Daily Archives: May 7, 2020

“There’s No Question It’s A Fraud”: Fmr Trump Attorney Says Mueller “Badly Misled” White House, Schiff Is “Nancy’s Liar” | Zero Hedge

“It’s staggering that the so-called ‘Dream Team’ would put on such a fraud…”

“There’s No Question It’s A Fraud”: Fmr Trump Attorney Says Mueller “Badly Misled” White House, Schiff Is “Nancy’s Liar”

Former Trump attorney John Dowd says it’s “staggering” that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “so-called Dream Team would put on such a fraud,” after the Wednesday release of the investigation’s “scope memo” revealed that Mueller was tasked with investigating accusations from Clinton-funded operative Christopher Steele which the DOJ already knew were debunked.

“In the last few days, I have been going back through my files and we were badly misled by Mueller and his senior people, particularly in the meetings that we had,” Dowd told Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade on Thursday.

The scope memo also revealed that Mueller’s authority went significantly beyond what was previously known – including “allegations that Carter Page committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law,” yet as John Solomon of Just The Newsnoted on Wednesday – the FBI had already:

  • fired Steele as an informant for leaking;
  • interviewed Steele’s sub-source, who disputed information attributed to him; 
  • ascertained that allegations Steele had given the FBI specifically about Page were inaccurate and likely came from Russian intelligence sources as disinformation;
  • been informed repeatedly by the CIA that Page was not a Russian stooge but, rather, a cooperating intelligence asset for the United States government.

There’s no question it’s a fraud … I think the whole report is just nonsense and it’s staggering that the so-called ‘Dream Team’ would put on such a fraud,” Dowd said, according to Fox News.

Dowd also discussed Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, which is expected to be wrapped up by the end of the summer.

“Durham has really got a load on his hands tracking all this down,” Dowd said.

Durham was appointed last year by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the events leading up to Trump’s inauguration. However, Durham has since expanded his investigation to cover a post-election timeline spanning the spring of 2017, when Mueller was appointed as special counsel. –Fox News

“Nancy’s Liar”

Dowd also circled back to a claim by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff that there was “direct evidence” that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election, despite the fact that transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews proving otherwise.

“Schiff doesn’t release these interviews because they’re going to make him a liar,” said Dowd, adding “They’re going to expose him and he’ll be run out of town.”

“He lied for months in the impeachment inquiry. He’s essentially Nancy [Pelosi]’s liar and he’s now going to be exposed.”

— Read on www.zerohedge.com/political/theres-no-question-its-fraud-fmr-trump-attorney-says-mueller-badly-misled-white-house

Schiff Folds: Publishes Russiagate Transcripts After Showdown With DNI | Zero Hedge

Let the combing-through begin…

Schiff Folds: Publishes Russiagate Transcripts After Showdown With DNI

Following the standoff between Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Acting DNI Richard Grenell, the House Intelligence Committee published all of the Russia investigation transcripts Thursday evening.

Interview Transcripts: 

*  *  *

Via SaraACarter.com,

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff is planning to selectively release  information from some of the 53 declassified transcripts of witnesses that testified before Congress regarding the FBI’s Russia probe into the Trump campaign. This move, comes after a long battle against Republican colleagues, who are fighting to make all the transcripts available to the American public, said a U.S. official, with knowledge of Schiff’s plans.

Schiff has been fighting the release of the transcripts.

The decision for Schiff to publish a selective portion of the 6,000 pages of transcripts comes after a recent public showdown with Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, who is also fighting to make all the transcripts public. In fact, Grenell reiterated in a letter Wednesday that if Schiff doesn’t make the transcripts public then he will release them himself.

Interestingly, the committee voted unanimously in the fall of 2018, to make all the transcripts public after declassification, which has already been done.

“Schiff’s planning to selectively leak to the liberal media what he wants, while keeping the truth from the American people,” said one source, familiar with Schiff’s plans.

Schiff’s office did not immediately respond to an email for comment.

A congressional source familiar with the issue said “the committee voted in the last Congress to publish all the transcripts together, precisely to avoid any staged release calculated for political effect.”

“Schiff has had possession of most of the redacted transcripts for a long time, but he used the fact that he didn’t have all of them as an excuse not to publish any,” said the congressional source.

“If he selectively publishes just some of them now, it’ll be rank hypocrisy.”

Allegedly Schiff is also having his senior subcommittee staff director and counsel with the intelligence committee contact the various heads of the intelligence community asking them to challenge plans by Grenell to release the transcripts, which were declassified prior to his arrival at DNI.

Several sources, familiar with Schiff’s actions, have stated that his refusal to release the transcripts is based on information contained in the testimony that will destroy his Russia hoax propaganda.

“Schiff has been sitting on a lot of these transcripts for a long time,” said a Republican congressional source.

“They were using this as an excuse to ensure that the White House wouldn’t have access to the transcripts, now he wants to selectively leak and that’s the game he plays – he’s definitely shifty.

— Read on www.zerohedge.com/markets/schiff-folds-will-selectively-publish-russia-hearing-transcripts-after-showdown-dni

New Russia Transcripts Appear To Show Schiff, Obama Officials Knew Trump Was Not Colluding With Russia | The Daily Wire

Newly released transcripts from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) closed door Russia investigation hearings show that former Obama officials and Schiff appeared to know that there was little to no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 election.

Here is what former Obama officials testified to when asked during Schiff’s hearings if they had or had seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia:

  • Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”
  • Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power: “I am not in possession of anything – I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.”
  • Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice: “I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.”
  • Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch: “I can’t say that it existed or not.”
  • Former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes: “I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.”

Despite the testimonies contained in the 53 transcripts, Schiff repeatedly promoted the now-debunked claim that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia during the 2016 election and went as far as to saythat he had “direct evidence” that it happened.

Donald Trump Jr. told The Daily Wire, “Sounds like it was 53 up, 53 down. None of the former Obama admin people were able to testify that they had seen evidence of collusion. These are probably the same people that the New York Times, CNN and WaPo quote as ‘former US officials’ saying that there totally was clear evidence of collusion.”

Clapper, who had testified that he had no evidence of collusion, said two years later when he was a paid CNN contributor, “What was the Trump campaign doing the same time was essentially aiding and abetting the Russians.”

The transcripts were released after Republicans pressured Schiff to release them and Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell informed Schiff that the transcripts were cleared to be released after redactions had been made.

Schiff reportedly panicked over releasing the transcripts because he knew what is is now public: that the things that he was claiming in public did not match what officials were testifying to behind closed doors.

A source close to the White House told The Daily Wire yesterday, “Schiff really is panicking In a state of panic, Schiff has been making sloppy mistakes. It was a colossally stupid mistake on his part to send his staff out to find out what role Grenell had in the process, it gave Grenell’s allies in the Intelligence Community the perfect opportunity to disclose that the redactions took place before Grenell got there. Some of Schiff’s other mistakes will play out over the next couple of days.”

— Read on http://www.dailywire.com/news/new-russia-transcripts-appear-to-show-schiff-obama-officials-knew-trump-was-not-colluding-with-russia

HOLD TIGHT: Shannon Bream: I am Told There is MUCH MORE Coming Next Week Including “A BOMBSHELL” (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

On Thursday–
** The Justice Department announced it was dropping its case against former Trump administration National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.

** DNI Richard Grenell and Intel Chair Adam Schiff both released the 53 hidden transcripts from the Mueller hoax investigation.

** Then Ed Henry broke the news tonight that DNI Richard Grenell walked a “satchel of documents” over to the Department of Justice on Thursday. Henry says the satchel contained more transcripts that may be released on Friday.

Now tonight Shannon Bream informed her audience that there is MUCH MORE coming next week including a “bombshell” from the intelligence community.

Shannon Bream: And I am told tonight there is MUCH MORE coming next week and it was described to me as “a bombshell.” So if you thought your head was spinning today stick around for that. We’re waiting the Durham Report as well. There will be much more to analyze and break down.

Via FOX News @ Night:

via HOLD TIGHT: Shannon Bream: I am Told There is MUCH MORE Coming Next Week Including “A BOMBSHELL” (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

The Great Depression, Pandemics, and the Benefit of Hard Times – The Fight of Faith

The good times are to be expected, and the hard times are surprising and strange. Perhaps that unconscious assumption is causing us grief. Wendell Berry, in his book, Jayber Crow, describes the “old-timers” in a way that seems lost on many people today. He says: “As much as any of the old-timers, he regarded the Depression as not over and done with but merely absent for a while, like Halley’s comet.”

Though many wrongly interpret this disposition as fear, there is health in this way of thinking. For many of us, politicians have promised us the world, and we have believed them. We may indeed chuckle at the thought that a single person thinks they have that much influence, still, conservatives and liberals alike often feel that the state of our existence will continue to progress and that humanity will build its tower to heaven. This thinking, of course, is foolishness. There are good days and bad days ahead for all of us. Pandemics, economic collapse, and the threat of government overreach are nothing new. They have all happened in the past, and they will occur in the future as well. Scripture itself tells us that when fiery trials come upon us, we should not think that something strange is happening to us (1 Pet. 4:12).

Bringing this to a more personal level, as long as our health is robust and our jobs feel secure, we think we can handle anything, but in the words of the late Rich Mullins, “We are not as strong as we think we are.” It does not take much for us to feel our weakness. The problem is that when our vulnerability is not apparent, a false sense of our competency begins to blind us.

For the Christian, hard times might not be the blight on our existence we think them to be. If we believe God’s word, which reminds us that God is working in our favor as much in the hard times as in the good, we have no reason to lament the difficult days, as we are prone to do.

When I think, for example, about how quickly I am prone to forget about my daily dependence upon God through prayer, I thank the Lord for the days that knock me to my knees. I am much better off on my knees in prayer after taking a hit than walking confidently without Him. Charles Spurgeon said, “I have learned to kiss the wave that throws me against the Rock of Ages.”

Maybe it is just me, but too many “good” days in a row, and I begin to forget that we are living in a fallen world. Even when evidence surrounds me, I deceive myself with a false sense of self-sufficiency, and it is not until life hits me with a reminder of my frailty that I am brought back to a favorable frame of mind.  If this is true, then some of my “hard’ times are actually my good times, and some of my “good” times are my hard times. Some days it is abundantly clear how much I need Jesus. On the other days, I am delusional. 

For the Christian, our eternal well-being is not bound up in the pleasures of this life. The scoffers will say this kind of talk shows our weakness, and they are right. I will boast all the more in my weakness. I will praise God for the days I lay helpless at His feet because those days he has promised that in my weakness his strength will be made perfect. When the hard times hit, and we find ourselves in this position, it is time to draw up under the wing of our Savior and start paying attention because He is on the move.

-D. Eaton

— Read on fightoffaithblog.com/2020/05/07/the-great-depression-pandemics-and-the-benefit-of-hard-times/

‘Never saw any direct evidence’: Clapper admission torpedoes Democrat push to revive Trump-Russia conspiracy with transcript dump — RT USA News

‘Never saw any direct evidence’: Clapper admission torpedoes Democrat push to revive Trump-Russia conspiracy with transcript dump

House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff has published all the transcripts of ‘Russigate’ interviews he previously kept secret, blaming President Donald Trump for the delay, but their content belied his conspiracy narrative.

Schiff (D-California) published on Thursday afternoon more than 50 interviews his committee had conducted over the past three years in pursuit of proof that Trump “colluded” with Russia to win the presidency in 2016. 

While it will take time to sift through the thousands of pages, some of the juicier quotes have already made their way to the public. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for example, told the committee he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/ conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”  

In addition to Clapper, the transcripts include interviews with Obama administration advisers Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power; former attorneys general Loretta Lynch and Jeff Sessions, as well as former acting AG Sally Yates; former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe and Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta; as well as Donald Trump Jr, and several people present at the Trump Tower meeting with ‘Russian lawyer’ Natalia Veselnitskaya, among others.

Rice, Rhodes, Lynch, Yates and Power likewise all admitted they hadn’t seen any specific evidence of “collusion” between Trump and Russia.

It was Clapper, along with CIA chief John Brennan and FBI director James Comey, who commissioned the infamous “intelligence community assessment” published right before Trump’s inauguration, asserting that “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election” with the goal to “undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” 

Schiff quoted that claim in his release, arguing it still stood to this day. He did not explain why it was necessary to instead try impeaching Trump for alleged improprieties in Ukraine, a process he was in charge of last December.

Earlier on Thursday, the Russiagate narrative suffered a major body blow as the Justice Department moved to dismiss all charges against Trump’s first national security adviser, General Michael Flynn, after evidence emerged that a group of senior FBI officials, in collusion with Comey, set Flynn up in a perjury trap with the goal of getting him fired. 

Comey later claimed Trump had asked him to “let Flynn go,” making it a case of obstruction that became a pretext to appoint Robert Mueller as special counsel after Trump fired Comey in May 2017.

 Also on rt.com

End of Russiagate? DOJ drops case against Trump adviser Flynn that started ‘witch hunt’

In a statement accompanying the publication, Schifff sought to blame the delay in the release of the documents on Trump’s alleged refusal to “allow the Intelligence Community to make redactions on the basis of classified information, rather than White House political interests” and accused the president of allowing the “damning information and evidence” to surface only now, “during a deadly pandemic.”

However, acting DNI Rick Grenell had sent Schiff a letter on Wednesday saying that all of the transcripts “can be released to the public without any concerns of disclosing classified material,” and adding the ODNI would be happy to release them if Schiff continues to delay.

— Read on http://www.rt.com/usa/488088-schiff-transcripts-russiagate-clapper/

‘Justice for all’: Flynn shares video of grandson saying Pledge of Allegiance after DOJ drops charges

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn shared a video of his grandson reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in his first public statement since the Department of Justice dropped the criminal charges against him.

The Justice Department moved to drop the criminal charges against Flynn in a court filing submitted Thursday. Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his conversations with a Russian diplomat before President Trump entered the White House but changed his plea and argued the FBI mistreated him.—More…

— Read on canadafreepress.com/article/justice-for-all-flynn-shares-video-of-grandson-saying-pledge-of-allegiance

May 7th The D. L. Moody Year Book

Will ye also go away?… Lord, to whom shall we go?—John 6:67, 68.

THE sun is thousands of years old, but gas is new. Shall we then use gas in place of the sun? Block up all the windows of your houses, and have nothing to do with the sun! You might as well do that as give up the Bible. Outgrown it! Why, there is no book to be compared with it. No other book will lift up the world. If you could go into a town where men were trying to live without that good book, you would flee from it as they who left Sodom and Gomorrah. Have infidels ever produced a Knox, a Bunyan, or a Milton?[1]

 

[1] Moody, D. L. (1900). The D. L. Moody Year Book: A Living Daily Message from the Words of D. L. Moody. (E. M. Fitt, Ed.) (pp. 84–85). East Northfield, MA: The Bookstore.

President Trump Remarks on DOJ Decision to Drop Charges Against Lt. Gen. Flynn… — The Last Refuge

While meeting with Texas Governor Greg Abbott in the oval office President Trump reacted to the breaking news about the DOJ decision to drop the case against Michael Flynn.

President Trump notes Lt. Gen Flynn was “targeted by the Obama administration”, adding “a thing like this has never happened before in the history of our country”.  President Trump remarked “I hope a lot of people are going to pay a big price, because they are dishonest people; they’re scum.” … “they are human scum.”  “The Obama administration justice department was a disgrace, and they got caught, they got caught, they are dishonest people.  But much more than dishonest, it’s treason.”

President Trump continued: “I’m very happy for General Flynn he was a great warrior, and he still is a great warrior, now in my book he’s an even greater warrior.  What happened to him should never happen again; and what happened to this presidency, to go through all of that and still do more than any president has ever done in the first three years is pretty amazing when you think of it.”  [WATCH]

via President Trump Remarks on DOJ Decision to Drop Charges Against Lt. Gen. Flynn… — The Last Refuge

President Trump Delivers Remarks During National Day of Prayer Service – Video and Transcript… — The Last Refuge

Earlier today President Trump, First Lady Melania, Vice-President Mike Pence and Second Lady Karen Pence hosted a National Day of Prayer service in the Rose Garden of the White House. It was a very special event. [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript]

via President Trump Delivers Remarks During National Day of Prayer Service – Video and Transcript… — The Last Refuge

Repentance- what does it look like? — Reformed Perspective

It’s embarrassing but true: all around us we see people seriously messing up, ourselves included. It happened to people in the Bible  too. If Noah could get drunk and lie naked, if Abraham could lie about his wife being his sister, if Moses could kill the Egyptian, if David could commit adultery with Bathsheba and then kill her husband to cover his tracks, if Peter could deny the Lord three times in a row, then on what grounds would we think we are above similar sins? We too yield to the lusts of the flesh; murder (abortion or suicide), drunkenness (think also of drug abuse), adultery, consumerism, hedonism, wasting one’s time or talents or resources, and so many more sins appear among godly people who regularly attend church.

Effect

The effect of sin is devastating.  As children of God, unconfessed sin has a way of getting inside our hearts so that we feel guilty – thankfully. But not every child of God immediately admits their sin in repentance.  Then it becomes difficult to pray, and the desire to open the Bible evaporates, and they end up going to church and to the Lord’s Table because you don’t want to draw attention to themselves, and God seems so far away – until they return to the right way through sincere repentance. (See David’s experience of the effect of sin after his affair with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 & 12.)

For that’s the gospel of the perseverance of the saints: even when His people fall into terrible sins, God will not desert His own! Rather, He works upon them through His Holy Spirit so that repentance comes about – eventually.  That’s our God: He does not forsake the work His hand has begun.

Repentance

What, though, does repentance actually look like?

Scripture speaks often about repentance. It consists of two parts, the dying of the old nature and the coming to life of the new. The dying of the old nature in turn is built on three aspects: it is

  1. to grieve with heartfelt sorrow that we have offended God by our sin, and
  2. more and more to hate sin and
  3. flee from it.

David speaks of his repentance from his affair with Bathsheba in Psalm 51:

“For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.” (Psalm 51:3-4) And, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit.” (Psalm 51:10-12)

1. Grief

The grief we’re talking about here is not a sense of “oops.”  Rather, it’s anguish of the heart: “heartfelt sorrow” that we’ve offended our holy God. Peter “went outside and wept bitterly” (Mt 26:75) – and that’s obviously grief from a broken and contrite heart. His sin bothered him: deep inside he felt absolutely rotten.

2. Hate

Sorrow for the sin one has committed comes coupled with a sense of hate. No, it’s not hatred for the neighbor, but hatred of the sin and all that led to the sin. It’s a loathing of self too in the sense that one is far from proud of one’s accomplishments and abilities. The hate leads to a deep sense of humiliation.  It’s what the psalmist called a “broken and contrite heart” (Ps. 51).

3. Flee

The result, in turn, is that one flees, gets away from the proximity to whatever led to the sin – for he doesn’t want to fall again into the snare of the devil or the world, or succumb to the weaknesses of his own flesh. Yet it’s not just a fleeing from; it’s also a fleeing to – to Christ in whose blood there is abundant forgiveness.

Actually, it takes quite a man to flee.  One can assume that any true man will stand his ground and conquer his opponent.  Yet any General out to win the war knows that there comes the moment when he has to retreat – and that’s not an admission of failure but a display of prudence.  The child of God knows he has no chance against enemies such as the devil, the world, and his own flesh, and so flees to Christ who has defeated the devil and the world, and has poured out His Holy Spirit so that the fight against the flesh is possible.  To stand and fight on our own in this instance is actually a display of pride – and the taller one’s pride the harder one’s fall shall be.

The coming to life of the new nature

Repentance is more than the dying of the old nature; the other side of the coin is that a new nature is increasingly made alive.  This coming to life of the new nature has two aspects:

  1. a heartfelt joy in God through Christ, and
  2. a love and delight to live according to the will of God in all good works.

1. Joy

Fleeing to Christ brings one into the arms of the Savior who conquered sin and Satan, and reconciled sinners to God.  His good news is that my atrocious sin is washed away like gravy off a plate – irretrievably gone.  Holy God, then, does not look upon me as the murderer or adulterer or thief or drunkard I am, but sees me as washed clean in Jesus’ blood.  Instead of anger and judgment, there is mercy and grace.  That reality cannot leave the heart untouched, but fills it with grateful joy and songs of thanksgiving.

2. Live

That sense of gratitude for deliverance from the righteous judgment of God results in a renewed determination to live for God in all I do.  Instead of the environment that led to the sin, the repentant child of God actively pursues a different environment, one that promotes a lifestyle pleasing to the Lord God.  He surrounds himself with friends and activities that encourage praise for the Redeemer and discourage another relapse.

Repentant people grieve from the heart with a godly sorrow for the sins they have committed; they seek and obtain through faith with a contrite heart forgiveness in the blood of the Mediator; they again experience the favor of a reconciled God and adore His mercies and faithfulness. And from now on they more diligently work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

Important?

Is the doctrine of repentance worth repeating for general consumption?  I’d argue that the answer is Yes, simply because our culture does not know what repentance is.  One “apologizes,” one says “sorry,” but the grief and the hate and the fleeing and the joy and the delighting to live God’s way is a rare thing in our country’s public and not so public life.

To cry buckets of tears is not the same as repentance, and an expression of remorse is not the same as repentance either.  Judas Iscariot “was seized with remorse” when he saw that Jesus was condemned, and “returned the 30 silver coins to the chief priests”, and even admitted that “I have sinned, for I have betrayed innocent blood” (Mt 27:3,4).  But his remorse and his admission did not amount to repentance; for he did not flee to the Christ he betrayed and pursue a life of godliness. Similarly, Esau’s tears at missing out on the first-born blessing did not amount to repentance (Hebrews 12:17).

Repentance is so much more than saying “sorry,” for it involves the heart. Repentance goes beyond remorse, for it involves a changed lifestyle. Repentance is not shallow, for it involves a deep awareness that none less than holy God has been offended. Repentance fills one with joy, because God’s declaration of forgiveness-for-Jesus’-sake heals and thrills the heart broken on account of sin.

How merciful my God: He restores the undeserving!

Rev. Clarence Bouwman is a pastor in the Smithville Canadian Reformed Church.

via Repentance- what does it look like? — Reformed Perspective

Obama, Biden, Comey, Yates, Rice and Brennan Discussed Flynn-Kislyak Calls in January 2017 Secret Oval Office Meeting — The Gateway Pundit

2020 Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden was in the January 2017 Oval Office meeting discussing General Flynn’s phone calls with Russian Ambassador Kislyak with Obama, Yates, Comey, Rice and Brennan.

The Justice Department dropped its case against General Mike Flynn Thursday after bombshell documents released proved he was framed by Comey’s FBI.

On January 4, 2017, just ONE DAY before the Oval Office meeting, the FBI field office found “No derogatory information” on Flynn and decided to close the counterintelligence probe dubbed Crossfire Razor.

On January 5th, 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey held a secret meeting in the Oval Office before he traveled to Trump Tower New York to brief president-elect Donald Trump on the Hillary-funded junk Russia dossier.

This unusual meeting to discuss the dossier and the FBI’s Russia investigation that took place in January of 2017 in Obama’s White House was discovered in February of 2018 by then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

Senator Grassley uncovered a bizarre, partially declassified email former NatSec Advisor to Barack Obama, Susan Rice sent herself on January 20th 2017–Donald Trump’s inauguration day.

It was previously known the junk Russia dossier was discussed, but now we know they were also discussing General Flynn’s calls to Kislyak — A NON-CRIME!

The DOJ in its motion to dismiss said the FBI kept open its counterintelligence investigation into Flynn based solely on his calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

“The calls were entirely appropriate on their face.” – the DOJ said in its motion to dismiss the case.

But Biden, Comey, Obama, Yates, Brennan, Clapper and Susan Rice used Flynn’s calls with Kislyak to plot and scheme his removal and prosecution.

According to newly declassified documents, then-Deputy AG Sally Yates said she first learned of the December 2016 calls between Flynn and Kislyak from Barack Obama in the January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting.

Obama dismissed part of the group and told Yates, Biden, Rice, and Comey to stick around for a follow-up conversation in the Oval Office.

According to Yates, Obama started by saying he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Kislyak about sanctions.

Read about Yates’ awareness of the Flynn-Kislyak calls:

Biden is the swamp personified — not only did he spend 8 years as Barack Obama’s Vice President, he participated in the secret Oval Office meeting with the coup plotters shortly before Donald Trump’s inauguration.

We won’t hold our breath waiting for the media to ask Joe Biden about his role in plotting and scheming against Flynn.

via Obama, Biden, Comey, Yates, Rice and Brennan Discussed Flynn-Kislyak Calls in January 2017 Secret Oval Office Meeting — The Gateway Pundit

Flynn Attorney Sidney Powell Reacts to DOJ Dropping Case… — The Last Refuge

Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell calls-in to Lou Dobbs to discuss events as the DOJ drops charges against his client.

Ms. Powell notes there is much more investigative effort to be done to show the public just what took place as President Trump and his officials were targeted by the former administration.   However, tonight we celebrate a victory for her and her client.

via Flynn Attorney Sidney Powell Reacts to DOJ Dropping Case… — The Last Refuge

Why Did Barack Obama Know About Flynn’s Calls with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in Early January 2017? — The Gateway Pundit

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, James Comey, Sally Yates, Susan Rice and John Brennan discussed General Flynn’s phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in a January 5 2017 secret Oval Office meeting.

On January 5th, 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey held a secret meeting in the Oval Office before he traveled to Trump Tower New York to brief president-elect Donald Trump on the Hillary-funded junk Russia dossier.

It was previously known the junk Russia dossier was discussed, but now we know they were also discussing General Flynn’s calls to Kislyak — A NON-CRIME!

According to newly declassified documents, then-Deputy AG Sally Yates said she first learned of the December 2016 calls between Flynn and Kislyak from Barack Obama in the January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting.

Obama dismissed part of the group and told Yates, Biden, Rice, and Comey to stick around for a follow-up conversation in the Oval Office.

According to Yates, Obama started by saying he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Kislyak about sanctions.

Why did Sally Yates learn about Flynn’s calls with Kislyak from Obama?

According to the document, Yates “was so surprised by the information she was hearing, she was having a hard time processing it and listening to the conversation at the same time.”

Why did Obama know this information? Washington Post reporter David Ignatius didn’t publish the story about Flynn’s communications with Kislyak until January 12, a full week after the secret Oval Office meeting.

On Thursday, the DOJ said the investigation of Flynn was based “solely on his calls with Kislyak.” It sure looks like Obama orchestrated the Flynn-Kislyak-Logan Act investigation!

WATCH:

The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into General Flynn in August of 2016 dubbed “Crossfire Razor” over his ties to ‘various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation.’

Another reason why a full CI investigation was opened into Flynn? Because he was a foreign policy advisor to Trump.

Flynn was being spied on and Barack Obama, the micromanager, knew about it and was involved in sabotaging Trump’s transition team!

via Why Did Barack Obama Know About Flynn’s Calls with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in Early January 2017? — The Gateway Pundit

Top JPMorgan Investment Officer: It Will Take ’10 to 12 Years’ for U.S. Employment Levels to Return — BCNN1 – Black Christian News Network

J.P. Morgan Chief Investment Officer Bob Michele predicted it will take 10-12 years after the pandemic for U.S. employment to get back to its pre-coronavirus level, insisting it won’t be as simple as turning the economy back on.

“No, it’s not that simple … it’s going to take years, or longer to get back to where we are, or where we were,” Michele said on Bloomberg when asked if reopening would be as simple as “turning on the lights.”

Michele noted that there was a huge error when predicting unemployment numbers, as millions of Americans are losing their jobs amid the pandemic. He then compared unemployment rates during the coronavirus outbreak to the 2008 financial crisis.

“When you look at the congressional budget office forecast for the end of 2021, they have unemployment at 9 percent, so sure, materially better than where we’re going to peak in the high teens, but during the peak of the financial crisis, unemployment hit 10 percent,” he said. “So even looking out a year and a half from now, we’re still going to be roughly where we were at the peak of the financial crisis.”

Source: Associated Press

via Top JPMorgan Investment Officer: It Will Take ’10 to 12 Years’ for U.S. Employment Levels to Return — BCNN1 – Black Christian News Network

HPSCI and ODNI Release 53 Declassified Transcripts From ‘Russia-gate’ Witness Testimony… — The Last Refuge

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) have both released a set of 53 declassified transcripts from the 2018 House investigation. Grenell forced Schiff’s compliance.

The House Transcripts are AVAILABLE HERE

The ODNI Transcripts are AVAILABLE HERE.

Due to the sensitivity of content; and due to Chairman Adam Schiff’s previous statement that his staff was re-reviewing to add redactions; I would strongly urge everyone who is reviewing the transcripts to use the ODNI version.

Additionally, CTH is providing links to the ODNI pdf versions below.

1. Alexander Nix

2. Anatoli Samachornov

3. Andrew Brown

4. Andrew McCabe

5. Benjamin Rhodes

6. Boris Epshteyn

7. Brad Parscale

8. Corey Lewandowski (Jan 2018)

9. Corey Lewandowski (Mar 2018)

10. Daniel Coats

11. David Kramer (Dec 2017)

12. David Kramer (Jan 2018)

13. Diana Denman

14. Donald Trump, Jr.

15. Evelyn Farkas

16. FBI Special Agent

17. Felix Sater

18. Hope Hicks

19. Ike Kaveladze

20. Jake Sullivan

21. James Clapper

22. Jared Kushner

23. Jefferson Sessions

24. Jeffrey Gordon

25. John Carlin

26. John Podesta (Dec 2017)

27. John Podesta (Jun 2017)

28. Jonathan Safron

29. Keith Schiller

30. Loretta Lynch

31. Marc Elias

32. Mary McCord

33. Matthew Tait

34. Michael Caputo

35. Michael Cohen

36. Michael Goldfarb

37. Michael Sussman

38. Peter Fritsch

39. Rhona Graff

40. Rick Dearborn

41. Rinat Akhmetshin

42. Rob Goldstone

43. Roger Stone

44. Sally Yates

45. Samantha Power

46. Samuel Clovis

47. Shawn Henry

48. Stephen Bannon (Feb 2018)

49. Stephen Bannon (Jan 2018)

50. Susan Rice

51. Thomas Catan

52. Walid Phares

53. Yared Tamene

It is going to take some time to go through the transcripts and review for details that will be important context for later events and releases.   However, if you are doing your own research feel free to provide information on your findings in the comment section below.

via HPSCI and ODNI Release 53 Declassified Transcripts From ‘Russia-gate’ Witness Testimony… — The Last Refuge

May—7 The Poor Man’s Evening Portion

Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer. Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.—Rev. 2:10.

My soul! thy last evening meditation, by faith, was on Pisgah’s top. This evening, do thou attend to what thy Saviour speaks in this scripture of the prospect of a prison. This forms the state and condition of the believer. The transition he is sometimes, and suddenly, called to make is, from the house of feasting to the house of mourning. He is here but by a wilderness at the best; and whatever accommodations he meets with by the way, the apartments of joy and sorrow are both under the same roof, and very often it is but a step from one to the other; yea, sometimes, and not unfrequently, when Jesus hath been feasting with his people, and they with him, before the cloth hath been taken away, and the blessings offered up, a reverse of circumstances hath followed.—But what saith thy Lord in this sweet scripture (for it is a sweet one, if well considered)? “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer.” There is a fear which belongs to our very nature, and impossible wholly to be free from; it is indeed part of ourselves. No creature of God but one, and that is the Leviathan, that we read of, is wholly free from it. (Job 41:33.) The blessed Jesus himself, when assuming our nature, condescended to take all the sinless infirmities of our nature, and therefore was subject in some degree to it; for we are told that “he was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.” (Rom. 8:3.) Hence, we read, that his holy soul, when in the garden, was “sore troubled, sore amazed, and very heavy.” Listen, my soul, to these complaints of thy Redeemer! And when at any time fear ariseth within at the conflicts of Satan, recollect how Jesus felt during his unequalled agony. One look, by faith, directed to him, as in the garden, will quiet all. “Having himself suffered, being tempted, he knows how to succour them that are tempted.”—But, besides this natural fear, to which our nature is subject, there is a sinful fear, which unbelief, doubt, and distrust, too often bring into the soul. And it is this, if I mistake not, to which Jesus hath respect in his precept before us. All hell is up in arms to harass and distress a child of God; and if the devil cannot deprive the believer of his heavenly crown, he will rob him as much as possible of his earthly comfort. Mark, then, my soul, what thy Jesus here proposeth for relief. The devil would cast thee into hell, if he could; but his rage can reach no farther than to a prison. He would cast the whole Church, if he could, into it; but it shall be only some of the Church. He would cause the confinement, if he could, to be for ever; but Jesus saith, it shall only be for ten days. And the Holy Ghost hath caused it to be left on record, as a thing much to be observed, that when the Church was in Egypt, and Pharaoh would have kept the people in vassalage for ever, yet when the Lord’s time before appointed, was arrived, “the selfsame night, the Lord brought them forth with their armies.” (Exod. 12:41, 42.) Oh! it is a subject worthy to be kept in everlasting remembrance, that “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation.” Now, my soul, ponder well these things; and connect with them what Jesus hath connected with the subject in that sweet promise: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” Precious Jesus! put thy fear in me; and the fear of man, which bringeth a snare, will depart. Be thou with me in trouble, and my trouble will be turned into joy. Should a prison shut me in, no prison can shut thee out. Every distressing thought will be hushed asleep, while by faith I hear my Lord speaking to me, in those soul-comforting words: “Fear thou not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy God. I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.” (Isaiah 41:10.)[1]

 

[1] Hawker, R. (1845). The Poor Man’s Evening Portion (A New Edition, pp. 140–142). Philadelphia: Thomas Wardle.

May 7, 2020 Evening Verse Of The Day

The First Communion

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. (22:19–20)

It is impossible to overstate the monumental change these few simple phrases introduce. Christ’s words signaled the end of the Old Covenant, with its social, ceremonial, dietary, and Sabbath laws, and installed the New Covenant. With these words, Jesus marked the end of all the rituals and sacrifices, the priesthood, the holy place, and the Holy of Holies, the curtain of which God would soon split from top to bottom, throwing it wide open (Mark 15:38). All that the Old Covenant symbolism pointed toward would be fulfilled in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus’ taking of the bread and giving thanks took place after the singing of the first part of the Hallel (Pss. 113, 114), followed by the second cup of wine, and the explanation of the meaning of Passover, while they were eating the main meal (Matt. 26:26).

Having taken the bread, Jesus then broke it and gave it to them. The bread was no longer the Passover “bread of affliction” (Deut. 16:3), nor was the breaking of the loaf a figure of Christ’s death, since none of His bones were broken (John 19:36; cf. Ex. 12:46). The disciples’ all partaking of the same loaf symbolized the unity of the body of Christ.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation perverts the intent of Jesus’ reference to the bread as My body. According to that doctrine, during the mass the substance (though not the outward appearance) of the bread and wine are changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. The Lutheran notion of spiritual presence (known as consubstantiation) is also an errant view of our Lord’s words. According to that view

the molecules [of the bread and wine] are not changed into flesh and blood; they remain bread and wine. But the body and blood of Christ are present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. It is not that the bread and wine have become Christ’s body and blood, but that we now have the body and blood in addition to the bread and wine. (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985], 3:1117)

Christ’s statement is no more to be taken literally than are His references to Himself as a door (John 10:9), vine (John 15:1, 5), and bread (John 6:35, 48). Such language is figurative, symbolically conveying spiritual truth using everyday items. Bread pictures things that are earthly, fragile, and subject to decay, symbolizing the reality that the Son of God took on human form and became subject to death.

The phrase which is given for you introduces the most important truth in the Bible—substitutionary atonement. As noted above, Passover conveyed the twin truths that divine wrath and justice can only be satisfied by death, but that death can be the death of innocent substitutes for the guilty. The millions of lambs that were slain throughout the centuries were all innocent. Animals are incapable of sinning, since they are not persons, and have no morality or self-consciousness. Jesus, however, is both innocent and a person—fully man as well as God. Therefore His substitutionary atonement death was acceptable to God to satisfy His holy condemnation of sin. Isaiah wrote, “He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed” (Isa. 53:5; cf. v. 12). Jesus “bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds [we] were healed” (1 Peter 2:24). God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Then in the same way (that is, with thanks; cf. v. 19) Jesus took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” The cup was the third cup, which came after the meal. That it was poured out for you “for forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28) is another declaration of Christ’s death as a substitute for all who would believe. Sin can only be forgiven when satisfactory payment to God in the form of the death of the perfect sacrifice has been rendered. The Lord Jesus’ death was that payment. As the infinite God incarnate, He was actually able to bear the sins of and suffer God’s wrath for those sins on behalf of all who would ever believe, rescuing them from divine judgment by fully satisfying the demands of God’s justice.

His death inaugurated the new covenant which, like the Old Covenant, was ratified by the shedding of blood (Ex. 24:8; Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:18–20). The New Covenant (Jer. 31:31–34; cf. Ezek. 36:25–27) is a covenant of forgiveness (Jer. 31:34) and the only saving covenant. As noted above, it was ratified by the blood of Christ, whose death as an innocent substitute satisfied the demands of God’s justice. (For a detailed discussion of the New Covenant, see 2 Corinthians, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 2003], chaps. 7 and 8.)

Regular observance of the Lord’s Supper is to be a constant reminder to Christians of the Lamb of God, chosen by God, sacrificed for sinners, whose death satisfied the demands of God’s justice, and whose life was poured out on our behalf so that our sins can be fully and forever forgiven. Paul summarized the significance of the Lord’s Supper when he wrote to the Corinthian believers,

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. (1 Cor. 11:23–26)[1]


19–20 As stated above, these words of institution may come from a non-Markan source. Similar wording in 1 Corinthians 11:24–25, written before AD 60, shows that it was probably an early source used by both Luke and Paul. This supports the reliability of Luke’s research (1:1–4). The suffering motif is consistent with Jesus’ understanding of his mission as the Suffering Servant.

The “bread” (arton, GK 788, v. 19) was the thin, unleavened bread used in the Passover. “Gave thanks” translates the verb eucharisteō (GK 2373), the source of the beautiful word Eucharist often used to signify the Lord’s Supper. Luke alone has “given for you” (hyper hymōn didomenon [GK 1443]) in the saying over the bread, as well as “poured out for you” (to hyper hymōn ekchynnomenon [GK 1773]) in the cup saying (v. 20). The “pouring out” may be interpreted as a symbolic act that points to Jesus’ own death on the cross (see, however, L. C. Boughton, “ ‘Being Shed for You/Many’: Time-Sense and Consequences in the Synoptic Cup Citations,” TynBul 48 [1997]: 249–70, who points to the possibility of a future reference in this present passive participle).

“In remembrance of me” (v. 19) directs our attention primarily to the person of Christ and not merely to the benefits we receive (of whatever nature we may understand them to be) from partaking of the bread and cup. The final cup, following the sequence of several refillings during the Passover, signifies the “new covenant” (v. 20) in Jesus’ blood. The disciples would have been reminded of the “blood of the covenant” (Ex 24:8), i.e., the blood used ceremonially to confirm the covenant. The new covenant (cf. Jer 31:31–34) carried with it assurance of forgiveness through Jesus’ blood shed on the cross and the inner work of the Holy Spirit in motivating us and enabling us to fulfill our covenantal responsibility.[2]


19–20          Jesus follows generally the order of the Passover celebration, but lingers over the bread and cup in order to charge them with interpretive significance that draws on yet departs from the meaning of Passover. Interestingly, though sacrificial images are present in these verses (see below), Jesus evokes no direct comparison between the Passover lamb and himself, preferring instead to interpret the bread and cup.60 Nor does Luke portray the manner of his death with reference to the breaking of the bread, an act that is merely preparatory to the distribution of the bread and devoid of symbolic significance. If the breaking of the bread bears no metaphorical weight, this is not true of its distribution, however. “Giving one’s body” is potent as an image for giving one’s life (in battle) for the sake of one’s people.62 The sequence Luke describes with reference to the bread—took + gave thanks + broke + gave—is reminiscent of Jesus’ actions in the feeding of the multitudes in 9:16. It is remarkable that the feeding miracle is also set in a co-text in which kingdom proclamation and messianic suffering figure prominently (9:1–27). The Scriptures employ the image of “the cup” both with reference to participation in salvation and, especially, with reference to divine judgment.65 Similarly, “blood poured out” signals violent death. Jesus, then, is not enacting (or teaching his followers how to reenact) his death through his actions;67 rather, he is interpreting through his words the significance of this Passover and, thus, of his death.

Jesus follows up the bread word with instruction to “Do this in remembrance of me.” The notion of “remembrance” is pivotal to the celebration of Passover and cannot be limited, as it often is in English usage, to the idea of cognitive recall of a prior occurrence. In the biblical tradition, cognitive (or affective) recall is often triggered by verbal communication for that purpose, and this provides the impetus for some response or action. In a related sense, “remembrance” is often employed with the sense of “the effect of the recollection of the past for present or future benefit.”69 With the repeated celebration of Passover as precursor, and with this linguistic background for the understanding of remembrance, we may understand Jesus as instructing his followers not only to continue sharing meals together, but to do so in a way that their fellowship meals recalled the significance of his own life and death in obedience to God on behalf of others. This recollection should have the effect of drawing forth responses reminiscent of Jesus’ own table manners—his openness to outsiders, his comportment as a servant, his indifference toward issues of status honor, and the like—so that these features of his life would come to be embodied in the community of those who call him Lord. “A meal in memory of Jesus is one which celebrates and prolongs his lifestyle of justice and of serving the Father’s food to all.”

If “the cup” is a metaphorical referent to divine judgment, the train of thought thus initiated is helped along by the reference to “blood poured out,” which signals violent death and sacrifice. The phraseology of v 20 (“new covenant in my blood”) goes further, alluding to two OT texts that indicate Jesus’ interpretation of his death as an effective, covenantal sacrifice. The language of “new covenant” is drawn from Jer 31:31–34; there, as in the portrayal of the ministry of Jesus in the Third Gospel, the eschatological work of God is developed with reference to the forgiveness of sins. Indeed, throughout Luke-Acts, Jesus is presented as the Savior who grants forgiveness of sins. Setting the cup-word within the larger framework of Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ ministry disallows any notion of a “new covenant” discontinuous with the old, for Luke has emphasized the continuity between the ancient purpose of God and its fulfillment in the coming of Jesus. Similarly, in a number of Qumranic texts, the phrase “new covenant” functions as a cipher for a renewal of the covenant in conjunction with those whom God has called.73 Additionally, in the phrase “covenant in my blood,” one may hear an allusion to Exod 24:8, the covenant sacrifice that, in targumic texts, is interpreted as having been effective as an atoning sacrifice for the people by which they were brought into covenant with Yahweh. By means of this allusion, a typological relationship is drawn between the covenant sacrifice of Exod 24:8 and the death of Jesus, so that Jesus’ death is said to atone for the sins of the people and thus to enable their participation in the renewed, eschatological covenant with God.

“Covenant” is fundamentally a relational term, pointing in this case to the bond of fidelity and love between God and humanity. The “you” with whom Jesus thus renews the divine covenant refers to the apostles who have joined him at the table, but it is precisely here that Luke’s rationale for designating them in this co-text as “apostles” (rather than “disciples”) comes into sharp focus. As “apostles,” they are chosen to represent and to lead Israel (cf. 6:12–16; 22:29–30); hence, this covenant is extended beyond Jesus’ immediate table partners to all who embrace “good news to the poor” (see above on 4:18–19).

It is remarkable that this Lukan text attributes such far-reaching significance to the death of Jesus, since the notion of the cross’s substitutionary role is completely missing in the missionary sermons in Acts and otherwise present only in Paul’s farewell address (Acts 20:28). Elsewhere, Luke emphasizes more pointedly (and pervasively) the salvific role of Jesus’ exaltation.[3]


22:19 took … gave thanks … broke … gave. See comments on the same sequence of verbs used in 9:16 (and in all the other Gospel accounts of that event) and also in 24:30.

This is my body given for you. In the setting of the Passover meal, where foods symbolized historical events, the verb “is” is naturally understood as meaning “represents” rather than suggesting a transformation of the bread into another substance (especially as Jesus was bodily present, holding the bread). The “giving” of his body, together with the “pouring out” of his blood (22:20), points to his sacrificial death; in effect he himself takes the place of the Passover lamb. But exactly how this giving and pouring out are “for you” is not spelled out in Luke’s version; Matthew 26:28 adds that Jesus’s blood is poured out “for the forgiveness of sins,” and compare Mark 10:45, where Jesus says that he gives his life “as a ransom for many.”

Do this in remembrance of me. The Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper derives from this instruction, repeated also after the cup in the fuller version in 1 Corinthians 11:24–25. Whatever other significance the Lord’s Supper may carry, it remains in essence, like the Passover, a memorial of a historical saving event.[4]


Vers. 19, 20.—And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Around these words, and the parallel passages in SS. Matthew and Mark, for more than a thousand years fierce theological disputes have raged. Men have gone gladly to prison and to death rather than renounce what they believed to be the true interpretation. Now, a brief exegetical commentary is not the place to enter into these sad controversies. It will be sufficient here to indicate some of the lines of thought which the prayerful earnest reader might wisely follow out so as to attain certain just ideas respecting the blessed rite here instituted—ideas which may suffice for a practical religious life. Now, we possess a Divine commentary on this sacrament instituted by our Lord. It is noticeable that St. John, whose Gospel was the latest or well-nigh the latest of the canonical writings of the New Testament, when at great length he relates the story of the last Passover evening and its teaching, does not allude to the institution of that famous service, which, when he wrote his Gospel, had become part of the settled experience of Church life. He presupposes it; for it had passed then into the ordinary life of the Church. In another and earlier portion of his Gospel, however, St. John (6:32–58) gives us a record of the Lord’s discourse in the synagogue of Capernaum, in which Jesus, while speaking plainly to those who heard him at the time, gave by anticipation a commentary on the sacrament which he afterwards instituted. The truth which was taught in this discourse is presented in a specific act and in a concrete form in the Holy Communion. In the fifty-third verse of that sixth chapter we read, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” How is this now to be done? We reply that our Lord has clothed these ideas and brought them near to us in this sacrament; while, by his teaching in the sixth chapter of St. John, he guards this sacrament from being regarded on the one hand as an end in itself, or on the other as a mere symbol. Certain truths, great landmarks laid down in this discourse, have to be borne in mind. (1) The separation of the flesh of the Son of man into flesh and blood (John 6:53) presupposes a violent death submitted to for the sake of others (John 6:51). (2) Both these elements, the flesh and the blood, are to be appropriated individually by the believer (John 6:56). (3) How appropriated? St. Bernard well answers the question which he asks: “What is it to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, but to share in his sufferings and to imitate the life he lived when with us in the flesh?” (St. Bernard, on Ps. 3:3). “If ye suffer with him, ye shall also reign with him.” The Holy Eucharist is from one point of view a great truth dramatized, instituted for the purpose of bringing before men in a vivid manner the great truths above alluded to. But it is something more. It brings to the believer, to the faithful communicant, to the one who in humble adoring faith carries out to the best of his ability his Master’s dying charge—it brings a blessing too great for us to measure by earthly language, too deep for us to fathom with human inquiry. For the partaking of this Holy Communion is, first, the Christian’s solemn public confession of his faith in Christ crucified; his solemn private declaration that it is his deliberate wish to suffer with his Lord and for his Lord’s sake; that it is, too, his firm purpose to imitate the earthly life lived by his Lord. The partaking of this Holy Communion, too, is the Christian’s most solemn prayer for strength thus to suffer and to live. It is, too, his fervent expression of belief that this strength will be surely given to him. Further, the partaking of this Holy Communion is, above all, the Christian’s most solemn prayer for living union with Christ—“that Christ may dwell in his heart by faith.” It is, too, his fervent expression of belief that “then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us.” This confession, declaration, and prayer he constantly renews in obedience to the dying command of his Master. It is difficult to understand how any belief in a physical change in the elements of bread and wine, such as is involved in the theory of transubstantiation held in the Roman Church, or of consubstantiation in the Lutheran community, can be supposed to enhance the reverence of the communicant, or to augment the blessing promised. The words of the Lord, “This is my body … my blood,” cannot surely be pressed, seeing that the same Divine Speaker was in his discourses in the habit of using imagery which could not literally be pressed, such as “I am the Bread of life,” “I am the Door of the sheep,” “I am the true Vine,” etc. Nothing that can be conceived is more solemn than the simple rite, more awful in its grandeur, more Divine and far-reaching in its promises to the faithful believer. Human imaginings add nothing to this Divine mystery, which is connected at once with the Incarnation and the Atonement. They only serve to envelop it in a shroud of earth-born mist and cloud, and thus to dim if not to veil its Divine glory.[5]


Luke 22:19. Which is given for you. The other two Evangelists leave out this clause, which, however, is far from being superfluous; for the reason why the flesh of Christ becomes bread to us is, that by it salvation was once procured for us. And as the crucified flesh itself is of no advantage but to those who eat it by faith, so, on the other hand, the eating of it would be unmeaning, and of hardly any value, were it not in reference to the sacrifice which was once offered. Whoever then desires that the flesh of Christ should afford nourishment to him, let him look at it as having been offered on the cross, that it might be the price of our reconciliation with God. But what Matthew and Mark leave out in reference to the symbol of bread, they express in reference to the cup, saying, that the blood was to be shed for the remission of sins; and this observation must be extended to both clauses. So then, in order that we may feed aright on the flesh of Christ, we must contemplate the sacrifice of it, because it was necessary that it should have been once given for our salvation, that it might every day be given to us.[6]


19. The taking, breaking and distribution of bread were regular features of the Passover observance and would cause no surprise. But as he gave it to his followers Jesus said, This is my body, words which have caused endless controversy in the church. The critical point is the meaning of is. Some argue for a change of the bread into the body of Christ, but the verb can mean very various kinds of identification, as we see from such statements as ‘I am the door’, ‘I am the bread of life’, ‘that rock was Christ’. In this case identity cannot be in mind, for Jesus’ body was physically present at the time. It must be used in some such sense as ‘represents’, ‘signifies’, or, perhaps, ‘conveys’ (cf. Moffatt, ‘This means …’). The statement is a strong one and must not be watered down, but it must not be overpressed either. The addition, which is given for you, looks forward to Calvary (cf. Fitzmyer, ‘The vicarious gift of himself’). It speaks of Jesus’ death for his people. This is not something that springs from the Passover ritual. That spoke of deliverance but not of vicarious sacrifice. Jesus is interpreting his death in a Passover context and making it clear that it has saving significance. Ellis thinks that the words about the body and blood here ‘can be explained only as an implicit reference to the suffering Servant who, as the covenant representative, “poured out his soul to death and … bore the sins of many” (Isa. 53:12).’ The command, Do this in remembrance of me, does not mean, as some claim, that the communion is essentially a pleading of Christ before the Father. It is lest we forget, not lest he forget.[7]


22:19 some bread” Notice that the lamb is not mentioned. This meal has a completely new relevance for the church and is not linked inseparably to an annual Feast of national Israel. It symbolized a new deliverance (exodus) from sin (cf. Jer. 31:31–34).

“ ‘This is My body’ ” There have been four major understandings of this meal in the church: (1) Roman Catholic trans-substantiation, which means that this is in reality the body of Christ; (2) Martin Luther’s con-substantiation, which is slightly less literal than number 1; (3) John Calvin’s spiritual presence, which is slightly less literal than numbers 1 and 2; and finally (4) Zwingli’s symbolic (Baptist) understanding. The interpretation that the elements actually become the body and blood of Christ comes from John 6:43–58 which, in context, is the feeding of the five thousand and the Jews expectation that the Messiah would feed them as Moses did, not the Lord’s Supper.

“ ‘do this in remembrance of Me’ ” This is a PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE. The phrase is unique to Luke’s Gospel. The word anamnēsis occurs twice in Paul’s account of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor. 11:24, 25. Luke may have gotten his terminology from Paul’s churches. This is probably why there are several non-Lukan forms and words in Luke 22:19b–20.[8]


Institution of the Supper (19, 20). 19. And he took bread, and gave thanks (see on Mark 6:41). In Matthew and Mark it is “and blessed it.” The one act includes the other. He “gave thanks,” not so much here for the literal bread, as for that higher food which was couched under it; and He “blessed” it as the ordained channel of spiritual nourishment. and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. ‘The expression, “This is my body,” ’ says Alexander most truly, ‘which is common to all the accounts, appears so unambiguous and simple an expression, that it is hard to recognize in it the occasion and the subject of the most protracted and exciting controversy that has rent the Church within the last thousand years. That controversy is so purely theological that it has scarcely any basis in the exposition of the text; the only word upon which it could fasten (the verb is) being one which in Aramaic (or Syro-Chaldaic), would not be expressed, and therefore belongs merely to the Greek translation of our Saviour’s language. [But this supposes our Lord now spoke in Aramaic—the contrary of which we believe.] Until the strong unguarded figures of the early Fathers had been petrified into a dogma, at first by popular misapprehension, and at last by theological perversion, these words suggested no idea but the one which they still convey to every plain unbiased reader, that our Saviour calls the bread His body in the same sense that He calls Himself a door (John 10:9), a vine (John 15:1), a root (Rev. 22:16), a star, and is described by many other metaphors in Scripture. The bread was an emblem of His flesh, as wounded for the sins of men, and as administered for their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.’ 20. Likewise also the cup after supper—not after the Lord’s Supper, as if the taking of the bread and of the cup in it were separated so far as that; but after the paschal supper, and consequently immediately after the distribution of the bread. The accounts of Matthew and of Mark would seem to imply that He gave thanks on taking the cup, as well as with the bread; but here, at any rate, and in the most authoritative account, perhaps, which we have, in 1 Cor. 11:23, &c., that is not said. saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. In Matthew (26:28), “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” In 1 Cor. (11:25) “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” Most critics now maintain that the word here rendered “testament” [διαθήκη] should be rendered covenant, not only here but wherever else it occurs in the New Testament; being used in the Old Testament constantly by the LXX. translators for the well-known Hebrew word signifying ‘covenant’ [בְּרִית], which never signifies ‘testament.’ Here, in particular, there is a manifest allusion to Exod. 24:8, “Behold, the blood of the covenant [דָמ־חַבְּרִית] which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” Now it is beyond doubt that ‘covenant’ is the fundamental idea, and that in the Old Testament the word is correctly rendered “covenant.” But let it be observed, first, that ‘testament’ or ‘will’ is the proper classical sense of the Greek word, and ‘disposition’ or ‘covenant’ but a secondary sense; and next, that in Heb. 9:15, &c., the sense of ‘testament’ appears to be so obviously what the apostle reasons on, that to exclude it there, and restrict the meaning to ‘covenant,’ can only be made to yield the harshest sense. But the true harmony of both senses of the word, and how, in the case of Christ’s death, the one runs into the other, will be seen, not by any criticism on the word, but by reflecting on the thing. If it be true that by ‘covenant,’ or eternal divine arrangement, all the blessings of salvation become the rightful possession of believers solely in virtue of Christ’s death, does not this almost irresistibly suggest to every reflecting mind the idea of a testator’s death as a most true and exalted conception of the virtue of it? What can be a more natural view of the principle on which the fruits of Christ’s death become ours than that of a testamentary disposition? Then, observe how near to this idea of His death our Lord Himself came in what He said, when the Greeks sought to “see Jesus” on the eve of His last Passover, “The hour is come when the Son of man should be glorified: Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit” (John 12:23, 24). Observe, too, His mode of expression twice over at the Supper-table, “I appoint [διατίθεμαι] unto you, as My Father appointed [διέθετο] unto Me, a kingdom” (Luke 22:29); “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give unto you” (see on John 14:27): and it will be seen, we think, how each idea suggests the other. While that of ‘covenant ‘is confessedly the fundamental one, that of ‘testament’ is accessory or illustrative only. Yet the one is as real as the other, and presents a phase of the truth exceeding precious. In this view Bengel substantially concurs, and Stier entirely.[9]


19, 20. Then he took (some) bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body given for you. This do in remembrance of me. And in the same way after supper (he took) the cup, saying, This cup (is) the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you. For the authenticity of 19b, 20 see the note on this passage on pp. 968, 969.

A few more hours and the old symbol, being bloody—for it required the slaying of the lamb—will have served its purpose forever, having reached its fulfilment in the blood shed on Calvary. It was time, therefore, that a new and unbloody symbol replace the old. Nevertheless, by historically linking Passover and the Lord’s Supper so closely together Jesus also made clear that what was essential in the first was not lost in the second. Both point to him, the only and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of his people. Passover pointed forward to this; the Lord’s Supper points back to it.

Having taken from the table a thin slice or sheet of unleavened bread, Jesus “gave thanks” and then started to break up the slice. The words which the Lord used in this thanksgiving have not been revealed. To try to reconstruct them from Jewish formula prayers would serve no useful purpose. How do we even know that our Lord availed himself of these prayers?

The breaking of the bread, to which reference is made in all four accounts, must be considered as belonging to the very essence of the sacrament. This becomes clear in the light of that which immediately follows, namely, “This is my body given for you.”

To interpret this to mean that Jesus was actually saying that these portions of bread which he handed to the disciples were identical with his physical body, or were at that moment being changed into his body, is to ignore (a) the fact that in his body Jesus was standing there in front of his disciples, for all to see. He was holding in his hand the bread, and giving them the portions as he broke them off. Body and bread were clearly distinct and remained so. Neither changed into the other, or took on the physical properties or characteristics of the other. Besides, such an interpretation also ignores (b) the fact that during his earthly ministry the Master very frequently used symbolical language (Mark 8:15; John 2:19; 3:3; 4:14, 32; 6:51, 53–56; 11:11). It is striking that in all of the instances indicated by these references the symbolical or figurative character of our Lord’s language was disregarded by those who first heard it! In each case also, the context makes clear that those who interpreted Christ’s words literally were mistaken! Is it not high time that the implied lesson be taken to heart? Finally, there is (c): when Jesus spoke of himself as being “the vine” (John 15:1, 5), is it not clear that he meant that what a natural vine is in relation to its branches, which find their unity, life, and fruit-bearing capacity in this plant, that, in a far more exalted sense, Christ is to his people? Is it not clear, therefore, that the vine represents or symbolizes Jesus, the genuine Vine? Thus also he calls himself—or is called—the door, the morning star, the cornerstone, the lamb, the fountain, the rock, etc. He also refers to himself as “the bread of life” (John 6:35, 48), “the bread that came down out of heaven” (John 6:58). So, why should he not be, and be represented and symbolized by, “the broken bread”? Accordingly, the meaning of “the broken bread” and the poured-out wine is correctly indicated in a Communion Form which represents Christ as saying: “Whereas otherwise you should have suffered eternal death, I give my body in death on the tree of the cross and shed my blood for you, and nourish and refresh your hungry and thirsty souls with my crucified body and shed blood to everlasting life, as certainly as this bread is broken before your eyes and this cup is given to you, and you eat and drink with your mouth in remembrance of Me.”

Jesus adds, “This do in remembrance of me.” It was the desire of our Lord that by means of the supper, here instituted, the church should remember his sacrifice and love him, should reflect on that sacrifice and embrace him by faith, and should look forward in living hope to his glorious return. Surely, the proper celebration of communion is a loving remembrance. It is, however, more than that. Jesus Christ is most certainly, and through his Spirit most actively, present at this genuine feast! Cf. Matt. 18:20. His followers “take” and “eat.” They appropriate Christ by means of living faith, and are strengthened in this faith.

With respect to “And in the same way after supper (he took) the cup,” etc., note the following:

Jesus says, “This cup (is) the new covenant in my blood.”

But why does he speak of a new covenant? Do not such passages as Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:8, 9, 29 clearly teach that the old covenant, the one made with Abraham, “the father of us all,” is still in force? They certainly do. Nevertheless, there has been a tremendous change, a change so significant that even Jeremiah (31:31), looking into the future, could speak of a new covenant. That newness consists in this, (a) that for believers in the new dispensation the law is no longer written on tables of stone but on their hearts, the Holy Spirit having been poured out into these hearts; and (b) that the covenant is no longer almost exclusively between God and Israel but between God and all believers, regardless of race or nationality (Rom. 10:12, 13).

Note also “the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.”

In all four accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1 Cor. 11) a relation is established between Christ’s blood and his covenant. As reported by Matthew and Mark, Jesus said, “my blood of the covenant”; here in Luke—with little if any difference in meaning—“the new covenant in my blood.” The expression goes back to such passages as Exod. 24:8; Jer. 31:31–34. See also the significant passage Lev. 17:11. And note: “Apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22; cf. Eph. 1:7); therefore also no covenant, no special relation of friendship between God and his people. Reconciliation with God always requires blood, an atoning sacrifice. And since man himself is unable to render such a sacrifice, a substitutionary offering, accepted by faith, is required (Isa. 53:6, 8, 10, 12; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 3:16; 6:51; Rom. 5:19; 8:32; 2 Cor. 5:20, 21; Gal. 2:20; 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24).

As Luke reports it, Jesus said, “… my blood, poured out for you.” Both Matthew (26:28) and Mark (14:24) read “poured out for many.” There is no conflict. Christ’s true disciples (The Eleven) were included in the “many.”[10]


22:19. Along with lamb, unleavened bread was also a central part of the Passover meal. The family, having recited the Exodus story through questions and answers and sung parts of the traditional Hallel collection of psalms in Psalms 113–118, would give a prayer of thanks over the bread and eat the Passover meal. Jesus apparently took the role of the father of the family and gave thanks for the bread. As he did so, he replaced the Passover celebration with a new celebration of unleavened bread. This one interpreted the bread not as representing what Israel had to carry out of Egypt but the body of Jesus broken on the cross for his followers.

It is difficult to know how the disciples would have reacted as Jesus spoke of his body given for them. Later they would realize what he had done and why he wanted them to repeat this rite again and again. No longer did they need to celebrate the Passover and look back to the Exodus redemption. Now they could celebrate the Lord’s Supper or Last Supper and look back to what Jesus did for them by dying on the cross. Jesus would no longer drink and eat physically and visibly with them, but each generation of disciples could remember his desire to eat this last meal and the meaning he gave to it.[11]


[1] MacArthur, J. (2014). Luke 18–24 (pp. 282–284). Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

[2] Liefeld, W. L., & Pao, D. W. (2007). Luke. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Luke–Acts (Revised Edition) (Vol. 10, p. 313). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Green, J. B. (1997). The Gospel of Luke (pp. 761–764). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[4] France, R. T. (2013). Luke. (M. L. Strauss & J. H. Walton, Eds.) (p. 345). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[5] Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1909). St Luke (Vol. 2, pp. 198–199). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

[6] Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Vol. 3, p. 212). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[7] Morris, L. (1988). Luke: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 3, pp. 324–325). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[8] Utley, R. J. (2004). The Gospel according to Luke (Vol. Volume 3A, Lk 22:19). Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International.

[9] Brown, D., Fausset, A. R., & Jamieson, R. (n.d.). A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments: Matthew–John (Vol. V, pp. 325–326). London; Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, Limited.

[10] Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (Vol. 11, pp. 961–963). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

[11] Butler, T. C. (2000). Luke (Vol. 3, pp. 368–369). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

May 7 The Interpreter: Spurgeon’s Devotional Bible

May 7.—Morning. [Or September 10.]
“Evil shall slay the wicked.”

2 Samuel 1:1–16

NOW it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode two days in Ziklag;

It came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and did obeisance.

3, 4 And David said unto him, From whence comest thou? And he said unto him, Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped. And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.

5, 6, 7 And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead? And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I.

And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.

He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.

10 So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord. (The probabilities are that this hypocritical fellow had visited the battle-field for the purpose of plundering the dead, soon after the close of the battle. Either he found Saul dead, or else the monarch’s suicidal wound had not yet ended fatally, and the Amalekite finished the deed. His story was told in the hope of winning the thanks of David and a corresponding reward. The crown and bracelet were worth something, but this adventurer hoped lo earn a far higher prize by bringing them to the rival leader. He reckoned cunningly; but little did the Amalekite know that he was not dealing with one like himself but with a man of God. Instead of ingratiating himself for life with the new king, he excited David’s indignation, and, being condemned by his own story, he met with a speedy doom.)

11, 12 Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him: And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword. (The man of God felt no joy in his enemy’s death, neither will a gracious heart ever rejoice in the misfortune of others, however cruelly they may have acted.)

13 ¶ And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.

14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?

15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died. (Whether he spake the truth or not, the sentence was just. As there was now no king in the land, David as captain of the host exercised the office of judge and condemned the man out of his own mouth.)

16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord’s anointed. (Thus will all wrong courses sooner or later bring down punishment upon those who enter upon them. The plot looked fair. Who was to discover the falsehood? Were not the plundered ornaments conclusive evidence? David would be sure to ennoble the bearer of such good tidings! The cunning sinner had made one error in his reckoning, and it proved to be a fatal one. Let us take warning and never leave the path of truth. We should abhor every form of deception, for the Lord will not endure liars and will surely overthrow them.)

The Lord is wise and wonderful,

As all the ages tell:

O learn of him, learn now of him,

That all he does is well.

And in his light shall we see light,

Nor still in darkness roam,

And he shall be to us a rest,

When evening shadows come.

May 7.—Evening. [Or September 11.]
“Tell it not in Gath.”

2 Samuel 1:17–27

AND David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son:

18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

The book of Jasher was probably a collection of national songs and records of heroic acts; it is now lost, for it was not inspired and therefore no special providence preserved its existence. David not only mourned over Saul and Jonathan personally, but he composed an elegy to be sung by the whole nation, and especially by his own tribe. This he entitled “The Bow,” in allusion to the skill in archery for which Jonathan was famous, which is alluded to in the dirge itself. David in thus lamenting over the discarded house of Saul, reminds us of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, whose house is left desolate because it knew not its day.

19 The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places:

How are the mighty fallen!

20 Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon;

Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice,

Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.

21 Ye mountains of Gilboa,

Let there be no dew, neither let there be rain, upon you,

Nor fields of offerings:

For there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away,

The shield of Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oil.

22 From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty,

The bow of Jonathan turned not back,

And the sword of Saul returned not empty.

23 Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives,

And in their death they were not divided:

They were swifter than eagles,

They were stronger than lions.

24 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul,

Who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights,

Who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel.

25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!

O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places.

26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan:

Very pleasant hast thou been unto me:

Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

27 How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!

Dr. Krummacher, in his “David, the King of Israel,” has the following excellent passage, “David did not in his lamentation speak too highly in praise of the King. Was not Saul truly a valiant hero? Did not also that which was gentle and tender oftentimes find an echo in his soul? Did not Jonathan and his other sons shew themselves towards him true and faithful children even unto death? All this at that time hovered before the mind of David. With such recollections as these there was associated a deep, sorrowful compassion for the sad fate of the king. And thus it was David’s genuine feeling and sentiment to which he gave full outspoken expression in his lamentation for the dead. These words of the song—‘Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon,’ have, since that time, become a proverb in the circles of the faithful. It is frequently heard when one of their community has failed to take heed to his ways, and, therefore, has given rise to a scandal. Would that the call were more faithfully observed than is usually the case! Would that the honour of the spiritual Zion lay always as near to the heart of the children of the kingdom as did that of the earthly to the heart of David! But how often does it happen that they even strive to disclose before the world the weakness of their brethren, and thus, by a repetition of the wickedness of Ham, become traitors to the Church which Christ has purchased with his own blood. They make themselves guilty of bringing dishonour upon the gospel, by opening the gates to such reproach through their tale-bearing, and to their own great prejudice they disown the charity which ‘believeth all things and hopeth all things.’ ”[1]

 

[1] Spurgeon, C. H. (1964). The Interpreter: Spurgeon’s Devotional Bible (pp. 266–267). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.