danger.
And first for their unreasonableness. All such thoughts are not any true resemblances of our Creator, but merely our own creatures. All the sad appearances of rigour that we paint Him under are not from Himself, but from our misrepresentations: as the fogs and mists we sometimes see about the sun issue not from Him, but ascend from below, and owe their nearness to the sun only to the deception of the spectator.
The other argument against men’s entertaining such thoughts of God is the consideration of their exceeding danger. Their malignity is equal to their absurdity: for whosoever strives to beget or foment in his heart such persuasions concerning God makes himself the devil’s orator, and declaims his cause; whose proper characteristic badge it is to be the great accuser or calumniator. (R. South, D.D.)
Exell, J. S. (1909). The Biblical Illustrator: The Psalms (Vol. 5, pp. 384–388). Fleming H. Revell Company; Francis Griffiths.
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (James 1:5)
If any of you lack wisdom. There is no “if” in the matter, for I am sure I lack it. What do I know? How can I guide my own way? How can I direct others? Lord, I am a mass of folly, and wisdom I have none.
Thou sayest, “Let him ask of God.” Lord, I now ask. Here at Thy footstool I ask to be furnished with heavenly wisdom for this day’s perplexities, ay, and for this day’s simplicities; for I know I may do very stupid things, even in plain matters, unless Thou dost keep me out of mischief.
I thank Thee that all I have to do is to ask. What grace is this on Thy part, that I have only to pray in faith and Thou wilt give me wisdom’. Thou dost here promise me a liberal education, and that, too, without an angry tutor or a scolding usher. This, too, Thou wilt bestow without a fee—bestow it on a fool who lacks wisdom. O Lord, I thank Thee for that positive and expressive word “It shall be given him.” I believe it. Thou wilt this day make Thy babe to know the hidden wisdom which the carnally prudent never learn. Thou wilt guide me with Thy counsel and afterwards receive me to glory.
It’s a story most of us know, often all too well. If you’re connected with young people—maybe a son or daughter, a grandchild, a niece or nephew—you’ve likely seen or felt the sting of watching someone raised in the church walk away. They hit high school, maybe college, and suddenly the faith they grew up with doesn’t seem to stick. Often, they offer what sound like intellectual objections, but sometimes these are smokescreens for other motives. Whatever the reason, the result is the same: a season away from church, sometimes temporary, sometimes permanent. If you’re honest, you probably have a version of this story somewhere in your own family.
Why does this happen, and what can we do about it? The problem, I’ve found, is that many of us in the church possess what I call “accidental faith.” We grow up with beliefs—beliefs that happen to be true, sure—but we don’t actually know why. We can’t articulate the reasons. Ask why the faith is true, and most of us struggle to respond. Instead, we rest in the comfort of familiar surroundings, blissfully unaware of why those surroundings provide truth rather than mere tradition.
But sooner or later, blind belief will be tested. All it takes is one person—with a persuasive alternative worldview or lifestyle—to provoke doubt and offer a path away from Christianity. Sometimes, what pulls someone away isn’t rigorous intellectual argument but the simple lure of our passions. If a young person feels uncertain about the truth of Christianity, and another worldview promises a more permissive lifestyle, it shouldn’t surprise us when the faith of their childhood is abandoned. That’s often the real story behind the story—the “tail that wags the dog,” so to speak.
If a young person feels uncertain about the truth of Christianity, and another worldview promises a more permissive lifestyle, it shouldn’t surprise us when the faith of their childhood is abandoned. Share on X
This is why I’m convinced we need more than a passive, inherited faith. We need a forensic faith—a faith built on solid evidence. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every question will be answered perfectly or that there won’t still be a step of trust required at the end of the day. But it does mean that the journey to belief is marked by a trail of evidence, and that evidence matters. When times get tough, knowing why the faith is true will help you stand tall. It will keep you grounded, even if circumstances aren’t in your favor or you feel the pull to chase your passions for a season. Knowing what’s true through evidence acts like a spiritual rubber band: if you drift too far, returning can be painful, but the truth brings you back to where you belong.
A forensic faith does three crucial things. First, it protects you from false ideas by providing a rational foundation for your beliefs. You’re not easily swayed because you know the “why” behind the “what.” Second, it steadies you in difficult times, giving you confidence and resilience when questions arise or when culture challenges you. Third, it provides a way home after a season of wandering. Everyone makes mistakes; everyone chases “stupid” for a while. But if you’re anchored by evidence—by a knowledge not just of what you believe, but why—you have a clear path back to the truth when you’re ready to return.
In the end, developing a forensic faith isn’t just a matter of intellectual satisfaction. It’s a way to strengthen yourself and those you love, ensuring that passing passions or cultural currents don’t pull you endlessly away from what’s real. Forensic faith is about more than just certainty—it’s about cultivating resilience, clarity, and a genuine connection to truth. That’s the kind of faith worth pursuing, and the kind that welcomes us home when life calls us back.
A college philosophy club meeting filled with atheists humiliate a new believer as he tries to prove to them the existence of God. As a result, a Christian out of fellowship with the Lord seeks revenge. He comes across a paper written 50 years ago regarding a theory a man had about when the world might end. With the paper in hand, he sets up a showdown with the club for their next meeting!
Perhaps no subject broached by contemporary Bible prophecy teachers engenders more speculation and less sound Biblical exegesis than does the subject of Antichrist. This is certainly due to the mysterious nature of the subject itself, as well as to the fact that no other aspect of Bible prophecy lends itself so nicely to speculation regarding the identification of one specific individual who will become the very personification of evil and the archenemy of Jesus Christ and his gospel.
“Pin the tail” on the Antichrist is not merely an evangelical fascination. Indeed, such speculation has gone on almost from the beginning of Christianity. Irenaeus (130-200) argued that Antichrist would be a Jewish born, satanically inspired, usurper of God’s true glory, who would appear in the Jerusalem temple in connection with an end-times great apostasy. (1) The Protestant Reformers, of course, universally identified the papacy with the Antichrist, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1540) stating that “the papacy will also be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist if it maintains that human rites justify (XV.18).” The Westminster Confession (1647) contends that the Pope is “that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God (XXV.6).” Rome, not to be outdone, has returned the favor, contending that antichristic Protestant “heresies have swept down from the North, where Calvin, Wycliffe, Luther and legions of Protestants are ravaging the flock of Christ.” (2)
But there is no doubt that much of contemporary speculation has taken the concept of identifying the Antichrist to new extremes. One of my favorite possessions is a booklet passed on to me by my grandmother, entitled The Time of Jacob’s Trouble(1939), wherein the author attempts to demonstrate that the revived Germany under Hitler in the pre-World War II years is the supposed last-days ten-nation confederacy predicted in Revelation 13. Of course, the author very deftly demonstrates how Mussolini is the false prophet and how Italian imperialism in Ethiopia is proof that Rome is the great harlot of Revelation 18 and compatriot of the German beast. I can still remember the fear instilled in me as a child, when I heard, one preacher declare that Antichrist was then living somewhere in the Middle East, probably still a child playing stickball in some crowded dusty street, awaiting the day when he would be possessed by the devil and allowed to wreck havoc on the world after the rapture.
One local Bible prophecy “expert” has made a seminar and media career out of identifying King Juan Carlos of Spain as the Antichrist. Others have tabbed, at one time or another, virtually every leader of the Soviet Union, the Middle East and the European Economic Community as possibilities to become the archenemy of Jesus Christ. Perhaps more representative of modern speculators is Chuck Smith, founder and patriarch of Calvary Chapel. Smith has described Antichrist as one who will deceptively come bringing answers to all of the geopolitical upheaval in the world exacerbated by the removal of all Christians after the rapture. “At that time a man will come on the scene with some fantastic answers concerning peace. He’ll be like a magician in his ability to get nations and people together.” Concludes Smith, “He’ll sign a covenant with the nation Israel, and Israel will accept it. He’ll build his own powerful economic bloc and monetary system. All the world will wonder after this man and follow him and his schemes and programs. This man is the Antichrist.” (3)
I am sure that many of you can identify with these prophetic schemes. After all, such is the predominant view in many evangelical and charismatic circles. But is this really what the Bible says about Antichrist? While it may come as a surprise to many, there are only four texts in Scripture (all in John’s first two epistles: 1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 Jn 7) where the term “antichrist” is actually used. And while there is, in my opinion, a definite connection between John’s “Antichrist”, Paul’s “Man of Sin” (2 Thes) and the “Beast” in John’s Apocalypse (Rev 11:7; chapter 13), (4) John’s four texts set out a markedly different understanding of Antichrist than that given us by contemporary prophecy “experts.” Therefore, it is most helpful to review them.
Based on these texts, there are three critical points to be made related to John’s treatment of Antichrist. It is amazing to me that merely raising these points so quickly demonstrates how far from the biblical data so many of the current discussions about Antichrist have wandered. First, John argues that Antichrist is not some mysterious individual who is only and finally revealed in the last days. In fact, John says just the opposite. Whatever (or whoever) the Antichrist is, it (or he or she as the case may be) was already present at the time of John’s writing. John expressly states that the spirit of Antichrist, “even now is already in the world” (1 Jn 4:3b). As B. B. Warfield points out, “John makes this assertion with the utmost emphasis. This thing, he says ‘is now in the world already.’” (5) The Antichrist is a present reality for John. So while much of the current discussion about Antichrist isolates his appearance to the distant days immediately before the end, John instead describes him as a foe already existing when the epistle was written. In fact, writes John, “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour” (1 Jn 2:18). The very presence of Antichrist is clearly an indication that the last hour has indeed already come. And since Antichrist was present in John’s own lifetime, we can only conclude that we have been in the last hour since John composed his epistle. Therefore, we cannot ignore the present reality of Antichrist if we are to heed John’s warning.
The second important point regarding Antichrist, which is often overlooked by many, is also clear from the passage just cited. Not only has Antichrist already come, but John indicates that there is not merely one Antichrist, but a series of such enemies of Jesus Christ. “Even now,” he says “many antichrists have come.” So it is quite erroneous to contend that Antichrist is limited to a specific individual, totally unknown to Christians until his revelation immediately before Jesus Christ’s return. Many Antichrists had already come in John’s own lifetime. While it is certainly possible that this multitude of Antichrists will culminate in an Antichrist before Christ comes back, John (who alone among the New Testament writers even uses the term “Antichrist”) does not say this. But he does explicitly state that many Antichrists have already come, and their present opposition to the infant Church is part of the struggle with the forces of unbelief about which John is attempting to warn the faithful. In other words, one of John’s purposes in writing these epistles is to warn all Christians who worry that Antichrist is still to come in the last hour that, on the contrary, many Antichrists have already come, and so it is indeed already the last hour.
The third point regarding Antichrist specifically concerns just what exactly it is that characterizes his evil operations. While most contemporary speculation centers on Antichrist’s political activity, specifically his supposed seven-year peace treaty with the nation of Israel after the rapture (based, I believe, on a very, faulty reading of Daniel 9:24-27, which was already fulfilled in amazing detail during our Lord’s First Advent, thereby completing the “seventy-week” prophecy in its entirety), John’s focus is squarely upon the heretical nature of these individual Antichrists and their false doctrine. “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist – he denies the Father and the Son” (1 Jn 2:22). In his second epistle, John reaffirms all three of these points by stating “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist (2 Jn 7).” Antichrist has already come. There are many of them. And anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh (and also, by implication, who denies the doctrine of the Trinity) is an Antichrist! Antichrist is any heretic who denies the full humanity or deity of Christ! He was already present when John wrote his first epistle, and John warns us that he will be present throughout the life of the church. John identifies him as an Antichrist solely on the basis of his confession about Jesus Christ!
Given these very clear Biblical criteria, it is difficult to see just how King Juan Carlos of Spain might qualify. But it is very easy to see how the neognostic Word-Faith teachers like Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland just might. If Antichrist is already present when John wrote his letter, if there are many of them, and if they are heretics, then just why, exactly, does so much of the current preoccupation with Antichrist focus upon a future appearance of this evil figure? Certainly this is due in part to the other images in Scripture which are likely related (i.e., Paul’s Man of Sin, John’s Beast). These may indeed have future reference. But if anything is clear from John’s use of Antichrist terminology, it is that his focus is certainly on the present danger facing the church from heretical false teaching and not on the rise of a nebulous future tyrant. And so while this series of Antichrists that John describes may indeed culminate in an Antichrist, the biblical evidence demonstrates that the primary thrust is doctrinal (the Antichrist is primarily a false teacher) and only incidentally political and economic (i.e., people being prevented from buying and selling). Perhaps the Church would be better served if there were fewer books written trying to identify the Antichrist and speculating about geopolitical intrigue, and if instead there were more exegetical works treating what Scripture actually says about these men of evil. It is a shame that so many Christians can quite readily dialogue about the latest theory as to the Antichrist’s identity, when at the same time they are often unable to defend the deity and humanity of Christ from the pages of Holy Scripture.
1 [ Back ] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V.xxiv-xxx. 2 [ Back ] Vincent P. Miceli, The Antichrist (Harrison N. Y.: Roman Catholic Books, 1981), p. 127. 3 [ Back ] Chuck Smith, What the World Is Coming To (Costa Mesa: Maranatha House Publishers, 1977). 4 [ Back ] See my “For He Must Reign” eschatology syllabus (pages 82-102) for my arguments on this point. 5 [ Back ] B. B. Warfield, “Antichrist” in Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. 1, ed. John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1980), p. 358.
But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.” (5:29–32)
If the Sanhedrin expected the apostles to be cowed by their accusations, they were mistaken. Peter, speaking for the rest of the apostles, answered that they must obey God rather than men. As in 4:19, he placed the Sanhedrin in opposition to God. He reinforced that point by noting that the God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. They had executed Jesus, but God raised Him (cf. 2:23–24, 36; 3:13–15; 4:10). Peter persistently, fearlessly repeated the offense for which the Sanhedrin had just indicted the apostles (cf. 5:28). Diacheirizō (put to death) appears only here and in Acts 26:21. It means “to put to death with one’s own hands.” Far from backing off, Peter intensifies his accusation of the Sanhedrin. He had previously charged the Jewish authorities with responsibility for Jesus’ death (2:23–24, 36; 3:13–15; 4:10). Now he insists they are as guilty as if they had killed Him with their own hands. They had not merely put the Messiah to death, but to the shameful death of hanging Him on a cross (cf. Deut. 21:23). The One they despised and executed is the very one whom God exalted to the place of honor at His right hand as a Prince and a Savior. As noted in the discussion of Acts 3:15 in chapter 9, archēgos (Prince) refers to the originator or pioneer of something (cf. its use in Heb. 2:10 and 12:2). Here it describes Jesus as the source of eternal life (cf. Acts 3:15) and is closely connected with the term Savior. He came to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. Repentance from sin is an integral part of saving faith, not a human work added to it. The apostles’ claims to be witnesses to and proclaimers of the momentous events of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection were never disputed by their opponents. And not only were they witnesses, but so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him. Two interesting points are made here. First, the saved are described as those who obey Him. They are characterized by obedience (cf. Romans 1:5; Heb. 5:9), which is synonymous with saving faith. The verb used is peitharcheō, which means “to obey one in authority.” Salvation is surrendering in obedience to the authority of Jesus Christ as Lord. Second, the Holy Spirit is given to every saved person at salvation (cf. Acts 2:4; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 12:13). So Peter makes obeying God and the gift of the Holy Spirit synonymous with saving faith.
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1994). Acts (Vol. 1, pp. 168–169). Moody Press.
29–31 The words “Peter and the apostles” no doubt imply that Peter made reply on behalf of the whole group, as he had done when addressing the crowd on the day of Pentecost (2:14). Their present reply is simply a repetition of the apostolic proclamation, emphasizing once more the contrast between what the rulers of the people did to Jesus and what God did to him. “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus” (v. 30) refers probably to the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry: as God had once raised up David to be their king (13:22), so he had more recently raised up Jesus to be their Messiah (cf. 3:26). The rulers, however, had compassed his death. It was the Romans who crucified him, indeed, but the chief-priestly authorities were responsible for handing him over to them. The manner of this death was the one on which the sacred law of Israel pronounced a curse: “a hanged man is accursed by God” (Deut. 21:23), His enemies, in other words, had inflicted the utmost disgrace on him. But God’s mighty power41 exalted him; God bestowed the utmost honor on him, investing him with the authority of Prince and Savior, to bless his people with the grace of repentance and the gift of forgiveness. With such a proclamation entrusted to them, the apostles could do no other than insist, as they had done before, that they must obey God rather than any earthly court. The authority of the Sanhedrin was great, but greater still was the authority of him who had commissioned them to make the good news known.
Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Book of the Acts (pp. 112–113). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men. 30. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging him on a tree.” Peter begins by answering the high priest’s first accusation: the apostles’ disobedience to the command of the Sanhedrin. Peter’s response is identical to what he told the Sanhedrin the last time he addressed it. At that time he asked its members to choose: “Judge whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God” (4:19). Now he plainly asserts that the apostles must obey God rather than men. The Sanhedrists are the spiritual leaders of Israel and for them there should be no choice. Their uniform reply to a question concerning obedience ought to be: “Obey God!” God is the absolute ruler in heaven and on earth. When Peter with the assent of the apostles says that they obey God rather than men, he effectively removes the high priest’s objection to the apostles’ alleged disobedience. Moreover, from their national history the members of the Jewish council know the validity of the principle to obey God instead of man. For example, the Hebrew midwives obeyed God, not Pharaoh (Exod. 1:17); Hezekiah listened to the Lord and not to the king of Assyria (2 Kings 19:14–37). Scripture teaches that God blesses obedience but abhors disobedience. Therefore, the apostles must obey God and not the orders of the high priest. Next, Peter responds to the high priest’s accusation concerning the death of Jesus. He says, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you put to death by hanging him on a tree.” Peter skillfully presents his answer to the councilmen: he brings the good news that Jesus is alive, because God raised him from the dead. Note what he calls God “the God of our fathers.” With these words he reminds his audience of Moses, who was told by God to say to the Israelites in Egypt, “The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you” (Exod. 3:15). With his indirect reference to the passage recorded by Moses, Peter demonstrates unity and continuity with his fellow Israelites. He boldly refers to Jesus, because Israel’s hope and consolation were bundled in the coming of the Messiah, whom God had sent in Jesus Christ. In the courtroom, Peter reminds the members of the Sanhedrin that they are responsible for Jesus’ death by “hanging him on a tree.” He chooses the words of this last phrase carefully, but not because he wants to describe Jesus’ death by crucifixion in poetic terms. On the contrary, Peter employs these words because they come straight from the Old Testament. When the Jewish authorities plotted Jesus’ death, they incited the crowd to shout, “Crucify him.” They knew the words of the Old Testament and consequently wanted God to curse him in conformity with the divine injunction: “Anyone who is hanged is under God’s curse” (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13; see also Acts 10:39; 13:29; 1 Peter 2:24). In short, they tried to use God for their own wicked purposes by denying Jesus every vestige of divine grace and favor. They said that God’s curse should rest on him as he died on Calvary’s cross; according to them, he was not fit to be on this earth and, because of God’s curse, heaven would not, have him. Peter, therefore, deliberately reminds the high priest and his colleagues of the words of Scripture that they had in mind when they asked Pilate to crucify Jesus.
“He is the one whom God exalted to his right hand as Prince and Savior to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” The subject of both the preceding verse (v. 30) and this verse is God. By stressing this subject, Peter is clearly saying to the members of the Sanhedrin that they have committed their crime against the Almighty, who raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to the choicest position in heaven, namely, at God’s right hand. They killed Jesus, but God raised him from the dead (see 2:24; 3:15; 4:10). They condemned him by crucifying him, but God exalted Jesus to the highest degree (see 2:33). God is at work in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. In a sense, Peter is repeating parts of the sermon he preached at Pentecost. That day he told his audience that Jesus had ascended to heaven to take his place next to God the Father in fulfillment of the messianic prophecy of Psalm 110:1 (2:34–35). Now he is telling the members of the Sanhedrin that they have killed the Messiah, whom God has raised to life and given a place in heaven next to him. That is, they are guilty before both God and Jesus. Peter describes Jesus as Prince and Savior. He calls him Prince because of Jesus’ exalted position and his status as “the Prince of life” (3:15). The term Savior occurs only twice in Acts, here and in 13:23. These descriptions are significant. With them, Peter informs his audience that this Prince is not only a ruler, who on the basis of his exalted position and divine authority demands man’s obedience. Jesus is also Savior, by whom man must be saved. On an earlier occasion, Peter advised the rulers and elders of Israel that salvation can be received only through the name of Jesus (4:12). Now, more directly, Peter informs them that Jesus is Savior so that “[God may] give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” Although salvation involves the complete turnabout of a sinner’s mind, Peter declares that both repentance and remission of sins are gifts of God. The two concepts repentance and forgiveness of sins are the component parts of the good news preached by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4), by Jesus (Matt. 4:17), and by the apostles (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 13:38). Of course, the significance of Jesus’ name is that he saves his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). In the courtroom setting of the Sanhedrin, Peter indicates that repentance and remission of sins are God’s gifts to Israel. A few years later, the Gentiles also receive remission of sin (10:43) to validate the angelic assertion that “the good news of great joy shall be for all people” (Luke 2:10). Peter already has shown his unity and continuity with his fellow Jews by referring to the God of their fathers. Now he discloses that through Jesus, God has provided salvation for his people Israel. Thus, God offers his gifts even to the members of the Sanhedrin that they may be absolved of their heinous crime.
“And we are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” We note these points: a. Witnesses. Actually, Peter is repeating the words Jesus spoke to the disciples in the upper room on the evening of Easter Sunday. There Jesus explained the Scriptures to them; opened their minds that they might understand the messianic fulfillment of these Scriptures; showed them the significance of his suffering, death, and resurrection; told them about preaching in his name repentance and forgiveness of sins; commissioned them as witnesses of these things; and commanded them to wait in Jerusalem until they received power from on high, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:44–49). Peter echoes Jesus’ words, especially when he says that the apostles are witnesses of these things. Peter and the apostles are eyewitnesses and at the same time testify to everyone about the person and work of Jesus Christ. b. Holy Spirit. Peter is not saying that the apostles are on the same level as the Holy Spirit in witnessing for Jesus. Certainly not. In his epistles, Peter clarifies this matter when he writes that in the Scriptures the Holy Spirit pointed to the time and circumstances of Christ’s sufferings and his glories that would follow (1 Peter 1:11; also see 2 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit qualifies the apostles to testify for Jesus and works through them (Matt. 10:20; John 14:26; 15:26–27). c. Gift. The Holy Spirit is God’s gift to his people. Anyone who puts his trust in Jesus, repents, and is baptized and forgiven, receives the Holy Spirit (2:38–39). Peter explicitly states that God gives the Spirit “to those who obey him.” Peter calls the high priest and his associates to obedience, faith, and repentance. But if they refuse to accept Jesus as their Savior, they do not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then the guilt of their crime remains with them forever. Peter uses the word obey, which he repeats from the beginning of his defense: “We must obey God rather than men” (v. 29). The term he employs, however, does not merely imply that his listeners should be persuaded to voluntarily assent to someone’s orders. This is good in itself. But the word means that one obediently fulfills these orders without delay. This is what Peter is asking of his audience. Should the Sanhedrists obey Jesus, they would experience the working of the Holy Spirit.
Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (Vol. 17, pp. 204–207). Baker Book House.
Good news: Crime is down: The murder rate across America hit a historic low last year, says a newly released report from the Council on Criminal Justice. The report, which analyzed crime stats from 40 cities, noted that 11 of 13 crime categories saw a decline. Nine categories saw decreases of 10% or greater, and homicides dropped 21%. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt highlighted the lowest homicide rate since 1900, concluding, “This is what happens when you have a President who fully mobilizes federal law enforcement to arrest violent criminals and the worst of the worst illegal aliens.” The city with the largest drop in homicides was Denver, which reported a 41% decline, followed by Washington, DC, and Omaha, both with 40% declines. Overall, violent crime dropped to its lowest level since 2019, and car theft dropped by 27%.
Warrantless ICE entrees? Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal organization, circulated an ICE memo obtained from two unnamed government officials to Congress, and Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal has now released it to the public. The memo, signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, instructs ICE agents on methods to enter the homes of illegal immigrants using only a Form I-205 “administrative warrant.” The whistleblowers and Blumenthal decry this action, as administrative warrants have typically only been used to arrest illegal immigrants in public places. Form I-205 differs from a judicial warrant in that it is signed by an ICE officer and relies on a prior final removal order issued by a judge. Typical judicial warrants to forcibly enter a home require a neutral magistrate’s signature. Although in today’s political climate, neutral magistrates may be an extinct species.
House passes last four funding bills: On Thursday, the House passed its final funding bills for 2026, as three minibus bills were packaged and passed by a vote of 341-88. These bills provide funding for the War Department, HUD, HHS, Transportation, Labor, and Education. The bill funding DHS was also passed by a vote of 220-207, despite opposition raised by Democrat leaders, who sought to politicize the death of anti-ICE agitator Renee Good over their opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement. Speaker Mike Johnson praised the House’s progress and attributed it to “returning the appropriations process to a committee-led, member-driven approach, as it should be.” The funding bills now head to the Senate, where they are expected to be taken up prior to the January 30 deadline.
Trump sues JPMorgan for $5 billion: In the wake of the protest-turned-riot on January 6, 2021, a bevy of institutions took action to silence the 45th president. Shortly after he left office, Donald Trump and his organization were informed that JPMorgan Chase had made the “final and unequivocal” decision to close his accounts, giving him just weeks to find an alternative. The lawsuit alleges that JPMC’s decision was because “the political tide at the moment favored doing so.” The bank argues that its commitment to following the letter and the spirit of the law left it no choice but to debank the former president against its own wishes. Somehow, the largest banking institution in America arguing that its hands were tied and that it had no alternative but to take unilateral action of a kind never seen before, without taking the issue to court, just doesn’t ring true.
Sayonara, WHO: The Trump administration officially withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization yesterday, ending its 78-year membership with the UN’s health agency. The White House pointed to the WHO’s mishandling of the COVID pandemic and subsequent “failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence” from the likes of China as the reason for this action. The fact of the matter is that, like much of the UN, the WHO has become little other than an organization that exists to push increasingly radical leftist ideology under the guise of “healthcare” and “science.” It’s a globalist front organization, and it’s about time America reclaimed a bit of sovereignty and left.
The TikTok deal: All those leftists who use TikTok can thank President Trump for saving it, but they won’t. After a year of extensions on the complete ban, a deal has been reached for a group of investors that includes the American tech giant Oracle, the California-based private equity fund Silver Lake, and the United Arab Emirates investment firm MGX, with ByteDance keeping a 19.9% stake in the U.S. operation. Trump’s fourth extension was going to end today, so the deal came in the nick of time. The New York Times cried foul because several of the investors have ties to Trump, but the real concern is whether China still controls the algorithms and data. The deal did not transfer the company’s algorithm to the new enterprise; rather, ByteDance is licensing it to the U.S. TikTok. Who controls the propaganda machine remains to be seen.
No more funding for research via fetal tissue: Donald Trump, the self-described “most pro-life president ever,” sometimes needs reminding of that fact, but not this time. The National Institutes of Health on Thursday ended federal funding for any research that uses tissue from aborted babies. This win prevents the sale of aborted babies to labs for research into areas like stem cells, but NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya stressed that parents who suffer miscarriages can still donate the baby’s body to science. Abortion is the moral issue of our time, and widespread adoption of the abortion pill has led to an explosion of problems, but decisions like this from the NIH that get between abortionists and a paycheck are a step in the right direction.
Nick Shirley eyes California: The upstart journalist who exposed the “Quality Learing Center” in Minnesota is turning his attention to California. His path is not easy. Nick Shirley’s home has been doxed, and his family has received calls from the public, forcing him to hire 24-hour security. Undeterred, Shirley has said he will pursue fraud cases in California to discover the truth. He specifically mentioned California’s high-speed rail project, which has been ongoing for decades and has produced no visible results so far. Earlier this year, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli launched an investigation into the $24 billion the state had spent over the last five years to combat homelessness, an amount “no one can account for.” Blue states, it seems, provide fraud investigators like Shirley fertile ground with which to work.
TPUSA sends cease-and-desist to Candace: She has been asking for it for months, and it finally happened: podcaster Candace Owens received a cease-and-desist letter from Turning Point USA. The final warning implores Owens to stop her ongoing smear campaign since the assassination of TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk, wherein she has been spinning increasingly outlandish and false conspiracies blaming members of TPUSA and even Charlie’s wife, Erika, for “somehow” being involved in his murder. An increasingly unhinged Owens responded to the letter by insisting that it was more “evidence” proving her wild conspiracy claims and then claimed, “Get your lawyer to send a cease-and-desist to the sun, and you will have better luck getting it to stop than getting me to look away from what happened to Charlie. That’s how I feel, uhkay?” Looks like Owens will soon be facing a lawsuit.
Headlines
Trump revokes Canada’s spot on “Board of Peace” following Davos remarks (Fox News)
Judge bars FBI from reviewing seized Washington Post reporter’s electronics (Washington Examiner)
Trump aims to topple Cuba’s communist regime by the end of the year: report (NY Post)
The Chinese spy machine infiltrating Taiwan’s military (WSJ)
Satire: Minnesota arrests churchgoers for interrupting protest (Babylon Bee)
The Executive News Summary is compiled daily by Jordan Candler, Thomas Gallatin, Sterling Henry, and Sophie Starkova. For the archive, click here.
Much of the nation is deeply concerned about winter weather this weekend, but ICE is dominating the news coverage. Why? Because Leftmedia hysteria over the actions and tactics of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement helps Democrats and hurts the Bad Orange Man.
There are so many news ICEicles out there today, but I want to use those to better view the big picture, which is the Left’s tireless work to discredit everything President Donald Trump and his administration do. They don’t want to clean up ICE enforcement. They want to end ICE enforcement. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris opened the border, creating a humanitarian crisis, and now leftists say the real problem is cleaning up that mess.
I’ll start with pollaganda — the use of polls to steer rather than reflect public opinion. In the wake of what I think was the justifiable shooting death of Renee Good, numerous media outlets are blaring headlines to say something along the lines of “Americans think ICE is going too far.” Yes, I’m sorry Good is dead. But the Leftmedia coverage of it has not been fair or honest, and emotion, not evidence, is dictating much of the public’s response.
That said, our Mark Alexander rightly warned in early December that ICE already had an optics problem — and that was before Good’s death or a whistleblower’s claim that an ICE policy allows agents to enter the home of a suspected illegal alien without a warrant. If true, that’s a significant problem, though I’m reserving judgment because of the left-wing operation to discredit ICE.
Regardless of the truth or the Left’s lawless motivations, leftist agitators are successfully turning the public against ICE.
The latest example came yesterday. “ICE just detained a 5-year-old child,” Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Somalia) railed on X. “Don’t tell us this is about ‘the worst of the worst.’ That’s a lie. Absolutely vile.”
What a missed opportunity for Omar to plug one of those Somali daycares her Minneapolis constituents run. I hear there are lots of openings.
Sarcasm aside, the Department of Homeland Security says Omar is lying: “As agents approached … Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, [he] fled on foot — abandoning his child. For the child’s safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Conejo Arias.”
That’s why both are in ICE custody, now in Texas. Leftists scream if children are separated from their parents, and they scream if a child is detained with his father. That’s because they’re screaming about enforcing immigration law, not about children. They certainly don’t raise much of a complaint about the human traffickers who abuse migrant children; only ICE receives their ire — for apprehending child sex offenders!
“Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children,” DHS added, “or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. This is consistent with past administrations’ immigration enforcement.” Furthermore, “Parents can take control of their departure and receive a free flight and $2,600 with the CBP Home app.”
Officials at the boy’s school claim that he was used “as bait” to lure his father out of his house. The Leftmedia bewails the “abhorrent” viral photo of the boy, though it looks totally innocuous to me.
That was only one small part of Vance’s comments and purposes, but he did note, “If the argument is that you can’t arrest people who have violated the law because they have children, then every single parent is going to be completely given immunity from ever being the subject of law enforcement.”
That’s a fair point, but Conejo Arias’s attorney says, “These are not illegal aliens. They came properly and are pursuing a legal pathway.” That will need to be sorted out.
Vance also knew where to point a finger, saying, “Frankly, a lot of the media is lying about the job that [ICE agents] do every single day.”
As for the overall situation in Minnesota, Vance’s message was simple. Before he arrived, he said, “If you want to turn down the chaos in Minneapolis, stop fighting immigration enforcement and accept that we have to have a border in this country. It’s not that hard.” While there, he added, “The directive that I got from the president of the United States is ‘Meet these guys halfway.’ Work with them so that we can make these immigration enforcement operations successful without endangering our ICE officers, and so that we could turn down the chaos a little bit, at least. I think a lot, actually.”
Democrat Governor Tim Walz responded that he was “glad the Vice President agrees the temperature needs to be turned down, but actions speak louder than words.” His solution? “Take the show of force off the streets.”
Why is there a show of force? Because Minnesota is a sanctuary state where state and local officials don’t cooperate with federal officers. Why were Walz, state Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey served with Justice Department subpoenas on Tuesday? For alleged conspiracy to obstruct federal law enforcement.
Meanwhile, some anti-ICE activists who stormed that church service on Sunday found out that doing so is a crime.
“We have arrested Nekima Levy Armstrong, who allegedly played a key role in organizing the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota,” announced Attorney General Pam Bondi. Later, she added, “A second arrest has been made at my direction. Chauntyll Louisa Allen has been taken into custody.”
Given that the anti-ICE agitators filmed themselves violating the FACE Act, it’s hard to argue with the arrests. Armstrong tried, however, telling CNN, “We did not rush into that church. We actually went and sat down and participated in the service.” Is that what you call it?
Former CNN personality Don Lemon, who entered the church with the protesters and live-streamed their intimidating service interruption — definitely only for the sake of journalism! (wink, wink) — has not been arrested. Never mind, I guess, that Lemon is on video announcing his disruptive intent, noting that Armstrong began her agitating work after George Floyd’s death.
Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell of Hunter Biden infamy, says the DOJ is engaged in a “stunning and troubling effort to silence and punish a journalist.” A magistrate judge rejected charges against Lemon. That judge, by the way, is connected to the anti-ICE Democrat machine, which seems like a conflict of interest. According to Fox News’s Bill Melugin, “Multiple sources tell me & colleague [David Spunt] that the federal magistrate in Minnesota who refused to sign off on an arrest warrant for Don Lemon is Douglas L. Micko and that his wife works as an Assistant Attorney General in Minnesota AG Keith Ellison’s office.”
Whew, that’s a lot of news, but again, there’s a big picture.
Democrats, their Leftmedia propagandists, and their horde of left-wing agitators have a singular strategy: Discredit ICE and Trump by creating and filming confrontations with federal agents. Never mind that a lot of migrant criminals are in our nation illegally. Never mind that many of those criminals have victimized American citizens. Never mind the Rule of Law. The Left is waging a propaganda war against law enforcement.
ICE doesn’t always do everything perfectly, and there are definitely risks of overstepping. But those factors are exponentially increased when agitators provoke conflict. The ugly part is that’s exactly their strategy, even if it gets people killed.
Douglas Andrews: Hatchet Jack ‘Defends’ Himself — Donald Trump’s former persecutor had his day before Congress yesterday, but he couldn’t shake the stench of a prosecution that was both purely political and constitutionally dubious.
Thomas Gallatin: Resetting the Great Reset — On display at Davos and beyond, Donald Trump’s global agenda against the globalists is the reestablishment of nationalism and America First.
Brian Mark Weber: Virginia Runs Hard Left — Abigail Spanberger ran and was billed as a moderate, but she and the Democrat state legislative majority are pushing radical left-wing policies big time.
Mark Alexander: Profiles of Valor: Col Lee Ellis (USAF) — “Leadership is not about rank, status, or even success [but] about the impact we have on others and the legacy we leave behind.”
Ron Helle: Fog Bank — If there are fog and clouds in your life and your path is shrouded in uncertainty, press in to seek His presence and your path will be made clear.
Congress Humiliates Jack Smith — Fed-up GOP leaders obliterate Jack Smith during testimony on the sham case against President Trump.
SHORT CUTS
Letting the Cat Out of the Bag
“We’re one of 16 states to provide care to people regardless of their immigration status.” —California Gov. Gavin Newsom admitting that American taxpayer dollars are going to illegal aliens
Praetorian Guard
“Donald Trump says you’re a criminal and you belong in prison … not because you did anything wrong, mind you, but because you did everything right.” —Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) sucking up to former Trump inquisitor Jack Smith
Shot/Chaser
“ICE just detained a 5-year-old child. Don’t tell us this is about ‘the worst of the worst.’ That’s a lie. Absolutely vile.” —Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
“ICE did NOT target a child. The child was ABANDONED. On January 20, ICE conducted a targeted operation to arrest Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias an illegal alien from Ecuador who was RELEASED into the U.S. by the Biden administration. As agents approached the driver Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, fled on foot — abandoning his child. For the child’s safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Conejo Arias.” —DHS
The BIG Lie
“We did not rush into that church. We actually went and sat down and participated in the service.” —Nekima Levy Armstrong, organizer of the protest meant to spread terror at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Sunday
Just Deserts
“We have arrested Nekima Levy Armstrong, who allegedly played a key role in organizing the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.” —Attorney General Pam Bondi
Re: The Left
“In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day this week, every liberal made the totally original point that anti-ICE protesters in Minneapolis are walking in King’s footsteps! King protested — and they’re protesting. See? Same thing.” —Ann Coulter
“The Democratic Party has repeatedly searched for what might come next: a successor to the civil rights movement that once defined its moral authority. Over the decades, a series of causes have been framed in those terms, often with strained comparisons to the racial discrimination of the mid-20th century. … Now, Democrats appear to have settled on a new cause: illegal immigration.” —Ben Shapiro
Political Futures
“The midterms will turn on one question only: Is Trump hatred — among Democrats, Hollywood, much of the media and academia — so deeply rooted that President Donald Trump gets credit for nothing?” —Larry Elder
Observations
“When the primary measure of rightness becomes how intensely one feels about an issue rather than how well one understands it, conversations break down. It becomes harder to persuade, to empathize with opposing views, or to find shared ground. Social media amplifies this dynamic — outrage and absolutes draw attention in ways that nuance rarely does.” —Samantha Koch
“Children under the age of 13 should not be on social media. Not because technology is evil, but because childhood is fragile and social media is not built for moral development.” —Armstrong Williams
Upright
“We believe deeply in the bonds we share with Europe as a civilization. … They have to get out of the culture that they’ve created over the last 10 years. It’s horrible what they’re doing to themselves. They’re destroying themselves. … We want strong allies, not seriously weakened ones.” —President Donald Trump in Davos, Switzerland
“The explosion of prosperity, and conclusion, and progress that built the West did not come from our tax codes; it ultimately came from our very special culture. This is the precious inheritance that America and Europe have in common. We share it. … We have to keep it strong. … We have to defend that culture and rediscover the spirit that lifted the West from the depths of the Dark Ages to the pinnacle of human achievement.” —Donald Trump
For the Record
“So total revenue has hit new highs, individual income taxes are at record levels (though down slightly under Trump) but the debt keeps rising. Raise your hand if you know why. Yes, it’s because spending keeps increasing.” —Cal Thomas
Insight
“We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around.” —Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)
ON THIS DAY in 1964, the 24th Amendment was ratified, banning poll taxes in federal elections. Today’s Democrats act like this battle still isn’t won, resisting voter ID and voting in person on Election Day as if both somehow violate basic rights. Instead, they destroy election integrity with bulk-mail ballots.
The U.S. murder rate in 2025 plunged to its lowest level in over a century, according to a report released Thursday. The average reported homicide rate declined 21 percent in […] The post appeared first on The Western Journal .
Mary welcomes back financial guru David Holland to talk about the blowtorch maneuver that Trump used at Davos. As another WEF summit winds down, we know less about globalism and its enduring (not endearing) qualities than we ever did. Trump pushed some buttons for sure, and this caps off the first year of his second term. In 2025 we saw trade policies, tariffs, foreign policy, and alliances all get shaken. The Mideast has altered significantly, topped off by Trump’s “Board of Peace” initiative. It’s impossible to even guess what this year holds in the arena of cryptocurrencies, surveillance systems, inflation, and Ai, but we still see Trump’s America First policies holding firm. And so many do not like it and aren’t afraid to say so. But what did the globalists expect with their pandemic panic run-through that was horribly mishandled? Trust? Or just flat-out tyranny? So we go to David for some free-range conversation about all of it, and look at what to watch for. A full hour on financial stuff – minus the glowing puppies this time.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is facing renewed scrutiny after Trump administration officials demanded that the state repay approximately $1.3 billion in Medicaid funds tied to healthcare coverage for illegal aliens.
Fox News reported this week that audits directed by Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, found that several states submitted improper reimbursement claims for routine and elective medical procedures that are expressly prohibited under federal Medicaid regulations. Auditors concluded that approximately $1.4 billion in improper Medicaid payments must be repaid, with California responsible for the vast majority. (RELATED: Washington’s Fraud Factory)
The review determined that the claims covered standard medical care rather than emergency treatment, placing them outside what federal Medicaid law allows. Federal law limits Medicaid spending on illegal aliens to emergency treatment only, yet auditors found that states billed federal taxpayers for routine, non-emergency medical care that should have been covered exclusively with state funds. (RELATED: How Medicaid Made a Billion-Dollar Crime Inevitable
In an interview with the Epoch Times this week, Dr. Oz stressed the severity of the fraud in California, “What we’re seeing in Minnesota, which is billions of dollars of fraud that hurts our most vulnerable people and puts them at risk … is dwarfed by what I saw in California, which is wholescale cultural malfeasance around health care.” Oz continued, “There is an acceptance that you need to be in the fraud business, especially in Los Angeles. The magnitude of fraud there, we believe, is approximately $4 billion just in hospice and home healthcare.”
Oz went on to explain that the issue is bigger than just California, “There’s many groups that are penetrating our healthcare system to steal money from us who are not native-born Americans, and many of them aren’t U.S. citizens…. When the Department of Justice goes after some of these groups…[such as] earlier this year in 2025 [regarding] a $15 billion Russian mafia sting, most of the perpetrators had escaped back to Russia. So, it’s an effort by other countries to take advantage of our healthcare system.”
Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, has criticized Gavin Newsom harshly, calling him the “king of fraud.” On an episode of Fox & Friends on Jan. 8, Essayli remarked, “California has spent $24 billion in the last five years on homelessness, and no one can account for where that money has really gone.” (RELATED: Is Minnesota or California the Fraud Capital of America?)
Newsom’s administration disputes the audit’s conclusions as “false,” arguing that federal officials relied on inflated figures that do not accurately reflect how the funds were used. A bold advocate of “universal healthcare regardless of immigration status,” Newson has repeatedly defended the expansion of Medi-Cal as both a moral and economic success. In May of 2025, he proposed a freeze on new enrollments on Medi-Cal for illegal aliens, which took effect on Jan. 1 of this year.
In his final State of the State address, Newsom said, “We are proving that expanding human rights works. We are proving that legal immigration works. And we’re proving that a progressive tax structure works.”
The GOP-controlled House of Representatives knifed the conservative movement and the Trump Administration in the back yesterday by rejecting a common-sense amendment that would have defunded an assortment of evils.
As The Daily Caller reported, Rep. Ralph Norman offered an amendment that would have axed all of the earmarks in the Labor-Health and Human Services (HHS) bill. These earmarks included funds for DEI activism, sex-change procedures for minors, and late-term abortions.
Unfortunately, the House voted 291 to 136 to reject the commonsense piece of legislation. Worse, a whopping 76 House GOPers joined the Democrats on the vote.
Rep. Keith Self (R-TX) was not pleased to see his party betray the American people and asked a great question in response.
“76 House Republicans joined every single House Democrat in support of earmarks for abortions, gender procedures on children, DEI activism, and partisan pet projects,” Self wrote on X.
“With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?”
76 House Republicans joined every single House Democrat in support of earmarks for abortions, gender procedures on children, DEI activism, and partisan pet projects.
In addition to the 76 ‘Republicans’ who betrayed the conservative movement, nine more did not even bother voting on the measure. These included House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer.
Per the Daily Caller, here are a few of the earmarks the House voted to keep. Notice which states are included:
One earmark sharply criticized by conservatives would allocate $2 million to Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, for “pediatric mental health services.” The hospital — San Diego County’s sole pediatric medical center — operates a “Center for Gender-Affirming Care,” which performs various sex-change procedures, according to the nonprofit Do No Harm.
Conservative Republicans also blasted a $3 million earmark for Minnesota’s Hennepin Healthcare System to build a substance use disorder treatment clinic. The hospital system also operates a pediatric clinic offering puberty blockers and hormone therapies to children.
Another notable earmark, requested by Democratic Massachusetts Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, would allocate $375,000 for “arts education” at the Massachusetts-based dancer center Jacob’s Pillow. The organization says diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles “animate our mission and inform the vitality of our daily operations.”
Amid the many challenges of a post-Roe world, the pro-life movement must unify, represent righteousness, and remember why we fight: Because the unborn are made in the image of God and deserve equal protection and the chance to live. This article is a lightly edited transcript of the “Here’s the Point” podcast by Ryan Helfenbein, […]
Truth2Freedom's Blog 