Bible Prophecy, Signs of the Times and Gog and Magog Updates with Articles in the News

Trumps Board Of Peace Reveal Is Coming Soon – Kings Without Kingdoms?

History has a way of repeating itself–not always in identical form, but often in eerily familiar patterns. As reports emerge that President Donald Trump’s administration is preparing to unveil a sweeping international “Board of Peace,” Christians would be wise to pay close attention. Not with fear, not with sensationalism–but with discernment. The pieces now being placed on the global chessboard bear striking resemblance to patterns described long ago in the pages of Scripture.

According to U.S. and regional officials, the Trump administration plans to announce the Board of Peace as early as next week, positioning it as a global body not only to guide postwar Gaza but eventually to assist in resolving conflicts worldwide. 

Confirmed participants reportedly include Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Germany–already a powerful and geographically diverse coalition. But perhaps most striking is the administration’s consideration of filling remaining seats with the heads of major multinational institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Economic Forum.

These institutions possess extraordinary influence but govern no land, command no armies, and answer to no electorate. These are leaders who do not wear crowns, yet their decisions shape economies, determine development paths, and exert leverage over sovereign governments. They are, in every meaningful sense, kings without kingdoms.

Power Without Borders, Authority Without Nations

This is where the Board of Peace could take on a distinctly new character. The presence of multinational institutional leaders would fundamentally transform the board from a gathering of national representatives into a technocratic ruling council. These figures do not negotiate treaties on behalf of citizens; they set conditions, control capital flows, and define the rules by which nations must operate to receive aid, investment, or legitimacy.

Their inclusion signals a model of peace not rooted in reconciliation between peoples, but in compliance with global systems. Reconstruction funds, security cooperation, governance frameworks, and even leadership legitimacy could all be conditioned on adherence to standards defined by unelected global authorities. In this model, peace is no longer simply brokered–it is managed, enforced through economic incentives and institutional pressure.

For students of Scripture, the parallels are difficult to ignore. The Bible describes a future period in which authority is concentrated not solely in traditional kingdoms, but in a limited number of powerful figures who operate beyond national boundaries. Daniel speaks of rulers who arise suddenly, wield influence disproportionate to their origins, and play decisive roles in confirming agreements that directly impact Israel. Revelation later describes ten kings who rule briefly, not over historic empires, but through shared authority–leaders who ultimately “give their power” to one central figure.

Again, this is not to claim fulfillment–but to recognize a familiar pattern. Power detached from geography. Authority divorced from accountability. Leaders who shape the fate of nations without ever standing for election.

Gaza: Testing Ground for a Global Model

The immediate focus of the Board of Peace will be Gaza. The Trump administration has made clear it is committed to the return of Israel’s remaining deceased hostage and to the disarmament of Hamas–but notably, it is unwilling to condition phase two of its peace plan on either. That second phase envisions sweeping changes: rebuilding Gaza, managing it through external oversight, and phasing out Israeli military control.

To that end, the U.S. is working with Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and others on a gradual Hamas disarmament plan. This reportedly includes surrendering heavy weapons and a “buy-back” program for lighter arms. Hamas, for its part, insists disarmament can only occur alongside the establishment of a Palestinian state–highlighting how fragile and conditional these assurances remain.

Parallel to this effort is the creation of a Palestinian technocratic committee–a group of politically unaffiliated administrators tasked with governing postwar Gaza. Egypt has taken the lead in assembling this body, with Israel vetoing any direct Palestinian Authority leadership role. Eight approved technocrats will now govern a devastated territory of more than two million people, backed not by elections, but by international mandate.

An intermediate executive committee–featuring figures like Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, Tony Blair, and former UN envoy Nickolay Mladenov who has now been appointed as director-general of the Board–will oversee the process. The structure is unmistakable: layers of authority, none directly accountable to the people on the ground, all answerable to global stakeholders.

Security, Reconstruction, and the Illusion of Stability

The proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF) is intended to phase out Israeli forces in Gaza. Yet Washington has struggled to secure troop commitments. Indonesia and Azerbaijan were floated as contributors, though Azerbaijan has already declined. U.S. officials insist participation will grow once nations realize the force will not be expected to confront Hamas directly–an admission that underscores Israel’s lingering security concerns.

Meanwhile, reconstruction is already underway. A pilot residential compound near Rafah is being cleared, with plans to house 20,000 Palestinians. The U.S. hopes to replicate this model across Gaza, contingent on the success of the technocratic government and the marginalization of Hamas.

It is a massive experiment–politically, militarily, and spiritually.

Watching the Puzzle Take Shape

Scripture does not tell us to panic when global structures emerge. It tells us to watch. To understand the times. To recognize that the final system will look reasonable, humanitarian, and even noble at first. “For when they say, ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction comes upon them” (1 Thessalonians 5:3).

What we are witnessing may not be the final picture–but it looks very much like pieces being laid out on the table. A peace guaranteed by outsiders. Power consolidated in elite hands. Decisions about Israel made far from Jerusalem. A world growing comfortable with governance by committee rather than covenant.

For now, it is like a jigsaw puzzle–many pieces, no clear image yet. But Christians should not look away. The God who declared the end from the beginning has not been surprised by any of this. Our calling is not to speculate recklessly, but to remain anchored in truth, prayerful for Israel, and confident that even when the nations gather, the Lord still reigns.

The stage may be forming–but the final word belongs to Him.

Gog / Russia’s Hypersonic Warning Shot: Why The Oreshnik Strike Changes Everything

The war in Ukraine crossed a dangerous new threshold this week — not because of territory gained or lost, but because of what Russia chose to fire.

Reports indicate that Moscow launched its Oreshnik hypersonic missile in a strike on Lviv, a city just 40 miles from NATO and the European Union. That geographic detail matters. This was not a random battlefield decision. It was a message — aimed not just at Kyiv, but at Washington, Brussels, and every Western capital watching the conflict inch closer to a wider confrontation.

Hypersonic weapons are not just faster missiles. They are strategic disruptors. And Russia just demonstrated it is willing to use one in active combat.

What Makes the Oreshnik So Dangerous

The Oreshnik is believed to be an intermediate-range ballistic missile equipped with hypersonic reentry vehicles. Once launched, it accelerates to Mach 10 or higher, separating into multiple warheads that descend toward their targets at blistering speed.

At that velocity, reaction time collapses. Radar detection windows shrink. Interceptors struggle to calculate trajectories that change mid-flight. Traditional missile defense systems — built for slower, predictable ballistic arcs — suddenly look outdated.

Russia claims that no existing missile defense system can stop Oreshnik. That statement is almost certainly exaggerated. No weapon is truly invincible. But the more uncomfortable truth is this: there is currently no reliable, proven defense against a full hypersonic strike of this kind, especially when multiple warheads are involved.

Even NATO’s most advanced systems were not designed for this scenario at scale. And Ukraine, already stretched thin, has virtually no way to counter it.

That reality is what makes this moment so unsettling.

Why Strike Lviv — and Why Now?

Lviv is not just another Ukrainian city. It is a logistical hub, a symbol of Western support, and a gateway between Ukraine and Europe. By striking so close to NATO territory, Russia was drawing a line — deliberately and visibly.

This strike came amid rising tensions far beyond Ukraine’s borders. The United States and Russia are increasingly at odds over oil shipments, sanctions enforcement, tanker seizures, and geopolitical maneuvering in places like Venezuela. At the same time, Western leaders have doubled down on long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, signaling that Kyiv will not be abandoned.

Moscow sees these moves as encirclement.

And it has responded accordingly.

Russian officials have now openly declared that any foreign troops or military units operating in Ukraine would be considered legitimate targets. That is not idle rhetoric. It is escalation language — the kind that precedes decisions rather than follows them.

The Oreshnik strike fits perfectly into that posture.

The Bigger Picture: Escalation by Design

This war is no longer confined to tanks, trenches, and drones. It has become a contest of thresholds — how far each side can go without triggering direct confrontation, and how much pressure can be applied before something breaks.

Russia is signaling that it is willing to:

Introduce strategic-level weapons into a regional war

Undermine confidence in Western defensive guarantees

Force NATO planners to confront uncomfortable new realities

The message is not subtle: your defenses may not be enough, and your proximity will not protect you.

For NATO, this presents a serious dilemma. Deterrence relies not just on military capability, but on credibility. If populations believe that advanced weapons cannot be stopped, public pressure to avoid escalation grows — and that pressure can shape political decisions.

That is exactly the space Russia is trying to exploit.

A Feedback Loop with No Easy Exit

Every escalation creates momentum. Hypersonic weapons invite counter-development. Counter-development invites preemptive deployment. And preemptive deployment raises the risk of catastrophic miscalculation.

This is how arms races accelerate — not in decades, but in months.

What makes this moment especially dangerous is how multiple global flashpoints are beginning to overlap. Ukraine, energy markets, sanctions, shipping lanes, and political instability in oil-producing nations are no longer separate issues. They are threads in the same strategic web.

Pull one too hard, and the entire structure shifts.

The Sobering Reality

The Oreshnik strike is not just about Ukraine. It is about the future of warfare — and the fragile assumptions that have kept major powers from direct conflict for generations.

Speed changes everything. When weapons travel faster than diplomacy can respond, the margin for restraint narrows. When leaders openly label foreign forces as legitimate targets, ambiguity disappears. And when advanced systems are tested in live combat, what was once theoretical becomes precedent.

The world should take this moment seriously.

Not because war is inevitable — but because the rules that once slowed escalation are eroding, one missile launch at a time.

The strike on Lviv was not just an attack.

It was a warning shot.

And history suggests that warning shots = rarely the last.

Landmark Court Ruling – Faith Groups Can’t Be Forced To Hire Unbelievers

A decision issued on Tuesday, January 6, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may be one of the most significant religious liberty decisions of 2026. 

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima v. Brown, the court affirmed that religious organizations have a constitutional right to hire according to their faith, even for “ordinary” or non-minister positions, and they can do this without government interference. It’s a moment worth celebrating, not only for the plaintiff, Union Gospel Mission, but for every church and ministry organization that takes its faith seriously. 

At the heart of the case was this question: Can the government force a Christian organization to hire employees who openly reject its faith and mission? Attorneys for the state of Washington said, yes. The Ninth Circuit responded with a resounding, no. 

Union Gospel Mission, a Christian ministry serving the homeless and addicted, requires its staff to affirm and live by its biblical beliefs, including Christian teachings on sexuality and marriage. Under the state of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, this long-standing policy was under threat. After Washington’s Supreme Court narrowed the law’s religious exemptions several years ago, Union Gospel Mission feared being punished simply for hiring those who shared its faith. 

Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit affirmed what many of us already know: religious organizations are more than just employers of labor. Rather, they are communities of shared belief and religious mission. As the court powerfully said in its decision, “personnel is policy,” and “who a religious organization hires may go to the very character of its religious mission.” 

This decision is about much more than hiring. It’s about the ability of a religious organization to secure and protect its identity. Whenever ministries are forced to dilute their convictions in order to comply with secular norms, they cease to be who they are. As the Ninth Circuit noted in its decision, this kind of pressure would drive many religious missions out of the public square entirely. That would be a loss not just for churches and ministries, but also for communities and the countless people served by organizations of faith. 

The decision is all the more significant because of the court that handed it down. The Ninth Circuit covers states like Washington, Oregon, and California, progressive states that have, in recent years, become increasingly hostile to people and institutions of faith. At the same time, the Ninth Circuit has long been a bastion of judicial activism and progressive ideology. However, it now hosts a growing number of principled judicial conservatives, thanks to key appointments by President Trump, including Judge Patrick Bumatay, the author of the Union Gospel decision. 

Now, as important as this decision is, it has its limits. For example, it does not grant religious institutions blanket immunity from employment laws. And it does not necessarily apply to for-profit businesses or hospitals. Still, it does affirm the right of ministries like Union Gospel Mission to make personnel decisions that flow directly from their religious convictions, even if those convictions conflict with secular orthodoxy. 

The court’s decision also reminds us of a critical truth: Faith is personal, but it is not private. Religious liberty doesn’t just protect our rights to believe in the privacy of our heads, our hearts, our homes, or our houses of worship. The First Amendment protects religious exercise, the active, practical living out of one’s deepest-held conviction, including the building and running of organizations designed to apply those convictions to the challenges and struggles of life. America in particular would be far worse off without the pre-political organizations that run headlong into the problems of our society seeking to help those in need. 

Already in 2026, we can be thankful for a decision that understands the essential role these organizations play and the essential role that faith and morals play in making these organizations what they are. At the very least, this is not a bad way to start off a New Year.