Daily Archives: July 14, 2019

July 14 The Appeal of Temptation

Scripture Reading: John 8:43–47

Key Verse: John 8:44

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Satan is so cunning that he was able to deceive Eve into sinning. Her response to his question in the third chapter of Genesis reveals that she knew exactly what God had told her.

Aren’t we exactly the same today? We know precisely what God’s Word says. Still, we often fail to obey Him. Do you spend more time indulging your desires—even if it sometimes means bordering on sin—than you do meditating on God’s Word and praying? We humans have finite minds and all kinds of emotions; on our own, it is almost impossible to successfully combat temptations thrown at us by an enemy who is supernatural.

Read Pastor John MacArthur’s commentary on the ruthlessness of Satan as expressed in today’s passage:

Satan, emboldened by [Eve’s] openness to him, spoke a direct lie. This lie actually led her and Adam to spiritual death (separation from God). So, Satan is called a liar and murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). His lies always promise great benefits. Eve experienced this result. She and Adam did know good and evil; but because of personal corruption, they did not know as God knows in perfect holiness.

When Satan throws his darts, simply say, “Lord, thank You that I’m Your child. Please protect me.” Remember that He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world (1 John 4:4). God is faithful. He will lead you to freedom through the way of escape.

Lord, thank You that I am Your child. Please protect me from the fiery darts of Satan.[1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (2006). Pathways to his presence (p. 205). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

July 14 Criticism

Scripture Reading: Psalm 18:16–24

Key Verse: Proverbs 15:31

The ear that hears the rebukes of life will abide among the wise.

Your day started off great. Your devotional time was splendid, and you were on a roll at work—until a coworker walked up to your desk and took you to task over a memorandum you had written.

Suddenly God was distant, anger welled up within you like a flash flood, and resentment raced to the pole position. Your day was ruined.

Sound familiar? Is there anyone who has not undergone a similar negative transformation when on the receiving end of a reprimand? Our response, however, can determine whether criticism is constructive or destructive.

Criticism—just or unjust—is constructive when we listen. It is destructive when we immediately clamp down an emotional tourniquet, refusing its entrance.

Criticism is constructive when we sift it in a spirit of self-examination. It is destructive when we retain it as a reservoir of bitterness.

Criticism is constructive when it drives us to trust Christ as our defense and leave our reputation to Him. It is destructive when we seek to defend ourselves.

When you are criticized, learn and correct what you can with a humble spirit; that is wisdom. If it is without merit, lean on Christ as your Advocate; that is trust. Either way, you win.

Dear Lord, cleanse my critical spirit, then free me from the bondage of criticism by others. Let me heed constructive criticism and turn to You as my Advocate when it is without merit.[1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (1999). On holy ground (p. 205). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Kellyanne Conway defends immigration raids, points to ‘deporter in chief’ Obama | The Washington Times

Trump administration officials sought Sunday to cool the heated rhetoric over anticipated immigration sweeps, arguing that enforcing deportation orders is routine — and occurred with greater frequency under President Obama.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway declined to discuss operational details, but said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement “does this every single day” and that Mr. Obama was known as the “deporter in chief.”

“ICE does this every single day. Law enforcement in this country enforces the law,” said Ms. Conway on “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s a tautological definition of their duties. And this of course happened under President Obama. He was referred to as ‘deporter in chief’ very harshly in 2012.”

President Trump told reporters Friday that the apprehensions would begin Sunday. About 2,000 illegal aliens in 10 cities facing deportation orders after having their cases adjudicated are expected to be targeted.

“He [Obama] pushed back on actually Telemundo, a Spanish language station when they criticized him, and they said, you’re deporting 184,000 quote non criminals, and he said, ‘I’m not a king, I have to enforce the law,’” said Ms. Conway.

About three million illegal immigrants were deported from 2009-16 during the Obama administration, hitting a high of about 409,000 in Fiscal Year 2012, while the Trump administration has yet to exceed 300,000 deportations per year, according to Department of Homeland Security figures posted by Axios.

Citing former Obama Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Ms. Conway said “these are not extraordinary actions.”

“Your appeals have been exhausted. Your rights have been adjudicated. These are final removal orders for people who are here illegally and ICE is going to do what they do every day, which is go ahead and enforce the law,” she said.

Even so, the deportations were condemned by Democrats like Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who said Mr. Trump’s announcement was “about scaring everyone in the country.”

“If you wanted to go after security risks, and there are people who are security risks, why would you alert them and say you’re doing this on a Sunday and do it two weekends in a row?” asked Ms. Klobuchar on ABC’s “This Week.” “Why, because you want to make news, right?”

Why is it wrong to deport those who have committed crimes? “Because unfortunately the Trump administration is no longer believable on these issues,” said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“They said they were going to do immigration enforcement and what we’ve seen is so inconsistent,” Mr. de Blasio said. “They’ve gone after folks who’ve committed no crime, who have had no proceeding against them.”

Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, also refused to divulge specifics, but emphasized that “ICE’s everyday job … is enforcing the law Congress passed.”

“We’ve got compassionate, loyal ICE agents who are just doing their job,” Mr. Cuccinelli said. “And it shows you how far we’ve fallen in that it’s become news that they would actually go deport people who have removal orders.”

“While lots of people in this government were saying it is a manufactured crisis… those people are now coming to the border and realizing we do have a real crisis.”@USCISCuccinelli reacts to suggestions Trump is using ICE as a political stunt.#CNNSOTUhttps://t.co/mL8jHkGDmS pic.twitter.com/CeT9plIycF

— State of the Union (@CNNSotu) July 14, 2019

He emphasized that such aliens are not undocumented because “they’ve got a court order on a piece of paper, a federal order that says they’ve gotten due process.”

Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, said that the priority with deportations is apprehending “criminal aliens,” those who have committed additional crimes after entering the country illegally.

Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan says ICE raids are necessary. He tells @margbrennan, “To maintain integrity to the system, we have to apply consequences to everyone.” pic.twitter.com/4n2cvdXHZ7

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) July 14, 2019

“But also, part of that priority is to also go after and apply consequences and enforce the rule of law to those individuals who had due process and received a final order of removal from a judge, and they still remain here illegally,” Mr. Morgan said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “To maintain integrity in the system, we have to apply consequences to everyone.”

Source: Kellyanne Conway defends immigration raids, points to ‘deporter in chief’ Obama

Why Does The American Media Only Care About Dead Migrant Kids Under Trump? | ZeroHedge News

Authored by Danielle Ryan via RT.com,

The tragic image of a drowned father and child washed ashore on the Rio Grande is being used as easy ammunition against Donald Trump – but where was the outpouring of grief when migrants were dying under the Obama administration?

There is no good argument to be made that journalists should not be critical in their coverage of the Trump administration. After all, to hold the president to account, to inform the public on the consequences of his policy choices, “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” as that famous saying goes, is all in the job description. It’s just a pity they only decided to take the responsibility seriously when Trump took office.

Why should anyone believe that their showy displays of grief and horror are sincere now, given their silence during the Obama years, when many of the same policies causing outrage now were also in place then?

The same thing goes for the Democrats, who are eagerly attempting to cast themselves as the party of compassion. Joe Biden railed against Trump’s “deportation state” in the Miami Herald this week, despite having served as vice president under Obama, dubbed the ‘Deporter in Chief’ by immigrants rights activists.

The Obama administration deported more migrants than any previous administration, with children “moved to the head of the line to be turfed out.

Two years before Trump appeared on the scene, in 2014, 445 people died attempting to cross an increasingly militarized border. Obama boasted in 2011 that the number of border patrol agents had more than doubled since 2004 — proud that he had continued the increases that had begun under the Bush administration.

The University of Arizona’s Binational Migration Institute explained in a 2013 report that “segmented border militarization”had resulted in “the redistribution of migratory flows into remote and dangerous areas such as southern Arizona.” Rights organizations spoke up about the “alarming rise of migrant deaths on US soil.”

It would be inaccurate to say that there was no coverage of the crisis while Obama was president. There was some bland, less-emotional coverage. There was also some in-depth reporting which captured the extent of the crisis — but there was no mass media mobilization against Obama himself. The facts and death tolls were not plastered across the cable news networks night and day. No one argued that Obama was shaming America.

A clip of a Trump administration lawyer arguing that migrant children did not need soap and toothpaste to be “safe and sanitary” went viral last week. It was jarring to listen to, but again, there was nothing new here — only the willingness of some to suddenly be moved to outrage.

A 2015 lawsuit described “inhumane” conditions in border detention facilities under Obama. Men, women and children, it said, were “packed into overcrowded and filthy holding cells with the lights glaring day and night.” They suffered “in brutally cold temperatures; deprived of beds, bedding, and sleep,” were denied adequate food, water and medical care, as well as “basic sanitation items” like soap, toilet paper and diapers. This all while the media treated Obama with kid gloves and liberals sang his praises.

There were no deaths of children in Customs and Border Protection custody under Obama – and there have been six under the Trump administration, so it is fair to argue, that with the implementation of some more extreme anti-asylum policies and perhaps an even greater lack of caring, Trump has taken an already dysfunctional, inhumane and under-funded system – and simply made it worse.

There is a case to be made that he has done this on purpose; to make the situation as unappealing as possible to those who might be tempted to make the treacherous and potentially fatal journey to and across the US’s southern border — but the reality is, however unappealing he tries to make it, for many, it will still be more appealing than the alternative.

The biggest elephant in the room, however, is not that the Obama administration was guilty of many of the same things as the current one. It’s that every single US administration for decades has been guilty of contributing to the creation of this crisis through an abominable imperialist foreign policy that has ravaged the very countries these migrants are coming from.

Democrats and Republicans have spent decades enthusiastically destabilizing Latin America under the guise of democracy promotion. In reality, they have stolen its wealth and resources, engineered military coups and installed dictators, funded and equipped death squads — and imposed deadly economic sanctions. Where are all the liberals crying about that? How could such inhumane policy have led to anything else?

It’s hardly the first time an image of a dead child has been used to serve a political agenda. Remember Omran Daqneesh, the five-year-old boy who became the face of Syria’s war after a photo of him, covered in ash and sitting shell-shocked in an ambulance, shot around the world?

Regime-change activists within the mainstream media commentariat had the audacity to use that image to call for more Western bombing – so, seeing some of the same crowd using the image of Valeria Martinez to frame Trump as uniquely evil in the history of the US presidency is no big surprise.

Source: Why Does The American Media Only Care About Dead Migrant Kids Under Trump?

The Alternative Media Can Defeat the Mainstream Media – Here’s the Game Plan

Article Image
https://russia-insider.com, Ron Unz

A couple of years ago, I launched my Unz Review, providing a wide range of different alternative perspectives, the vast majority of them totally excluded from the mainstream media. I’ve also published a number of articles in my own American Pravda series, focusing on the suspicious lapses and lacunae in our media narratives.

The underlying political strategy behind these efforts may already be apparent, and I’ve sometimes suggested it here and there. But I finally decided I might as well explicitly outline the reasoning in a memo as provided below.

The Mainstream Media is the Crucial Opposing Force

Groups advocating policies opposed by the American establishment should recognize that the greatest obstacle they face is usually the mainstream media.

All-Out War On Free Speech Launched By United Nations | Technocracy

Article Image
https://www.technocracy.news, By: Judith Bergman

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said,

Wallace loses it over Pence video at detention center, but Kellyanne has plenty to teach him | Conservative News Today

(Screenshot from “Fox News Sunday”)

Fox News’ Chris Wallace and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway clashed on Sunday over conditions in migrant detention centers.

Wallace asked Conway about President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence downplaying the bad conditions in detention centers. Wallace showed footage from Pence’s Friday visit to a detention center and read from the OIG (Office of Inspector General) report that described conditions in migrant detentions centers as poor.

(Screenshot from “Fox News Sunday”)

“This was the pool report, ‘Almost 400 men wearing cage defenses with no cots, the stench was horrendous, some of the men were sleeping on concrete, they began shouting and wanted to tell us they had been in there 40 days or longer,’” the “Fox News Sunday” host said. “I understand —”

“I was there,” Conway interjected.

Wallace continued, “I understand that President Trump is trying to stop the flood of people across the border which contributes —”

“We’re also trying to accommodate those who are here,” Conway added.

Wallace answered by continuing his thought.

“—contributes to the overcrowding, but how does it help for the president to minimize the situation and say it’s much better than what they had, or for Vice President Pence, in Kevin Corke’s piece, to say they’re all being well treated, when your own … I mean, you can look at the conditions there, it’s a disaster.”

Conway answered by giving Wallace “facts.”

“Well, let me just say a couple of things that are facts,” Conway said. “First of all, not every facility is the same.”

“But I’m talking about that one,” Wallace interjected.

“Okay, well, and I’m talking about the one that the media who were on the same trip with us completely ignored in all of their coverage,” Conway said.

As the White House counselor was getting into briefs she has received from CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection), Wallace interrupted again.

“What do you say about McAllen Texas, Kellyanne?” Wallace asked.

Source: Fox News

“What I would say is this. That that facility was meant to be, this is what I was briefed on, that facility was meant to be a 72-hour holding facility,” Conway said. “It’s not equipped to keep single males who have broken the law by coming here and were apprehended. If you just want to let them go, then say that we just are open borders.”

Wallace jumped back into the conversation then and said, “But does it help for the president to say well, they’re really, conditions are pretty good, and for Mike pence to say they’re pretty good?”

“In plenty of facilities, they have improved, including the one that we saw with the families,” Conway answered. As she started pushing blame to House Democrats for not making real progress on the issue of illegal immigration, Wallace interrupted her yet again.

“Shouldn’t you be judged on the worst facilities, and the worst mistreatment of these people? Shouldn’t you be judged on that?” Wallace asked.

“Oh yes,” Conway answered. She then circled back around and talked about CBP briefs that show progress made on conditions in migrant detention center.

She said about detained migrants, “those men get three hot meals from local restaurants, they now have to access to showers, there were no shower facilities there to accommodate that many people in the past, but there are now. There’s a bank of showers in the back. They have the access to deodorant, they have access to hygienic products, they have access to toothbrushes.”

Source: Wallace loses it over Pence video at detention center, but Kellyanne has plenty to teach him

Sunday Talks: Kellyanne Conway -vs- Chris Wallace… — The Last Refuge

As immigration enforcement leads the Sunday headlines, White House Adviser Kellyanne Conway appears on Fox News to debate the international defender of all downtrodden economic migration, Chris Wallace.

The ever-insufferable Wallace takes his natural Fos/GOPe cocktail circuit position that all immigration enforcement is antithetical to the global rights of humans to have unfettered access to the United States.

via Sunday Talks: Kellyanne Conway -vs- Chris Wallace… — The Last Refuge

Former ICE Chief Stuns, Embarrasses AOC During Heated House Oversight Hearing | ZeroHedge News

Former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Thomas Homan gave Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a much needed reality check during a House Oversight Committee hearing on the treatment of migrant families late last week.

During the exchange, Ocasio-Cortez constantly tries to pin Homan down on the topic of separating families due to a zero tolerance memo that he signed off on.

“The recommendation, of the many you recommended, you recommended family separation,” she said to Homan.

Homan responded: “I recommended zero-tolerance. The same it is with every U.S. citizen parent that gets arrested with their child.”

As AOC pushed further, Homan broke it down into a very simple example that left AOC stunned and without a retort momentarily.

Homan continued: “If I get arrested for a DUI and I have a young child in the car, I’m going to be separated.”

AOC pushed back on asylum seekers, saying that the act of seeking asylum was not illegal.

“If you want to seek asylum, then go to a port of entry. Do it the legal way. The attorney general of the United States has made that clear,” Homan said back, leaving AOC speechless and fumbling with her papers.

Homan was also antagonized by Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.) at the same meeting. Garcia opened his line of questioning by angrily asking:

Mr Homan, do you understand that the consequences of separation of many children will be lifelong trauma and carried across generations? Have we not learned from the interment of Japanese Americans? Mr. Homan, I’m a father. Do you have children? How can you possibly allow this to happen under your watch? Do you not care? Is it because these children don’t look like children that are around you? I don’t get it. Have you ever held a deceased child in your arms?

“First of all, your comments are disgusting,” Homan responded. “I’ve served my country for 34 years. This is out of control. Yes, I held a 5-year-old boy in my arms that was in the back of a tractor-trailer and knelt down beside him and said a prayer for him because I knew what the last 30 minutes of his life were like and I had a 5-year-old son at the time.”

“What I’ve been doing in my 34 years serving my nation is to save lives. So for you to sit there and insult my integrity and my love of my country and for children…that’s why this whole thing needs to be fixed — and you’re the member of Congress! Fix it!”

Homan’s brutal honesty continued on Fox Business’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight” where commentator Gregg Jarrett told Homan that “the treatment of you was nothing short of appalling.”

Connolly “threw out dirt and wouldn’t let me respond. This is about political theater. He ran out of there like a little girl. He’s a coward. He didn’t want to hear my response because this was all political theater,” Homan said.

“This is about resisting this president. This about open borders. They don’t want to hear the truth.”

Source: Former ICE Chief Stuns, Embarrasses AOC During Heated House Oversight Hearing

In Algeria, the World’s Largest Arab Country, the Church Grows 50-Fold in Ten Years with Hundreds Being Baptized Every Few Months — BCNN1 – Black Christian News Network

The world’s largest Arab country, once home to the Phoenicians, Romans, Ottomans, and French is now home to a growing number of Christian believers, despite significant persecution.

Algeria is at least 95 percent Muslim, and believers face intolerable pressures from family and neighbors militating against the open expression of their faith, along with anti-conversion and blasphemy laws, according to Open Doors’ World Watch List.

Yet in God’s economy, as much as Satan attempts to squeeze the church, the faster it grows. This has been demonstrated during the last decade in Algeria.

“In 2008, there were an estimated 10,000 Christians…by 2015, that number had grown to 380,000. I believe it could now be approaching 500,000,” notes Dr. Rex Rogers, president of SAT-7 USA. He attributes a healthy portion of the growth to Christian satellite programming they produce and beam into this and other North African countries.

Joshua Project, which also tracks the growth of the church, confirms there are at least 600,000 professing Christians in Algeria, a huge increase propelled by the Holy Spirit.

“There is now a rapidly growing church in Northern Algeria with 1,000 believers. So many are coming to Christ that every few months they hold a baptism service where 60 to 100 new believers declare their new faith,” Rogers says. This church has already planted 14 daughter churches, he says.

One Berber woman shared the following testimony with SAT-7: “I was married at 16; my father had chosen a man for me to be my husband, a man that I had never met. I suffered a lot with him; he was always beating me, even without any reason. Beatings and scolding women are a part of manhood in our society.

“I begged my husband to divorce me, but he refused. After 23 years of suffering, my husband heard about Jesus Christ and accepted Him as his Lord and Master. His character has changed. He’s not that tough man anymore. He shared with me about the God of hope. With my eyes shut, I accepted Jesus, who has changed my husband’s life, and so did my two sons and my daughter.”

Click here to read more.

SOURCE: God Reports, Mark Ellis

via In Algeria, the World’s Largest Arab Country, the Church Grows 50-Fold in Ten Years with Hundreds Being Baptized Every Few Months — BCNN1 – Black Christian News Network

Nunes Expects Mueller’s Hearing to be Delayed Further, ‘He May Not Show Up’ (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-CA) on Sunday said Mueller’s hearing may be further delayed and cast doubt on whether Mueller would even show up.

Mueller’s testimony to the House Intelligence and House Judiciary Committees was already postponed from July 17 to July 24 after several weeks of negotiations and Nunes said Mueller may not even show up.

“I think Mueller would be crazy to testify — I don’t think it’s wise for him to testify but saying that, I want him to testify,” Nunes said during a Sunday appearance on Fox & Friends.

“You already saw this week it got postponed — it was supposed to be Wednesday and now it’s kicked to a week from Wednesday. My guess is it could slip again or not happen at all — we’ll see and we’ll be prepared,” he said.


Devin Nunes said in a Thursday podcast interview with Fox News’ Bill Hemmer that he plans on grilling Mueller about Weissmann’s shady briefing with AP reporters.

Nunes told Bill Hemmer that he doesn’t want to reveal everything, but he said that he and his fellow GOP lawmakers have a strategy in place to make sure they get as many answers from Mueller as possible — that’s if Mueller shows up to Capitol Hill on July 24.

Nunes said the Russia investigation was never about Russia, rather it was an “obstruction of justice trap” and that there was never any evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.

“These are all a bunch of dirty cops and I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you – – some of them better go to jail or we’re going to go down in a spiral in this country because you will not have a Republican that will trust the FBI or the Department of Justice for generations to come,” Nunes said to Bill Hemmer on Thursday.

If Mueller doesn’t testify, the damage will be done when his “pit bull” Andrew Weissmann testifies in executive session with unlimited questioning.

“[Mueller’s} testimony is going to be basically worthless,” former US Attorney Joe diGenova warned last month. “The real damage is going to be done the next day when they have testimony from Weissmann and his aides which will be done in executive session with unlimited questioning. That’s when the damage to the president is going to be done,” he said.

DiGenova called Mueller a “figurehead” and asserted that this has always been the Weissmann investigation and it will be “the Weissmann testimony,” he added.

via Nunes Expects Mueller’s Hearing to be Delayed Further, ‘He May Not Show Up’ (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

Trump unleashes: ‘You can’t leave fast enough’ | WND

President Donald Trump unleashed a scathing attack Sunday on what he calls “‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen,” telling them to “go back” to their “totally broken and crime infested places,” prompting a fierce response from U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said Trump’s slogan of “‘Make America Great Again’ has always been about making America white again.”

In a series of morning messages, Trump tweeted:

“So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.

Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough.

I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

Though Trump never specified any names of the democratic women in Congress, he was likely referring to U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, left, and Rashida Tlaib (courtesy Rashida Tlaib for Congress, Facebook)

The four freshmen to the House of Representatives have strongly opposed the president on a variety of issues, especially the treatment of illegal aliens at detention facilities at the U.S. border.

Three of those women Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley and Tlaib were born and raised in the United States, while Omar was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, and became a U.S. citizen at age 17.

Learn astonishing Bible truth on a higher level than ever before with the Holy Spirit-filled books by Joe Kovacs

Pelosi fired back at the president, making it appear as if a verbal race war is under way.

“When @realDonaldTrump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to “Make America Great Again” has always been about making America white again,” she said. “Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power.”

In a second tweet, she added: “I reject @realDonaldTrump’s xenophobic comments meant to divide our nation. Rather than attack Members of Congress, he should work with us for humane immigration policy that reflects American values. Stop the raids – #FamiliesBelongTogether!”

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tore into Trump, saying:

Mr. President, the country I ‘come from,’ & the country we all swear to, is the United States.

But given how you’ve destroyed our border with inhumane camps, all at a benefit to you & the corps who profit off them, you are absolutely right about the corruption laid at your feet.

You are angry because you don’t believe in an America where I represent New York 14, where the good people of Minnesota elected @IlhanMN, where @RashidaTlaib fights for Michigan families, where @AyannaPressley champions little girls in Boston.

You are angry because you can’t conceive of an America that includes us. You rely on a frightened America for your plunder. You won’t accept a nation that sees healthcare as a right or education as a #1 priority, especially where we’re the ones fighting for it. Yet here we are. But you know what’s the rub of it all, Mr. President?

On top of not accepting an America that elected us, you cannot accept that we don’t fear you, either. You can’t accept that we will call your bluff & offer a positive vision for this country. And that’s what makes you seethe.

Follow Joe on Twitter @JoeKovacsNews

Source: Trump unleashes: ‘You can’t leave fast enough’

“Why Don’t They Go Back… Help Crime Infested Places From Which They Came” – Trump Trashes America-Hating “Progressive” Democrats — The Gateway Pundit

For months Progressive Democrat leaders Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have been trashing America and Israel on a weekly basis.

Rep. Ilhan Omar is a refugee from Somalia, of all places, and HATES her adopted country.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib is the eldest daughter of Palestinian immigrants in Detroit, Michigan.
Rep. Praila Jayapal is a migrant from India and frequently trashes her adopted country.

On Sunday President Trump slammed “progressive” Democrats immigrants who continue to trash the United States.

It’s not clear who this was directed at but it could be these three.

Trump added that Pelosi may help with the cost of their flights back home.

via “Why Don’t They Go Back… Help Crime Infested Places From Which They Came” – Trump Trashes America-Hating “Progressive” Democrats — The Gateway Pundit

July 14 Trusting God

Scripture reading: Romans 4:16–21

Key verse: Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

The four-year-old looked up at her aunt and asked, “What’s wrong?” But her aunt was too busy trying to turn the doorknob to answer. Who would have thought that a quick look at a backyard play set would turn into “lock-out” day? But that was exactly what happened. With no one watching, the door had closed, and no one was inside to let them back in.

Peering through the back door, they could only imagine what it would be like to be back inside a secure house. Finally, her aunt prayed for God’s help. While prayer may not always be the first thing we think of in times of emergency, it is our strongest source of hope. Simply put, God hears when we call to Him.

This story is simple and childlike. Did God answer? Yes, and while He did not send a miracle key to mysteriously open the door, He provided a lesson of faith and a way to trust in His provision. This time a rock through a small window was the catalyst to an open door.

“Well,” you say, “that wasn’t much of a provision.” But it was! God provided something much more comforting than the material evidence of His power. He provided peace and the assurance that He was in control. We need a God like this, Someone who brings hope and calm to our storm-driven lives. Trust Him and you will be amazed at the peace He brings to your heart and life.

Help me to trust You, Lord. Give me faith in the face of difficult circumstances.[1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (2000). Into His presence (p. 205). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Rush Limbaugh Explains What’s Really Behind The Current Feud Among Democrats (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

Guest post by Mike LaChance at American Lookout‘:

The current rift in the Democratic party is being showcased as a feud between Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Part of the issue is generational, but there’s more to it.

Rush Limbaugh broke it all down during a recent appearance on FOX and Friends.

From FOX News:

Rush Limbaugh: Here’s the real story of Dems’ behavior and it’s not AOC and Pelosi

Radio host Rush Limbaugh was a special guest on “Fox & Friends” Friday, giving his take on the feud between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and freshman Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ocasio-Cortez has recently been clashing with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and has suggested that Pelosi has been singling out her and three fellow freshman congresswomen because of race.

Limbaugh said younger, more progressive Democrats speaking out is “nothing new” but it was “humorous” to see Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., make a racial allegation against Pelosi.

“You don’t normally see Democrats make that allegation about each other,” he said.

He said division within the Democratic Party is not the important news story, and that the “real story” is something larger about the party as they pick a candidate to challenge President Trump in 2020.

“It’s their utter failure to get rid of Donald Trump. Their frustration is immeasurable and this is what’s driving everything they are doing,” he argued, saying Democrats thought they would “get rid of” Trump before his inauguration and then through the Russia investigation.

He said Democrats are used to targeting a Republican and taking them out in “two weeks, six months, however long they want to spend at it.”

On a related note, some Democrats are losing patience with AOC and the ‘Justice Democrats’ for trying to primary other members:

via Rush Limbaugh Explains What’s Really Behind The Current Feud Among Democrats (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

Frank Turek lectures on the case against same-sex marriage


About the speaker Frank Turek:

Dr. Frank Turek is a dynamic speaker and award-winning author or coauthor of four books: Stealing from God:  Why Atheists Need God to make their Case, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Correct, Not Politically Correct and Legislating Morality. As the President of CrossExamined.org, Frank presents powerful and entertaining evidence for Christianity at churches, high schools and at secular college campuses that often begin hostile to his message. He has also debated several prominent atheists including Christopher Hitchens and David Silverman, president of American Atheists.

Frank hosts an hour-long TV program each week called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist that is broadcast Wednesday nights on DirecTV Channel 378 (the NRB Network). His radio program called CrossExamined with Frank Turek airs on 122 stations every Saturday morning at 10 a.m. eastern and is available continuously on the free CrossExamined App.

A former aviator in…

View original post 563 more words

It’s Not Really a Climate Thing: It’s about Control — American Thinker

It’s always about control, and the Left thinks it should control all the levers.

Fascism, Communism, Nazism — all gifts to the world from Europe. Now it’s nonsensical worries about climate change resulting in deliberately built-in inefficiencies in everything from household appliances to transportation methods.

Compared to the U.S., Europe’s love of control-down economics leaves it in the dust:

“The US GDP is five times that of Germany, seven times that of France and UK, 10 times of that of Italy, and 14 times of that of Spain in 2018.” And when the UK leaves the EU as I predict it will, the gap will be much larger.

Still, the control freaks of the left are determined to copy the European model and hamstring us in ways that make us easier to control.

I’ve spent a great deal more time overseas than juniors on their semester abroad in Avignon have, and I can tell you that everything from working mothers to GDP are beset by control economies. It takes forever to do the laundry in Europe. The machines may save energy and water but it leaves housewives having to spend much, much longer to get the family laundry done. So much time it takes to accomplish normal household chores that full-time working mothers are rarer there than here.

When comparing employment statistics between the United States and the EU, we find that:

  • Women are more likely to be managers in the United States than in the EU.
  • Labor force participation for women is lower in the EU than in the United States.
  • Part-time employment among women is greater in the EU than in the United States.

The gender wage gap is larger in the EU than in the United States.[snip]  In EU countries, women are also more likely to hold part-time jobs than in the United States. This suggests that EU policies have not helped women remain in full-time positions and advance their careers, opting instead to pursue jobs with fewer hours and more flexibility.

In recent years, motivated by bugaboo claims — first about depleting supplies of energy and then about climate change (“the social cost of carbon”) — the Department of Energy regulated home appliance efficiency. The net result was reduced efficiency and product performance.

Do homeowners really want to wait two hours (twice what it once took) to get these dishes done? This administration thinks not.

Like many other Obama-era DOE standards, the marginal energy and water savings were likely not worth the added cost to consumers, but what really set the dishwasher standard apart was its impact on product performance. It added significantly to the time it takes to do a load, which at more than two hours was about twice what it took before federal regulators got involved.

However, the underlying statute, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, contains provisions protecting consumers from efficiency standards that reduce product features and performance, so on March 21st, 2018 the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned the agency to set a new standard. DOE granted the petition last week and has formally begun a rulemaking to determine whether a new efficiency rule is warranted that would permit dishwashers that can do the job in an hour.

DOE should be applauded for righting this regulatory wrong. But even better than fixing bad regulations is preventing them from happening in the first place, and towards that end DOE is considering a number of useful process reforms that would discourage anti-consumer efficiency standards in the future. The agency should also consider excluding the social cost of carbon from appliance rulemakings so that this program can’t again prioritize climate activism over consumers.

After undoing the ridiculous appliance standards, I’d hope the administration takes a look at the policies trying to force us out of cars by reducing, instead of increasing, traffic lanes for cars — providing reserved bike lanes already severely choke traffic as population grows. Regardless of how many people bike around Amsterdam to the delight of visiting college juniors from America, it doesn’t fit most of the U.S. or its  people.

MOTUS looks at Portland for an example but it’s become ubiquitous.

Let me posit this hypothesis, liberalism is the new secular Puritanism. Instead of believing in a just and almighty God they believe in government. Instead of basing their beliefs and religion on the Bible they base it on their own – ever-expanding — belief system: the principles of government. The Puritan ideal of living a life of pious, consecrated actions translates for the new Puritans to insisting that YOU live a pious life, consecrated to THEIR principles. Because you were born too stupid to determine what’s best for you. Hence the need for social engineering; here’s an example of that at its finest:

Portland to create ‘equitable mobility’ task force to investigate how to charge people to use local roads.

Portland City Council approved a plan Wednesday to study short-and-long-term strategies to charge people to use city streets, an effort intended to reduce congestion and curb carbon emissions as the region expects as many as 500,000 new residents by 2040.

The city will create a Pricing for Equitable Mobility task force to study and recommend potential road user fees — such as cordons, where drivers are charged to use certain streets in the city center or potentially more robust freeway tolls in the area…

Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, who oversees the transportation bureau, said the city must take bold steps to try and get people out of their cars. “We are going the wrong direction on transportation,” she said.

In other words, they are going to pursue (taxpayer-funded) ways to manipulate you to do what we want you to do, which is “get out of your cars.” No matter how they attempt to package and sell it, it’s always about control. And it’s always them, controlling you.

Contrary to the claims of those who want to get us out of our cars and into public transportation, cars make increased productivity, less dense population, housing, and work opportunities possible. People are not, as they often are in European urban centers, confined to living close to work on bus and metro lines or in biking distance, shopping in the same corridors, and schooling their children in the same paths. It makes them easier to control and limits their choices. Near me, it is not unusual for people to work in Virginia, drop their kids off at school and after-school activities in D.C., and shop and live in Maryland.  Using public transportation or bikes would make this quite impossible in any reasonable amount of time.

It’s of a piece with the Left’s wish to control dialogue through Facebook and Twitter, YouTube, and such, and through the censoring of contrary opinion by deeming it not “politically correct.”  But there, too, I see a ray of rising anti-totalitarianism .We do not like this nonsense.

Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.

Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness — and it turns out race isn’t, either.

Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness. [snip]

The one part of the standard narrative that the data partially affirm is that African Americans are most likely to support political correctness. But the difference between them and other groups is much smaller than generally supposed: Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. This means that they are only four percentage points less likely than whites, and only five percentage points less likely than the average, to believe that political correctness is a problem.

It’s always about control and the left thinks they should control all the levers. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ chief of staff admitted it this week, telling a crowd: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

I can’t imagine American voters opting to put idiots like this in charge. Neither does Tom Maguire.

I remain shocked (in a totally non-shocked way) that Dem “strategists” seem to be seeking a progressive Presidential candidate whose coattails should let them sweep Congressional districts in Brooklyn, Manhattan, San Francisco and a few other urban enclaves while losing most of the country.

Do they understand “swing districts”? Do they understand that winning Brooklyn with 85% of the vote doesn’t send more people to Congress than winning with a mere 75%?

I beg you: Don’t let them know this.

via It’s Not Really a Climate Thing: It’s about Control — American Thinker

July 14, 2019 Afternoon Verse Of The Day

15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, &c. He concludes that there is no more need of another priest, for Christ fulfils the office under the New Testament; for he claims not for Christ the honour of a Mediator, so that others may at the same time remain as such with him; but he maintains that all others were repudiated when Christ undertook the office. But that he might more fully confirm this fact, he mentions how he commenced to discharge his office of a Mediator, even through death intervening. Since this is found alone in Christ, being wanting in all others, it follows that he alone can be justly deemed a Mediator.

He further records the virtue and efficacy of his death by saying that he paid the price for sins under the first covenant or testament, which could not be blotted out by the blood of beasts; by which words he was seeking to draw away the Jews from the law to Christ. For, if the law was so weak that all the remedies it applied for expiating sins did by no means accomplish what they represented, who could rest in it as in a safe harbour? This one thing, then, ought to have been enough to stimulate them to seek for something better than the law; for they could not but be in perpetual anxiety. On the other hand, when we come to Christ, as we obtain in him a full redemption, there is nothing which can any more distress us. Then, in these words he shews that the Law is weak, that the Jews might no longer recumb on it; and he teaches them to rely on Christ, for in him is found whatever can be desired for pacifying consciences.

Now, if any one asks, whether sins under the Law were remitted to the fathers, we must bear in mind the solution already stated,—that they were remitted, but remitted through Christ. Then notwithstanding their external expiations, they were always held guilty. For this reason Paul says, that the Law was a handwriting against us. (Col. 2:14.) For when the sinner came forward and openly confessed that he was guilty before God, and acknowledged by sacrificing an innocent animal that he was worthy of eternal death, what did he obtain by his victim, except that he sealed his own death as it were by this handwriting? In short, even then they only reposed in the remission of sins, when they looked to Christ. But if only a regard to Christ took away sins, they could never have been freed from them, had they continued to rest in the Law. David indeed declares, that blessed is the man to whom sins are not imputed, (Ps. 32:2;) but that he might be a partaker of this blessedness, it was necessary for him to leave the Law, and to have his eyes fixed on Christ; for if he rested in the Law, he could never have been freed from guilt.

They who are called, &c. The object of the divine covenant is, that having been adopted as children, we may at length be made heirs of eternal life. The Apostle teaches us that we obtain this by Christ. It is hence evident, that in him is the fulfilment of the covenant. But the promise of the inheritance is to be taken for the promised inheritance, as though he had said, “The promise of eternal life is not otherwise made to us to be enjoyed, than through the death of Christ.” Life, indeed, was formerly promised to the fathers, and the same has been the inheritance of God’s children from the beginning, but we do not otherwise enter into the possession of it, than through the blood of Christ previously shed.

But he speaks of the called, that he might the more influence the Jews who were made partakers of this calling; for it is a singular favour, when we have the gift of the knowledge of Christ bestowed on us. We ought then to take the more heed, lest we neglect so valuable a treasure, and our thoughts should wander elsewhere. Some regard the called to be the elect, but incorrectly in my judgment; for the Apostle teaches here the same thing as we find in Rom. 3:25, that righteousness and salvation have been procured by the blood of Christ, but that we become partakers of them by faith.[1]

15 This complex sentence (simplified in the NIV by being divided into two parts with a dash) sets out a basic understanding of what it means for Jesus to be the “mediator of a new covenant” (see on 8:6 for the phrase and cf. also “guarantor” in 7:22); it states both the purpose and the means of that mediation. The purpose is “that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.” In 6:12, 17 we have heard of the promises that Abraham “inherited” and that are a model for all those who after him will also become “heirs,” and in 1:14 God’s people have been described as “those who will inherit salvation.” The theme of receiving God’s promises by faith will be developed more fully in ch. 11. The phrase thus speaks of all the good things God has in store for his people (cf. also the “heavenly rest” of 4:1–11). It was the purpose of the covenant that they should receive these blessings, and under the new covenant they have been more fully spelled out as the knowledge of God and the forgiveness of sins (8:10–12). Hebrews has spoken of our “heavenly calling” in 3:1 and so here can describe Christians as “those who are called” (cf. Ro 1:6–7; 8:30; 1 Pe 5:10; etc.; and also “chosen,” Ro 8:33; etc.).

We have considered the theme of “mediator” in 8:6 and noted that Jesus not only “stands between” God and his people but is also by his sacrifice the one who has made the relationship possible. Moses offered a blood sacrifice to effect the old covenant (see vv. 18–21), but Jesus’ mediation has gone still further—he is the sacrifice. His death is a “ransom to set them free” (apolytrōsis, see on v. 12), thus making possible the forgiveness of sins that is at the heart of Jeremiah’s vision of the new covenant (8:12). “Sins” here is not the usual word but parabasis, “transgression” (GK 4126), which is particularly appropriate to the breaking of laws, and the added phrase “under the first covenant” suggests our author is thinking again of Jeremiah’s complaint that Israel failed to keep the provisions of the old covenant (8:9). It was these “transgressions” that the old sacrificial system failed to deal with adequately (7:11, 18–19; 9:9); only the perfect sacrifice of Christ can achieve this (v. 14). But while the words used focus especially on the breaking of the Mosaic laws, as the argument proceeds it will be clear that it is not only from sins “under the first covenant” that we can be set free by Jesus.[2]

15 That Jesus is “mediator of a better covenant”—the new covenant foretold by Jeremiah—has already been stated in 8:6. But now the basis of his mediatorship is made plain; that basis is his sacrificial death. By virtue of his death redemption has been provided for those who had broken the law of God; the life of Christ was the costly price paid to liberate them from their sins. The first covenant provided a measure of atonement and remission for sins committed under it, but it was incapable of providing “eternal redemption”; this was a blessing which had to await the inauguration of the new covenant, which embodies God’s promise to his people: “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jer. 31:34). The basing of the new covenant on the death of Christ is a New Testament doctrine not peculiar to our author; it finds clearest expression in the words of institution spoken by our Lord over the cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mark 14:24) or, in their earliest recorded form, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25). And now that this redemptive death has taken place, the “promise of their eternal inheritance” has been made good to those “who have been called”; the new covenant, and everything that the grace of God provides under it, is forever theirs. Christians have already been described in Heb. 6:17 as “the heirs of the promise”; the fulfilment of the promise is the “eternal inheritance” into which they have entered. “Eternal” is an adjective which our author associates especially with the new covenant; that covenant itself is eternal (13:20), and so the redemption which it provides and the inheritance into which it brings the people of God are likewise eternal (vv. 12, 15); the Mediator of this covenant, having offered himself up to God as “a spiritual and eternal sacrifice” (v. 14, NEB), has become to all who obey him the “source of eternal salvation” (5:9). The eternal inheritance of grace and glory both here and hereafter is for those who “have been called”—for those who have already been designated “partakers of a heavenly calling” (3:1). The close connection between God’s effectual calling of his people and the heritage which is theirs as his sons and heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, is set out more fully by Paul in Rom. 8:14–30.[3]

15 “On account of” the effective sacrifice offered by Christ described in v. 14, “he is” now “the Mediator of [the] New Covenant.” This sacrifice is the death that “has occurred for redemption of the transgressions based on the First Covenant.” By cleansing the inner being of the worshiper, Christ’s sacrifice brought an end to the sacrifices that could cleanse nothing but the “flesh” (9:10). Thus, by establishing an effective way of approaching God, he terminated the Old Covenant as a way of salvation and inaugurated the New that it typified. His self-offering became a sacrifice of covenant inauguration. He is no mere go-between, but a Mediator who, on the basis of his all-sufficient self-offering, guarantees (7:22) the benefits provided to all “those who draw near to God through him” (7:25). He functions now as Mediator for beleaguered believers, enabling them to obtain their promised “eternal inheritance.”

“Transgressions based on the First Covenant” does not limit the effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice to offenses committed before his coming or before the hearers became believers. The Old Covenant may not have been able to cleanse the heart, but it did expose the true nature of sin as unbelief and disobedience springing from an evil heart.75 Apart from Christ the condemnation of the broken covenant described in 8:7–13 continues to threaten the people of God. God’s people who come after Christ are endangered by the same unbelief and disobedience that characterized the wilderness generation (3:7–4:11; 8:8–9). Christ’s coming has only intensified the condemnation of the Old Covenant on those who reject God’s grace (2:1–4). The pastor uses “transgressions” to underscore the deliberate character and thus the seriousness of these disobedient acts. Christ’s death provides “redemption” from “the consequences and … power” of these transgressions.77 His self-offering cleanses God’s people from sin so that they can escape the condemnation of the broken Old Covenant and receive the promised inheritance that it anticipated.

Christ exercises his present ministry both as High Priest at God’s right hand and as Mediator of the New Covenant. His high priesthood and his mediatorship are two sides of the same coin. We might say that as High Priest he does what the Old Covenant could not do by cleansing the heart from sin. As Mediator he undoes what the Old did, by removing the condemnation pronounced on the sinner. Yet the two cannot be separated because the New Covenant he mediates results in God’s law written on the cleansed hearts of his people (10:15–18). Priesthood and covenant are inseparable (7:11).

“Those who have been called” describes God’s people in this world. The divine promise to Abraham (11:8) was a “heavenly calling” (3:1) that invited the people of God to join him in his heavenly abode. The life of the “called” is to be a life of faith and obedience appropriate for those offered such a destiny. All who persevere through the mediation of Christ will attain this “eternal inheritance.” However, those who imitate the unbelief of the wilderness generation will fail to reach that final destination. God’s people once experienced “redemption” from Egypt so that they could “receive” their “inheritance” in the Promised Land. Christ has now provided a “redemption” that opens the “eternal inheritance” in the heavenly homeland (11:10, 13–16) for all the faithful (11:1–40). No one needs to go the way of unbelief (3:7–4:11), for Christ is the Mediator and High Priest who removes condemnation and provides cleansing so that his people can persevere until entrance into that final, “eternal,” heavenly “inheritance” promised them.[4]

9:15 / For this reason—that is, because of his death—Christ (lit., “he”) is the mediator of a new covenant. It is clear that the author has in mind the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah (cf. the quotation in 8:8–12 and 10:16–17). The result of the inauguration of the new covenant is that those who are called receive the promised eternal inheritance. The author has already spoken of a special calling received by Christians through the preaching of the gospel in 3:1. It is significant that he uses particularly Jewish concepts of “promise” and “inheritance” here (cf. 6:17). This strengthens the motif of the fulfillment of the ot promises in the church (cf. 13:20). The basis of this new covenant and its reception by the called is now set forth. (In the original text, the basis is explicated before the result, whereas niv places the basis last, introducing it with the words now that.) The basis of the new situation is that he has died, which has as its result that it sets people free (cf. the reference to “an eternal redemption” in v. 12). It redeems them from the sins (lit., “transgressions”) committed under the first covenant. The real answer to sins against the commandments of the Mosaic law is found not in the sacrifice of animals, but in the sacrifice of Christ. The new covenant thus contains within it the answer to the failure to abide by the requirements of the old covenant (cf. 8:12; 10:17–18). And, forgiveness experienced during the ot period depended finally—although this was hardly understood at the time—upon an event that was to take place in the future. The sacrifice of Christ is the answer to sin in every era, past and present, since it alone is the means of forgiveness.[5]

15. for this cause—Because of the all-cleansing power of His blood, this fits Him to be Mediator (Heb 8:6, ensuring to both parties, God and us, the ratification) of the new covenant, which secures both forgiveness for the sins not covered by the former imperfect covenant or testament, and also an eternal inheritance to the called.

by means of death—rather, as Greek, “death having taken place.” At the moment that His death took place, the necessary effect is, “the called receive the (fulfilment of the) promise” (so Lu 24:49 uses “promise”; Heb 6:15; Ac 1:4); that moment divides the Old from the New Testament. The “called” are the elect “heirs,” “partakers of the heavenly calling” (Heb 3:1).

redemption of … transgressions … under … first testament—the transgressions of all men from Adam to Christ, first against the primitive revelation, then against the revelations to the patriarchs, then against the law given to Israel, the representative people of the world. The “first testament” thus includes the whole period from Adam to Christ, and not merely that of the covenant with Israel, which was a concentrated representation of the covenant made with (or the first testament given to) mankind by sacrifice, down from the fall to redemption. Before the inheritance by the New Testament (for here the idea of the “inheritance,” following as the result of Christ’s “death,” being introduced, requires the Greek to be translated “testament,” as it was before covenant) could come in, there must be redemption of (that is, deliverance from the penalties incurred by) the transgressions committed under the first testament, for the propitiatory sacrifices under the first testament reached only as far as removing outward ceremonial defilement. But in order to obtain the inheritance which is a reality, there must be a real propitiation, since God could not enter into covenant relation with us so long as past sins were unexpiated; Ro 3:24, 25, “a propitiation … His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past.”

mightGreek,may receive,” which previously they could not (Heb 11:39, 40).

the promise—to Abraham.[6]

Christ’s Death and the First Covenant


Weaving his artistic verbal cloth, the author of Hebrews is ready to bring in the concepts of mediator and covenant. In chapter 8, especially verse 6, he introduced the role of mediator that Jesus has been given. Having explained Christ’s death and its effect in chapter 9, he now develops the significance of this mediatorial role in relation to the covenant that God has made with his people.

15. For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

When the author writes “for this reason,” he wants us to look at verses 13 and 14 specifically and the preceding context generally. In these two verses, the writer contrasts the sacrifices of the first covenant with the sacrifice of Christ that introduces a new relationship. In verse 15, the author summarizes and says, “Christ is the mediator of a new covenant.”

Before we proceed any further, we ought to take note of the institution of the first covenant, recorded in Exodus 24. Moses read the Law of God to the Israelites, who responded, “Everything the Lord has said we will do” (v. 3). Then burnt offerings and fellowship offerings were presented to God, and blood was sprinkled on the altar. Moses then read the Book of the Covenant to the people, who said, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey” (v. 7). Thereupon Moses, sprinkling blood on the people, said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (v. 8).

Here are the characteristics of this covenant:

  1. The covenant God made with his people had two parties: God and the Israelites entered into a solemn commitment on the basis of the content of the Book of the Covenant.
  2. The covenant was sealed by the death of animals that were offered to God. The blood of those animals was sprinkled on altar and people.
  3. The covenant was ratified by the people who promised obedience to God.

Why did this covenant become obsolete? The author quotes a lengthy passage from Jeremiah 31 in chapter 8, and in the first part of the next chapter he explains that the regulations of the first covenant were external (9:1, 10). “The gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper” (9:9). Sins committed against God, as a violation of the covenant promise, could not be erased from man’s conscience by presenting gifts and offerings to God. The blood of animals sacrificed to atone for man’s transgressions sanctified him outwardly, but inwardly man struggled with a guilty conscience. The first covenant, then, needed to be replaced.

By his sacrifice on the cross, Christ validated the new covenant that he instituted at the time he celebrated the Passover with his disciples. He said: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20; also see the parallel passages in Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; and 1 Cor. 11:25).

Christ has become the mediator of this new covenant (12:24). He stands between God and man. By his death he removes sin and guilt, and thus all “those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.” Through the mediatorial work of Christ, they who are effectively called inherit salvation. And that inheritance is eternal.

What is the meaning of “new” in the expression new covenant? First, the new comes forth out of the old. That is, the new covenant has the same basis and characteristics as the old covenant. Next, in both covenants, sacrifices were presented to God; but whereas the sacrifices offered to atone for the transgressions of the people in the time of the first covenant could not set the sinner free, the supreme sacrifice of Christ’s death redeemed God’s people and paid for their sins. Moreover, in the structure of the first covenant, the mediator (i.e., the high priest) was imperfect. In the new covenant Christ is the mediator who guarantees the promise of salvation. God puts his laws in the minds and writes them on the hearts of his redeemed people, so that as a result they know God, experience remission of sin, and enjoy covenantal fellowship with him.[7]

9:15. Jesus secures forgiveness of sin. On the basis of giving himself, Christ became a mediator of the new covenant and a ransom to free captives from their sin. Christ’s death was the price paid to liberate spiritual prisoners. The old covenant had no provision for removing offenses against God. In his death, Christ removed the consequences of human sin for those who trust him. The real cleansing from sin against God did not come from sacrificing animals but from the sacrifice of Christ.

The purpose of the new covenant Jesus established was to provide an eternal inheritance for believers. Because of Christ, sin no longer can bar believers from divine blessings.[8]

[1] Calvin, J., & Owen, J. (2010). Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (pp. 206–208). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[2] France, R. T. (2006). Hebrews. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews–Revelation (Revised Edition) (Vol. 13, pp. 119–120). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Bruce, F. F. (1990). The Epistle to the Hebrews (Rev. ed., pp. 219–221). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[4] Cockerill, G. L. (2012). The Epistle to the Hebrews (pp. 401–403). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

[5] Hagner, D. A. (2011). Hebrews (p. 141). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[6] Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, pp. 462–463). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[7] Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953–2001). Exposition of Hebrews (Vol. 15, pp. 254–255). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

[8] Lea, T. D. (1999). Hebrews, James (Vol. 10, p. 169). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Sunday’s Hymn: Jesus, the Very Thought of Thee — Rebecca Writes



Jesus, the very thought of thee
With sweetness fills my breast;
But sweeter far thy face to see,
And in thy presence rest.

Nor voice can sing, nor heart can frame,
Nor can the mem’ry find,
A sweeter sound than thy blest Name,
O Saviour of mankind.

O Hope of ev’ry contrite heart,
O Joy of all the meek,
To those who fall, how kind thou art!
How good to those who seek!

But what to those who find? Ah, this
Nor tongue nor pen can show:
The love of Jesus, what it is
None but his loved ones know.

Jesus, our only Joy be thou,
As thou our Prize wilt be;
Jesus, be thou our Glory now,
And through eternity.

—Bernard of Clairvaux


Other hymns, worship songs, or quotes for this Sunday:

via Sunday’s Hymn: Jesus, the Very Thought of Thee — Rebecca Writes