Update 1196

On February 21, 2026, Dave Harris will present the sermonette, titled, “Time to Flee,” and Eric Rank will present the sermon, titled, “Jesus Christ Reveals the Father.”

The live services are available, over video and audio, at http://eternalgod.org/live-services/ (12:30 pm Pacific Time; 1:30 pm Mountain Time; 2:30 pm Central Time; 3:30 pm Eastern Time; 8:30 pm Greenwich Mean Time; 9:30 pm Central European Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Those of us who were members of the Worldwide Church of God went through quite a difficult time when, after Mr. Armstrong’s death, the new leadership started to change many, if not most, of the doctrines we were familiar with and had believed as being God’s Truth.

Many of the brethren and our friends accepted the changes and discarded what they appeared to have believed for many years. Could it be that their religious beliefs were preferences rather than convictions? When changes in doctrines were made that suited them better, things like no need to tithe or keep God’s Sabbath, or even clean and unclean foods, they preferred these new doctrines rather than the previous ones.

I was amazed how quickly some who appeared to be strong members welcomed the changes.

There is a vast difference between preferences and convictions. And to show that, I would like to quote from a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1972. The case was named Wisconsin versus Yoder. It involved three families, their fathers being Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller of the Old Order Amish religion and Adin Yutzy of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church. It concerned the question of whether the state had the right to force children of the Amish religious community to attend school between the ages of 15 and 16.

The parents argued that if the children had to attend school for two more years, they would have to go outside the Amish community and learn secular values that were not in accordance with the Amish beliefs. Up to age 14 they had their own Amish schools. Also, the Amish children learnt further skills informally by working with their parents on various tasks.

This appeal was based on the 1^st and 14^th Amendments of the Constitution of the U.S. that guarantees U.S. citizens the right of free exercise of religion.

In their determination for the families, the judges stated that the record in this case abundantly supported the claim that the traditional way of life of the Amish is not merely a matter of personal preference, but one of deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living.

In other words, the Amendments only protected religious convictions and not religious preferences. A belief, no matter how strongly held, is only a preference, and not a conviction, if, when circumstances change, the person will change their beliefs.

Many things can cause a person to change their preferences: Peer pressure, family pressure, legal pressure or even the threat of death. If any of these factors can cause a person to change their beliefs, then that person does not have a conviction, only a preference.

Let’s look at a few examples in the Bible which show the difference between preferences and convictions. Matthew 13:20-22 is an example of preferences of belief. Verse 20 reads: “But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy…” The Truth is exciting at first and he may embrace it enthusiastically and even live by it, but it becomes clear that it is only a preference and not a conviction, when future circumstances interfere with the new-found belief and he discards that Truth.

Continuing with verses 21 and 22:

“…yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.” Such individuals have not been convicted but have merely exchanged their previous beliefs for a whole new set of beliefs. If life becomes too difficult to continue on the new path, then these beliefs would be changed again to avoid the difficulties that have arisen. Real conviction is sadly lacking.

A legal comment on this judgement by the Supreme Court stated, “A conviction is not a spurious-of-the-moment decision. It is a premeditated response to a situation that was likely to occur. This means that it does not matter whether other people stand with you in the crisis or not. Only conviction can enable you to stand alone. People with preferences will usually, ultimately, follow the crowd.”

A good example of conviction is in Daniel 3:16-18. The king had commanded everyone to worship an image he had erected when they heard a certain type of music. Three Jews refused to bow down to the image and so they were brought before the king. This is their response to the threatened punishment of death in a fiery furnace:

“Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.’”

All three men were looking death squarely in the face. If their devotion to the true God had merely been a preference, they would probably have quickly recanted their “rebellious” position and reasoned their way out of the situation. Their decision was not an on-the-spot reaction. They had the courage of their convictions. They were not about to defile themselves. Remember, there were tens of thousands of other Jews in Babylon at this time. But the three men were not concerned about what others did or what others thought. They were willing to take a stand by themselves even when facing the death penalty.

They did not submit to the king to save their lives by using human logic and applying the principle stated in Romans 13:1-2, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgement on themselves.” They knew that submitting to and obeying the king and bowing to the statue would go directly against the second commandment of God, and as Peter and the other apostles said in Acts 5:29, “‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’” In other words, where there is a contradiction between men’s laws and God’s Laws, we must obey God’s Laws.

Over the centuries, God’s people have faced trials, tests, persecution and heresy. Regrettably, many compromised their beliefs. They gave up what they once proved to be true for a variety of reasons. Some couldn’t handle the ostracism they faced. Others gave in to pressure from family or friends and embraced false teachings to keep the peace. Still others were persuaded that false teachings were true, being convinced by clever arguments or false intellectual reasoning.

All had one thing in common. They proved that their previous beliefs were merely preferences, not convictions. Otherwise, they would have persevered in them. But those who are convicted of the truth do not compromise their beliefs for any reason. They prove, and then they live by the Truth. No amount of pressure from any source will convince them to believe another gospel.

When trials come, convicted Christians stand firm in their beliefs. Their foundations are not moved or shattered because such believers build on the solid Truths of God’s Word. They do not compromise with God’s Law and their understanding grows. Changes may come within the framework of the truth, but the basic building blocks of their faith never change. With God’s help, they stand fast in their convictions.

We all need to examine ourselves in the light of what happened to the Church of God just over thirty-five years ago. We all need to make sure that we are Christians of conviction and have not simply preferred God’s Church as opposed to another, or none. The Church of God will continue to face persecution and opposition to its teachings, intended to wear down our faith and undermine the Truth. As individuals, this will test our convictions. Our reaction will determine whether our beliefs are just preferences or whether we are truly Christians of conviction.

We address powers given to ICE; Trump’s goal of denaturalizing US citizens; further American attacks on boats in the Caribbean; and the conclusion that Epstein was murdered. We also speak on Trump’s ongoing desire to occupy Greenland.

We discuss events during the Security Conference in Munich and focus in particular on speeches by Friedrich Merz and Marco Rubio; and address developments pertaining to Iran and Ukraine.

We also discuss the murder of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

Please see our new StandingWatch program, titled, “Merz’s and Rubio’s Historic Speeches in Munich…Really?” 

Throughout this section, we have underlined pertinent statements in the quoted articles, for the convenience and quick overview of the reader.        

What ICE Can Do!

Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote on February 12 the following on Ron Paul Institute: 

“… the president has used ICE to fulfill his promise of aggressive enforcement of immigration laws while cutting constitutional corners — even to the point of arresting Americans, immigrants and aliens without arrest warrants; arresting infants, killing two Americans who posed no threat to ICE killers and then lying about it… 

“The Supreme Court has already ruled that even though it is a crime to lie to the government, it is not a crime for the government to lie to any person. This… judge-made rule that has no basis in history, constitutional text or morality has led to a host of false confessions and trick home invasions as federal agents have lied their way into folks’ thinking and into their living rooms… 

“Entering the United States illegally is a federal crime. When the government seeks to arrest a person it suspects has committed any federal crime, unless its agents have witnessed the crime being committed, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to present evidence of probable cause against the person to a federal judge and seek a warrant specifically describing the place to be searched or the persons or things to be seized. 

“Entering the US legally and remaining here beyond the time limits imposed at the time of entry is not a crime and thus cannot be the basis for an application for an arrest warrant, as no judge would sign such a warrant. 

“In the Fifth Circuit [Court of Appeals for Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi], the feds no longer need an arrest warrant. A panel of two judges ruled last weekend that ICE agents can authorize each other to arrest whomever they suspect of being in the US without authorization and do so without an arrest warrant or presentation of evidence… [In] the Fifth Circuit… ICE can effectively arrest whomever it wishes, without evidence, without a judicial warrant, without knowing the name of the person arrested and without bail.”

 Incredible. 

Trump’s De-Naturalization Plans 

NBC wrote on February 17: 

“The Trump administration is dramatically expanding an effort to revoke U.S. citizenship for foreign-born Americans as it works to curb immigration… The goal of emphasizing naturalized citizens is to supply the office of immigration litigation with 100 to 200 possible cases per month…

“The Justice Department has already told attorneys to focus on denaturalization cases…

“Trump has long been preoccupied with the notion of citizenship — who gets to be an American and who doesn’t — and has expressed displeasure with immigrants from what he calls third world nations. He is separately seeking the power to strip citizenship from those born to foreigners in the U.S., though ‘birthright citizenship’ appears in the Constitution…. 

“Trump’s Truth Social message to Americans on Thanksgiving Day last year was that he would remove anyone who wasn’t a ‘net asset’ to the U.S. ‘or is incapable of loving our Country, end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization.’” 

To fully grasp Trump’s plans, let us emphasize that we are speaking of naturalized citizens. 

Further Attacks on Boats in the Caribbean 

Deutsche Welle wrote on February 13: 

“The United States military said on Friday that it had struck another vessel suspected of trafficking drugs in the Caribbean, killing three people… The Trump administration has carried out at least 38 strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since early September… 

“Friday’s attack takes the death toll from such operations to at least 133, as per official figures. But the US has offered little evidence to back its claims of killing ‘narcoterrorists.’ Critics have also voiced concerns over the legality of the deadly strikes in international waters.” 

Newsbreak added on February 17: 

“The U.S. military said Tuesday that it carried out strikes on three boats accused of smuggling drugs in Latin American waters, killing 11 people…” 

Epstein Was Murdered? 

The New York Post wrote on February 13: 

“A renowned pathologist who was at Jeffrey Epstein’s autopsy is demanding a fresh investigation, insisting newly released info only confirms his belief that the notorious pedophile was murdered. Dr. Michael Baden, who was New York City’s chief medical examiner in the 1970s, was so alarmed by what he saw in the August 2019 exam that he publicly declared ‘the evidence points toward homicide rather than suicide.’ ‘That was my opinion at that time, and I still stand by it,’ the famed pathologist told the Telegraph in an interview published Friday. 

“‘The autopsy findings are much more consistent with a crushing injury caused by homicidal strangulation than caused by hanging by suicide.’ In fact, Baden insisted, documents released in the Epstein files reinforce his belief that the medical examiner rushed to call the death a suicide.” 

The Daily Mail added that Baden said: “‘The autopsy findings are much more consistent with a crushing injury caused by homicidal strangulation than caused by hanging by suicide.’” 

It continued: “According to the official post-mortem, three distinct fractures were identified on the financier’s neck: one on the left hyoid and one in the thyroid cartilage on the right side, and one on the left. The 92-year-old said he has never seen hanging by suicide with three neck fractures throughout the 50 years he spent reviewing post-mortem reports for prisoner deaths in all New York state and local jails…. 

“Discrepancies found in the three million files related to the disgraced financier released on January 30 have further fuelled speculation surrounding Epstein’s cause of death. For example, a federal statement announcing his death surfaced in the newly released documents, but it carries a date (August 9) that appears to precede the moment he was officially found dead inside his New York prison cell (on August 10).” 

MSN added: 

“Some of the world’s most powerful people have been found to have questionable ties with the late sex offender, after the US government released millions of new files from its investigation.” 

Epstein was awaiting his trial for conspiracy and sex trafficking. The suggestion has been made that one of the powerful people might have been responsible for his murder so he could not testify. 

Trump Still Determined to Occupy Greenland 

The Guardian wrote on February 13: 

“Pushed further on Greenland and if the US interest is now over, [Prime Minister of Denmark Mette] Frederiksen says ‘unfortunately not.’ ‘I think the desire from the US president is exactly the same,’ she says, adding Trump remains ‘very serious about controlling the territory… Can you put a price on it, if Trump keeps pushing?, she gets asked. ‘Of course not. Can you put a price on a part of Spain, or a part of the US, or a part of anywhere else in the world?,’ she responds… 

“‘And the Greenlandic people have been very clear: they don’t want to become Americans,’ she says… Frederiksen gets asked how likely is it that she will need to have to defend Greenland from the US… she says that essentially, ‘if one Nato country attacks another Nato country, then Nato ends; it’s game over.’” 

European “Rapid Reaction Force”? 

Politico wrote on February 13: 

“European countries need to create a ‘rapid reaction force’ of up to 100,000 troops to replace American soldiers currently stationed on the continent, EU Defense Commissioner [and former Lithuanian prime minister] Andrius Kubilius said… 

“Last month, he said:  ‘We need to start to invest our money in such a way that we would be able to fight as Europe, not just as [a] collection of 27 national ‘bonsai armies.'”… However, he acknowledged that even such a force would face difficulties as it would be controlled by member countries, making rapid and coherent action very difficult… To get around the problem of leadership, Kubilius suggested creating a European Security Council, made up of five or six big EU countries… as well as smaller EU countries on a rotating basis…” 

No More German Appeasement? 

Deutsche Welle wrote on February 13:

“The Munich Security Conference kicked off on Friday with a speech by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who did not hold back in calling out a ‘rift’ between Europe and the United States under President Donald Trump… Merz… fired a departing shot for Europe to stop wanting the old America back and instead focus on building up its own security and trade strength… 

“… after the Greenland standoff, the Europeans have dropped appeasement as a strategy to deal with Trump.” 

The Guardian added on February 13: 

“The US acting alone has reached the limits of its power and may already have lost its role as global leader, Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, warned Donald Trump…” 

Merz’s Statements in Munich 

En.ilsole24ore wrote on February 13: 

“In Munich, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz once again listed the many initiatives taken in Germany to strengthen NATO and to enable the country to defend itself if necessary, explaining once again that Berlin’s goal is to have the strongest conventional army in Europe. [He also said:] 

“‘… a gap has opened up between Europe and the US… The cultural struggle of the MAGA movement is not ours… We do not believe in tariffs and protectionism, but in free trade. We remain loyal to climate agreements and the WHO because we are convinced that only together can we solve global challenges’… 

“Merz… announced that he has ‘entered into confidential talks’ with the French president on the subject of European nuclear deterrence…  [He continued:] ‘Russia’s gross domestic product amounts to about two trillion euros. That of the European Union is almost ten times higher. Yet Europe today is not ten times stronger than Russia… Our military, political, economic and technological potential is enormous. But for a long time we have not exploited it to the necessary extent.’”

Merz to Trump 

Bild wrote on February 13: 

“…what Chancellor Friedrich Merz said today in Munich is historic for the Federal Republic… Merz is offering US President Donald Trump nothing more than to take up the fight… Trump is relying on a hard line. Merz wants to counter that… Merz is calling for a new Europe – with Germany (and others) as a leading power… 

“If everything is as Merz describes it, then he has to deliver. He has to become faster, tougher, and better. He has to become a leader of Europe… Many have given speeches before… It’s time to become the chancellor for whom this speech was written.” 

Interesting observation. 

Rubio’s “Deceptively Friendly Speech” 

ntv wrote on February 13: 

“US Secretary of State Rubio’s appearance [in Munich] does indeed seem remarkably harmless—but not if you listen more closely… [Rubio is] a career politician… Rubio is considered the diplomat in Donald Trump’s inner circle—probably the only one. And he has mastered the art of jovial interaction. Highlighting common ground, getting personally involved: Rubio refers to his Spanish ancestors… 

“Rubio speaks with great appreciation about Europe, where the ideas were born ‘that sowed the seeds of freedom and changed the world.’ He makes sweeping references from Beethoven to the Beatles, and the Sistine Chapel even fits in. Moreover, German farmers and craftsmen transformed the empty plains in the heart of the USA into an agricultural powerhouse, and incidentally, the quality of the… American beer dramatically improved… 

“Rubio sounds good; he sounds exactly the kind of American that people in Europe like: intelligent, educated, charming, witty, and full of appreciation. In the same charming tone, however, the US representative also mentions that they [Europeans] have imposed an energy policy on themselves ‘that is impoverishing our people’; he calls it ‘climate cult,’ while the competition is exploiting coal, oil, and natural gas… 

“A world without borders—for Rubio, not a vision, but ‘a foolish idea,’ he says in the heart of Schengen Europe. Mass migration threatens ‘the continued existence of our societies, the continuity of our culture, the future of our peoples’… 

“Rubio’s conclusion: … The US wants to take a different path, not alone, but rather with ‘our friends from Europe.’ ‘We belong together,’ says Rubio… JD Vance, Trump’s vice president, … would probably have put a bag over his head in the same spot rather than say that. But Rubio also makes it clear: In this new relationship, the USA calls the shots… 

“With everything the US Secretary of State said on Saturday morning, it’s worth looking at what Rubio didn’t mention: NATO: 0 times; Customs: 0 times; Greenland: 0 times; Volodymyr Who? 

“Rubio’s invocation of friendship and partnership would be self-defeating if he were to honestly address even one of these transatlantic points of contention. But his actions speak for themselves: After attending the MSC, Rubio is traveling to Hungary and Slovakia. There, he will visit the two heads of government who play the most destructive role within the European Union and are relatively close to Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, within the limits of their power. During his stay in Munich, Rubio made sure that the NATO flag was not visible in the background of official photos.” 

The relationship between the USA and Europe will NOT improve, but continue to deteriorate, in spite of the nice and “highly praised” words by “diplomat” and “career politician” Marco Rubio. 

Rubio’s Misunderstood Speech 

BBC wrote on February 14:

“… many leading European figures in the audience jumped on the warmth of [Rubio’s] words, rising to their feet to applaud the US Secretary of State. They were clearly relieved he hadn’t threatened or berated Europe as the US Vice President JD Vance famously did at last year’s MSC. But for those listening closely, Rubio’s speech was loyal to themes close to the heart of the Trump administration and hard for many European leaders to swallow: anti climate action, sceptical of globalisation, multilateralism, migration and pro the building of a new era of Christian western civilisation. 

“Rubio was clear: the US wasn’t interested in allies clinging to the old status quo. It wanted to forge a new path, ideally alongside Europe, but only if it shared the same values. This US offer of close partnership was conditional and absent of a sense of compromise… ‘A bit like a (psychologically) abusive partner,’ said one European diplomat, speaking candidly on condition of anonymity. ‘He reminded Europe how wonderful the (transatlantic) relationship used to be, but he then switched to coercion: If you want things to be good between us in the future, you have to do as I say!’” 

Rubio’s Soft Tone 

The Tagesschau wrote on February 14: 

“As soft as the tone was in large parts of the speech, Rubio remained firm on the substance. The carefully packaged core message was: Our offer of a continued close partnership only applies if you follow our worldview… It is the worldview of the ‘Make America Great Again’ movement… 

“Rubio may have thought and spoken differently as a US senator, but he has completely fallen in line with Trump… Marco Rubio by no means backed down in Munich.” 

Dangerous Applause 

t-online wrote on February 14:

“Anyone who listened closely could see… that Rubio’s supposedly friendly speech was not a speech of alliance between equal partners… Rubio’s dangerous message: If others don’t follow the rules, why should we?… 

“That such a speech received so much recognition from Europe’s politicians in Munich is worrying. Their reactions demonstrate once again their strategic nervousness, their own lack of direction, and their willingness to continue turning a blind eye to the truth.” 

Poisoned Declaration of Love 

Die Welt wrote on February 16: 

“The chairwoman of the European Parliament’s defense committee, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP), warned against interpreting the speech as a sign of easing transatlantic tensions. ‘It was a poisoned declaration of love,’ Strack-Zimmermann [said]… 

“‘There was absolutely nothing reassuring about this speech.’” 

Nuclear Bomb—Merz Unleashes a Dangerous Genie 

Focus wrote on February 16: 

“The genie as a question: Do we need our own nuclear missiles to defend ourselves against Russia? Because we can no longer rely on the Americans?

“The CDU Chancellor is filled with the idea of ​​a ‘strong and sovereign Europe.’ One that will even become ‘a global political force.’ Which only works if Germany is protected by the most dangerous of all weapons: nuclear missiles. ‘I have begun initial talks with French President Emmanuel Macron about nuclear deterrence.’ With this statement, the Chancellor has unleashed the genie…” 

“This is where Jens Spahn comes in. The CDU/CSU parliamentary group leader occasionally thinks for himself. And he says this, quite matter-of-factly: ‘If there were elections tomorrow, Farage would win in the UK and Le Pen in France. I don’t know if I want to rely on either of them.’ Which begs the question: So, in Germany, should we rely on Donald Trump rather than [on] Nigel Farage and Le Pen?… Spahn says Europe needs its own independent nuclear defense. And Weber says: ‘We need a European nuclear weapon.’… 

“The European atomic bomb – that’s only possible in a European defense community. Ergo, in a European federal state. That is, after the de facto dissolution of Germany as a sovereign nation-state… On the digital platform X, Barron Trump, the US president’s influencer son, reacted: ‘This is what a true ally sounds like, when weak leaders start whispering about cutting ties with America.’ It reads as if he’s referring to Merz.” 

Focus wrote on February 18 that Merz does not support a “German” atomic bomb, but that he can envision that Germany would participate in using one. 

Germany’s Rearmament and AI 

Modern Diplomacy wrote on February 16: 

“A recent survey indicates that one in three of the German populace is in favor of greater use of artificial intelligence in its society. And this includes a military use—AI-controlled killer bots… roughly one-third of Germans embrace the use of autonomous AI-powered weapons systems in war instead of human decision-makers… 

“Moreover, the idea of obtaining nuclear weapons is no longer taboo for German politicians and the military… Berlin should receive access to French and British nuclear weapons and lead the charge on the issue of their modernization, [Jens] Spahn said in September. ‘Germany needs nuclear weapons,’ Alternative for Germany party lawmaker Kay Gottschalk stated in January. Former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has urged Berlin to take the lead in the EU’s nuclear rearmament… 

“Perhaps Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a point when he remarked last year, ‘With their current leaders, modern Germany and the rest of Europe are transforming into a Fourth Reich.’” 

Technically, it will be the Tenth Reich (or the Seventh Reich, depending on how one wants to count). 

Media Freedom? 

The Ron Paul Institute wrote on February 16: 

“Big media and big government are in bed together and they hate the fact that we can communicate with each other without their filters and influence. They long for the days when they could shovel down our throats just what they wanted us to hear and believe… We must remember just a few years ago during COVID that all it took to have your platform wiped off the face of the earth was to dare question the ‘wisdom’ of Anthony Fauci… 

“In Europe, free speech is under attack by totalitarian measures like the Digital Services Act, which creates a police state in the name of ‘protecting’ citizens from ‘disinformation.’ Of course, ‘disinformation’ is simply information that governments or elites don’t want to get out. You can go to jail for an X post in Europe, while violent criminals are set free. 

“Make no mistake – many in the US would love to have such a system in place to protect speech they like and punish speech they don’t like… The truth is, ‘cancel culture’ exists in both the left and the right and everywhere in-between.” 

EU Accession for Ukraine? 

Report 24 wrote on February 13: 

“The Ukrainian president wants a lot: Currently, he is demanding a ‘precise date‘ for Ukraine’s EU accession on Twitter. This must be enshrined in a ceasefire agreement or peace treaty… 

‘It is important that Ukraine does everything possible to be technically ready for EU accession by 2027,’ Zelenskyy wrote on Twitter on February 11… He demands: ‘I want a concrete date.’ This should then be fixed in a future ceasefire or peace agreement… 

‘Zelenskyy’s constant demands are clearly not well received. The comments on his tweet were sometimes quite harsh…'” 

Euro-Bashing? 

The Guardian wrote on February 15: 

“The EU’s foreign policy chief has denied claims levelled by the US that Europe is facing civilisational erasure, rejecting what she condemned as ‘fashionable euro-bashing’ by Washington… She challenged the US criticism of media freedom in Europe, pointing out that her own country, Estonia, ranked second in the world press freedom index and the US 58th…

“Kallas, a fierce opponent of Russia, has repeatedly clashed with the Trump administration. She said she did not think the EU was ready to give Ukraine a date for membership, suggesting accession as early as 2027 is unrealistic.”

Core Europe 

ntv wrote on February 10: 

“MSC [Munich Security Conference] Chairman Wolfgang Ischinger [calls for]… a core Europe, greater military strength, and coordinated diplomacy – also towards the USA.” 

Israel Preparing For War 

Ynet wrote on February 13: 

“Israel is preparing to defend its home front if Iran talks collapse — including a scenario in which Tehran launches a massive missile barrage as a last resort… 

“Iran views its missile array as a primary tool of deterrence and decisive force, intelligence assessments conclude it will not relinquish it even under U.S. pressure in negotiations. That hard line places the region on what officials describe as a collision course — either signing an agreement that leaves Israel exposed to a significant threat, or sliding toward all-out war….”

Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has emerged as an interesting opposition figure to the current Tehran regime. He has repeatedly pleaded for better relationships with Israel and he has been reminding the audience of King Cyrus who built the Third Temple. He continues to speak of the “Cyrus Accords” to follow the 2020 Abraham Accords. 

Putin Murdered Navalny 

Daily Mail wrote on February 13: 

“Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was killed by the Russian state, the Foreign Office has revealed. Navalny’s death was the result of poison from a South American dart frog toxin called epibatidine. The politician died aged 47 while in a remote Arctic penal colony two years ago. He had been sentenced to decades of imprisonment on dubious embezzlement charges… 

“The toxin epibatidine is said to be 200 times stronger than morphine and is used by some indigenous tribes in South America in darts or blowguns during hunts. It attacks nerves, causing numbness and paralysis.  It is not clear how the frog poison was allegedly administered to Navalny… 

“The UK and its allies Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands said the ‘barbaric’ act – using a neurotoxin that is classed as a chemical weapon – could only have been carried out by Vladimir Putin’s government.”

The fact that Navalny had been murdered by the Russian government under mass murderer Putin was clear from the outset. 

Acknowledgement and Disclaimer:  

These Current Events are compiled and commented on by Norbert Link. We gratefully acknowledge the many contributions of news articles from our readership. The publication of articles in this section is not to be viewed as an endorsement or approval as to contents or accuracy of the selected articles, but they are published for the purpose of pointing at worldwide developments in the light of biblical end-time prophecy and godly instruction. Our own comments are provided in italics.

In the first part of this new series, we discussed the apostle Paul’s first missionary journey which is described in Acts 13 and Acts 14. We saw that he was accompanied, at times, by John Mark and Barnabas. They traveled to Syria, Cyprus and Southern Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Their return to Antioch was described in Acts 14:26-28:

In this second part, we will begin to discuss Paul’s second missionary journey which would last for about three years. The preparation for this trip is reported in Acts 15:36-41.

“Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.’ Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.”

As we saw in the first part of this new series, John Mark had departed from them to go back to Jerusalem where his mother lived; the exact reason for his return is not revealed. As Paul and Barnabas could not agree on their course of action regarding Mark, they separated. From then on, we do not find anything further in the Bible about Barnabas.

After spending some time in Syria and Cilicia with the brethren, Paul and Silas went on to Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1). There they found a young man with the name of Timothy, “the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek” (Acts 16:1-3).

Paul’s conduct in circumcising Timothy may sound rather strange, as decrees had just been made in Jerusalem finding that circumcision was no longer necessary. In fact, Paul and Silas even delivered these decrees to the people (Acts 16:4: “And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.”) Some say that the decrees only determined that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised, but Jews still had to be, and so Timothy was circumcised because he was a half-Jew. This conclusion is false. There is neither Jew nor Greek nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28-29), and God would not demand of Jews to do something that Gentiles would not have to do.

On the other hand, the Bible does not prohibit physical circumcision, and Paul chose to circumcise Timothy because he wanted him to be used in God’s service, and the fact that he was not circumcised would have been a hindrance in reaching Jews. By circumcising Timothy, he became accepted as a Jew, and avoided unnecessary disputes. Paul did not want Timothy to become a stumbling block to the Jews. The circumcision of Timothy was an action performed to prevent unnecessary conflict.

On another occasion, Paul refused to circumcise the Gentile Titus as that would have given a wrong signal, since some Jews believed that physical circumcision was necessary for salvation—a concept strongly opposed by Paul (Galatians 2:3-5).

Paul and Silas stayed in the cities for a while, and “the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily” (Acts 16:5).

They then wanted to go to Asia and Bithynia, but at that time, they were prevented by God from going there.  We read in Acts 16:6-8:

“Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia. After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them. So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.”

Jesus Christ, through His Spirit, may inspire us to make certain decisions. Here, it was clearly Christ who did not want Paul and Silas to go to those places at that time to preach the gospel there (At other times, Satan prevented Paul to go somewhere, and God permitted Satan to hinder him, compare 1 Thessalonians 2:18). We don’t know the reason why they were not permitted to go to Asia and Bithynia, nor do we know HOW exactly God’s Will had been made manifest to them. The point being, Christ leads His Church, and we must respond to that lead and follow wherever He goes (Revelation 14:4).

In Acts 16:9-12, a remarkable episode is described:

“And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. A man of Macedonia stood and pleaded with him, saying, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us.’ Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and the next day came to Neapolis, and from there to Philippi, which is the foremost city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we were staying in that city for some days.”

The report states that “we” went on to Philippi. Luke, the author of the Book of Acts, had joined Paul and included himself now in the narrative.

Philippi was a Roman colony. It was the first European city visited by Paul who arrived there about 50 AD.

Acts 16:13 continues that “on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.” Apparently, there was no synagogue in Philippi, but certain places for prayers had been chosen.

The Sabbath day mentioned above was apparently an annual Holy Day—the Feast of Pentecost, which always falls on a Sunday. In the Greek, it says, “on the day of the Sabbaths,” referencing the weekly Sabbath and the following Holy Day of Pentecost. Something similar is described in Acts 13:14 where Paul went into the synagogue “on the Sabbath day” or better, “on the day of the Sabbaths.” In all likelihood, that was Pentecost as well; it could also have been a Holy Day which fell on the weekly Sabbath. 

Acts 16:14-15 introduces us to a wealthy woman in Philippi with the name of Lydia who listened to Paul and his helpers and became converted and was baptized with her household–the first recorded conversion in Philippi. It is noteworthy how this conversion began. She “worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14), leading to her baptism. God had to open her heart AFTER she listened to Paul and accepted his teaching.

Another chain of events follows, beginning in verse 16. A possessed girl followed Paul and his helpers, so that Paul, greatly annoyed, commanded the demon to leave the girl which occurred “that very hour”—not necessarily immediately. The possessed girl had brought her masters much profit by “fortune-telling” (verse 16), so when the demon left her and “her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas” and “brought them to the magistrates” (verses 19-20). The spineless and hypocritical magistrates, siding with the accusers, had Paul and his companions severely beaten and subsequently  imprisoned. They were put into the inner prison and their feet were fastened in the stocks.

But at midnight, “Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, ‘Do yourself no harm, for we are all here’” (Acts 16:26-28).

The keeper of the prison was responsible for his prisoners. If they escaped, he could be executed. Paul, knowing this, did not flee, sensing a deeper purpose in all of this. The keeper was overwhelmed, sensing a deeper purpose in all of this as well, and after Paul taught him and his family, they were baptized. Their repentance, belief in God the Father and Jesus Christ and their obedience had become obvious to Paul (note verses 29-34).

It is true that Paul answered the keeper’s question regarding salvation with the words, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). But he spoke of “obedient” faith. Paul did not tell the Philippian jailor that all he had to do was just to believe in Jesus Christ. James tells us that even the demons believe in God (James 2:19). Rather, Paul was teaching that we need to OBEY God, once we come to believe in Him.

We read Paul’s words in Romans 1:5: “Through Him we have received grace and apostleship FOR OBEDIENCE TO THE FAITH.” He also stated in Romans 16:26: “… [the mystery] has been made manifest… according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for OBEDIENCE TO THE FAITH.” We read in John 3:36 (correctly translated from the Greek, compare the Revised Standard Version): “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does NOT OBEY the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

With the exorcism of the demon-possessed girl, this described chain of events started, culminating in the baptism of more believers.

The next day, the magistrates wanted Paul and his companions to leave secretly, but Paul demanded an open recognition of their wrongdoing and that he and Silas had been innocent, being “uncondemned Romans,” which included Silas as well, as he was also a Roman citizen (verse 37). Under Roman law, scourging a Roman citizen was prohibited. Acts 22:18 confirmed Paul’s citizenship as a Roman; he was born as a Roman, since his parents had apparently acquired Roman citizenship before Paul was born. The magistrates were afraid when they heard that they had mistreated Roman citizens and asked them to leave the city.

Acts 16:40 concludes this episode:

“So they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.”

(To Be Continued)

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

compiled by Dave Harris

“Merz’s and Rubio’s Historic Speeches in Munich…Really?” is the title of a new StandingWatch program, presented by Evangelist Norbert Link. Here is the summary:

We are told that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz gave a “widely noted” “historic” speech during the Munich Security Conference, describing his take on the American-European relationship.  The subsequent speech by US Secretary of Speech Marco Rubio was warmly received, but upon further analysis, what did it really convey? Have those speeches announced a better transatlantic relationship… or a further deterioration?

“Merz‘ und Rubios „historische“ Reden in München … Wirklich?” is the title of a new AufPostenStehen program, presented by Norbert Link. This German program covers the same topics as discussed above.

A new Member Letter (February 2026) has been posted and will be mailed to our subscribers. Elder Frank Bruno writes about our need to reconcile with others—while we can, and that includes the Father and Jesus Christ. His encouraging words are especially meaningful as we prepare for the Passover time.

“Mobbing-Ein Spiegelbild der Endzeit?” last Sabbath’s first split-sermon presented in Germany by Andreas Raetz, is now posted. Title in English, “Bullying—A Reflection of the End Times?

“Do You Know Why God Has Called You?” last Sabbath’s sermonette presented by Norbert Link, is now posted. Here is the summary:

Even though you are called for salvation, you may not always know exactly what is the specific purpose of your calling NOW, out of billions of people. This message wants to give you some thoughts to ponder.

“End Time Prophecies in the Book of Hosea,” last Sabbath’s sermon presented by Norbert Link, is now posted. Here is the summary:

The Old Testament book of Hosea—a contemporary of Amos—specifically warns Americans, Britons, and the State of Israel of terrible punishments. His accurate description of the current situation in the USA, England, and Israel should astonish everyone. Why is God so angry with them? And what lessons can we all learn from this?