๐Ÿ”ฐWORD4TODAY๐Ÿ”ฐ
Part 2
It's your day๐Ÿ’ƒ๐Ÿผ
It's your week.๐Ÿ’ƒ๐Ÿผ๐Ÿ’ƒ๐Ÿผ
It's your month.๐Ÿ’ƒ๐Ÿผ๐Ÿ’ƒ๐Ÿผ๐Ÿ’ƒ๐Ÿผ
๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿผ
*On a day like this, it was Mephistopheles day,

Reading thru 2Sam 9:1-5 KJV
And David said, Is there yet any that is left of d house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan's sake?
๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿผ

However, one man named *Ziba* who was strategically positioned in the palace, purposed to stand in the way

*2 Samuel 9:4 MSG*
"Where is he?" "He's living at the home of Makir son of Ammiel in Lo Debar."
*2 Samuel 9:5 MSG*
King David didn't lose a minute. He sent and got him
from the home of Makir son of Ammiel in Lo Debar.
๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿผ
Lodebah, where Mephibosheth was, was a place of no pasture. ( *You recall I mentioned yesterday that, when it's your appointed day, your location isn't a barrier* .)
๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿผ
๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸผIn lodebah, Everyone had a sad story to tell.
๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸผIn lodebah, Mephiboshet's princely status was forgotten.
๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿผ
He was forgotten by his nation and worst still, by his family.
๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿผ
*He had lost all.*
Down in Lodebar, Mephibosheth lost his rank, lost his prestige, lost his respectability, lost his reputation, lost his superiority,
lost his self-will.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸผDown in Lodebar, Mephibosheth went from living in the palace to hiding out with a family friend.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸผMephibosheth went from the prince to servant.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸผMephibosheth went from powerful to afraid.

*And On a day like this, his big day came. God remembered
him, the king remembered him.*
๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿผ
It's your big day again today.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸผThe distance between the palace and where Mephibosheth was could not stop it.

*He was sent for...*

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸผWhere you are now, will not be a hindrance.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸผThe "palace staff" will not be able to stop you from

More from Pastor 't.O.s.I.n. OLUNUGA

More from Messagethreadreaderapp unroll

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thingโ€”physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?