The Ninth Sunday after Trinity — Tenth Sunday after Pentecost — is August 1, 2021.
Readings for Year B can be found here.
The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):
John 6:24-35
6:24 So when the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus.
6:25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?”
6:26 Jesus answered them, “Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
6:27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.”
6:28 Then they said to him, “What must we do to perform the works of God?”
6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
6:30 So they said to him, “What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing?
6:31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'”
6:32 Then Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
We pick up where we left off last week with the Feeding of the Five Thousand.
Over the next few weeks, the Lectionary readings will feature the rest of John 6, one of the most powerful chapters in the New Testament, because we see how many of our Lord’s notional followers rejected Him when He taught about eternal life.
John MacArthur describes them, saying that they had:
… carnal enthusiasm for worldly things, they wanted freedom and fulfillment and satisfaction on an earthly level. The shallow follower has no interest in the eternal, no interest in the heavenly, no interest in the spiritual, no interest in the theological, not interested in matters of sin and righteousness and repentance and holiness and true love of God …
There’s no adoring reverence. There’s no holy awe. They come for the external. They come for the show. They come for the promise, the hope of some temporal fulfillment. There’s no real obedience. There’s no longing for the glory and honor of God and the exaltation of Christ. So that’s where we drew it to a close last time. False disciples are drawn by the crowd, fascinated by the promise of a spiritual experience, desires of earthly satisfaction, and void of any interest in real worship. They’ll watch a show and listen to music, but that’s a far cry from real worship.
On another level, they were pursuing Jesus (verse 24) because they still wanted to make Him their king from the miracle of the loaves and the fishes the previous day.
Matthew Henry’s commentary says:
their hearts being set upon making him a king, they way-laid his return, and the day following, the hot fit of their zeal still continuing …
It is not much different from the social justice warrior notions that some Christians have about Jesus. Such people downplay matters spiritual and look for the temporal.
The crowd asked when Jesus arrived in Capernaum (verse 25). They addressed him as ‘rabbi’, or teacher.
Henry explains that they found Him in the synagogue there and that ‘when’ was more ‘how’:
It should seem by John 6:59; John 6:59 that they found him in the synagogue. They knew this was the likeliest place to seek Christ in, for it was his custom to attend public assemblies for religious worship, Luke 4:16. Note, Christ must be sought, and will be found, in the congregations of his people and in the administration of his ordinances; public worship is what Christ chooses to own and grace with his presence and the manifestations of himself. There they found him, and all they had to say to him was, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? They saw he would not be made a king, and therefore say no more of this, but call him Rabbi, their teacher. Their enquiry refers not only to the time, but to the manner, of his conveying himself thither; not only When, but, “How, camest thou thither?” for there was no boat for him to come in. They were curious in asking concerning Christ’s motions, but not solicitous to observe their own.
Jesus reproved them by saying they came only because they had eaten their fill the day before and wanted more (verse 26).
MacArthur says:
In verse 24, “When the crowd saw that Jesus wasn’t there, nor His disciples“, they knew they were in the wrong place. Jesus isn’t there. We’re not getting any food.
Jesus went further, telling them that they should not be preoccupied with bodily food but spiritual food for eternal life, which He will provide with the authority — ‘seal’ — that He has from God the Father (verse 27).
Henry tells us:
What authority he has to give it; for him has God the Father sealed, touton gar ho Pater esphragisen, ho Theos—for him the Father has sealed (proved and evidenced) to be God; so some read it; he has declared him to be the Son of God with power. He has sealed him, that is, has given him full authority to deal between God and man, as God’s ambassador to man and man’s intercessor with God, and has proved his commission by miracles. Having given him authority, he has given us assurance of it; having entrusted him with unlimited powers, he has satisfied us with undoubted proofs of them; so that as he might go on with confidence in his undertaking for us, so may we in our resignations to him. God the Father scaled him with the Spirit that rested on him, by the voice from heaven, by the testimony he bore to him in signs and wonders. Divine revelation is perfected in him, in him the vision and prophecy is sealed up (Daniel 9:24), to him all believers seal that he is true (John 3:33; John 3:33), and in him they are all sealed, 2 Corinthians 1:22.
They asked what they needed to do to ‘perform the works of God’ (verse 28).
MacArthur posits that they are not asking about works salvation as much as obtaining the same miraculous power that Jesus has:
I don’t think they’re asking Jesus, “What works do we need to do that we aren’t doing?” although that could be a possibility. I think it’s a more remote possibility. I think in the context and getting into the minds of these people, they are simply saying, “We want the power that You’ve got” …
They see His power. There’s never been anything like it. And I think what they’re saying is, “We want that power. We want that power.”
They’re asking not for information about works they can do to please God. That is pretty well cast in concrete in their minds. They have a system that’s highly developed. They want Jesus to transfer His ability to them. You hear this all the time in the health, wealth environment. “You are little gods. You have all divine power. You can do what Jesus did. You can create your own world the way you want it.” They’re not asking what spiritual works, what righteous deeds they can do. They want power.
Jesus tells them that the ‘work of God’ for them is to believe that He is the Son of God (verse 29). In other words, they are to have faith that He is the Redeemer.
Henry says:
That faith is the work of God which closes with Christ, and relies upon him. It is to believe on him as one whom God hath sent, as God’s commissioner in the great affair of peace between God and man, and as such to rest upon him, and resign ourselves to him. See ; John 14:1.
Incredibly, they ask Him for a sign, as if their magnificent, perfect, miraculous feast the day before had not been enough of a sign (verse 30).
They go further, however, minimising the Feeding of the Five Thousand. They counter Jesus by saying that Moses gave their ancestors heavenly manna in the desert for many years (verse 31).
Jesus corrects them by saying that Moses did not provide the manna, God did. Furthermore, God will provide the true bread from heaven, meaning Jesus Himself (verse 32). Furthermore, the bread of God which comes down from heaven gives life to the world (verse 33).
Henry has a marvellous discourse on bread from the Bible. As Jesus came to save the Jews first, it is no wonder that He refers to himself as ‘the true bread from heaven’:
Observe, [1.] That Christ is bread is that to the soul which bread is to the body, nourishes and supports the spiritual life (is the staff of it) as bread does the bodily life; it is the staff of life. The doctrines of the gospel concerning Christ—that he is the mediator between God and man, that he is our peace, our righteousness, our Redeemer; by these things do men live. Our bodies could better live without food than our souls without Christ. Bread-corn is bruised (Isaiah 28:28), so was Christ; he was born at Bethlehem, the house of bread, and typified by the show-bread. [2.] That he is the bread of God (John 6:33), divine bread; it is he that is of God (; John 6:46), bread which my Father gives (John 6:32), which he has made to be the food of our souls; the bread of God’s family, his children’s bread. The Levitical sacrifices are called the bread of God (Leviticus 21:21-22), and Christ is the great sacrifice; Christ, in his word and ordinances, the feast upon the sacrifice. [3.] That he is the bread of life (John 6:35, and again, John 6:48), that bread of life, alluding to the tree of life in the midst of the garden of Eden, which was to Adam the seal of that part of the covenant, Do this and live, of which he might eat and live. Christ is the bread of life, for he is the fruit of the tree of life. First, He is the living bread (so he explains himself, ; John 6:51): I am the living bread. Bread is itself a dead thing, and nourishes not but by the help of the faculties of a living body; but Christ is himself living bread, and nourishes by his own power. Manna was a dead thing; if kept but one night, it putrefied and bred worms; but Christ is ever living, everlasting bread, that never moulds, nor waxes old. The doctrine of Christ crucified is now as strengthening and comforting to a believer as ever it was, and his mediation still of as much value and efficacy as ever. Secondly, He gives life unto the world (John 6:33), spiritual and eternal life; the life of the soul in union and communion with God here, and in the vision and fruition of him hereafter; a life that includes in it all happiness. The manna did only reserve and support life, did not preserve and perpetuate life, much less restore it; but Christ gives life to those that were dead in sin. The manna was ordained only for the life of the Israelites, but Christ is given for the life of the world; none are excluded from the benefit of this bread, but such as exclude themselves. Christ came to put life into the minds of men, principles productive of acceptable performances. [4.] That he is the bread which came down from heaven; this is often repeated here; John 6:33, John 6:50-51, John 6:58. This denotes, First, The divinity of Christ’s person. As God, he had a being in heaven, whence he came to take our nature upon him: I came down from heaven, whence we may infer his antiquity, he was in the beginning with God; his ability, for heaven is the firmament of power; and his authority, he came with a divine commission. Secondly, The divine original of all that good which flows to us through him. He comes, not only katabas—that came down (; John 6:51), but katabainoi—that comes down; he is descending, denoting a constant communication of light, life, and love, from God to believers through Christ, as the manna descended daily; see Ephesians 1:3. Omnia desuper—All things from above. [5.] That he is that bread of which the manna was a type and figure (John 6:58), that bread, the true bread, John 6:32. As the rock that they drank of was Christ, so was the manna they ate of spiritual bread, ; 1 Corinthians 10:3-4. Manna was given to Israel; so Christ to the spiritual Israel. There was manna enough for them all; so in Christ a fulness of grace for all believers; he that gathers much of this manna will have none to spare when he comes to use it; and he that gathers little, when his grace comes to be perfected in glory, shall find that he has no lack. Manna was to be gathered in the morning; and those that would find Christ must seek him early. Manna was sweet, and, as the author of the Wisdom of Solomon tells us (Wisd. xvi. 20), was agreeable to every palate; and to those that believe Christ is precious. Israel lived upon manna till they came to Canaan; and Christ is our life. There was a memorial of the manna preserved in the ark; so of Christ in the Lord’s supper, as the food of souls.
The multitude asked Him to give them this bread ‘always’ (verse 34).
That statement sounds as if they understand what they are saying, but MacArthur says that they are trying to make a bargain with Jesus: ‘If you won’t give us the power, at least keep us in temporal bread’:
You won’t give us the power to feed ourselves all the time? Give us the bread all the time. We always want the bread. Here, again, we see the superficiality and the shallowness of false followers, the curious self-centered who continue to tell the Lord what they want and when they want it and how they want it. And either they want the power to do it themselves or they want the Lord to deliver. If they’re going to believe in Him, He’s going to have to operate on their command.
Jesus pressed on with teaching them that He is the bread of life, that whoever comes to Him will never be hungry and that those who believe in Him will never thirst (verse 35).
MacArthur adds a thought to that verse, one that Jesus might well have been thinking:
False disciples do not find their satisfaction in the person of Jesus Christ. And this is going to be our subject next Sunday, but let me introduce it to you. Verse 35, Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.”
How terrible.
The story continues next Sunday.
Although the late comedian Jackie Mason thought that the UK’s House of Commons was akin to a ‘sanitarium’, there are inviolable rules for suspension from the Chamber.
Criminal charges or sexual harassment will do the trick. Often, the party whip is removed from the MP in question, rendering them Independent unless the whip is restored.
Here are two other ways that MPs can be suspended.
Grabbing the mace
When the Commons is in session, the mace sits atop the desk in front of the Speaker.
Only the Serjeant at Arms is allowed to handle it. He/She puts it in place before the session and removes it afterwards.
On Wednesday, December 16, 2020, the SNP’s Drew Hendry was vexed about the Internal Market Bill, which is part of the post-Brexit legislation.
He claimed that it would interfere with Scottish devolution because Parliament would be taking decisions he believed the Scottish government should take.
Excerpts of his speech and the debate follow, emphases mine (unless otherwise stated):
Westminster Ministers will still have the right to impose lower food, environmental and other devolved standards on Scotland, regardless of the view of Holyrood. This Bill is the biggest assault on devolution in the history of the Scottish Parliament. It undermines devolved policy making, grabs spending powers, and removes state aid from being a devolved responsibility. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly refused to give this Bill consent, and it is outrageous that the UK Government are once again ignoring the wishes of the people of Scotland as well as Wales …
The only reason for this Bill as it now stands is to demolish devolution. If the Government take this Bill forward today, as they obviously will, that is what they will be doing. Any pretence thereafter by the Scottish Tory MPs that they respect the democratic rights of the people of Scotland will be blown apart if they support this today. In fact, they have already supported it, because it seems that it will go through. They have done nothing to protect the democratic rights of the Scottish people.
People in Scotland are watching. People in Scotland, when they see the effects of this Bill, will be angry about the fact that their rights are being taken away by these Tory Ministers, aided by their Labour bedfellows. They will be furious about the fact that their rights are being stripped from them. They are listening, they are watching, and they are seeing developments in this place. They are understanding, now, that the only way to protect their Parliament, their rights and their democracy in Scotland is to go forward as an independent nation—and they will be voting for that, I am sure, in due course.
Yet another SNP rant about rights, democracy and independence.
The debate went on for some time. At the end, the presiding minister responding for the Government — Conservative MP, Paul Scully — concluded:
I welcome the contributions and the constructive discussions that we have had in recent days with Opposition Members in both Houses that have got us to this place. We have had some passionate debates on the Bill, because of the importance of the issues. However, the Bill will ensure that UK businesses can trade across the four parts of the UK in a way that helps them to invest and create jobs, just as they have for hundreds of years. I am therefore delighted to ask the House to agree to the amendments, and to complete our scrutiny and consideration of the Bill.
At that point, Drew Hendry stood up and walked towards the centre of the Chamber, a big no-no. Then he grabbed the mace:
Dame Rosie Winterton was the Deputy Speaker for the debate.
This was the exchange between her and Hendry:
Hendry: This is an outrage to Scotland. It is not acceptable.
Winterton: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat, and he knows that. [Interruption.] This is just showing off. He should resume his seat, otherwise I will name him and order him to leave. [Interruption.] Does he want to be named? Is that what is happening? [Interruption.] If that is what is happening, we can do it. [Interruption.] Okay—I will name him. I know what he is doing. [Interruption.] Oh, for goodness’ sake! Very childish.
Hansard records that the suspension took place under Standing Order No. 44:
Drew Hendry, Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, was named by the Deputy Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chair (Standing Order No. 44).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44),
That Drew Hendry be suspended from the service of the House.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker directed Drew Hendry to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.
Guido Fawkes posted the BBC video the next day. His readers were appalled:
It was a costly move on Hendry’s part. One of Guido’s readers recalled that Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle also grabbed the mace. That was on December 18, 2018, also in a Brexit-related debate; he was suspended only for the rest of the day:
Guido’s report explained the £7,000 (emphases in the original):
SNP MP Drew Hendry made a bit of a fool of himself last night, shouting to disrupt proceedings and then seizing the mace – all over the passage of the Internal Market Bill. As a result of his actions he was officially ‘named’ and suspended from the House for five working days. Despite some news outlets claiming the suspension is just 24 hours, Guido’s well placed source says they have got it wrong.
Two aspects of the suspension that have gone unreported are that; firstly it is without pay and secondly it covers five working days. Meaning that after today and tomorrow, the House will have to sit for three more days before Hendry can be paid again. Even if the Commons returns for an extraordinary day or two to ratify a potential Brexit deal, it is unlikely there will be a third sitting day until well into January. It’s possible therefore that Hendry’s five sitting days suspension could end up lasting for a calendar month – costing the MP almost £7,000 in lost salary. A very expensive mace grab.
It’s hard to know what happened in the end, but a £7,000 penalty would have been fitting.
Accusing an MP of lying
Another way of getting suspended from the Commons is to accuse an MP of lying, which is what Labour’s Dawn Butler did on the final day before this year’s summer recess.
On Thursday, July 22, 2021, in the Summer Adjournment debate, she said, in part:
While the NHS was coping with 130,000 people dying from the pandemic, the Prime Minister was making his mates rich. Cronyism is rife and old chums are given jobs regardless of their skillset—some a little bit on the side. This has been one big experiment for this corrupt, authoritarian, racism-laden Government, and I am not scared of saying it like it is …
Poor people in our country have paid with their lives because the Prime Minister spent the last 18 months misleading this House and the country.
Peter Stefanovic from the Communication Workers Union has a video with more than 27 million views online. In it he highlights that the Prime Minister says: that the economy has grown by 73%—it is just not true; that he has reinstated nursing bursaries—just not true; that there is not a covid app working anywhere in the world—just not true; and that the Tories invested £34 billion in the NHS—not true. The Prime Minister said
“we have severed the link between infection and serious disease and death.”
Not only is that not true but it is dangerous.
It is dangerous to lie during a pandemic, and I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has not come to the House to correct the record and correct the fact that he has lied to this House and the country over and over again.
Having watched enough of these debates and all of Boris’s coronavirus briefings, he did not say any of those things.
Judith Cummins MP (Lab) was Deputy Speaker while Dame Rosie Winterton was self-isolating with the virus. She did a great job in handling the situation:
Cummins: Order. I am sure the hon. Lady will reflect on her words and perhaps correct the record.
Butler: What would you rather, Madam Deputy Speaker, a weakened leg or a severed leg? At the end of the day, the Prime Minister has lied to this House time and time again. It is funny that we get in trouble in this place for calling out the lie rather than for lying.
Cummins: Order. Can you please reflect on your words and withdraw your remarks?
Butler: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have reflected on my words. Somebody needs to tell the truth in this House that the Prime Minister has lied.
Standing Order No. 43 was invoked:
The Deputy Speaker ordered Dawn Butler, Member for Brent Central, to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of the day’s sitting (Standing Order No. 43), and the Member withdrew accordingly.
Guido’s team posted the video:
The accompanying post had this sentence (highlight in the original):
This attention-seeking stunt will work as desired…
Unfortunately, Butler left the Commons at 3:49 p.m., and summer recess began around 5 p.m., so any salary deductions were minimal.
Even so, the left-leaning PARLYappteam thought Judith Cummins did the right thing:
But there was more. Stuart Andrew MP responded to the debate on behalf of the Government. I really like him. He came from humble circumstances and is now the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household.
Of Dawn Butler, he said:
I cannot ignore the disappointing tone of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). It was disappointing to hear the constant accusation of cronyism and corruption. I took particular offence at being described as a member of a racism-enabling Government. I have faced prejudice in my life, and I have ended up in hospital, as did my father, because of my sexuality. I took offence at being told that I do not believe in the NHS, as I spent most of my working life working for the hospice movement, and at being told that we do not care about poorer families, as my dad spent a lot of time in unemployment—I had to have free school meals. I take exception to such accusations.
I will stand up to anyone who discriminates against any single person for who or what they are, or for who they love. I will defend the NHS for as long as I am alive. I believe that the best way to help our poorest families is to give them the opportunity to have a job that pays well, because being able to support themselves is their best opportunity for a better life.
PARLY picked up on it:
Later that afternoon, Butler tweeted:
She tweeted again that evening with another video:
In between those tweets, The Independent‘s Chief Political Commentator, veteran journalist John Rentoul, hardly a conservative, appeared on GB News to say that Butler’s actions were ‘a cheap political stunt’. Someone replied with a news story about Butler from 2012:
John Rentoul — and Guido — were correct.
On Friday, July 23, Guido reported on the great social media results for the MP:
Dawn Butler’s Commons hissy fit yesterday went exactly as planned: her own Twitter clip is currently on 1.4 million views, though she’s retweeted various other uploads of the clip which total 6.3 million in about half a day. She even had a speedily filmed and produced Byline TV interview out on the strop stunt…
The monetary fine was negligible:
It turns out Dawn’s stunt came very close to backfiring. Thankfully for her she was only suspended for the remainder of the day’s sitting – if she’d been thrown out using a similar standing order, and been suspended until the next sitting day, she would have remained a suspended MP going into the Summer recess, thereby being unable to draw a salary for over six weeks. Six weeks of an MP’s salary would have come to £9453. Commons sources suggest Dawn’s dodging of this unlucky outcome was unlikely to have been deliberate after a careful reading of Parliamentary procedure…
There is much more to write about her, but that will have to wait for another day.
On Monday, July 12, the day after the Euro 2020 final, GB News presenter Guto Harri took the knee in solidarity with the cause.
His co-presenter, Mercy Muroki, looked on, silently embarrassed for him:
Fallout
That was the last the channel’s viewers saw of Guto Harri, a Welshman who used to work at the BBC and also advised Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London.
On July 13, Harri defended his gesture:
On Thursday, July 15, GB News tweeted:
That evening, The Guardian posted an article about the channel’s tanking ratings after the Harri incident (emphases mine, unless stated otherwise):
GB News attracted zero viewers during some of its broadcasts this week, according to official television audience figures produced by rating agency Barb, after a viewer boycott prompted by one of its presenters taking the knee in solidarity with the England football team …
Business editor Liam Halligan and former Labour MP Gloria De Piero attracted no measurable audience to their show between 1pm and 1.30pm on Wednesday afternoon. During the same timeslot the BBC News channel attracted 62,000 viewers, while Sky News had 50,000 people watching.
GB News’ audience again briefly dipped to zero at 5pm, during a late-afternoon programme co-hosted by ex-BBC presenter Simon McCoy and former Ukip spokesperson Alex Phillips.
The Guardian also acknowledged GB News’s aforementioned tweets.
On July 16, Guido Fawkes wrote that no one was sure whether Harri had been suspended for a time or whether he was fired.
In any event, Harri’s Twitter bio no longer mentions GB News.
Programming director quits
That same day, the channel’s programming director, John McAndrew, quit, something that management confirmed only on July 28:
Guido wrote that McAndrew was second in command and disagreed about the channel’s focus:
Apparently McAndrew had been in favour of more local reporting and open discussions rather than the Wootton-style culture war rants.
To be fair, the local reporters appear on the daytime shows. The evening programmes, such as Dan Wootton’s, discuss socio-political issues.
The channel was quick to implement schedule changes last weekend:
TalkRADIO’s Mark Dolan hired
Mark Dolan’s Saturday night show aired for the first time on July 24. Nana Akua, the former presenter in that slot, has been moved to a daytime show.
Nana Akua has no time for wokery, as her last show in the Saturday night slot proved. The Express had the story on Sunday:
A GB News clash erupted last night after host Nana Akua urged Meghan Markle and Prince Harry to “just stop talking please”. This prompted a defence from Tonight Live guests Nicola McLean and Martin Offiah, who argued that Meghan and Harry “were connecting with people”. The trio had discussed reports of new details about Prince William’s rift with his brother Harry.
Mark Dolan was a top-rated host on talkRADIO. The Express reported:
Mark is best known for hosting his own Drivetime show on TalkRadio for the past two years but he is jumping ship to join GB News from Friday, July 23, 2021. With 20 years of broadcasting experience behind him, he will be taking Nana‘s Friday and Saturday night slots to oversee proceedings on his chat show, Late Night Live. It will run from 9pm until 12am and he will speak to numerous guests about topical matters making the headlines.
On joining the network, Mark said: “I’ve had a wonderful time at TalkRadio but the opportunity to shake up the current affairs broadcasting with GB News is just too good to miss.
“My show will tackle the issues that really matter to people across the United Kingdom in a stimulating, informative but entertaining way.
“My one promise is that I won’t be boring,” he concluded …
He certainly was not boring. His is a good show.
Nigel Farage to the rescue — five days a week
The biggest catch of all is Nigel Farage, who is now on GB News five days a week: Monday through Thursday at 7 p.m. and Sunday mornings:
Farage had the Sunday morning show since GB News launched, but the addition of the 7 p.m. slot, which premiered on Monday, July 19, has been a real fillip for the channel’s ratings.
On July 19, Freedom Day, an anti-lockdown protest took place outside of Downing Street. Political correspondent Tom Harwood, who used to work for Guido Fawkes, tried to file a report but Nigel had to cut him off because of all the obscenities being shouted at him. The Express reported:
Spotting the difficulties in the broadcast, Nigel quickly took action and decided to end Tom’s report there.
Cutting him off, Nigel said: “Okay, Tom, I’m sorry, I don’t want to cut you off, I really don’t.”
The camera then cut to Nigel in the studio as he continued: “11 people have been arrested so far,
“But you can see, talk about don’t shoot the messenger, there’s Tom Harwood reporting for us and there are obscenities being shouted at Tom because he’s a member, he’s part of the media … ”
One of the big features of Farage’s weeknight show is the ‘Talking Pints’ segment.
He has had an eclectic assortment of guests in that slot, beginning with Sir Graham Brady MP, who heads the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers:
On Tuesday, July 27, former Conservative MP, Brexit Party MEP and devout Catholic, Ann Widdecombe, who was drinking cola, as she is teetotal. She disparaged Boris as PM but said that he is still ‘100 times stronger’ than Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer. I always look to see how much drink both host and guest consume. In this episode, Farage downed the most ever — half a pint:
By Monday, July 26, Farage’s show was climbing in the ratings, beating Sky News’s show in the 7 p.m. slot:
Guido has the ratings from Monday-Thursday last week. Farage’s show beat Sky News Tonight every evening.
On Tuesday, July 27, Farage’s ratings took over the BBC’s in that slot (emphases in the original):
UPDATE 28.07: Nige beat both the BBC and Sky News last night –
-
- Farage – 90.8k
- Sky News Tonight – 55.1k
- BBC Outside Source – 89.1k
Congratulations…
It happened again on Wednesday, with an even greater figure — 107.7k to 93.3k:
Well done, Nigel!
Digital ratings
Rebecca Hutson, Head of Digital and occasional co-presenter, is keen to target younger audiences via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and — incredibly — TikTok. GB News is the only British broadcasting channel to use the Chinese-owned social media video platform.
On July 21, Hutson explained her strategy to Press Gazette:
… the fledgling brand said social media engagement figures show it is resonating with younger audiences to a perhaps surprising extent.
Head of digital and presenter Rebecca Hutson … said GB News is really a “digital media business that has a TV channel attached” …
Hutson told Press Gazette: “We know that traditional linear consumption has really changed. People don’t sit at home for three hours and watch a show. Instead they want to snack on the best bits for them on the platforms that they’re already using.
“So that’s why we publish natively across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and we tailor the content specifically for the platform that it’s on so we’re pretty agnostic in terms of how the content looks and feels across the different destinations that we have and the website.”
For example, she added, the brand is more likely to put an eight-minute monologue on YouTube and short snippets on Twitter which is a “much quicker platform”.
“Rather than trying to turn all of our platforms into a homogenous output, we spend a lot of time looking at the analytics and amending how the content appears on there and that’s really paying off,” Hutson said …
TikTok has been useful in attracting younger viewers:
On TikTok GB News has had 24,500 likes and more than 350,000 views across 30 videos and 4,000 followers so far.
Hutson said the numbers may be “quite surprising for people who would maybe think that we don’t have relevance or resonance to that younger audience when we clearly do”.
Hutson said explainer videos decoding the news are proving to work best for TikTok. The most-watched GB News TikTok so far explains who Sajid Javid is after he replaced Matt Hancock as Health Secretary …
Almost a third (31%) of 18 to 24-year-olds use TikTok, and 9% get news on it.
As for demographics:
On TV only, excluding the likes of TikTok and Instagram, almost a third (32%) of GB News’ audience is aged between 18 and 34. Some 39% are aged 55 and above.
Some 62% of the TV audience is in the middle class ABC1 demographic – a drop from the 82% ABC1 demographic thought to have tuned in for Andrew Neil’s opening show on 13 June.
The new shows, higher ratings and digital strategy are welcome developments for GB News, which is an excellent channel. Now that Parliament is in summer recess, I have been watching quite a lot of their output. The shows present alternative viewpoints, from libertarian to left-wing: a good thing.
Dr Colin Axon, Brunel University’s senior lecturer in engineering, has been advising SAGE on ventilation in supermarkets in an effort to minimise the risk of cross-contamination.
On July 17, he said that masks do not help to reduce cross-infection.
The Telegraph reported that he compared masks to ‘comfort blankets’, saying that wearing one is ‘bad behaviour’ (emphases mine):
“The public were demanding something must be done, they got masks, it is just a comfort blanket,” Dr Axon noted. “But now it is entrenched, and we are entrenching bad behaviour.
Dr Axon added that the effect of mask wearing is too small to be accurately measured:
All around the world you can look at mask mandates and superimpose on infection rates, you cannot see that mask mandates made any effect whatsoever.
The best thing you can say about any mask is that any positive effect they do have is too small to be measured.
Good.
He said that medics have a ‘cartoonish’ view of the world and do not understand some of the laws of physics:
Medics have this cartoonised view of how particles move through the air – it’s not their fault, it’s not their domain – they’ve got a cartoonish view of how the world is.
Once a particle is not on a biological surface it is no longer a biomedical issue, it is simply about physics. The public has only a partial view of the story if information only comes from one type of source. Medics have some of the answers but not a whole view.
Also:
Dr Axon said the public need to be offered a wider view of the science behind face masks, rather than the “partial view” of information being pushed by medics over their effic[acy].
He compared escaping droplets from masks to marbles being thrown at scaffolding:
“The small sizes are not easily understood but an imperfect analogy would be to imagine marbles fired at builders’ scaffolding, some might hit a pole and rebound, but obviously most will fly through,” he told The Telegraph.
Excellent.
I hope that more scientists and engineers start to speak up about masks.
It was with sadness that I read of Jackie Mason’s death at the weekend.
Still, he had a good innings. He was 93 years old.
The Daily Mail had an excellent obituary of one of the world’s most consistently funny comics. Excerpts follow, emphases mine.
Life before comedy
I did not know that he was born in Wisconsin:
Mason was born in 1928 in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, as Yacov Moshe Maza to immigrant parents from Belarus.
In the early 1930s, the family moved to New York’s Lower East Side. All the male relatives were rabbis and young Yacov was expected to follow in their footsteps:
‘It was unheard-of to think of anything else,’ Mason said. ‘But I knew, from the time I’m 12, I had to plot to get out of this, because this is not my calling.’
However, there was no way out for many years. Mason earned a degree in English and Sociology at City College of New York then completed rabbinical studies at Yeshiva University, after which he became a practising rabbi.
He served several congregations, including those in Weldon, North Carolina, and Latrobe, Pennsylvania.
Sometime in the 1950s, he began working summers in the Catskills, a mountain range in New York State, known for its resorts which attracted Jewish clientele. It is known as the Borscht Belt.
He wrote his own material, put comedy sets together and accustomed himself to being on stage.
Comedy career
It was only in 1959, after his father died, that the rabbi pursued a stand-up career full time and changed his name to Jackie Mason.
However, he did not leave his theological training behind. In 1988, he described his style of comedy to the New York Times:
‘My humor — it’s a man in a conversation, pointing things out to you,’
‘He’s not better than you, he’s just another guy,’ he added. ‘I see life with love — I’m your brother up there — but if I see you make a fool out of yourself, I owe it to you to point that out to you.’
From the Catskills, he branched out into the big time, playing clubs in Miami and New York in 1960 after two television appearances on the iconic Steve Allen Show.
I am old enough to remember that Jackie Mason was on television a lot in the early 1960s.
In 1964, he appeared on another iconic programme, The Ed Sullivan Show, which aired on Sunday nights. I remember my mother got very worked up about what happened in one of his appearances, as she was a huge Ed Sullivan fan. We never missed a show. After this appearance she turned against Jackie Mason:
… after a terrible misunderstanding in 1964 between Sullivan and Mason involving a perceived obscene middle finger gesture, Jackie’s career hit a major slump.
Sullivan canceled Mason’s six-show contract, refusing to pay him for the performance.
Mason eventually filed a lawsuit, and won.
Mason’s career did not recover until the late 1970s:
… it would take him many years to find his momentum once again, with his comeback punctuated by well-received performances in 1979’s Steve Martin film The Jerk, and Mel Brooks’s History of the World: Part I two years later.
‘People started to think I was some kind of sick maniac,’ Mr. Mason told Look. ‘It took 20 years to overcome what happened in that one minute.’
My mother would definitely have agreed with the ‘sick maniac’ description, unfounded though it was.
He hired a new manager Jyll Rosenfeld, whom he later married. She convinced him that there was an appetite for Borscht Belt humour beyond the Catskills. He launched a long-running show on Broadway in 1986:
Mason decided to bring his one-man comic shows The World According to Me!, to the Broadway stage in 1986.
The hit show ran for two years, and earned him a special Tony Award in 1987, followed by an Emmy for writing when HBO aired a version of the show.
From there, the legendary comedian put close to a dozen other one-man shows on Broadway, with the last being The Ultimate Jew in 2008.
Here is one of his performances from 1986:
Mason also enjoyed an on-screen appearance in Caddyshack II in 1988 and a voice-over as Rabbi Krustofsky in an early episode of The Simpsons in 1992, for which he won a second Primetime Emmy Award, for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance.
In the aforementioned New York Times interview from 1988, he was philosophical in the way only a rabbi can be:
‘I’ve been doing this for a hundred thousand years, but it’s like I was born last Thursday,’ Mr. Mason told The New York Times in 1988.
‘They see me as today’s comedian. Thank God I stunk for such a long time and was invisible, so I could be discovered.’
London appearances
For several years, Jackie Mason used to come to London once a year for a stand-up show that was often televised.
I was in stitches.
Guido Fawkes tweeted Mason’s 2002 appearance, which was or was close to being his last over here:
Here’s the video, which is just over 90 minutes long:
The next video is his 1999 performance at the London Palladium. It is just under 40 minutes long:
However, in 1992, Mason did a half-hour set at Oxford University, where he ribbed the students for their total lack of sartorial elegance and fondness of political correctness. He also made fun of the Jewish lifestyle which encompasses self-denial of Jewishness as well as certain material aspirations. The University asked him to do the set for free, something at which he also cavilled, in a humorous way:
This is his description of the video:
This is a clip from a lecture I gave at Oxford University back in 1992. They gave me an award and a fellowship in the Oxford Union Society. The first American comedian to receive such an honor. That’s how they got me to work for nothing. Enjoy!
Here’s the second part, which was a Q&A session:
He talked about his years as a rabbi where people didn’t want the sermon and hoped for a few jokes. He said that Oxford students were very polite and he hadn’t heard one four-letter word yet: ‘I’m waiting, I’m waiting’.
Near the end, he said that England is the most polite society in the Western world with all the ubiquitous apologies one hears. The only exception, he noted, is in Parliament, where the raucous tone reminded him of a ‘sanitarium’.
Politics and talk radio
In 1998, Mason’s biography was published and he began a career in talk radio:
he published an autobiography, ‘Jackie, Oy!’ (written with Ken Gross), and discovered a new venture as an opinionated political commentator on talk radio.
Twenty years later, he issued a series of vlogs against then-candidate Barack Obama. I watched most of them. This one discusses the first presidential debate in September 2008:
His description of the Obama v McCain debate reads as follows:
Here are my thoughts on the first presidential debate. Although neither candidate had a clear victory Friday night, the media is saying Obama won because he didn’t lose. He looked poised and presidential. Well he did look poised as he made no sense! And if looking Presidential is telling bold lies, the Hail to the Chief!
In 2016, Mason was an unabashed Trump supporter:
He was among the few well-known entertainers to support former President Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign.
In October 2016, he appeared on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, which airs in New York City and Philadelphia. Mason contrasted Trump’s words about women to Bill Clinton’s actual violence against his victims.
Breitbart had the story, reporting that Mason said:
What Trump ever did to women is that he called them a name because she gained too much weight so he said she got too fat and he called her a pig. Imagine if the worst thing Bill Clinton ever did was call a girl a name. He called them names after he raped them.
When he got through with them, Juanita Broaddrick wound up with a cut lip. And he had advised her to please go see a doctor. He was very compassionate about sending them to doctors. But he wasn’t too concerned about beating them up in the first place. He was so busy punching them around that nobody knows if he made love to them or he just wanted to beat them up a little bit.
As for Hillary, he said:
He was really a violent, insane character. Now his wife, she had a job. Her job was to make sure that these women were never heard about it. Every time somebody threatened to talk about it she immediately went to work on destroying them. First he punched them around. Then it was her job to wipe them out altogether.
… And she’s calling Trump a person who can’t be trusted because of the way he treats women? This is like somebody who crossed a red light being compared to a murderer.
After Trump’s election, Mason turned his attention towards the RINOs, especially the then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan:
In March 2017, Breitbart reported:
In this week’s exclusive clip for Breitbart News, Jackie weighs in on the GOP’s failed healthcare bill, explaining that Republicans in Washington were focused on “repealing and replacing” the wrong thing.
“When they were talking about ‘repeal and replace,’ they were stupid,” Jackie says. “They were talking about healthcare, they should have been talking about [House Speaker Paul] Ryan. If Ryan was repealed and replaced we would have had no problem today.”
Jackie — who was born in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, in Ryan’s home state — says he finds it odd that a Speaker of the House who is supposed to be some kind of “genius” can’t count correctly.
“You know what Ryan should do if he wanted to save this whole country? Get another job,” he says. “Find out something that you actually know. If there’s nothing like that, sit in the House and don’t bother anybody. Mind your own business, you’ll save the country.”
My deepest sympathies go to his widow and former manager Jyll Rosenfeld and his daughter Sheba Mason, from a former union with Ginger Reiter in the 1970s and 1980s.
For more Jackie Mason shows and interviews, visit TheUltimateJew channel on YouTube.
The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.
Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.
Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
Final Instructions
12 Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brothers, but it was not at all his will[a] to come now. He will come when he has opportunity.
13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 14 Let all that you do be done in love.
15 Now I urge you, brothers[b]—you know that the household[c] of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints— 16 be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. 17 I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence, 18 for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. Give recognition to such people.
———————————————————————————————–
Last week’s post was about Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians about the good treatment of Timothy, who was going to minister to them, young though he was.
Paul mentions Apollos, whom he urged to visit Corinth, then says that he did not wish to go at that time (verse 12).
Apollos is mentioned in Acts 18:24-28:
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit,[a] he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
My post on Acts 18:24-28 has much more about this Jewish convert who went to the southern part of Greece — Achaia — and ended up at the church in Corinth for a time. He was a highly eloquent speaker and some members of the congregation put more weight on his teachings than they did Paul’s.
In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul exhorted the Corinthians to view all good preachers in unity. One should not be favoured over the other:
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers,[a] that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
Matthew Henry explains that Paul really wanted Apollos to return to the Corinthians (emphases mine):
Paul did not hinder Apollos from going to Corinth in his own absence, nay, he pressed him to go thither. He had no suspicions of Apollos, as if he would lessen Paul’s interest and respect among them, to the advancement of his own. Note, Faithful ministers are not apt to entertain jealousies of each other, nor suspect of such selfish designs. True charity and brotherly love think no evil. And where should these reign, if not in the breasts of the ministers of Christ? 2. Apollos could not be prevailed on for the present to come, but would at a more convenient season. Perhaps their feuds and factions might render the present season improper. He would not go to be set at the head of a party and countenance the dividing and contentious humour. When this had subsided, through Paul’s epistle to them and Timothy’s ministry among them, he might conclude a visit would be more proper. Apostles did not vie with each other, but consulted each other’s comfort and usefulness. Paul intimates his great regard to the church of Corinth, when they had used him ill, by entreating Apollos to go to them; and Apollos shows his respect to Paul, and his concern to keep up his character and authority, by declining the journey till the Corinthians were in better temper. Note, It is very becoming the ministers of the gospel to have and manifest a concern for each other’s reputation and usefulness.
In the end, Apollos did return to Corinth and became an elder in their church. Some Bible scholars believe that Apollos wrote the Book of Hebrews. He is recognised as a saint in the Orthodox churches, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
Paul then gives the Corinthians two instructions. The first is to stand firm in the faith with maturity (verse 13). The second is to do everything in love (verse 14).
John MacArthur has a whole sermon on these two verses.
Henry has a more succinct analysis:
The Corinthians were in manifest danger upon many accounts: their feuds ran high, the irregularities among them were very great, there were deceivers got among them, who endeavoured to corrupt their faith in the most important articles, those without which the practice of virtue and piety could never subsist. And surely in such dangerous circumstances it was their concern to watch. Note, If a Christian would be secure, he must be on his guard; and the more his danger the greater vigilance is needful for his security. 2. He advises them to stand fast in the faith, to keep their ground, adhere to the revelation of God, and not give it up for the wisdom of the world, nor suffer it to be corrupted by it–stand for the faith of the gospel, and maintain it even to death; and stand in it, so as to abide in the profession of it, and feel and yield to its influence. Note, A Christian should be fixed in the faith of the gospel, and never desert nor renounce it. It is by this faith alone that he will be able to keep his ground in an hour of temptation; it is by faith that we stand (2 Corinthians 1:24); it is by this that we must overcome the world (1 John 5:4), both when it fawns and when it frowns, when it tempts and when it terrifies. We must stand therefore in the faith of the gospel, if we would maintain our integrity. 3. He advises them to act like men, and be strong: “Act the manly, firm, and resolved part: behave strenuously, in opposition to the bad men who would divide and corrupt you, those who would split you into factions or seduce you from the faith: be not terrified nor inveigled by them; but show yourselves men in Christ, by your steadiness, by your sound judgment and firm resolution.” Note, Christians should be manly and firm in all their contests with their enemies, in defending their faith, and maintaining their integrity. They should, in an especial manner, be so in those points of faith that lie at the foundation of sound and practical religion, such as were attacked among the Corinthians: these must be maintained with solid judgment and strong resolution.
That said, we should act in love and charity:
We may defend our faith, but we must, at the same time, maintain our innocence, and not devour and destroy, and think with ourselves that the wrath of man will work the righteousness of God, James 1:24. Note, Christians should be careful that charity not only reign in their hearts, but shine out in their lives, nay, in their most manly defences of the faith of the gospel. There is a great difference between constancy and cruelty, between Christian firmness and feverish wrath and transport. Christianity never appears to so much advantage as when the charity of Christians is most conspicuous when they can bear with their mistaken brethren, and oppose the open enemies of their holy faith in love, when every thing is done in charity, when they behave towards one another, and towards all men, with a spirit of meekness and good will.
Paul then mentions Stephanas and his household, the first converts in Achaia (verse 15), the part of Greece in which Corinth was located, and tells the Corinthians to be subject to them as well as every other fellow worker and labourer in the church (verse 16).
MacArthur gives us some background on the earliest years of Paul’s ministry in Achaia:
The south part is the ancient Achaia – he preached Christ. In fact in the seventeenth chapter of Acts it tells us that he preached at Athens and some believed including Dionysius the Areopagite and another person as well believed, and then he went from there on – and probably some others in addition to those two – then he went on into Corinth and there he preached and there were many who believed. There was Crispus who was the leader of the synagogue. There was Gaius who probably, according to Romans 16:23, was Paul’s host while he was there in Corinth. And there was this household of Stephanas, and there was the household of one named Chloe, and there were many others who believed. Now watch. What he’s really saying here is that God was going to grow a church in Achaia. That was His plan. And as a guarantee that God was going to grow a church, God gave some first fruits …
Further, there may have been other individuals saved before him and perhaps he was the first household and that’s why he’s designated as first fruits. But either he’s included in the first fruits or he’s the first household saved in Corinth. The point simply being that he was the guarantee. By the Spirit of God giving this family and this household, God was in effect saying there’s going to be a full harvest in the city of Corinth. And there was, there was a great church built there, a wonderful church to which Paul ministered for one and a half years teaching the Word of God. And this group was the beginning of that church.
Henry says that Stephanas would have been a man of high social rank, yet, once converted, he and his household devoted themselves to serving the church in Corinth:
They have disposed and devoted themselves—etaxan heautous, to serve the saints, to do service to the saints. It is not meant of the ministry of the word properly, but of serving them in other respects, supplying their wants, helping and assisting them upon all occasions, both in their temporal and spiritual concerns. The family of Stephanas seems to have been a family of rank and importance in those parts, and yet they willingly offered themselves to this service. Note, It is an honour to persons of the highest rank to devote themselves to the service of the saints. I do not mean to change ranks, and become proper servants to the inferiors, but freely and voluntarily to help them, and do good to them in all their concerns.
Both commentators use the word ‘addicted’ in describing the service of Stephanas and his household, because that is what the word ‘devoted’ means in Greek.
Henry says:
… they had moreover addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints, to serve the saints.
MacArthur explains:
Now let me go back to the word devoted. It’s the word tassō. Moffett and Morris, in his commentary, say that the root meaning of this word is addicted. Did you get that? Addicted. What a great thought? They have addicted themselves to the service of the saints. Isn’t that great? They have addicted themselves to it. Now you say well, what is the service of the saints? Well, the word service or ministry, and your Bible may say ministry, is diakonia, from which we get deacon. Now diakonia originally meant a table waiter, and it came to mean anybody who serves somebody else in the church out of love. Any loving service is diakonia.
Now the New Testament describes all kinds of diakonia. For example, it talks about the diakonia of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:5. It says, “there are many services,” and then it goes on to describe the spiritual gifts. So spiritual gifts is one kind of diakonia. If we’re addicted to serving the saints, it means we’re addicted to using our spiritual gifts. Another one, in Acts 11:29 and 2 Corinthians 8:4, it speaks of the diakonia of giving. So that when we give our money that is serving the saints. Not as many of us are addicted to giving as perhaps we ought to be. So being addicted to the serving of the saints means we serve the saints through our spiritual gifts. We serve the saints through giving.
Stephanas, along with Fortunatus and Achaicus, went to stay with Paul in Ephesus; Paul says they have made up for the absence of the rest of the Corinthians (verse 17), which is a wonderful thing to say to such a wayward congregation. Paul loves them all, the good and the not so good.
Paul says that the three men’s presence has refreshed his spirit as well as the Corinthians’, therefore, the congregation should give them recognition, or respect, for that (verse 18).
Henry’s commentary says that the men gave Paul more details about what was going on in the Corinthian church, possibly allaying his worst fears:
They gave him a more perfect account of the state of the church by word of mouth than he could acquire by their letter, and by that means much quieted his mind, and upon their return from him would quiet the minds of the Corinthians. Report had made their cause much worse than it was in fact, and their letters had not explained it sufficiently to give the apostle satisfaction; but he had been made more easy by converse with them. It was a very good office they did, by truly stating facts, and removing the ill opinion Paul had received by common fame. They came to him with a truly Christian intention, to set the apostle right, and give him as favourable sentiments of the church as they could, as peace-makers. Note, It is a great refreshment to the spirit of a faithful minister to hear better of a people by wise and good men of their own body than by common report, to find himself misinformed concerning them, that matters are not so bad as they had been represented. It is a grief to him to hear ill of those he loves; it gladdens his heart to hear the report thereof is false. And the greater value he has for those who give him this information, and the more he can depend upon their veracity, the greater is his joy.
In closing, MacArthur gives us this insight on 1 and 2 Corinthians:
No other church is so rebuked as this.
On the other hand that is an evidence of love, because love is something that admonishes and rebukes when sin is visible. In fact I just would call your attention to the fact that if you take the 16 chapters of 1 Corinthians and you take the 13 chapters of 2 Corinthians that totals 29 chapters written to straighten out one church. Now in terms of chapters that makes it the longest book in the New Testament. There’s no other book that has 29 chapters. The closest is Matthew and Acts but this one had 29 chapters, because there was so much to say, because there was such a mess in Corinth. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not have 29 chapters written about me to try to straighten me out, but that’s what happened in Corinth. The book is loaded with rebuke but it is also loaded with love, because you see, it’s love that calls to righteousness. Isn’t it? It is love that rebukes always. It’s love that says, “Here is the way; walk ye in it.”
My next post on 1 Corinthians 16 concludes the book. After that, it is on to 2 Corinthians.
Next time — 1 Corinthians 16:19-24
The Eighth Sunday after Trinity — Ninth Sunday after Pentecost — is July 25, 2021.
Readings for Year B can be found here.
The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):
John 6:1-21
6:1 After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, also called the Sea of Tiberias.
6:2 A large crowd kept following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick.
6:3 Jesus went up the mountain and sat down there with his disciples.
6:4 Now the Passover, the festival of the Jews, was near.
6:5 When he looked up and saw a large crowd coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread for these people to eat?”
6:6 He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do.
6:7 Philip answered him, “Six months’ wages would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.”
6:8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him,
6:9 “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish. But what are they among so many people?”
6:10 Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was a great deal of grass in the place; so they sat down, about five thousand in all.
6:11 Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
6:12 When they were satisfied, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, so that nothing may be lost.”
6:13 So they gathered them up, and from the fragments of the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten, they filled twelve baskets.
6:14 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they began to say, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world.”
6:15 When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself.
6:16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea,
6:17 got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
6:18 The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing.
6:19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were terrified.
6:20 But he said to them, “It is I; do not be afraid.”
6:21 Then they wanted to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the land toward which they were going.
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
Although this reading is from John’s Gospel, it fits into last week’s, which was from Mark.
Last week’s reading described what happened before the Feeding of the Five Thousand and told us what happened afterwards in the other places where Jesus went to heal and preach.
Other than the Resurrection, this is the only creative miracle common to all four Gospels. John wrote about other miracles that the synoptic Gospels — those of Matthew, Mark and Luke — do not cover.
It should be noted that Jesus fed more than five thousand people. The five thousand is men alone. There would have been women and children there, too, making it four to five times that number.
John MacArthur explains:
Of all the miracles that Jesus ever did, this is the most massive miracle in sheer number. When you add up everybody, five thousand men, plus women and children, Matthew adds, you’ve got between twenty and twenty-five thousand people and He creates a meal for them. And they’re not really spectators of the miracle, they’re participants in the miracle because they eat the meal. So this is a very intimate experience. There’s no other miracle that Jesus did that involves so many people. The closest one would be a subsequent feeding of four thousand which He did a little later in the area of Decapolis on the east side also of the Sea of Galilee. But the massive nature of this miracle makes it remarkable and that’s why all four gospels included. It’s the only miracle other than his own resurrection recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
It is also worth noting that this is a truly supernatural miracle. This is not about sharing, contrary to what we hear preached in our time.
MacArthur says:
It really never has been denied until more modern times when critics have decided that it really wasn’t a miracle at all, what really happened was a little boy gave up his lunch and everybody said, “Wow, let’s all share.” And so everybody reached into their knapsack and pulled out whatever they had. And you had this great spiritual experience of sharing. We’re going to see that that’s an absolute utter impossibility and would only come up in the minds of unbelievers and skeptics who were trying to discredit the Bible and deny the deity of Jesus Christ …
… the Holy Spirit is narrating this to us in a way that just continues to repeat the impossibility of the situation. There’s no human explanation for this…none. It’s not a lesson in sharing cause they couldn’t find anything. Five crackers and two pickled fish, but what are these among so many people?
By the time John wrote his Gospel, the Sea of Galilee was known as the Sea of Tiberias, named after a Roman emperor (verse 1). Jesus went to the other side because He wanted to hear the Apostles’ accounts of their time preaching and healing. Jesus had given them these temporary powers because they could further His work.
Jesus had compassion for the people, as we read last week (Mark 6:34):
6:34 As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.
Matthew Henry’s commentary says:
He went over the sea of Galilee, called elsewhere the lake of Gennesareth, here the sea of Tiberias, from a city adjoining, which Herod had lately enlarged and beautified, and called so in honour of Tiberius the emperor, and probably had made his metropolis.
A large crowd followed Jesus because they knew about His healing miracles (verse 2).
MacArthur emphasises that most of these people did not want the preaching, only the healing:
They came for temporal miracles, not the eternal words. When He started to speak eternal words by the end of chapter 6, they’re running. Even those who were His followers, many of His disciples walked no more with Him, verse 66. They just bailed out …
This is very important again to remind you, what drew them was not the Kingdom, was not salvation, it was not repentance, it was not sound doctrine, it was not a true understanding of sin, was not a longing for forgiveness, was not the hope of escaping judgment, or escaping hell. What drew them was they saw the healings. Any faithful preacher and any faithful evangelist has to know that that’s the default position of all sinners, give me what I want now the way that I want it. Give me the life I now want.
Jesus and the Apostles went up the mountain (verse 3) and, there, no doubt, He heard of the Apostles’ experiences, the debriefing He intended to have.
John tells us that Passover was near (verse 4).
Henry says that the crowd probably wanted to see Jesus before He went to Jerusalem for that feast:
… perhaps, the approach of the passover, when every one knew Christ would go up to Jerusalem, and be absent for some time, made the multitude flock the more after him and attend the more diligently on him.
When Jesus saw the multitude, He asked Philip where they could buy enough bread for the people to eat (verse 5). The question was a test of Philip’s faith, because Jesus already knew what He would do (verse 6).
Henry gives us the answer that Jesus expected from Philip:
The question put Philip to a nonplus, yet Christ proposed it, to try whether he would say, “Lord, if thou wilt exert thy power for them, we need not buy bread.”
Instead, Philip responded by saying that they did not have money enough — six month’s wages — to buy all the necessary bread (verse 7).
MacArthur points out that this was an impossible situation in temporal terms and that Jesus was articulating it as such:
This is the introduction of Jesus articulating an impossible situation. He wants to verbalize an impossible situation. He wants to make it clear for this narrative for all time that this was an impossible situation. There were no resources. This is a desolate place, there’s nowhere to go to buy bread for this many people. That’s absolutely not possible …
Philip’s answer showed that He failed the test. They’re some sarcasm in this answer, two hundred denarii, denarii…a denarius was a one-day’s wage for a Roman soldier or a worker, so that’s what? … That’s a lot of money…that kind of money, if we had that much worth of bread, it wouldn’t be sufficient for them for everyone to receive a little. You know, if we had the money and we could take the money and buy the bread, we don’t have the money and there’s nowhere to get the bread, and even if we had the money, and got the bread, everybody would get a small bite. That’s not going to do it. These people have been exercising all day, milling around in a crowd, they’ve got to walk back home, that doesn’t make sense. So now we know this is an impossible situation. They’re in an impossible place. They don’t have the money. They don’t have the available bread.
Peter’s brother, Andrew, said (verse 8) that there was a little boy with five barley loaves and two fish but asked how that could be sufficient for feeding the crowd (verse 9).
Henry reminds us about the calling of Andrew and Peter into apostleship:
It was Andrew, here said to be Simon Peter’s brother; … instrumental to bring Peter to Christ …
Henry tells us a bit about the little boy and says that the barley loaves would have been very humble fare indeed for people used to eating wheat bread:
There is a lad here, paidarion—a little lad, probably one that used to follow this company, as settlers do the camp, with provisions to sell, and the disciples had bespoken what he had for themselves; and it was five barley-loaves, and two small fishes. Here, [1.] The provision was coarse and ordinary; they were barley loaves. Canaan was a land of wheat (Deuteronomy 8:8); its inhabitants were commonly fed with the finest wheat (Psalms 81:16), the kidneys of wheat (Deuteronomy 32:14); yet Christ and his disciples were glad of barley-bread. It does not follow hence that we should tie ourselves to such coarse fare, and place religion in it (when God brings that which is finer to our hands, let us receive it, and be thankful); but it does follow that therefore we must not be desirous of dainties (Psalms 23:3); nor murmur if we be reduced to coarse fare, but be content and thankful, and well reconciled to it; barley-bread is what Christ had, and better than we deserve.
The barley loaves were likely to have been a hard cracker, possibly like hardtack, eaten on land and sea because it lasted a long time, even though it was hard on the teeth.
Henry describes the two small fish, likely to have been pickled in the absence of fire for cooking:
There were but two fishes, and those small ones (dyo opsaria), so small that one of them was but a morsel, pisciculi assati. I take the fish to have been pickled, or soused, for they had not fire to dress them with.
Jesus told the Apostles to make the people sit down on the grass, which was plentiful (verse 10).
Then came the miracle, whereby Jesus took the loaves and the fish, giving thanks to God before distributing them to the multitude, who ate to their fill (verse 11).
MacArthur says that this would have been the finest meal anyone could have ever eaten because Jesus created the bread and the fish, perfectly:
And then with no fanfare, no voice from heaven, no lightning, no thunder, He distributed to those who were seated. He just kept passing out crackers and fish. He was creating it. These were crackers that never came from grain, that never grew, that never were in the dirt. Those were fish that never swam. He created them, those are the best crackers anybody ever ate, those were unfallen crackers. Those are uncursed crackers. Look, I like cursed crackers actually, so I don’t know what uncursed crackers would be like. Maybe this is like manna, right? Came from heaven. And this is fish with no mama fish, this is…what kind of fish would God create if He created a perfect fish, never touched by the fallen world. This would tend to cause everyone to overeat, right? If not to be stuffing things in the folds of their clothes.
Consequently, He distributed to all that were seated and they were able to take as much as they wanted. That can’t be a lesson in sharing. If some people have and some people don’t, and you share…everybody gets less than what they want. He could divide it again, the emphasis here is this…there’s no explanation for this. And you’ve got too many eyewitnesses to tamper with it. They all had all they wanted, and they were filled. I love that word “filled,” it’s a word used in animal husbandry, they were foddered up. They stuffed themselves on these crackers and fish. That’s not a delicacy, it’s not like a hummingbird’s tongue like Caesar would be nibbling on. But this is…this is…this is food from heaven, food from the Creator. And you can remember back to perhaps a meal that you had sometime, that you couldn’t forget, probably didn’t come close to this one. How many of them told the story to their children about the greatest meal they ever ate? They were filled. As much as they wanted, foddered up like an animal that’s had enough and turns away from the trough.
Afterwards, Jesus told the disciples to gather up the leftovers, so that nothing went to waste (verse 12). The disciples filled 12 baskets, one for each Apostle, most probably:
And then there was more. It not only was a complete meal and a full meal, it was a precise meal. They gathered up everything that was left, verse 13 says, and it filled twelve baskets with fragments from the crackers left over by those who had eaten. That would be enough for whom? For the disciples, for the twelve. This is a powerful creative miracle, but it’s also a precise creative miracle. That’s exactly what everybody wanted and exactly what the Apostles required as well. The precision of this miracle is stunning, it’s as stunning as the power of this miracle.
The people, having been part of this miracle, were certain that this prophet, Jesus, is the Messiah (verse 14). When Jesus realised they wanted to seize Him and make him a temporal king, He fled to the mountain to withdraw Himself (verse 15).
Henry points out the inconsistency of the crowd’s carnal behaviour and their lack of interest in the spiritual:
Such a wretched incoherence and inconsistency there is between the faculties of the corrupt unsanctified soul, that it is possible for men to acknowledge that Christ is that prophet, and yet to turn a deaf ear to him.
When evening came, the disciples went down to the sea (verse 16) and got in the boat to go to Capernaum in the dark without Jesus, who had not yet come to join them (verse 17).
A storm brewed on the sea (verse 18), making it difficult for the boat to go anywhere except far from the shoreline.
MacArthur gives us Matthew’s account:
… just to give you the familiar things that John doesn’t record, just quickly, Matthew14…Matthew 14, verse 24. “But the boat was already a long distance from the land.” It had gotten pushed out into the middle of the lake. When they would normally have wanted probably to stay pretty close to the shore. Battered by the waves, the wind was contrary and the fourth watch of the night, that’s 3 to 6 A. M.
Then they saw Jesus walking on the water, approaching the boat, and they were terrified (verse 19).
Henry posits that they thought Jesus was a ghost or even that a demon had started the storm and now they were face to face with it:
They were afraid, more afraid of an apparition (for so they supposed him to be) than of the winds and waves. It is more terrible to wrestle with the rulers of the darkness of this world than with a tempestuous sea. When they thought a demon haunted them, and perhaps was instrumental to raise the storm, they were more terrified than they had been while they saw nothing in it but what was natural.
However, Jesus said, ‘It is I; do not be afraid’ (verse 20).
They welcomed Jesus into the boat and ‘immediately’ reached their destination (verse 21), yet another miracle.
Henry makes a practical application for us when we forget we need the Lord’s help at all times:
The disciples had rowed hard, but could not make their point till they had got Christ in the ship, and then the work was done suddenly. If we have received Christ Jesus the Lord, have received him willingly, though the night be dark and the wind high, yet we may comfort ourselves with this, that we shall be at shore shortly, and are nearer to it than we think we are. Many a doubting soul is fetched to heaven by a pleasing surprise, or ever it is aware.
Afterwards, the crowds continued to follow Jesus.
MacArthur reminds us of John 6:26:
In chapter 6 verse 26 Jesus said, “You seek Me because you ate the loaves and were filled.” This is all temporal, physical food, it’s personal well-being, personal fulfillment, personal satisfaction, personal ease …
Drawn by His miracles and sent away by His words. You know, they were wanting physical wellness, physical fulfillment, physical satisfaction. You could put it simply this way, they wanted what all unregenerate people want. These weren’t noble aspirations, they wanted what their lusts demanded …
Jesus does not acquiesce to whims and fancies. He comes to no man on that man’s terms. People can’t manipulate Him for their own selfish ends, He doesn’t promise unregenerate people what unregenerate people want. Jesus will not be a quick fix for felt needs. He will not be the one who just gives you temporal satisfaction. And if you market Him that way, you’re on your own because He’s not there. People do not come to Christ for what they want. They come to Christ for what He demands. He calls on sinners to mourn for their sin, to be broken, penitent, acknowledge Him as sovereign Lord, be obedient to Him, live for Him, maybe die for Him, serve Him as His slave and suffer for Him and be persecuted for Him. And when He gave that message in the rest of the chapter, whist…they were gone…they were gone. Jesus always drives the superficial crowd away with the hard demands of the gospel.
Living a Christlike life is hard work at times. Yet, His yoke is much lighter and easier than living a worldly life as a slave to sin.
May everyone reading this have a blessed Sunday.
Friday, July 23, 2021 was Historic County Flags Day in England.
Some of the flags — Cornwall (Cross of St Piran), Essex and Middlesex (sea axes) — are old. Others, such as Leicestershire’s, are new:
Wiltshire’s dates from 2009 and features a Great Bustard:
Some have been redesigned, such as Northumbria’s.
Hertfordshire’s is only 11 years old:
Even so, the design must represent heraldry and relevant historic symbols. British County Flags states in its entry on Hertfordshire that the county decided to use its banner of arms as its flag:
A few ideas were produced and contact made with the local council, as a result of which the body decided that the preferred option would be to release its banner of arms … flying at the council’s County Hall headquarters in Hertford, to the public, for use as the county flag.
Hertfordshire County Council, under the leadership of Robert Gordon, passed a resolution on 19th November 2008: “This Council has, for the better representation of the County of Hertfordshire and its people, decided that the banner of the County Council’s arms, namely ‘Barry wavy of eight Azure and Argent an Inescutcheon Or charged with a Hart lodged proper’ is a fitting and proper emblem for the county and its people and will from this day be the County flag of Hertfordshire. The use of the full achievement of arms, with supporters and mural crown as a crest, is still restricted to the County Council and those specifically authorised by it.”
It could be that Middlesex’s, nearly identical to Essex’s, has a crown to represent Hampton Court Palace as a royal residence centuries ago:
Unfortunately, county flags are not used that often other than in museums and in front of county council buildings:
Then there is confusion over what constitutes a county, as in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall …
… but this question also pertains to Sussex, divided into East Sussex and West Sussex some years ago:
I only know about this English flag day thanks to PARLYapp, which featured the county flag tweet on Monday, and the House of Commons.
Yesterday, Tom Randall (Con) discussed it in the summer recess debate. He spoke just after Dawn Butler (Lab) was expelled from the Chamber for the day after calling Boris Johnson a liar. More on that next week. Emphases mine below:
On a lighter note, I hope that before the House adjourns today we can celebrate the colourful display that we can currently see in Parliament Square. Tomorrow is Historic County Flags Day. It has been celebrated for some days now, with the flags of the historic counties of England, Scotland and Wales in Parliament Square. The flags on display span the nation and also time. We can see old flags such as the St Piran’s Cross of Cornwall and the Warenne Checks of Surrey, which dates from the 13th century, as well as some more modern designs.
Here is a video from 2014, indicating that Historic County Flags Day might be a moveable feast, as it was held on June 4 that year:
This video celebrates the Leicestershire flag. Alicia Kearns (Con) was present as was Tom Randall:
Randall continued:
Many of those modern designs are thanks to the work of charities such as the Association of British Counties and the Flag Institute. I declare an interest as a former editor of the Flag Institute’s magazine. People at that charity, such as Graham Bartram and Philip Tibbetts, have worked tirelessly to encourage community groups and individuals to design flags, with Philip Tibbetts in particular criss-crossing the country. I congratulate him on his recent appointment as honorary vexillologist to the Court of the Lord Lyon.
One very good example of a modern flag design is the flag of Nottinghamshire, which was designed following a competition organised by Andy Whittaker of BBC Radio Nottingham in 2011. I am pleased to see that a decade later Leicestershire has finally caught up, and as the vice-chair of the flags and heraldry all-party parliamentary group, I was pleased to be in Parliament Square this week to attend the first flag raising of the flag of Leicestershire there.
I did not know about county days, either:
However, Leicestershire does not yet have its own day. I am pleased that Nottinghamshire County Council has today voted unanimously for 25 August to be Nottinghamshire Day. I look forward to seeing the flag of Nottinghamshire flying across the county, in the Houses of Parliament and, I hope, also across the country.
Randall concluded:
Although we are forever one United Kingdom, as we leave this place I hope that we can admire the diversity of our country, return to our constituencies and see all the best that there is in our counties—and I believe that the best of our counties are embodied in our county flags.
British County Flags has detailed descriptions for flags across the United Kingdom. Fascinating for flag and history lovers!
Time is short today, so here are a few brief takes on coronavirus.
The young
I was appalled to see this video of an infant undergoing a PCR test. What are parents and medical staff thinking?
Why would a tiny baby need to undergo such a test? Yes, I agree that the procedure could cause an infection or, worse, damage. The barrier between the brain and back of the nose must be extremely delicate in such a young child.
The old
Allegedly, last October, Prime Minister Boris Johnson sent the following message expressing scepticism about a winter lockdown in England. I agree with all of what he says. Barrister Francis Hoar makes a valid point about deaths of/with coronavirus. At the time Boris made this statement, our PCR cycle threshold was >35, thereby picking up anything and everything:
It is true that, in England, at least, the average age for the elderly dying from the virus is greater than the average life expectancy.
I do wish Boris had had the nerve to ‘recalibrate’ and avoid a winter-to-spring lockdown. He resisted, but, as usual, SAGE got to him, it would seem.
This topic came up in the comments to an article on Conservative Home about Boris.
One reader wrote (emphases mine):
A reply to the comment pointed out the truth about winter respiratory diseases:
I am 82 years old. Pneumonia was always called “the old man’s friend.”
Vaccine passports
Despite the Government denying it for the past seven months, it looks as if coronavirus passports are coming to England.
There is speculation that they will be required at the annual Conservative Party conference this coming autumn in Manchester at the Midland Hotel:
Guido Fawkes says:
The Mail reports the Tories’ September conference in Manchester is set to require Covid passports, in a blow to any libertarian MPs hoping to attend. While most of conference is quite far away from nightclubbing scenes, no doubt photos of a packed Midland’s bar would attract online ire …
Yesterday the Telegraph reported one prominent Tory rebel MP said he suspects if Boris does force them “significant numbers of Conservative MPs and activists will refuse to attend.”
I hope libertarian-minded Conservatives do boycott this. This policy would set a dangerous precedent for civil liberties. It’s a narrow step from a vax passport to a digital ID.
The Mail‘s article reports that the insider said:
‘Some MPs might not like it, but all the polling suggests the public are quite strongly in favour of Covid passports,’ they said.
‘That looks to be truer for the older generations who are more at risk, and might be wanting to come along.’
On their heads be it.
Appalling.
If Boris Johnson at the start of this pandemic did say that those dying from Covid were “essentially all over 80” then he shouldn’t have to apologise. He was right! What he should apologise for is locking us all in our homes for 15 months in order to protect those who have had their “three score years and ten” and then some, and (unpalatable truth though it seems to be for some) are going to die of something eventually all the same.