Daily Archives: November 14, 2019

November 14 Called with Confidence

Scripture Reading: Mark 16:14–18

Key Verse: Mark 16:15

And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

After the Resurrection, Christ appeared to two of the disciples. However, the news of Jesus’ resurrection seemed too good to be true, so the other disciples, in their disheartenment, did not believe the reports. When Jesus appeared to them, He rebuked them for their unbelief. He knew they would need great faith to take on the commission God had for them, and that faith had to begin with an understanding of God’s power.

Eleven men had the responsibility of spreading the gospel to the whole world. They were eleven simple men with an overwhelming goal, fueled by the power that raised Jesus from the dead. Surely our task is not as daunting as that which the disciples faced, yet Christians often consider evangelism impossible.

Clarence Hall wrote, “The problem is not that we have exhausted our frontiers. The problem is that we fail to recognize them! And as our vision shortens, our pessimism deepens.”

Lord, I have been guilty of failing to recognize the frontiers for the gospel. Forgive my shortsightedness and infuse me with a powerful drive to witness for You.[1]

 

[1] Stanley, C. F. (2006). Pathways to his presence (p. 333). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

November 14 Waiting on God

Scripture Reading: Psalm 106

Key Verse: Psalm 106:13

They soon forgot His works; they did not wait for His counsel.

Psalm 106 records the bleak history of the Israelites’ wilderness journey following their exodus out of Egypt. Many negative episodes are chronicled, and one glaringly deficient trait was their inability to wait on God. In one incident, the Hebrews complained about their steady diet of manna, God’s daily, supernatural provision. The psalmist recounted, “They quickly forgot His works; they did not wait for His counsel, but craved intensely in the wilderness, and tempted God [put Him to the test] in the desert” (vv. 13–14 nasb).

Failing to wait on God for His answer is usually coupled with a memory lapse of God’s past help. The intensity of our needs often fogs our vision of God’s faithfulness and power. Keeping God’s character in sharp focus is crucial to waiting for His response. When God’s ability to supply our needs is obscured, we too readily rely on our wisdom instead of seeking His counsel.

If you are tempted to move ahead without God’s guidance, pause and reflect on His perfect timing in meeting previous demands. The less you desire to wait on God, the greater your craving for instant solutions. You look for shortcuts instead of traveling the road of trust and dependence on God.

Dear Lord, thank You for Your help in the past. I need to remember these times as I travel down the road of trust and dependence on You. Help me bypass the shortcuts.[1]

 

[1] Stanley, C. F. (1999). On holy ground (p. 333). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

November 14 Hope to Continue

Scripture reading: Psalm 62:1–12

Key verse: Psalm 62:8

Trust in Him at all times, you people;

Pour out your heart before Him;

God is a refuge for us.

For several days now, we have talked about pain and suffering. Some of the examples have brought profound thoughts of devotion for our Savior. But ask yourself, Is my affection the kind that remains intact, even when the answer to my prayers is not what I expected?

In Candles in the Dark, Amy Carmichael wrote,

I once wrote that God always answers us in the deeps, not in the shallows of our prayers. Hasn’t it been so with you?

One of the hardest things in our prayer life is to accept with joy and not with grief the answers to our deepest prayers. At least I have found it so. It was a long time before I discovered that whatever came was the answer.

I had expected something so different that I did not recognize it when it came. And He doesn’t explain. He trusts us not to be offended; that’s all.

Sometimes God reveals at least a portion of His will to you. Other times He doesn’t. In periods of adversity, this can be unsettling. But God requires you to go on in faith, even when adversity closes in all around you. In accepting His will, you find lasting joy. Does this mean you are never to feel sorrow or be burdened by stress? No. God weeps with you, and through the life of His Son, He gives you hope to continue. At times, this may simply mean to be still under His restful care.

Lord, when adversity closes in around me, help me continue to advance in faith. I know that in accepting Your will, I will find the hope to continue.[1]

 

[1] Stanley, C. F. (2000). Into His presence (p. 333). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Less than half of US evangelicals identify as ‘pro-life,’ new poll suggests | The Christian Post

Only a quarter of evangelicals in the United States believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases, according to a new poll showing that a majority of self-identified Christians in the U.S. identify as “pro-choice” and less than half of evangelicals identify as “pro-life.”

Source: Less than half of US evangelicals identify as ‘pro-life,’ new poll suggests

November 14, 2019 Afternoon Verse Of The Day

13 According to the Chronicler, Nebuchadnezzar had previously taken part of Jerusalem’s smaller treasures (2 Ch 36:7; cf. Da 1:2). This time his despoilment was a major one, with only a few smaller gold and silver items left behind (cf. 25:15), along with the larger brass vessels (cf. 25:13–17; Jer 27:18–22).[1]


24:13 Nebuchadnezzar plundered the treasures of the temple and king’s palace, just as the Lord had said he would (cf. 20:16–18).[2]


24:13 He cut up Nebuchadnezzar’s actions suggest that Judah refused to pay tribute. Earlier in 2 Kings, Ahaz and Hezekiah had used bronze, silver, and gold from the temple to fund Judah’s tribute (16:17–18; 18:15–16).

the vessels of gold which Solomon the king of Israel had made in the temple of Including the altar, the table for the bread of the Presence, 10 lampstands, flowers, lamps, tongs, cups, snuffers, basins, incense dishes, fire pans, and door sockets (1 Kgs 7:45–50).

as Yahweh had foretold Refers to Isaiah’s prophecy in 2 Kgs 20:17.[3]


24:13 The plundering of the city of Jerusalem seemed to be very thorough. It is remarkable that there was still some gold from the time of Solomon left to be plundered after more than three centuries of foreign plundering. This fulfilled the prophecy to Hezekiah in 20:17.[4]


13. as the Lord had said—(compare 2 Ki 20:17; Is 39:6; Je 15:13; 17:3). The elite of the nation for rank, usefulness, and moral worth, all who might be useful in Babylon or dangerous in Palestine, were carried off to Babylon, to the number of ten thousand (2 Ki 24:14). These are specified (2 Ki 24:15, 16), warriors, seven thousand; craftsmen and smiths, one thousand; king’s wives, officers, and princes, also priests and prophets (Je 29:1; Ez 1:1), two thousand; equal to ten thousand captives in all.[5]


Ver. 13.—And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord. “Thence” means “from Jerusalem,” which he entered and plundered, not withstanding Jehoiachin’s submission, so that not much was gained by the voluntary surrender. A beginning had been made of the carrying off the sacred vessels of the temple in Jehoiakim’s third (fourth?) year (Dan. 1:1), which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar. The plundering was now carried a step further; while the final complete sweep of all that remained came eleven years later, at the end of the reign of Zedekiah (see ch. 25:13–17). And the treasures of the king’s house (comp. ch. 20:13). If the treasures which Hezekiah showed to the envoys of Merodach-Baladan were carried off by Sennacherib (ch. 18:15), still there had probably been fresh accumulations made during their long reigns by Manasseh and Josiah. And cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon King of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord. (For an account of these vessels, see 1 Kings 7:48–50.) They consisted in part of articles of furniture, like the altar of incense and the table of shrewbread, which were thickly covered with plates of gold; in part of vessels, etc., made wholly of the precious metal, as candlesticks, or rather candelabra, snuffers, tongs, basins, spoons, censers, and the like. As the Lord had said (comp. ch. 20:17; Isa. 39:6; Jer. 15:13; 17:3; 20:5, etc.).[6]


13 Following the fall of the city, the Babylonians help themselves to the spoils of war. As one might expect, the temple and palace treasures are a primary target, as had happened many times before. Not only is the pattern followed, but also the prophecy of 20:16–19 is now being fulfilled. אשר עשה שלמה “which Solomon had made.” See 1 Kgs 7:51, some of which had been removed once before (1 Kgs 14:26). Montgomery (Kings, 556) and Gray (Kings, 752) regard the passage as secondary, partly because of its similarity with the preceding accounts of the sacking of the treasures and partly because it anticipates the later destruction of the temple. It is argued that Jer 27:19–22 is a contradiction because it refers to vessels still in the temple during the reign of Zedekiah. There is no contradiction here. In neither account, Babylonian or Judean, is it stated that everything was looted. Nebuchadrezzar clearly made provision for the continuation of the economic and political life of Judah after the first deportation, albeit in a much reduced form, by the appointment of Zedekiah as king.[7]


[1] Patterson, R. D., & Austel, H. J. (2009). 1, 2 Kings. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: 1 Samuel–2 Kings (Revised Edition) (Vol. 3, p. 948). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[2] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (2 Ki 24:13). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

[3] Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (2 Ki 24:13). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[4] Bowling, A. C. (2017). 2 Kings. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 597). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

[5] Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 1, p. 248). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[6] Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1909). 2 Kings (p. 477). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

[7] Hobbs, T. R. (1985). 2 Kings (Vol. 13, p. 352). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Ukraine Foreign Minister Undercuts Democrats’ Impeachment Case: No Connection Between Aid and Biden Investigation | The Western Journal

Ukraine’s foreign minister said Thursday that he did not see a “direct link” between the U.S. sending military aid to Ukraine and Ukraine opening an investigation into the Bidens. Democrats have accused President Donald Trump of suggesting a quid pro quo, claiming he planned to withhold military aid from Ukraine until that nation’s government investigated… The post appeared first on The Western Journal .

Source: Ukraine Foreign Minister Undercuts Democrats’ Impeachment Case: No Connection Between Aid and Biden Investigation

Ukraine Foreign Minister: U.S. Aid, Investigations Were ‘Never’ Linked | Breitbart News

Ukrainian foreign minister Vadym Prystaiko said Thursday that U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland had “never” linked U.S. aid to Ukrainian investigations of the 2016 elections or the Biden’s role in stopping a probe of Burisma.

Source: Ukraine Foreign Minister: U.S. Aid, Investigations Were ‘Never’ Linked

Elise Stefanik Stood Out on Day One of the Impeachment Hearings — National Review

Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, asks questions during the first public hearings held by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as part of the impeachment inquiry in Washington, D.C., November 13, 2019. (Saul Loeb/Reuters Pool)

The New York congresswoman was clearly the strongest Republican questioner of the day.

Representative Elise Stefanik of New York earned high marks for her questioning of U.S. diplomats on Wednesday, the first day of public impeachment hearings.

Bloomberg View columnist Eli Lake called Stefanik’s questioning “very impressive.” Fox News anchor Bret Baier agreed, as did former Obama administration official Michael McFaul and CNBC’s John Harwood. “None of them has much to work with, but Elise Stefanik is most effective GOP questioner by a wide margin,” Harwood tweeted.

Stefanik opened her remarks by making two simple points: “Number one, Ukraine received the aid,” and “number two, there was in fact no investigation into Biden.” It was a concise, coherent “no harm, no foul” defense stronger than other arguments Trump’s allies have made, even if Democrats responded by pointing out that attempted murder and attempted robbery are still crimes. Then Stefanik emerged as the committee’s most effective anti-impeachment messenger in questioning U.S. diplomat George Kent about corruption at Burisma, the gas company that paid Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, $50,000 a month to sit on its board.

Stefanik noted that Kent, now the deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, first learned about corruption at Burisma in 2015 when he was the “senior anti-corruption coordinator” for the United States in Europe.

“You testified that the issue of corruption in Burisma was in the U.S. interest because, and this is from your deposition, ‘that we had made a commitment to Ukrainian government in 2014 to try to recover an estimated tens of billions of dollars of stolen assets out of the country,’” Stefanik said.

“That is, the stolen assets that were in the name of the owner of Burisma,” Kent replied. “He was the one who we had believed stolen money.”

“This was the first case that the U.S., U.K., and Ukraine investigators worked on was against the owner of Burisma?” Stefanik asked.

“That’s correct,” Kent responded.

Stefanik further noted that in 2016, Kent was “so concerned about corruption questions related to Burisma,” he asked USAID not to cosponsor an essay contest with the gas company, and that he was also concerned about the “appearance of conflict of interest” created by Hunter Biden’s serving on the board of Burisma. Both points were, again, correct.

Stefanik wisely used her time to make the case that general concern about corruption at Burisma could be a legitimate issue that was in the national interest. But her line of questioning was not by any means an airtight defense against the charge that President Trump was acting in his personal political interest when he asked Ukraine’s president to “look into” Hunter Biden and Burisma and when he ordered military aid withheld in an alleged effort to pressure Ukraine to publicly announce such an investigation. Trump did not broadly focus on fighting corruption in Ukraine: He singled out only the company connected to Joe Biden’s son, and he involved his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to pressure Ukraine to investigate it.

Kent himself testified Wednesday that Giuliani was not promoting U.S. interests in Ukraine. “I believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in an upcoming election cycle,” Kent said, pointing out that anti-corruption efforts could have been pursued through proper diplomatic channels, and that Giuliani was not working for the government. Kent also debunked the notion that Joe Biden might have helped Burisma when he was involved in pushing for the firing of Ukraine’s prosecutor general as vice president. Biden had requested the removal of “a corrupt prosecutor general . . . who had undermined a system of criminal investigation that we built with American money to build corruption cases,” Kent said. “I did not witness any efforts by any U.S. official to shield Burisma from scrutiny. In fact, I and other U.S. officials consistently advocated reinstituting a scuttled investigation of [Mykola] Zlochevsky, Burisma’s founder, as well as holding the corrupt prosecutors who closed the case to account.”

But Stefanik’s questioning still proved more fruitful than the performance of other Republicans on the committee, who stuck with the implausible no-quid-pro-quo defense or even claimed that President Trump had never wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

According to the rough transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump asked Zelensky to “look into” the prosecution of Burisma. “Biden went around bragging about that he stopped the prosecution” of Burisma, “so if you can look into it . . . it sounds horrible to me,” Trump told Zelensky. And during on-camera remarks at the White House on October 3, he said: “I would say that President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens.” Yet in Wednesday’s hearings, Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, claimed: “I think one of the mothers of all conspiracy theories is that somehow the president of the United States would want a country that he doesn’t even like — he doesn’t want to give foreign aid to — to have the Ukrainians start an investigation into Bidens.”

Stefanik’s points, by contrast, had the advantage of being correct, and they could matter in the court of public opinion when Republicans argue that Trump should not be removed from office because there were legitimate reasons to request an investigation into Burisma.

The New York congresswoman was clearly the strongest Republican questioner of the day.

via Elise Stefanik Stood Out on Day One of the Impeachment Hearings — National Review

Paul Craig Roberts Rages At The Latest ‘False’ Trump Impeachment News | ZeroHedge News

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

As the media are all out to get Trump, there is no way to get any valid information about the so-called impeachment. But you don’t have to pay too much attention to notice that the Democrats and the presstitutes are constantly changing the focus. The alleged whistleblower, who only had hearsay information, if that, has dropped out of the picture, being too compromised by his affliations and prior meetings with Adam Schiff during which the “whistleblowing” was planned as an attack on Trump.

The Democrats and presstitutes then shifted focus to state department types who also heard second hand from “staff” about the alleged conversation containing a quid pro quo, a claim unsupported by the transcript of the telephone call or by the President of Ukraine. So now a new alleged phone call has emerged, or been invented. The acting ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, a sleazy State Department type, today (Nov. 13) testified that a member of his staff heard Trump in another telephone call asking Sondland about the Ukraine investigation of the Bidens. This second-hand information is described by the presstitute media as a “bombshell.” God help us. It is nothing of the sort. But the presstitutes will repeat it until it is.

A person has to wonder how many members of staffs are permitted to listen to telephone conversations between heads of state. In my day it was zero.

What I want to know, and what we all should want to know, is why are the Democrats serving up hearsay information? Why aren’t the staffers themselves who allegedly heard the conversations on the stand testifying? The testimony should come under oath from those who allegedly heard the conversations. Are the House Democrats going to impeach the President of the United States on second-hand hearsay information?

As for the investigation of the Bidens and their payoffs for blocking Ukraine’s investigation of the corruption in Burisma, the Ukrainian company that hired the protection of Biden, Trump doesn’t need to ask for it in exchange for $1 billion. Ukrainian officials have released the records. http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/11/ukrainian-officials-release-records-of.html The presstitutes have not reported the release. Don’t expect the whores to report any true facts. They are incapable of it.

Burisma holdings paid Hunter Biden $3,166,000 for protection according to the records released by Ukraine. More importantly, the information released by Ukraine, according to the report, revealed that Burisma pressured the corrupt Obama State Department to intervene to end the Ukrainian investigation of Burisma for corruption. This is precisely what the Obama regime did. Joe Biden forced the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor by giving the President of Ukraine 6 hours to fire the prosecutor, thus ending the investigation, or forfeiting $1 billion.

We all need to ask ourselves why it is Trump who is under investigation and not Biden and Obama. We already know the reason. The American media is corrupt beyond the meaning of the word. The Democrats are the most corrupt political party on the face of the earth. And the military/security complex intends to deep-six Donald Trump for threatening their budget and power by normalizing relations with Russia.

If Trump goes down, America goes with him.

Most of the world will say, “Good Riddance.”

As for the Republicans, they will not choose Trump over the campaign contributions and protection of the military/security complex. Where is Trump’s attorney general Barr? Where are the Justice Department reports of the investigations of the felonies committed by the FBI and Obama’s Justice (sic) Department in the Russiagate hoax? Hasn’t Trump noticed that his own Justice (sic) Department has hung him out to dry? Indictments for the Russiagate felonies would blow the Democrats’ impeachment of Trump out of the water. Where are the indictments? The felonies have been known without doubt for a long time. A number of former US Attorneys and Assistant US Attorneys have described the felonies committed by the Russiagate hoax in detail.

Trump’s Justice (sic) Department is going to sell him out, and democracy in America will be the casualty.

Neither political party wants the profitable swamp drained.

Source: Paul Craig Roberts Rages At The Latest ‘False’ Trump Impeachment News