What the Bible says about light and seed

The True Light "In him, (the Lord Jesus) was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world,…the world didn’t recognize him." John 1:4,9.

The Good Seed and the Weeds “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seeds in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. Matthew 13:24,25.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

The Mockers

Pray For America

Originally posted on Rus Alan:

The team behind Australia’s National Day of Prayer and Fasting with other prayer leaders is calling the nations of the world to prayer and fasting for seven days for USA. This period of prayer will take place from 30 April – 6 May 2015. April 30 is America’s National Day of Repentance (NDOR) 7 May is the 64th Annual National Day of Prayer (NDP).

Warwick Marsh, Australian coordinator, said, “30 April is the 226th anniversary of George Washington’s inauguration as a devout Christian president and the 152nd anniversary of Lincoln’s Day of ‘Humiliation, Prayer and Fasting’ held during the devastating times of the Civil War. The theme for the USA National Day of Prayer on 7 May, 2015 ‘Lord Hear Our Cry’ is taken from 2 Kings 8:28: ‘Give attention to your servant’s prayer and his pleas for mercy, Lord my God. Hear the cry and the prayer that your…
View original 151 more words

Thursday, April 23, 2015


 Note from the blogger: I found this poem in the Prologue page of an ebook I ordered today titled: Slouching towards Gomorrah" by Robert Bork.
I found it very "à propos".

 William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds. 

    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The Second Coming was written in 1919 in the aftermath
of the first World War. The above version of the poem is
as it was published in the edition of Michael Robartes and
the Dancer
dated 1920 (there are numerous other
versions of the poem). The preface and notes in the book
contain some philosphy attributed to Robartes.
This printing of the poem has a page break between lines 17 and 18 making the stanza division unclear.

Following the two most similar drafts given in the Parkinson and
Brannen edited edition of the manuscripts, I have put a
stanza break there. (Interestingly, both of those drafts
have thirty centuries instead of twenty.) The earlier drafts
also have references to the French and Irish Revolutions
as well as to Germany and Russia.

Several of the lines in the version above differ from those
found in subsequent versions. In listing it as one of the
hundred most anthologized poems in the English
language, the text given by Harmon (1998) has changes
including: line 13 (": somewhere in sands of the desert"),
line 17 ("Reel" instead of "Wind"), and no break
between the second and third stanza.

  • Yeats, William Butler. Michael Robartes and the
    Chruchtown, Dundrum, Ireland: The Chuala
    Press, 1920. (as found in the photo-lithography edition
    printed Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press, 1970.)
  • Yeats, William Butler. "Michael Robartes and the
    Dancer" Manuscript Materials.
    Thomas Parkinson and
    Anne Brannen, eds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
    Press, 1994.
  • Harmon, William, ed. The Classic Hundred Poems.
    New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.
  • Saturday, April 18, 2015

    Worthy is the Lamb - The Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir

    American Jewry´s moment of decision

    This week in two meetings with prominent American Jews, President Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet. Either the Jews of America will rise to the challenge or they will allow Obama to marginalize them. 
    It is their choice, and now is the time for them to decide.

    In the first meeting, Obama met with centrist Jewish leaders from major Jewish organizations like the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC. Major donors to these groups, like to almost every other major Jewish organization in America, are largely Democrats.

    According to The Washington Post, the purpose of the meeting was “to defuse antagonism toward [Obama] and to convince [Jewish leaders] that he shares their concerns about the safety of Israel and the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.”

    That is, the main goal of the meeting was to silence Jewish criticism of Obama’s deal with Iran.

    So far, Obama seems to have accomplished that goal.

    Although, according to a source who spoke to The Algemeiner, the atmosphere at the meeting was “ungiving, very stern and tense.” Since the meeting took place, none of the leaders who participated has openly criticized Obama’s policies regarding Iran. Their silence comes despite the fact that, according to the participants who spoke with The Algemeiner, Obama did not allay the concerns they expressed regarding the dangers his nuclear deal with Iran constitute for Israel.

    The second meeting of the day was a far friendlier affair. According to The Algemeiner, participants included supporters of the anti-Israel organization J Street, including Alexandra Stanton, Lou Susman, and Victor Kovner. Other outspoken leftist Jews, including Haim Saban and former AIPAC presidents Amy Friedkin and Howard Friedman, also attended.

    As The Algemeiner reported, participants in this meeting were much less concerned about Obama’s deal with Iran. At least one participant, described as more “centrist” than other participants gushed at the president, saying, “You are doing the right thing [with Iran]. We are behind you 100 percent.”

    Participants in the second meeting also were excited at the prospect of Obama making good on his threat to act against Israel at the UN Security Council. Indeed, they lobbied him to abandon Israel at the international forum. A participant told The Algemeiner that one of his colleagues told Obama, “If you decide to go against Israel at the UN, let us know first and we’ll do the legwork for you, in the [Jewish] community…so you’re not going to come in cold.”

    The purpose then of Obama’s second meeting with American Jews was not to silence dissent, but to mobilize his supporters to weaken community opposition to his hostile policies toward Israel, both in regard to Iran and in regard to the Palestinians.

    And here, too, the meeting was largely successful.

    An indication of the success of Obama’s efforts to rally his Jewish supporters in favor of his anti-Israel policies came on Wednesday, when the Jewish arm of the Democratic Party, the National Jewish Democratic Council, issued a stunning press release. In it, the NJDC condemned Sen. Marco Rubio for supporting Israel. On Monday, Rubio announced that he is running for president.

    Rubio’s pro-Israel crime involved his plan get the Senate to condition approval of Obama’s nuclear deal with the ayatollahs on Iran’s recognizing Israel’s right to exist. According to the NJDC, Rubio’s plan, “has no purpose other than to politicize the US-Israel relationship at a time when the Jewish state needs our steadfast support. It is shameful that Sen. Rubio would further politicize this issue to advance his own political goals.”

    If the NJDC is truly steadfast in its support for Israel, it is hard to understand what its members are so upset about.

    As far as Israelis are concerned, Rubio’s plan is aligned with the widest political consensus imaginable.

    The Israeli Left, led by Labor Party leader Yitzhak Herzog, supports Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that sanctions against Iran should be dropped only after Iran recognizes Israel’s right to exist.

    As to America, it is hard to understand how anyone in the American mainstream could oppose conditioning Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons on its abandonment of its aim to destroy Israel.

    Obama himself has always insisted that protecting Israel’s security is a paramount goal of his presidency.

    Both in his meetings with Jewish leaders and in his interview earlier this month with The New York Times’s Tom Friedman, Obama claims to have been deeply hurt by accusations that he doesn’t care about Israel’s security and said that he would consider it a personal failure if Israel were weaker when he leaves office.

    Yet, by refusing to condition a nuclear deal that as Obama himself acknowledges will reduce Iran’s breakout time for military nuclear capabilities to zero on Iran’s eschewal of the goal of Israel’s destruction, the NJDC, like Obama himself, is not protecting Israel or supporting it. Like Obama, the NJDC is indirectly legitimizing Iran’s goal of destroying Israel.

    By attacking Rubio for promoting a position that is intuitively reasonable, and in line with a very low common-denominator of support for Israel, the NJDC revealed that, from its perspective, the only way for Republicans not to “politicize” support for Israel is by joining Democrats in opposing Israel.

    A new poll released this week by Bloomberg reinforces the growing sense that Israel has become a partisan issue. Today more and more Democrats view support for Israel as a Republican position. Whereas two thirds of Republicans support Israel even if its positions are at odds with those of the administration, three quarters of Democrats support the administration against Israel. Polls in recent years indicate that Republican support for Israel is nearly unanimous, while less than half of Democrats support the Jewish state.

    It appears that Obama’s charm offensive among American Jews over the past two weeks on the one hand, and the NJDC’s statement that empties the term “pro-Israel” of all meaning on the other, are aimed at removing the issue of Israel from the political debate at least until Obama achieves his goal of signing a nuclear deal with Iran by June 30.

    This makes sense, because as Obama apparently sees things, there are two forces that can scuttle his deal, and they are intimately linked – major Jewish donors, and Hillary Clinton.

    On Wednesday the White House reversed its previous position and announced that it would support a Senate bill to require Obama to bring his deal with Iran before the Senate for approval.

    Obama’s reversal was not a major concession.

    The Senate bill ignored the constitutional provision requiring two thirds of senators to approve international treaties. Under the current Senate bill, two thirds of senators will have to oppose Obama’s radical deal with Iran in order to scuttle it.

    All that Obama now requires to secure his deal is to maintain the support of 34 Democratic senators.

    And the only one who can endanger that support is Clinton.

    As the NJDC showed, Obama has successfully brought about a situation where, for Democrats, supporting Israel means opposing Obama and supporting Republicans. If substantive arguments haven’t sufficed to convince them to fall in line, the Justice Department’s highly questionable decision to indict Sen. Robert Menendez – Obama’s most outspoken Democratic foreign policy critic – on shaky corruption charges just as his confrontation with the Senate over his Iran policy was coming to a head, no doubt has forced at least some Democrats to toe his line.

    By mobilizing his Jewish supporters to silence opposition to his policies among American Jews, while making it difficult for more mainstream Jewish leaders to openly criticize him, Obama hopes to neutralize the issue of his hostility toward Israel among Jewish Democrats.

    To date, Hillary, who was herself a full partner in Obama’s moves to marginalize Israel supporters during her stint as secretary of state, has said as little as possible about his foreign policy. As a result, she has given no reason for Democratic senators to consider parting ways with the president on Iran.

    So far, Clinton’s only move to put distance between herself and her anti-Israel former boss was to allow Malcolm Hoenlein from the Conference of Presidents to issue a statement late last month in his name claiming that Clinton told him that she thinks the US and Israel should bury the hatchet. Clinton, for her part, neither confirmed nor denied Hoenlein’s statement.

    Almost simultaneous with Clinton’s announcement Sunday that she is running for president, came a statement from her campaign that she seeks to raise the whopping sum of $2.5 billion in order to secure her election.

    There is no way that Clinton can hope to raise that sum without securing the support of major Jewish donors. While some major Jewish donors do not care about whether or not the US supports Israel, as an unnamed Jewish Clinton supporter told JTA this week, Clinton will also need to win the support of donors who do support Israel.

    In the source’s words, “Some of the most prominent Jewish Democratic donors are very concerned about the relationship the president has had with Netanyahu and the Iran deal.”

    If these Jewish donors band together and condition their support for Clinton on her issuing a clear statement opposing Obama’s deal with Iran and opposing any plan to abandon US support for Israel at the UN Security Council, they will accomplish three vital things.

    First, they will loosen Obama’s control over otherwise pro-Israel Democratic senators and other pro-Israel groups in the Democratic Party, including the NJDC. In so doing they will reopen the possibility that Congress will scuttle Obama’s deal with the mullahs.

    Second, they will take a major step toward rebuilding Democratic support for Israel that Obama has worked so hard to diminish.

    Finally, they will reestablish their political significance in American politics. By supporting Obama, even as he has abandoned the US alliance with Israel, Jewish Democrats have lost their political leverage and power. That power is contingent upon their refusal to abandon Israel.

    During the next two months, Obama will be focused on closing his deal with Iran, and Clinton will be avidly seeking to lock up the Democratic nomination for president by building an impregnable fortress of campaign funds. If the American Jewish community uses this critical period to leverage Clinton’s financial requirements to convince her to oppose Obama’s deal that paves the way for a nuclear armed Iran, then they will reassert their relevance in American politics and they will restore support for Israel to its pre-Obama position as a bipartisan position.

    If they fail to do so, then Obama’s bid to transform Israel into a partisan issue will succeed. If a Republican wins the White House in 2016, he will face an anti-Israel Democratic opposition. And if Clinton wins the White House, she will have no reason to support Israel.

    Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

    Mordecai Mottel Baleston´s Christan testimony

    Tuesday, April 7, 2015

    Obama's Iran deal falls on ominous Bible date

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/obamas-iran-deal-announced-on-ominous-bible-date/#WylbGHGG4Sbm12po.99

    Sunday, April 5, 2015

    He is risen - Keith Green - All the earth rejoice, for your King is coming in glory!

    The Final Message: 

    12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man [g]according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Isaiah 40:10

    The Free Offer of Mercy

    55 “Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters;
    And you who have no [a]money come, buy and eat.
    Come, buy wine and milk
    Without money and without cost.
    “Why do you [b]spend money for what is not bread,
    And your wages for what does not satisfy?
    Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
    And delight yourself in abundance.
    “Incline your ear and come to Me.
    Listen, that [c]you may live;

    And I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
    According to the faithful mercies [d]shown to David.
    “Behold, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
    A leader and commander for the peoples.
    “Behold, you will call a nation you do not know,
    And a nation which knows you not will run to you,
    Because of the Lord your God, even the Holy One of Israel;
    For He has glorified you.”
    Seek the Lord while He may be found;
    Call upon Him while He is near.
    Let the wicked forsake his way
    And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
    And let him return to the Lord,
    And He will have compassion on him,
    And to our God,
    For He will abundantly pardon. Isaiah 55

    The Revelation of Jesus-Christ
    16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things [h]for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
    17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.
    18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and [i]from the holy city, which are written in this book.
    20 He who testifies to these things says, Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
    21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with [j]all. Amen.

    Signs and Seasons - Ray Stedman devotional

    Read the Scripture: Genesis 1:14-19
    God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars (Genesis 1:16).
    The great question is never How? but Why? The answer to the question, Why did God make the sun and moon and stars? is given in a threefold way here in this passage.

    The greater light exists, first, to give light upon the earth, both during the day and at night. We all know that the sun makes the day. The rotation of the earth is what determines the length of the day, and the speed of the earth as it rotates determines the 24-hour duration. Yet that speed is regulated by the moon, which acts as a brake upon the earth. It restricts the speed of the rotation of the earth to the exact time that makes possible the 24-hour-day, which is the length of time best adapted to the needs of humans. Isn't that remarkable? 

    Other planets have entirely different lengths of days. On some of the planets, a day would occupy months, and even years, of our time. Others have much shorter days. But God has designated a 24-hour day for our planet because it precisely fits the needs of humanity.

    Second, the great lights exist to measure the process of time for days and for years, says the Scripture. They are the means by which we measure time. The orbit of earth around the sun determines the length of the year, which, again, is just right for human needs. The orbit of the earth around the sun is determined by two factors: the gravitational pull of the sun and the velocity of the earth. No one knows what determines the velocity of the earth, what strange force hurls us through space at about 1,100 miles per minute. But here we are told that God has ordained the sun and moon to provide measures of the time that mark off the segments of life we call days and years.

    Third, these lights are designed to mark significant events; they are for signs and for seasons. The entire record of human history confirms the truth of this. This is exactly what the sun and moon and stars do. Eclipses are like mileposts in human history, marking off certain dates. We can study events in ancient history because eclipses have been recorded. Many times in the Bible the sun and the moon have served as great signs. 

    We are all familiar with the story of the star of Bethlehem. It announced the birth of the greatest person ever born in the history of our globe. There is also the strange darkening of the sun at the time of the crucifixion, an unexplained darkness that lasted for three hours. There have been other times like this. And through the Bible there runs a refrain, beginning in the early books and running through the New Testament, which says there is coming a day when the greatest event the world will ever know, the return of Jesus Christ to earth, will be heralded by the darkening of the sun and the moon's turning to blood. These bodies are provided for signs and for seasons.
    You are the Lord of all creation. I see that you have created the signs and seasons to serve Your great redemptive purpose in Jesus Christ.
    Life Application: Speculation can unceasingly ask how and why questions. How the seasons came to be we will never know while citizens here. But where can we find the why answers?
    We hope you were blessed by this daily devotion.

    From your friends at www.RayStedman.org

    State Department rejects call for Iran deal to affirm Israel's 'right to exist'

    April 1, 2015: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem. (AP)

    A State Department official dismissed a plea Friday from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Iran nuclear agreement include clear recognition of his nation's "right to exist," declaring negotiations are "only about the nuclear issue."

    State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, in a terse response to a question about Netanyahu's concerns, told reporters, "This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue" -- a comment that indicates the Obama administration is not looking to enshrine Israel's security into a final agreement. 

    Harf, for her part, suggested the talks are complicated enough already.
    "This is an agreement that doesn't deal with any other issues, nor should it," she said.
    Obama administration officials have insisted all along that despite their public disagreement with Netanyahu over the Iran deal framework, the U.S. commitment to Israel's security is unwavering. Further, White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters on Air Force One on Friday that the U.S. would not agree to any deal that would threaten Israel.

    The Israeli prime minister, though, made the call for the "right to exist" measure during brief remarks early Friday. He blasted the Iran framework deal and said his Cabinet is uniformly opposed to it. He closed his brief address by demanding that any final agreement include "a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist." 

    The statement was prompted by reported statements from a top Iranian military official, who was quoted saying "erasing Israel" off the map is "non-negotiable." 

    To that, Netanyahu said: "The survival of Israel is non-negotiable." 
    Israel's objections promise to be a major hurdle for the Obama administration as its representatives huddle with those from Iran and five other world powers in pursuit of a final deal by a June 30 deadline.

    Last month, Netanyahu railed against the pending agreement in an address before the U.S. Congress. He repeated many of those concerns again, on Thursday and Friday, after the framework was unveiled. 
    Netanyahu said it would not shut down a single nuclear facility or destroy a single centrifuge. 
    "The deal would legitimize Iran's illegal nuclear program," Netanyahu said. "It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure." 

    President Obama and Netanyahu spoke by phone late Thursday. 
    In a statement on that conversation, the White House said Obama "underscored that progress on the nuclear issue in no way diminishes our concerns with respect to Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and threats towards Israel and emphasized that the United States remains steadfast in our commitment to the security of Israel. " 

    According to the White House, Obama told his Israeli counterpart he has directed his national security team to "increase consultations with the new Israeli government about how we can further strengthen our long-term security cooperation with Israel and remain vigilant in countering Iran's threats." 

    700 club examines future Islamic Antichrist

    Saturday, April 4, 2015

    Sowell on Iran Nuke Deal: “The Most Catastrophic Decision In Human History”

    Reblogged from:

    Iran Nuke Deal: “The Most Catastrophic Decision In Human History”
    Thomas Sowell is a national treasure. An intellectual’s intellectual, he is one of, if not the, most clear-eyed, brilliant American thinker.

    I, too, am stunned that even now, even still, the media and cultural elites wield totalitarian-like power in the information battle-space. We have suffered non-stop coverage of a non-starter of a religious freedom law in Indiana (currently law in other states, a law once championed by Democrats), and yet little to no mention of the worst deal ever made by America — Obama giving Iran nukes.


    Etiquette Versus Annihilation
    Thomas Sowell | Apr 01, 2015
    Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may — probably will — be the most catastrophic decision in human history.

    Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn’t matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.

    It is amazing — indeed, staggering — that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world’s biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East.

    Back during the years of the nuclear stand-off between the Soviet Union and the United States, contemplating what a nuclear war would be like was called “thinking the unthinkable.” But surely the Nazi Holocaust during World War II should tell us that what is beyond the imagination of decent people is by no means impossible for people who, as Churchill warned of Hitler before the war, had “currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them.”

    Have we not already seen that kind of hatred in the Middle East? Have we not seen it in suicide bombings there and in suicide attacks against America by people willing to sacrifice their own lives by flying planes into massive buildings, to vent their unbridled hatred?
    The Soviet Union was never suicidal, so the fact that we could annihilate their cities if they attacked ours was a sufficient deterrent to a nuclear attack from them. But will that deter fanatics with an apocalyptic vision? Should we bet the lives of millions of Americans on our ability to deter nuclear war with Iran?

    It is now nearly 70 years since nuclear bombs were used in war. Long periods of safety in that respect have apparently led many to feel as if the danger is not real. But the dangers are even greater now and the nuclear bombs more devastating.
    Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may — probably will — be the most catastrophic decision in human history. And it can certainly change human history, irrevocably, for the worse.

    Against that grim background, it is almost incomprehensible how some people can be preoccupied with the question whether having Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu address Congress, warning against the proposed agreement, without the prior approval of President Obama, was a breach of protocol.
    Against the background of the Obama administration’s negotiating what can turn out to be the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation’s history, to complain about protocol is to put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.

    Why is Barack Obama so anxious to have an international agreement that will have no legal standing under the Constitution just two years from now, since it will be just a presidential agreement, rather than a treaty requiring the “advice and consent” of the Senate?

    There are at least two reasons. One reason is that such an agreement will serve as a fig leaf to cover his failure to do anything that has any serious chance of stopping Iran from going nuclear. Such an agreement will protect Obama politically, despite however much it exposes the American people to unprecedented dangers.

    The other reason is that, by going to the United Nations for its blessing on his agreement with Iran, he can get a bigger fig leaf to cover his complicity in the nuclear arming of America’s most dangerous enemy. In Obama’s vision, as a citizen of the world, there may be no reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons when other nations have them.
    Politically, President Obama could not just come right out and say such a thing. But he can get the same end result by pretending to have ended the dangers by reaching an agreement with Iran. There have long been people in the Western democracies who hail every international agreement that claims to reduce the dangers of war.

    The road to World War II was strewn with arms control agreements on paper that aggressor nations ignored in practice. But those agreements lulled the democracies into a false sense of security that led them to cut back on military spending while their enemies were building up the military forces to attack them.

    Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.

    Commentary on Habakkuk 2:1-2 - Warren Wiersbe on the timeliness of God´s Word.

    Written and posted by Jean-Louis
    Blogger´s note: I wanted to make sure that this vision by Habakkuk was applicable to our times as often times, prophecies have double timing layer. I used Warren Wiersbe for his contemporaneity as the other quotes from teachers in the previous post are dated from centuries past.  This is a continuation of a previous titled "The Package". This commentary is to me a further confirmation that the time is short and that the Lord´s return is very close. Be encouraged my brothers and keep watching, praying, guarding your heart and looking up for Jesus, our hope of glory. (Bold Italics used by for emphasis.)
     Photo taken in Rio de Janeiro. Bairro Urca
     I will stand on my guard post
    And station myself on the rampart;
    And I will keep watch to see what He will speak to me,
    And how I may reply [a]when I am reproved.
    Then the Lord answered me and said,
    “Record the vision
    And inscribe it on tablets,
    That [b]the one who [c]reads it may run.
    “For the vision is yet for the appointed time;
    It [d]hastens toward the goal and it will not [e]fail.
    Though it tarries, wait for it;
    For it will certainly come, it will not delay. Habakkuk 2:1-3
    Write God’s Vision (2:1–3) (Warren Wiersbe)
    The prophet saw himself as a watchman on the walls of
    Jerusalem, waiting for a message from God that he
    could share with the people. In ancient days, the
    watchmen were responsible to warn the city of
    approaching danger, and if they weren’t faithful, their
    hands would be stained with the blood of the people
    who died (Ezek. 3:17–21; 33:1–3). It was a serious

    The image of the watchman carries a spiritual lesson
    for us today. As God’s people, we know that danger
    is approaching, and it’s our responsibility to warn people
    to “flee from the wrath to come” (Matt. 3:7). 
    If we don’t share the gospel with lost sinners, then their
    blood may be on our hands. We want to be able to say
    with Paul, “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am
    innocent of the blood of all men” (Acts 20:26 nkjv).
    You get the impression that Habakkuk was fearful
    of what the Lord might say to him because of His servant’s
    “complaint.” But the Lord graciously answered
    Habakkuk and gave him the vision he needed to turn
    his worrying into worshiping. 
    This vision included not only the words in Habakkuk 2, but also the revelation
    of God’s glory recorded in 3:3–15. When you
    behold the glory of God and believe the Word of God,
    it gives you faith to accept the will of God.
    We wouldn’t be studying this book today had
    Habakkuk 1—2
    Habakkuk not obeyed God’s orders and written down
    what God had told him and shown him. This writing
    was to be permanent so that generation after generation
    could read it. It was also to be plain, written so
    that anybody could read it, and it was to be public so
    that even somebody running past the tablets on display
    could get the message immediately.
    1 Habakkuk wasn’t the only person in Judah who needed this message, and
    it was his obligation to share it.
    The revelation God gave was for a future time and
    about a future time. While the immediate application
    was to the end of the Babylonian captivity, the writer
    of the Epistle to the Hebrews interpreted it to refer also
    to the return of Jesus Christ. Led by the Holy Spirit, he
    changed “it” to “he” and applied it to our Lord. “For
    yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and
    will not tarry” (Heb. 10:37).
     Along with the scoffers Peter wrote about, some readers might ask, “Where is
    the promise of his coming?” (2 Peter 3:3ff.), and God’s
    reply is, Wait for it! It will surely come!” A discouraged
    Jew in Babylonian exile might ask, “Will the Lord
    come and deliver us?” and the answer is, “Yes! Wait for

    Amen! Maranatha, come Lord Jesus
    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...