[News24Wire] As the Western Cape ramps up its screenings and testing for Covid-19 as confirmed cases rise, the ANC in the province is calling for the return to Level 5 lockdown to be considered.

[Observer] President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has cautioned the general public to always wear masks whenever they are out of their homes. The president said wearing mask will help combat the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) and its infection to other people.

Fraud squad detectives have seized a number of electronic devices and documentation as part of a massive international probe into a €1m invoice redirect fraud.

The United States stunned other members of the UN Security Council by preventing a vote on a resolution for a ceasefire in various conflicts around the world to help troubled nations better fight the coronavirus pandemic, diplomats said.

The coronavirus pandemic has killed more than 275,000 people worldwide since it began in China late last year, with more than 85 percent of fatalities in Europe and the United States.

In a matter of months, the coronavirus reset the clock on a decades-long aviation boom that’s been one of the great cultural and economic phenomena of the postwar world.

Middle Israel: Some early political conclusions to draw from the pandemic.

The charges came after police were called December 3 and told that she was damaging a Jewish neighbors apartment and defacing it with antisemitic symbols and graffiti.

Six critically ill coronavirus patients in Israel who were considered high-risk for mortality were treated with Pluristem and survived.

Court turns down alleged Caruana Galizia assassination mastermind's request to have compilation of evidence continue 

The 39 year old man was taken to hospital, where he was certified as suffering from grievous injuries 

The headquarters are being moved from within the city to a new area in the city’s outskirts due to fears of being targeted by Israeli airstrikes.

A weekly selection of opinions and analyses from the Arab media around the world.

Fourteen more were wounded during the protest - sparked by growing unhappiness at the distribution allegedly favouring people with political connections, said Gulzaman Nayeb, a local lawmaker.

Iran's OPEC governor, Hossein Kazempur Ardebili, is in a coma after suffering a ";severe"; brain hemorrhage. In a tweet on May 3, the country's Oil Ministry said Ardebili was hospitalized on May 1. It did not provide further details. Ardebili is a key figure in Iran's energy industry and served as the deputy foreign minister and deputy oil minister in the 1980s.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on September 18, 2015. -ed.

In the quiet intimacy of the upper room, just hours before His arrest, Christ gave His disciples some final encouragement and instruction. He revealed again His unity with the Father, comforted His disciples with the promise of heaven, and told them about the Helper who would empower them for the work ahead (John 14:1-17). But as usual, the disciples failed to fully understand what He was saying.

Some of their confusion lives on in the church today. In particular, one of Christ’s statements in this passage has confounded and divided many believers, with some using the Lord’s promise as proof of the continuation of the apostolic gifts throughout the history of the church.

In John 14:12, Jesus promises His followers: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.”

In his book The Upper Room, John MacArthur explains why there is persistent confusion in the church today about the nature of Christ’s promise.

Christians over the centuries have wondered at the richness of such a promise. What does it mean? How could anyone do greater works than Jesus had done? He had healed people blind from birth, cast out the most powerful demons, and even raised Lazarus from the dead after four days in the grave. What could possibly be greater than those miracles? ^[1] John MacArthur, The Upper Room (The Woodlands, TX: Kress Biblical Resources, 2014) 93.

For charismatic authors who believe in the continuation of the apostolic gifts, the answer is simple. In his book Authentic Fire, Michael Brown explains it this way:

Jesus gave a universal promise in John 14:12 that implies that all believers can ask God to demonstrate His healing and miracle-working power through them, since the statement in John 14:12 is programmatic, as Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” How is this not universal in scope, given that the identical Greek phrase ho pisteuon eis eme, whoever believes in Me, is always universal in application in John? (See John 6:35; 7:38; 11:25; 12:44, 46.) And while we can debate exactly what Jesus intended by the “greater works,” it is difficult to escape from the conclusion that whoever believes in the Son will also perform miraculous signs, based on: 1) the immediate context (14:9-11, with the emphasis on miracles as the works done by Jesus); 2) the universality of the language used; and 3) the assurance which follows, guaranteeing the efficacy of prayer to the Father in Jesus’ name. . . .

This promise cannot be limited to the apostle based on the language of “whoever believes in Me,” nor can it [sic] limited to non-supernatural acts of service. The reverse is actually true. ^[2] Michael Brown, Authentic Fire (Lake Mary, FL: Excel Publishers, 2014) 188-189.

Writing for Charisma Magazine, charismatic author Larry Sparks makes the same assertion that Christ’s words to His disciples are “a powerful blanket statement” for all believers, throughout church history.

Whoever means whoever. This is beyond the 12 apostles and the 72 called-out ones in Luke 10. Whoever spans all generations. Whoever invites us, in the 21st century, to once again contend for an outpouring of supernatural power in our midst.^[3] http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/newsletters/spiritled-woman-e-magazine/23749-the-danger-of-celebrating-halloween

Bill Johnson, pastor of Bethel Church in Redding, California, (one of the most influential charismatic churches in the world) and instructor at the Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry, teaches a similar interpretation of the “greater works.” In his book When Heaven Invades Earth, he writes, “The miraculous is a large part of the plan of God for this world. And it is to come through the Church.” ^[4] Bill Johnson, When Heaven Invades Earth (Shippensburg, PA: Treasure House, 2003) 136. Johnson teaches that in His incarnation, Christ emptied Himself of all divine attributes, and in His humanity is the model for our lives.

Jesus became the model for all who would embrace the invitation to invade the impossible in His name. He performed miracles, wonders, and signs, as a man in right relationship to God . . . not as God. If He performed miracles because He was God, then they would be unattainable for us. But if He did them as a man, I am responsible to pursue His lifestyle. ^[5] When Heaven Invades Earth, 29.

Through that lens of Christ’s humanity, Johnson understands John 14:12 as a challenge to surpass His miraculous works.

Jesus’ prophecy of us doing greater works than He did has stirred the Church to look for some abstract meaning to this very simple statement. Many theologians seek to honor the works of Jesus as unattainable, which is religion, fathered by unbelief. It does not impress God to ignore what He promised under the guise of honoring the work of Jesus on the earth. Jesus’ statement is not that hard to understand. Greater means “greater.” And the works he referred to are signs and wonders. It will not be a disservice to Him to have a generation obey Him, and go beyond His own high-water mark. He showed us what one person could do who has the Spirit without measure. What could millions do? That was His point, and it became His prophecy. ^[6] When Heaven Invades Earth, 185.

We could go on and on with examples of that kind of teaching from charismatic sources, but you get the point. For those arguing for the continuation of the apostolic gifts, John 14:12 is a battleground text.

But was it really meant to be a promise of miraculous power to every believer? The testimony of church history suggests it was not, as many generations of saints have come and gone without any evidence of apostolic power. And while charismatics will argue that there is evidence of miracles today, it’s always anecdotal, rarely documented or objectively substantiated, and often comes from the far-flung corners of the globe.

Even by that flawed standard, the Spirit’s supposed miraculous work today is significantly different than His ministry through the apostles in the first-century church. Far from healing the crippled, curing the ravages of disease, and raising the dead, it seems the focus of the Holy Spirit’s healing ministry today is limited to rheumatoid arthritis, nagging back pain, and other subjective ailments. No longer is His work dramatic, obvious, and undeniable—today it’s mysterious, indiscriminate, and surprisingly absent when and where it’s most needed.

There is no arguing against the fact that Christ bestowed His supernatural power to His disciples (Acts 5:12-16). But there is no reason to characterize their miracles as “greater” than Christ’s, either in magnitude or degree. Furthermore, there is scant evidence that His promise of power extends to the subsequent generations of the church. In other words, not only have we not seen the charismatic interpretation validated by nearly 19 centuries of Christian history, it can’t even be validated by the miraculous works of the twelve apostles! (For further exegetical explanation of the limits of Christ’s promise in John 14:12, I recommend this article from Matt Waymeyer.)

So if Christ wasn’t promising miraculous power that exceeded His own, what did He mean by “greater works?” As John MacArthur explains, Jesus was indicating that the disciples works would be greater not in power, but in extent.

The key to understanding this promise is in the last phrase of verse 12: “because I go to the Father.” When Jesus went to the Father, He sent the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s power completely transformed the disciples from a group of fearful, timid individuals into a cohesive force that reached the world with the gospel. The impact of their preaching exceeded even the impact of Jesus’ public teaching ministry during His lifetime. Jesus never preached outside a 175-mile radius extending from His birthplace. Within His lifetime, Europe never received word of the gospel. But under the ministry of the disciples the good news began to spread, and it’s still spreading today. Their works were greater than His, not in power, but in scope. Through the indwelling Holy Spirit, each one of those disciples had access to power in dimensions they did not previously have, even with the physical presence of Christ.

The disciples undoubtedly thought that without Christ they would be reduced to nothing. He was the source of their strength; how could they have power without Him? His promise was meant to ease those fears. If they felt secure in His presence, they would be even more secure, more powerful, able to do more, if He returned to the Father and sent the Holy Spirit. ^[7] The Upper Room, 93-94.

Christ did not hand-pick His disciples merely to perform signs and wonders in His name. They were chosen to extend the good news of His sacrificial, atoning death beyond the reaches of Israel and Palestine, to the far reaches of the globe. They were preaching the completed work of Christ on behalf of sinners, spawning spiritual revival throughout the known world. In that sense, their work was greater than Christ’s, as they bore witness to the truth of His life and death, and saw firsthand the transforming work of the Holy Spirit.

As John MacArthur explains, the work of the gospel is the greatest ministry work of all.

After all, the greatest miracle God can perform is salvation. Every time we introduce someone to faith in Jesus Christ, we are observers of the new birth; we are supporting the most important spiritual work in the world. How exciting it is to be involved in what God is doing spiritually and to do things greater than even Jesus saw in His day. ^[8] The Upper Room, 94.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on October 2, 2015. -ed.

Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:18–20)

How often have you heard that passage (or at least part of it) quoted in a church setting?

During my time in the charismatic church, Matthew 18:18–20 was quoted in every prayer meeting and regularly from the pulpit. In fact, I cannot think of any other Scripture passage I heard quoted so frequently without ever hearing a sermon on the passage itself. And yet we would regularly bind demonic forces on earth and loose angelic armies from heaven. And we always reminded ourselves that Jesus was there because at least two or three of us were present.

Our church was far from alone in its dependence on Matthew 18:18–20. In fact, the passage is a favorite of self-appointed experts in spiritual warfare and those who put special emphasis on Christ’s presence. The passage has been chopped up and subdivided all sorts of ways in service to a number of doctrinal positions and practical applications.

For example, notorious faith healer and prosperity preacher Benny Hinn emphasizes Matthew 18:18 as a promise of supernatural power and heavenly authority:

Do you realize that movements on earth govern movements in heaven? Do you realize that a child of God in prayer affects decisions in heaven? The Lord declared: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 18:18). So awesome is this power that it releases angels to do God’s bidding on the earth and binds demons as it destroys the purpose of the enemy! ^[1]Benny Hinn, https://www.bennyhinn.org/tiyd-video/prayer-that-gets-results-part-1/

Contrast that with the conclusions of Rick Warren, who offers a far less spectacular interpretation and application of the passage, while employing similar hermeneutical technique in his assessment of verses 19–20:

Many people miss out on so much because they only pray by themselves. Yet, when Jesus gave us an outline for prayer, he spoke about praying together. There is power in group prayer. If you’re not praying with other believers, then you’re not getting the support you need. You’re missing out on one of the major benefits of being a Christian. Jesus says “whenever two of you on earth agree about anything you pray for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, I am there with them” (Matthew 18:19-20 TEV). That’s the power of praying with other people. ^[2]Rick Warren, http://rickwarren.org/devotional/english/a-powerful-key-to-prayer_700

Joyce Meyer comes out of the same Word Faith stream as Benny Hinn and also enjoys a huge television following. But her ministry prefers to traffic in practical advice for day-to-day life. She actually deploys Matthew 18:20 in the realm of marriage counsel:

The Bible says that there is power in agreement. . . .

If you want to have power in your marriage and in your prayer life, then you have to get along. The big question is: How can a disagreeing couple learn to agree? Agreement comes when the people involved stop being selfish. Selfishness is an immature inward focus. The key is to care about what the other person needs, be willing to humble yourself, and do what you can to meet those needs.

When this happens, you can live together in agreement before the Lord, and “wherever two or three are gathered” in His name, God is there with them. So make a choice with your spouse today to pursue agreement and unity before the Lord. ^[3]Joyce Meyer, https://www.bible.com/reading-plans/199-promises-for-your-everyday-life/day/360

How can one passage support such disparate meanings? Are any of those interpretations the true meaning of Matthew 18:18–20? Do they skirt around the edges of the author’s original intent, or are they missing the point of the passage altogether? Bottom line: Does this passage have anything to do with spiritual warfare, group prayer, or marital unity?

As with previous posts in this series, the first thing we should check is the context of our passage. What do the surrounding verses tell us about the meaning of our text? In this case, the preceding verses are likely just as familiar as the passage in question:

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15–17)

Just a simple reading of the text makes it clear that the focus is not spiritual warfare, unity in marriage, or empowering your prayer meetings. Instead, verses 15–17 speak exclusively about church discipline.

Therefore, all of Christ’s instructions about binding and loosing, unity, and the promise of His presence come in the context of church discipline. In other words, Matthew 18:18–20 means that when church leaders gather together to deal with unrepentant sinners, they have heavenly backing.

In his commentary on this passage, John MacArthur explains how many of the popular interpretations go wrong when they divorce the verses from their context:

Jesus’ promises in verses 18 and 19 have suffered serious misinterpretation throughout the history of the church. . . . Many charismatics use these promises—along with others, such as those of Matthew 7:7 and 21:22—to claim from God every imaginable blessing and privilege just for the asking.

But in light of the context of what Jesus had just said, in the light of common rabbinical expressions of that day, and in light of the grammatical construction of the text, it is clear that He was not teaching that God’s power can be bent to men’s will. He was not saying that men can force heaven to do things. Quite to the contrary, His promise was that when His people bend their wills to His, He will endorse and empower their act of obedience.

Jesus was here continuing His instruction about church discipline. He was not speaking about petitioning God for special blessings or privileges, and even less was He teaching that the church or any of its leaders has power to absolve the sins of its members. He was declaring that the church has a divine mandate to discipline its members when they refuse to repent. ^[4]John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16–23 (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1988) 137.

And what about the power to bind and loose in the spiritual realm? John also carefully debunks that misinterpretation:

The rabbis sometimes spoke of a principle or action as being bound in heaven or loosed in heaven to indicate, respectively, that it was forbidden or permitted in light of God’s revealed Word. . . . Believers have authority to declare that sins are either forgiven or not forgiven when that declaration is based on the teaching of God’s Word. If a person has received Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, the church can tell him with perfect confidence that his sins are loosed, that is, forgiven, because he has met God’s condition for forgiveness, namely, trust in His Son. If, on the other hand, a person refuses to receive Christ as Savior and acknowledge Him as Lord, the church can tell him with equal confidence that his sins are bound, that is, not forgiven, because he has not met God’s condition for forgiveness. ^[5] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16–23, 137.

Matthew 18:15–17 is Christ’s explanation of how church discipline is to be practiced. Verses 18–20 expand on His instructions by informing us of the immense heavenly support provided to leaders who maintain the discipline of the church. Here’s how John MacArthur describes it:

Jesus also assures His people that He Himself acts with them when they work to purify the church: “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst.” Not only does the Father confirm discipline when it is administered according to His Word, but the Son adds His own divine confirmation. . . . To use this statement to claim the Lord’s presence at a small worship service or prayer meeting does not fit the context of church discipline and is superfluous. Christ is always present with His people, even with a lone believer totally separated from fellow Christians by prison walls or by hundreds of miles.

The context demands that the two or three are witnesses in the process of discipline. To ask or to do anything in God’s name is not to utter His name but to ask and to work according to His divine will and character. For the witnesses to have gathered in His name is therefore for them to have faithfully performed their work of verifying the repentance or impenitence of a sinning brother or sister on the Lord’s behalf. When the church gathers in the Lord’s name and for His cause and glory, it must be engaged in self-purifying ministry under His power and authority, and with His heavenly confirmation and partnership. ^[6] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16–23, 138.

One could make a case that the church’s silence on the issue of biblical discipline (Matthew 18:15-17) has allowed for a cacophony of misinterpretations and misapplications of Matthew 18:18-20. Ripped from their original setting and intent, those verses have been made to serve a variety of false positions and pretexts.

Our interpretation of Scripture has serious practical repercussions. We would all do well to receive Paul’s counsel to Timothy:  “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on August 19, 2016. -ed.

Sometimes you know what the sermon is going to be before the pastor even says a word. Certain Bible stories and Scripture passages naturally lead to familiar principles and well-worn applications. It’s not always easy to fight off that arrogant “Been There, Done That” feeling—especially for those of us who grew up in the church.

This passage from Luke’s gospel might prompt a similar response at first glance. Luke records a familiar vignette from the days leading up to Christ’s arrest and execution.

And [Jesus] looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.” (Luke 21:1-4)

You might expect a sermon on that passage to be a short treatise on self-denial, selflessness, humility, sacrificial giving, or vows of poverty—or some other point that is routinely wrung out of those verses. But as John MacArthur explains in his commentary on Luke’s gospel, those meanings and applications are utterly foreign to what is commonly known as the story of “The Widow’s Mites.”

All those ideas, however, are imposed on the narrative; Jesus drew no principle regarding giving from her behavior. The text does not record that He condemned the rich for their giving, or commended the widow for hers. There is no judgment made regarding the true nature of her act, nor is anything said about her attitude, or the spirit in which her gift was given. Since Jesus made no point about giving, neither should the interpreter. ^[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Luke 18-24 (Chicago: Moody Publishers 2014), 168.

That might come as a shock to you—it certainly did to me when I first heard John’s sermon on this passage (titled “Abusing the Poor”). But in spite of seemingly universal agreement that this brief passage applies to the act and attitude of our giving, that’s simply not the point of the story.

It is not, as many suggest, a sweet little sidebar about God’s pleasure in our self-sacrifice. If it was, that meaning would be explicit in Christ’s words. It is simply bad hermeneutics to infer, suppose, or jump to conclusions about the point of this passage that extend beyond Christ’s recorded words.

Moreover, if you’re determined to make these verses a lesson about giving—that is, if you interpret Christ’s statement as an affirmation of the widow’s gift—the only legitimate point you can draw from the text is that God wants you to give absolutely everything you have, and resign yourself to a life of destitution. And we know that’s not biblical, because God’s Word is clear elsewhere about the importance of being a good steward with your money.

In fact, the only instance when Christ ever told anyone to give away everything they had was during His conversation with the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:21). And we know that the Lord’s words were not a prescription for an alternate means of salvation or a pattern for giving, but a test of the young man’s true affections.

So if this anecdote from Luke’s gospel has nothing to do with giving, what is the point? Why did Luke and the Holy Spirit include it in this gospel account?

The first step to making sense of Luke 21:1-4 is to understand that these verses do not represent a change of topic or train of thought—that they belong in the immediate context of everything Christ said before and after the widow deposited her offering.

We need to remind ourselves from time to time that, while the words of Scripture were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, the chapter and verse numbers are not. In this case, the chapter break inserts a speed bump into Luke’s gospel that the apostle never intended. The verses immediately prior (Luke 20:45-47) contain Christ’s scathing critique and condemnation on the Jewish religious elite.

And while all the people were listening, He said to the disciples, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”

And who were the scribes? Here’s how John MacArthur explains their place in first-century Israel:

Not all Pharisees were scribes, but the scribes were primarily Pharisees, who were interpreters and teachers of the law of Moses and the traditional rabbinic writings. Their teaching provided the theological framework for the Pharisees’ legalistic system of works-righteousness. The scribes were the dominant force in Judaism, not only theologically, but socially. Their views affected every aspect of life, and they also handled all legal matters, including property, estates, and contracts. They were revered, and given the respectful title of Rabbi (Matthew 23:7). ^[2] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Luke 18-24, 163.

The influence the scribes wielded was corrupted on several fronts, and their hypocrisy infected the entire nation. Christ’s criticism emphasized several examples of their overweening pride. But their corruption wasn’t limited to haughtiness and self-promotion. As John MacArthur explains,

[Jesus also exposed] a more sinister aspect of their hypocrisy—their rapacious greed that led them to prey on the most defenseless members of society. That the scribes would stoop so low as to “devour widows’ houses” graphically illustrates the intense desire for wealth that characterizes false teachers (cf. Micah 3:5, 11; 2 Peter 2:1-3, 14). . . . The Old Testament teaches that widows are to be protected and cared for (Exodus 22:22; Deuteronomy 10:18; 14:29; 24:17-21; 27:19; Psalm 68:5; 146:9; Proverbs 15:25; Isaiah 1:17; Jeremiah 22:3; Zechariah 7:10), but the scribes consumed their meager resources. They took advantage of their hospitality, cheated them out of their estates, mismanaged their property, and took their houses as pledges for debts that they could never repay. ^[3] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Luke 18-24, 166.

The moment Jesus finished denouncing the scribes for “devouring widows’ houses” (Luke 20:47), His audience saw the reality of His words borne out in vivid, tragic detail. The widow’s offering was a devastating illustration of the wicked religious system Christ had just condemned. Through her final offering, this widow succumbed to an institutionalized scheme of works-righteousness that had bled her dry. In fact, it likely killed her, as Scripture tells us she gave up “all that she had to live on” (Luke 21:4) in her last-ditch effort to obtain a blessing.

In that sense, her gift was not an example for us to follow but a warning about how false religion preys on people.

As the story of this widow reveals, deceptive, self-righteous religion preys on the weak, the desperate, and the defenseless. Far from being pleased with her giving, Jesus was angry that the so-called worship she had bought into had taken her last cent. The Lord would go on to pronounce judgment on that very apostate Judaism in the next section. [See Luke 21:5-6; and for a more in-depth study of Christ’s condemnation, see John MacArthur’s sermon “Abusive Religion.”]

Money has always been at the heart of satanic religion (cf. Luke 16:14; 19:46; 1 Peter 5:2), consequently abuse of the poor by false religious systems has continued from our Lord’s day to our own. ^[4] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Luke 18-24, 170.

The corruption of first-century Judaism ought to sound familiar to us. Countless men and women today likewise give what little money they have—and often more than they can afford—to prosperity preachers, faith healers, and other religious hucksters in search of physical and financial blessings. Christian television is dominated by ministries that make outrageous promises of health and wealth if viewers will only first “sow a seed” of financial faith into their coffers. But the only ones who ever get rich are the vile false teachers themselves, while more and more people fall for their lies.

Just as Christ warned His disciples about the danger the scribes presented, we need to be bold and faithful about calling out the wolves who prey on people in God’s name. We need to be clear about what God’s Word says in all matters, and what it doesn’t—leaving these charlatans no room to operate their blasphemous Ponzi schemes.

That’s the lesson we need to take away from the story of this widow—that God’s people cannot idly stand by while false teachers twist the truth and line their pockets in God’s name. We need to be outraged when wolves attempt to fleece God’s flock. And we need to protect and care for those who are most susceptible to their lies.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. One of our previous blog series, Looking for Truth in All the Wrong Places, strongly emphasizes those doctrines. The following entry from that series originally appeared on June 5, 2017. -ed.

God told me.

The Holy Spirit laid it on my heart.

The Spirit is compelling me.

Those phrases and others like them are frequently thrown around the church today without giving many people pause. In fact, it seems the Holy Spirit’s primary role is laying burdens on believers and compelling them to deliver specific, timely messages to the church.

But how do we know when it’s actually the Holy Spirit, and not just a heavy conscience, a strong personal desire, or emotion-driven enthusiasm? For that matter, what’s to say it wasn’t simply some bad pizza? For all the talk about the Holy Spirit directing us, speaking to us and through us, and compelling us this way and that, how do we know when God is truly leading us?

We recently asked John MacArthur about how we can discern the Spirit’s ongoing work in the lives of believers. Here’s what he said:

We ought to look for the Holy Spirit’s leadership, but we must be cautious about assigning to Him responsibility for our words and actions. Our feelings are not necessarily a trustworthy source of information, nor are they an accurate indication that God has a special message to deliver to us or through us.

God’s people need to be circumspect when it comes to His leadership, particularly through subjective impressions and inclinations. Moreover, we need to be wary of those who highjack the prophetic seat and presume to speak for God.

In the days ahead, we’re going to look at some landmark teaching from John MacArthur regarding the propensity of many believers to look for eternal truth in all the wrong places. You won’t want to miss this engaging, insightful series that deals with the pitfalls of subjectivity and postmodernity, and the sufficiency of Scripture.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. One of our previous blog series, Looking for Truth in All the Wrong Places, strongly emphasizes those doctrines. The following entry from that series originally appeared on June 12, 2017. -ed.

You have undoubtedly heard people say things like, “God is calling me to the mission field,” or “God led me to attend this college,” or “We feel God wants us to get married.” Perhaps you have even said such things yourself.

Christians who use expressions like those often mean they have had an impression or a strong feeling that they interpret as a disclosure of the divine will. Even people who believe prophecy and divine revelation have ceased sometimes fall into the trap of thinking God speaks directly to us through subjective means.

Normally people who make such claims have no intention of equating their mental impressions with divine revelation. They regard the subjective “leading of the Lord” as something far less than prophetic. Yet they believe God somehow communicates His will personally to individuals through inner promptings, signs, feelings of peace or uneasiness, strong impressions on the mind, or other similar means.

For reasons we shall examine, it is not wise to seek divine guidance through subjective impressions like these. Nowhere does Scripture encourage us to attempt to discern God’s will through such means. As we shall see, that sort of decision making can lead to confusion, disappointment, and sometimes spiritual tragedy.

And the truth is that treating subjective impressions as messages from the Holy Spirit is not really much different from claiming to receive divine revelation. Though most Christians who follow subjective impressions would not dream of listening to extrabiblical “prophecies,” in effect they are doing the same thing.

In fact, some advocates of modern prophetic revelation want to erase any distinction between subjective impressions and the gift of prophecy mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12–14. Professor Wayne Grudem, for example, who has produced the most thorough theological defense of the modern prophecy movement, believes God is giving revelation today chiefly through mental impressions. He even defines revelation as “something God brings to mind.” ^[1] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 42, 115. He suggests that when God providentially brings a thought to a believer’s mind, that is the New Testament gift of prophecy in operation. Thus he has elevated mental impressions to the level of prophetic revelation.

Grudem’s work has had widespread influence. And it is in many respects a fine study. He shows biblically why important distinctions must be made between Old Testament prophecy, apostolic prophecy, and the New Testament gift of prophecy. In places (but not everywhere) his exegesis of the pertinent texts is very helpful. He includes a crucial appendix on the sufficiency of Scripture which, if heeded by his friends in the modern prophecy movement, would provide a remedy against the serious abuses that have so plagued the movement. And he offers another important appendix showing that the canon of Scripture is closed.

But it is at this very point that Grudem’s position seems most inconsistent. If the canon of Scripture is really closed; if (as Grudem rightly suggests) “it is in Scripture alone that we are to search for God’s words to us”; ^[2] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 299. and if, in his words, “the Bible is sufficient to equip us for living the Christian life” ^[3] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 300. —then what point is there in seeking additional “revelations” like the prophetic messages Grudem advocates? It is unfortunate that Grudem relegated his thoughts on the canon of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture to the book’s final appendixes. If this had been the starting point for his study of prophecy, perhaps he would have reached very different conclusions.

Grudem’s defense of prophetic revelation has opened the door to a host of bizarre and misleading “prophecies” that have plagued evangelical Christianity over the past several years. Scores of churches worldwide have implemented Grudem’s theology and are encouraging people to share mere mental impressions as if they were prophetic messages from God. Ironically, Grudem’s work is frequently summoned to defend even the most outlandish aspects of a movement that has utterly ignored his many clear warnings against abuse of the prophetic gifts.

To his credit, Grudem appeals for a view of prophecy that “would still include a strong affirmation of the closing of the New Testament canon (so that no new words of equal authority are given today), of the sufficiency of Scripture, and of the supremacy and unique authority of the Bible in guidance.”^[4] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 15. He writes, “I am asking that charismatics . . . stop calling [prophecy] ‘a word from the Lord’—simply because that label makes it sound exactly like the Bible in authority.” ^[5] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 14. Elsewhere he writes, “Remember that what is spoken in any prophecy today is not the word of God, but is simply a human being reporting in merely human words something which God has brought to mind.” ^[6] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 262. He also warns that modern prophecy

should not be thought of as “God’s very words,” nor should the speaker preface his or her remarks with words which would give that impression, such as, “Thus says the Lord,” or, “Hear the words of God,” etc.—those statements should be reserved for Scripture alone. Something like, “I think the Lord is showing me that . . .” or, “I think the Lord is indicating that . . .” or, “It seems that the Lord is putting on my heart a concern that . . .” would all be much more appropriate, and far less misleading. ^[7] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 133.

If those warnings were consistently heeded, charismatic “prophets” could save their churches much grief and confusion.

But even in the denomination Grudem himself once identified with—the Association of Vineyard Churches—his words of caution are frequently ignored in the prophets’ actual practice.

James Ryle is himself a Vineyard pastor [Ryle passed away in 2015, Ed.]. He does give lip service to Grudem’s caution. He writes,

How often have you heard someone say casually, “The Lord spoke to me,” or “The Lord told me” to do this or that?

. . . Many within the church use these terms to justify their own desires and opinions. Possibly they feel that this puts what they are saying beyond challenge. After all, how does one argue with a “word from the Lord”?

In light of this problem I have found it a good policy to avoid such expressions and simply say, “It occurred to me” when I am sharing some insight which I’ve received in prayer or devotions. This removes unnecessary stumbling blocks and allows more people to hear the message without being distracted with the way the word is being presented. ^[8] James Ryle, Hippo in the Garden (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1993), 30-31.

But note the significant difference between Grudem’s position and Ryle’s. Grudem believes prophecy is merely “something God brought to mind”—not “God’s very words.” He seems eager to avoid confusion on this point. Ryle’s perspective is markedly different. He says he employs terminology like “It occurred to me” to avoid “unnecessary stumbling blocks.” But he clearly does think of prophecy as God’s very words. After analyzing the dangers of saying things like “God spoke to me,” he states, “Nonetheless, the Lord does speak to us today.” In practice he cannot avoid placing modern words of prophecy on the same level with the written Word of God.

Ryle does this perhaps without even realizing it. He repeatedly cites Matthew 4:4 in defense of modern prophecy: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” ^[9] Hippo in the Garden, 32, 39, 62 (emphasis added).—taking a verse that clearly speaks of Scripture and applying it to modern words of prophecy.

Furthermore, despite his stated preference for expressions like, “It occurred to me,” Ryle never once uses that expression or any like it in his book. Instead, the book is filled with statements like, “I heard the voice of the Lord,” “The voice of the Lord spoke to me,” “God was speaking to me again,” “The Lord Himself was standing before me . . . speaking directly to me,” “Again I heard the voice of the Lord. . . . The Lord continued [speaking]. . . . The Lord seemed to pause. . . . Then He delivered the knockout blow,” “The Lord was saying to me,” “The Lord spoke to him, telling him to call [me],” “He speaks to me,” “I received a word from the Lord,” “I sensed the Holy Spirit say to me,” “I treasure these words from the Lord, holding them in my heart with the deepest regard,” “These were the exact words I was given,” “The prophetic word from the heart of the Lord was spoken,” “This is what the Holy Spirit showed me,” and similar expressions. ^[10] Hippo in the Garden, 13-14, 15, 18, 20, 25-29, 83, 91, 113, 115-116, 142. All Ryle’s interpretations of his own dreams and visions are stated with dogmatic conviction.

Ryle continually uses terminology that suggests he has canonized modern prophecy—at least in his own mind. “The Holy Spirit inspires us to speak through any number of means,” he says, referring to his prophecies as “inspired utterance.” ^[11] Hippo in the Garden, 99.] At the end of the book, Ryle suggests that when the hippo of modern prophecy comes into the garden of mainstream evangelicalism, “the church will be found in the midst of the world, speaking forth the words of God to a crooked and perverse generation, among whom we will shine as light, holding forth the word of life.” ^[12] Hippo in the Garden, 292 (emphasis added).

So in practice, Ryle finds it impossible not to equate his own prophecies with the words of Scripture, even though he appears to be trying to avoid this error. (In one place, Ryle says, “We must stop putting our own words in the Lord’s mouth. . . . Scripture alone is our sure foundation.” ^[13] Hippo in the Garden, 54-55. To that I add a hearty amen.)

He is not alone in this failing. Anyone who is truly convinced that God is speaking fresh words of revelation will inevitably view the later prophecies as somehow more relevant and more personal than the message of Scripture, which is more than two thousand years old. Inevitably, wherever personal prophecy has been stressed, Scripture has been deemphasized. Two thousand years of church history confirms that this is true.

(Adapted from Reckless Faith.)

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. One of our previous blog series, Looking for Truth in All the Wrong Places, strongly emphasizes those doctrines. The following entry from that series originally appeared on June 21, 2017. -ed.

If God is still speaking to His people today—particularly through mental impressions and premonitions—how can believers exercise discernment when it comes to interpreting and applying these divine messages? Put simply, how is following the private, subjective “leading” of the Lord any more reliable than gazing into a crystal ball?

As we saw last time, biblical discernment runs contrary to the kind of subjective mysticism many promote in the church today. Without any objective criteria, there is no means for determining truth from error. Such blithe subjectivity leaves people at the mercy of whatever mystical “voice” they’re listening to.

Upper Abdominal Distress

It is therefore ironic that advocates of mysticism inevitably treat discernment itself as if it were some kind of subjective, mystical ability. One author speaks of discernment as “a spiritual function,” by which he evidently means that discernment does not involve the intellect. ^[1] William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1992), 55. For a further discussion of DeArteaga’s work, see chapter 6 of Reckless Faith. In one of my earlier books I quoted Bill Hamon, one of the leading proponents of modern revelatory prophecy. Hamon’s recipe for discernment is a classic case of mystical anti-intellectualism. He believes prophecies can be properly evaluated only by people willing to set reason and logic aside:

I have sometimes heard people say, “I did not witness with that prophecy.” But after questioning them, I discovered that what they really meant was that the prophecy did not fit their theology, personal desires or goals, or their emotions reacted negatively to it. They failed to understand that we do not bear witness with the soul—the mind, emotions or will.

Our reasoning is in the mind, not the spirit. So our traditions, beliefs and strong opinions are not true witnesses to prophetic truth. The spirit reaction originates deep within our being. Many Christians describe the physical location of its corresponding sensation as the upper abdominal area.

A negative witness—with a message of “no,” “be careful” or “something’s not right”—usually manifests itself with a nervous, jumpy or uneasy feeling. There is a deep, almost unintelligible sensation that something is wrong. This sense can only be trusted when we are more in tune with our spirit than with our thoughts. If our thinking is causing these sensations, then it could be only a soulish reaction.

On the other hand, when God’s Spirit is bearing witness with our spirit that a prophetic word is right, is of God and is according to His will and purpose, then our spirit reacts with the fruit of the Holy Spirit. We have a deep, unexplainable peace and joy, a warm, loving feeling—or even a sense of our spirit jumping up and down with excitement. This sensation lets us know that the Holy Spirit is bearing witness with our spirit that everything is in order, even though we may not understand everything that is being said, or our soul may not be able to adjust immediately to all the thoughts being presented. ^[2] Bill Hamon, “How to Receive a Personal Prophecy,” Charisma (April 1991), 68 (emphasis added).

Notice that Hamon’s emphasis is entirely on feeling, while he derides the intellect, theology, reason, understanding, and by implication, true biblical wisdom. A reaction in the upper abdominal region is supposed to be a more reliable gauge of truth than all those things.

But that is superstition, not discernment. How your upper abdomen feels about a thing is certainly no measure of truth or falsehood. Neither is “a nervous, jumpy, or uneasy feeling” apart from any rational cause. “A deep, unexplainable peace and joy, a warm, loving feeling—or even a sense of [your] spirit jumping up and down with excitement” is no proof that a supposed prophecy is reliable. Those who practice this sort of “discernment” epitomize reckless faith.

And those who seek truth by analyzing inner feelings are likely to wind up with nothing but confusion.

Dueling Prophets

My editor once attended a service at the Anaheim Vineyard where two “prophets” gave contradictory prophecies. It happened in a Sunday morning worship service. When the congregational singing was over, John Wimber stepped to the platform. Before he could say anything, a young man in the congregation stood and began loudly to prophesy judgment against the leaders of the church. “Jerusalem! Jerusalem!” he began, echoing Luke 13:34, “you persecute My prophets and stone My messengers. My displeasure burns hot toward the leadership of this church for the way you have scorned My prophets and ignored My prophecies. . . .” and so on. The man evidently was disgruntled at the treatment he had received at the hands of church leaders, and this “prophecy” seemed to be his way of striking back. He prophesied in that manner for five minutes or more, earnestly calling the elders of the church to repentance. His entire message was in first person as if from God.

Immediately when he finished, before John Wimber could respond, another “prophet” from the other side of the congregation popped up and began to prophesy exactly the opposite message. This prophet began with a loose paraphrase of Jeremiah 29:11: “Oh, pastors and leaders of this church, I know My thoughts toward you—thoughts of mercy, and not of judgment. I have loved you with an everlasting love and have laid up for you a crown in heaven, My beloved. You have done according to all My good pleasure, and henceforth all men will rise up and call you blessed. . . .” etcetera, etcetera.

When the second man finished, a woman stood and sang a song, another person spoke in tongues, and one or two others quoted Bible verses or shared something brief. Then the service continued with Wimber making announcements. No reference was made to the two contradictory prophecies. No attempt was made to explain the dilemma or interpret either prophecy. Members of the congregation were simply left to draw their own conclusions about which, if either, of the two prophecies was correct.

That illustrates the impossible situation that arises when people are encouraged to voice their own subjective impressions as if they were divine prophecy. And it also reveals the predicament we are placed in if we must allow a sensation in our upper abdominal area to determine the truth or falsehood of a prophetic message.

Notice that both prophets’ messages echoed biblical terminology. Both of them were delivered with great conviction. Both of them employed first-person pronouns, as if God Himself were doing the speaking. Yet they flatly contradicted each other. They might both be false prophecies, but there is no way they could both be true. How were the people in the congregation supposed to determine which, if either, was correct? If they followed the gut-feeling approach, all the disgruntled people in the church undoubtedly opted for the first prophecy, believing they now had a word from the Lord to confirm their displeasure with their leaders.

The obvious fact is that once we stray into the realm of subjectivity, we have no way to determine what is really true.

(Adapted from Reckless Faith.)

Modern evangelistic strategies often stumble by emphasizing the method over the message. We hear a lot about contextualization, felt needs, and relevance. On the other hand, we steadily seem to hear less and less about the power of God’s Word to transform the sinner’s soul. As the church becomes increasingly enamored of such pragmatic strategies, it proves decreasingly convinced of the sufficiency of Scripture.

We recently asked Mike Riccardi—the local outreach pastor at Grace Community Church and one of the keynote speakers at Truth Matters—what impact, if any, the sufficiency of Scripture makes in evangelism. Here’s what he had to say:

Registration for Truth Matters is now closed. However, we will be streaming every session of the conference live on the Internet. Wherever you are, we hope you will join us for this special time of Bible teaching, worship, and fellowship.

What happens when you find yourself in circumstances that God’s Word doesn’t speak to? If Scripture is truly sufficient, what do you do when facing issues of modern life that the Bible does not directly address?

Today the shelves of Christian bookstores sag under the weight of devotionals, guidebooks, and manuals purporting to help you hear and understand what God has to say to you personally. Wildly popular books like Experiencing God and Jesus Calling encourage believers to look beyond the confines of Scripture for fresh words from God.

Among evangelical Christians, the word syncretism usually conjures thoughts of third-world missionaries who blend their religion with the indigenous pagan practices they encounter. A visitor to my home church related a conversation he’d had with a Roman Catholic missionary while touring South America. The priest wore his syncretistic practices as a badge of honor, boasting of how he intentionally incorporated native religious observances into his worship services. He was critical of Protestant missionaries who refused to likewise accommodate the paganism of the people they ministered to.

Most of us are familiar with politicians who obfuscate simple questions with complex political answers. Who can forget Bill Clinton’s “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”? Unfortunately, obfuscation exists in the realm of theology as well. God may not be “a God of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33), but there are scores of biblical scholars, theologians, and pastors who insert plenty of it into the first few chapters of Genesis.

It is no coincidence that the rise of feminism in the twentieth century paralleled an unprecedented push for female clergy in Western churches. With the shifting views and priorities of the culture, the timeless biblical truths of male headship and church leadership were suddenly under attack.

The language of therapy has a stranglehold on our culture. Children don’t lie anymore, they tell stories. Serial adulterers have been re-branded as sex addicts. Drunkenness is now an alcohol disorder—in fact, addiction itself is treated like a disease. Even the gross perversion of pedophilia is listed as a psychiatric disorder in the ever-expanding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

Ecumenism is nothing new. Satan always works to mingle the truth with error, and the evangelistic co-belligerence of evangelicals and Catholics is just one example. But for some reason, this unlikely doctrinal mashup has been growing in popularity for the past two decades.

Does an unregenerate man bear a spark of the divine that draws him to a relationship with God, or is he utterly lost in the total depravity of his sin nature? While that might seem like an obscure theological question, don’t dismiss it as merely fodder for academic debates. It’s an immensely practical question—with implications for the church and for your own life. And it’s at the heart of the consumer-driven movement in the church, commonly known as seeker sensitivity.

In October 1978, 334 evangelical leaders gathered in the city of Chicago to formulate what is now known as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. One of the younger attendees at that gathering was John MacArthur, who was just shy of a decade into his pastorate at Grace Community Church.

Gold, frankincense, and myrrh—those are perhaps the three most famous Christmas gifts ever given, for one historic reason. Matthew 2:11 records their delivery to Christ in His childhood by wise men from the East. And all three gifts have been memorialized by the many nativity scenes featuring them each Christmas. But what about the next time Jesus comes?

The major theological conflicts of the past should never be dismissed just because they happened a long time ago. Many theological fissures were vitally necessary—and remain crucial into the present. And the Protestant Reformation is perhaps the greatest example of that—a clear and necessary line of doctrinal demarcation that has stood for more than five hundred years. And the lines of division couldn’t be more critical. They mark fierce disagreements over who is the head of the church, whom we should worship, whom we should pray to, what the cross represents, and how sinners can be saved. No amount of time can sweep those fundamental theological differences under the rug. Or so you would think.

The marketplace of evangelical ideas is now overrun with diverse and competing agendas. Even the most seasoned believers can struggle to navigate it. Making matters worse, there are now many evangelical voices spreading dangerous error mixed with a dose of biblical truth. Many believers have been lulled into a false sense of security under once-orthodox preachers and teachers who have veered away from true, biblical north.

If you’re like most Christians, you probably have a consistent Sunday morning routine. Maybe you rush to church in time to greet your friends, grab some coffee, make your way to your regular seat, and settle in just in time for worship. Your pattern may look different, but it’s fairly certain you have one you stick to.

For years, Western companies have struggled to profit from a Chinese consumer market that thrives on cheap knock-offs of iconic brands. But that frustration is now turning into optimism, as local courts begin to stamp out thieves and cheats, lawyers say.More companies are filing intellectual property (IP) lawsuits amid a shift in attitude towards protecting original ideas, trademarks and patents, according to official data. The rush has accelerated after the phase-one trade deal in the US-China…

A city in China’s northeastern province of Jilin has upgraded its Covid-19 risk level from low to medium following a new case of the disease, the provincial authorities announced on Saturday morning.It came just two days after China’s government declared the whole country was low-risk after the number of new cases dropped to almost zero and no deaths were recorded for more than three weeks.On Friday the State Council issued a notice allowing shopping malls, supermarkets, hotels and restaurants…

The Covid-19 crisis has exposed weaknesses in Chinese health care system despite some impressive reforms over the past two decades, witnesses told an advisory arm of the US Congress on Thursday.China has strengthened its Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to improve the monitoring of outbreaks and better coordinate local public health authorities, US experts on international health care told the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission.This happened after the…

The United States has stunned other members of the UN Security Council by preventing a vote on a resolution for a ceasefire in various conflicts around the world to help troubled nations better fight the coronavirus pandemic, diplomats said.Washington’s reversal on Friday came a day after it agreed to the text, negotiators said under cover of anonymity.“The United States cannot support the current draft,” the country’s delegation declared, without further detail, to the 14 other Security…

The Singapore government is reviewing the sale and slaughter of live animals at wet markets, Dr Amy Khor, Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources, said on Tuesday. The relevant agencies are doing so while taking into consideration international benchmarking and scientific evidence, she added.Her comments were in response to a parliamentary question from MP for Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency Louis Ng. He asked whether her ministry would consider banning the…

Indian officials evacuated more people on Friday from the area around a chemical plant in the south of the country that leaked toxic gas, killing at least 12 people and left about 1,000 struggling to breathe.There was confusion about whether the wider evacuation orders were sparked by a renewed leak at the LG Chem factory in Andhra Pradesh, or by the fear that rising temperatures at the plant could lead to another leak.“No, there was not another leakage,’’ National Disaster Response Force…

When 93-year-old Thomas Abraham was being treated for Covid-19 in the intensive care unit of a hospital in Kottayam, southern India, the one thing he missed was making black coffee for his wife, Mariyamma, 88.He need not have worried, the two would soon be having their morning cuppa together again – Mariyamma had contracted the disease too and both were being treated in the same hospital.“[At first] we were in separate wards but when both of us started missing each other, the doctors moved us…

Prague Daily Monitor

As seems to be the norm this winter, the Czech Republic had another day of record warm temperatures on Sunday. With the warm temperatures came high velocity winds which knocked out electricity for hundreds of homes in the western part of the country, caused traffic accidents and as much as a 30% halt in railways service.

read more

Prague Daily Monitor

The Liberec Technical University has created a replaceable filter which can be used in the homemade masks people are sewing. The masks are worn to comply with laws designed in preventing the spread of Covid-19. The Nano-material is 70-90% effective in stopping the coronavirus cells. The university with the help from the Liberec region and the private sector is now producing 100,000 filters a day. The price per one should not exceed CZK 10.

read more

Coronavirus has taught us that we do not need to leave our homes to get groceries and supplies.

Julie and Moses saw the disease shut down their events’ planning business, but this did not put them down. They now run a grocery store

Even today, you find some East Africans who do not know or believe that there are native Waswahili communities.

Doc, I have tried some creams like Betasone and Clozole b

Two police officers have been arrested for possessing more than HK$12 million (US$1.9 million) worth of drugs, which the force believes were stolen from the record haul of crystal meth seized last week.One of the two policemen detained, a 41-year-old station sergeant, who is attached to the Kowloon West anti-triad squad, was caught with 2kg of Ice in the Royal Garden Hotel in Tsim Sha Tsui East on Thursday, police said, just days after being part of a team that seized 296kg of the drug in a…

A serial litigant known for taking the Hong Kong government to court faces being declared bankrupt after the justice department filed a petition against him.Retired civil servant Kwok Cheuk-kin, dubbed the “king of judicial reviews” by the media, has been filing applications with the High Court since 2006, often challenging the legality of government policies and decisions.But many of his attempts ended in failure, and despite being ordered to bear the government’s legal costs in such…