You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2019.

Readings follow for the Eleventh Sunday after Trinity — Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost — September 1, 2019.

These are for Year C in the three-year Lectionary used in public worship.

There are two choices for the First Reading and Psalm. I have differentiated these by using blue in the headings for the alternative option.

Emphases below are mine.

First reading

Last week’s reading described how the Lord called Jeremiah, a boy, to prophesy. This was probably Jeremiah’s first sermon. Even in faraway lands, no people had changed their gods as God’s people had changed theirs. They had wilfully rejected the true God, for which He would place a severe judgement upon them.

Jeremiah 2:4-13

2:4 Hear the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel.

2:5 Thus says the LORD: What wrong did your ancestors find in me that they went far from me, and went after worthless things, and became worthless themselves?

2:6 They did not say, “Where is the LORD who brought us up from the land of Egypt, who led us in the wilderness, in a land of deserts and pits, in a land of drought and deep darkness, in a land that no one passes through, where no one lives?”

2:7 I brought you into a plentiful land to eat its fruits and its good things. But when you entered you defiled my land, and made my heritage an abomination.

2:8 The priests did not say, “Where is the LORD?” Those who handle the law did not know me; the rulers transgressed against me; the prophets prophesied by Baal, and went after things that do not profit.

2:9 Therefore once more I accuse you, says the LORD, and I accuse your children’s children.

2:10 Cross to the coasts of Cyprus and look, send to Kedar and examine with care; see if there has ever been such a thing.

2:11 Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for something that does not profit.

2:12 Be appalled, O heavens, at this, be shocked, be utterly desolate, says the LORD,

2:13 for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and dug out cisterns for themselves, cracked cisterns that can hold no water.

Psalm

The Psalm ties in well with the reading from Jeremiah. Those who reject God will find He leaves them to their own devices.

Psalm 81:1, 10-16

81:1 Sing aloud to God our strength; shout for joy to the God of Jacob.

81:10 I am the LORD your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Open your mouth wide and I will fill it.

81:11 “But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me.

81:12 So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels.

81:13 O that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways!

81:14 Then I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn my hand against their foes.

81:15 Those who hate the LORD would cringe before him, and their doom would last forever.

81:16 I would feed you with the finest of the wheat, and with honey from the rock I would satisfy you.”

First reading – alternate

Sirach is one of the books in the Catholic canon. The theme of pride and sin is akin to the deliberate rejection of God in the First Reading and Psalm.

Sirach 10:12-18

10:12 The beginning of human pride is to forsake the Lord; the heart has withdrawn from its Maker.

10:13 For the beginning of pride is sin, and the one who clings to it pours out abominations. Therefore the Lord brings upon them unheard-of calamities, and destroys them completely.

10:14 The Lord overthrows the thrones of rulers, and enthrones the lowly in their place.

10:15 The Lord plucks up the roots of the nations, and plants the humble in their place.

10:16 The Lord lays waste the lands of the nations, and destroys them to the foundations of the earth.

10:17 He removes some of them and destroys them, and erases the memory of them from the earth.

10:18 Pride was not created for human beings, or violent anger for those born of women.

Proverbs – alternate

These two verses tie in well with the Gospel reading.

Proverbs 25:6-7

25:6 Do not put yourself forward in the king’s presence or stand in the place of the great;

25:7 for it is better to be told, “Come up here,” than to be put lower in the presence of a noble.

Psalm – alternate

The faithful have assurance in the Lord forever.

Psalm 112

112:1 Praise the LORD! Happy are those who fear the LORD, who greatly delight in his commandments.

112:2 Their descendants will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed.

112:3 Wealth and riches are in their houses, and their righteousness endures forever.

112:4 They rise in the darkness as a light for the upright; they are gracious, merciful, and righteous.

112:5 It is well with those who deal generously and lend, who conduct their affairs with justice.

112:6 For the righteous will never be moved; they will be remembered forever.

112:7 They are not afraid of evil tidings; their hearts are firm, secure in the LORD.

112:8 Their hearts are steady, they will not be afraid; in the end they will look in triumph on their foes.

112:9 They have distributed freely, they have given to the poor; their righteousness endures forever; their horn is exalted in honor.

112:10 The wicked see it and are angry; they gnash their teeth and melt away; the desire of the wicked comes to nothing.

Epistle

Readings from Hebrews continue. It is a sublime book. Two of my favourite verses are here: 2 and 8.

Hebrews 13:1-8, 15-16

13:1 Let mutual love continue.

13:2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.

13:3 Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them; those who are being tortured, as though you yourselves were being tortured.

13:4 Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

13:5 Keep your lives free from the love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, “I will never leave you or forsake you.”

13:6 So we can say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can anyone do to me?”

13:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you; consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.

13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

13:15 Through him, then, let us continually offer a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name.

13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

Gospel

This parable ties in well with the two proverbs above and with the Epistle.

Luke 14:1, 7-14

14:1 On one occasion when Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the sabbath, they were watching him closely.

14:7 When he noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a parable.

14:8 “When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at the place of honor, in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited by your host;

14:9 and the host who invited both of you may come and say to you, ‘Give this person your place,’ and then in disgrace you would start to take the lowest place.

14:10 But when you are invited, go and sit down at the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you.

14:11 For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

14:12 He said also to the one who had invited him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid.

14:13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.

14:14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

We have much to consider in these readings. I hope they inspire great sermons on Sunday.

How much do Americans learn about Henry David Thoreau in school?

I never read a complete Thoreau work, only excerpts in our high school anthologies. Remember this from Walden? Emphases mine:

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.

What follows is the truth about the man who lived simply — ‘deliberately’ — along Walden Pond, near Concord, Massachusetts:

I spent hours reading the …

Walden Pond was actually on his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson’s property:

Thoreau was not exactly roughing it and eating berries:

Someone from Concord knew this already …

Thoreau did not do his own laundry, a subject of much conversation not only on this particular Twitter thread but also from others elsewhere. Rumours abound about who actually did his laundry, as he gave no clear indication in writing. The following 2013 article from Orion explores the topic in depth:

Probably.

The Orion article explains that household duties were largely divided by sex. Generally speaking, women worked indoors and men worked outdoors.

It posits that even though Thoreau, as a Transcendentalist, did not like the notion of hired servants, he might have made use of his family’s servants — i.e. Irish — to do his laundry.

Assuming his mother did his laundry lends itself to a bit of fun:

She also brought him ‘donuts’, likely to have been drop doughnuts, or fritters, rather than the ring doughnuts we know today:

Thoreau’s mum ran a boarding house. His father owned a pencil factory. Thoreau completed his education at Harvard.

If Thoreau were alive today, he’d probably be a bit like this:

Or this (‘I am an adult!’):

Thoreau was a frequent lunch and dinner guest at the Emersons’ house, although Mrs E apparently got a bit fed up with his freeloading:

She might have done his laundry, too:

Thoreau saw many from that era’s literary set and was well known for his melon parties. These people did not live in isolation writing in a garret. Teachers, particularly in secondary school, should make this clear. They all knew each other — just as celebs today all know each other:

True, because he felt superior to the poor:

He was nasty about the Irishman’s family from whom he purchased the wooden boards for his cabin:

A 2015 article on Thoreau in the New Yorker has a quote from Walden on the poor:

Unsurprisingly, this thoroughgoing misanthrope did not care to help other people. “I confess that I have hitherto indulged very little in philanthropic enterprises,” Thoreau wrote in “Walden.” He had “tried it fairly” and was “satisfied that it does not agree with my constitution.” Nor did spontaneous generosity: “I require of a visitor that he be not actually starving, though he may have the very best appetite in the world, however he got it. Objects of charity are not guests.” In what is by now a grand American tradition, Thoreau justified his own parsimony by impugning the needy. “Often the poor man is not so cold and hungry as he is dirty and ragged and gross. It is partly his taste, and not merely his misfortune. If you give him money, he will perhaps buy more rags with it.” Thinking of that state of affairs, Thoreau writes, “I began to pity myself, and I saw that it would be a greater charity to bestow on me a flannel shirt than a whole slop-shop on him.”

Here’s another quote from the same article on his own superiority — to anyone, in fact:

“Sometimes, when I compare myself with other men,” he wrote in “Walden,” “it seems as if I were more favored by the gods than they, beyond any deserts that I am conscious of; as if I had a warrant and surety at their hands which my fellows have not, and were especially guided and guarded.”

He accidentally started a raging fire in Concord then watched the townspeople frantically try to extinguish it, which might have been the reason for moving to Walden Pond:

It is said that Thoreau’s good friend Louisa May Alcott modelled one of her characters on him:

This I did not know:

Similarly, if Louisa May Alcott’s mother hadn’t up and pulled her family out of the failing Utopia commune Louisa’s father had set up, the family would have starved to death. The women in that family worked to keep themselves alive. We would have no “Little Women” without them.

Fortunately, students in Massachusetts, particularly Concord, know about the true Thoreau from school:

I fully agree with this:

I never visited Walden Pond, even though I had opportunities to do so. Friends who lived nearby said it required an early start — in order to get a parking place. Oh, the irony:

Someone really should make a movie about the real Henry David Thoreau, whose real name, incidentally, was David Henry Thoreau:

So would I — and I rarely venture out to the cinema.

It would be a blockbuster hit.

Further reading:

‘Why Do We Love Henry David Thoreau?’ (New Yorker)

‘Six Facts About Henry David Thoreau’s Walden’ (Books Tell You Why)

It is vital that children — including adolescents — know the truth about left-wing totalitarianism.

Even though the horrors of Venezuela have been unfolding before our eyes, young Westerners are in thrall — thanks to schooling — to socialism and communism.

I saw this tweet and read the woman’s story:

Carmen Alexe left Romania for the United States during the Cold War and has been a real estate lender for many years.

The Foundation for Economic Education — FEE — recently published her story, ‘I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom’. Please share it with the young people in your family.

It is so important that young people understand what leftism ultimately produces: poverty and endless restrictions.

Excerpts follow, emphases mine.

Socialism or Communism?

I was born and raised in communist Romania during the Cold War, a country in which the government owned all the resources and means of production. The state controlled almost every aspect of our lives: our education, our job placement, the time of day we could have hot water, and what we were allowed to say.

Like the rest of the Eastern European countries, Romania was often referred to as a communist country. In school, we were taught it was a socialist country. Its name prior to the 1989 Revolution to overthrow the Ceausescu regime was the Socialist Republic of Romania.

From an economic standpoint, a petty fraction of property was still privately owned. In a communist system, all property is owned by the state. So if it wasn’t a true communist economy, its heavy central planning and the application of a totalitarian control over the Romanian citizenry made this nation rightfully gain its title of a communist country.

Shortages — food and hot water

Despite the fact that Romania was a country rich in resources, there were shortages everywhere. Food, electricity, water, and just about every one of life’s necessities were in short supply. The apartment building in which we lived provided hot water for showers two hours in the morning and two hours at night. We had to be quick and on time so we didn’t miss the opportunity.

Bubblegum and chocolate bars were treasured treats. People had to make use of the black market for certain things:

Fruity lip gloss, French perfume, and jeans were but a few of the popular items available only on the black market and with the right connections. God bless our black-market entrepreneurs! They made our lives better. They gave us the opportunity to buy things we very much desired, things we couldn’t get from the government-owned retail stores which were either half-empty or full of products that were ugly and of poor quality.

The food situation was dire:

The grocery stores were not any better. I get it, maybe we didn’t need to be fashionable. But we needed to eat. So, the old Romanian adage “Conscience goes through the stomach” made a lot of sense.

During the late 1970s, life in Romania started to deteriorate even more. Meat was hardly a consumer staple for the average Romanian. Instead, our parents learned to become good at preparing the liver, the brain, the tongue, and other giblets that most people in the West would not even consider trying.

When milk, butter, eggs, and yogurt were temporarily available, my mom—like so many others of our neighbors—would wake up at 2:00 a.m. to go stand in line so she’d have the chance to get us these goodies. The store would open at 6:00 a.m., so if she wasn’t early enough in line she’d miss the opportunity.

In 1982, the state sent their disciples to people’s homes to do the census. Along with that, food rationing was implemented. For a family of four like us, our rationed quota was 1 kilogram of flour and 1 kilogram of sugar per month. That is, if they were available and if we were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time when they were being distributed.

There was one television channel. It showed programmes about poverty in the West notionally caused by capitalism:

The one television channel our government provided for us often focused on programs related to crime and poverty in the western world. After all, people were poor and suffering because of capitalism, so we were told, so we needed socialism and communism to solve the inequalities of humanity.

Schools pushed the same line:

When in school, we learned that private property makes people greedy and is considered detrimental to society. Private property was associated with capitalism, the system that our textbooks claimed failed.

Ultimately:

In a centrally-planned environment, the various government individuals who are assigned the task of planning the economy could not possibly know how to properly allocate the scarce resources of an entire nation, no matter how smart or educated they are. Shortages are one of the consequences of improper allocation of the scarce resources.

Consequently, there was no innovation, no injection of capital. Only the party higher-ups and black marketeers were doing well.

I was glad she mentioned Venezuela:

Similar to the old Soviet lifestyle, let’s remember what the typical Venezuelan family of our times worries about on a daily basis. Food to put on the table and the safety of their children. They wake up in the morning wondering how many meals they can afford that day, where to get them from, and how to pay for them.

That’s putting in mildly.

It’s a far cry from what Westerners experience:

We, the lucky ones to live in a relatively free-market system, don’t have these kinds of worries. We go to work, get leisure time to be on Facebook, watch TV, be with our families, read books, and enjoy a hobby or two. In short, we have the personal freedom to engage in and enjoy a variety of life events because of capitalism.

But there’s another important motive to desire to live in a capitalist society. We are free to create and come up with all kinds of business ideas, no matter how crazy some might be. Because we don’t have to worry about tomorrow, we have—or make—the time to read, explore, and innovate.

Capitalism makes it possible for us to challenge ourselves, to have goals, and to put forth the sweat to achieve them. It gives us the freedom to try new things and explore new opportunities. It gives us the chance to create more opportunities. It helps us build strong character because when we try, we also fail, and without failure, how do we know we’ve made mistakes? Without failure, how do we know we must make changes?

I agree with her conclusion:

Aside from better economic and legislative policies, what America needs is a more intense appreciation of individual freedom and capitalism. Such a crazy idea is not acquired through public schools or becoming a public servant. Young people don’t need more years of schooling with more worthless college degrees and student loans in default. America needs more entrepreneurs and businessmen. It needs more people with drive and ambition, more self-starters, more innovators, more people who are willing to take chances.

The same is true in other Western countries, too.

I am deeply concerned about our education systems, whether they be in the US, UK, France or elsewhere. Almost all educators are left-wing to varying degrees. They teach students that big government is the only means of survival for the ‘poor’.

Very few Europeans classified as ‘poor’ actually are, by the way. Most are on the dole and have modern conveniences in their council flats along with plenty of junk food.

I pray that none of our nations ends up like Venezuela, which, in the 1970s and 1980s was a thriving nation. Now the best and brightest have fled the chaos, understandably. How and when that country’s troubles end, no one knows.

Actor, producer and author Isaiah Washington recently had a word for Hollywood’s conservative cowards who refuse to come out of the closet politically:

The Epoch Times interviewed Washington recently (video at link), describing his career to date as follows:

an actor and producer who started his career in Hollywood in a number of Spike Lee films. He is perhaps best known for his role as Dr. Preston Burke in television show Grey’s Anatomy. More recently, he starred in the science fiction TV series The 100.

However, although the actor supports Donald Trump, he is at odds with the way black Americans have been urged to leave the Democrats:

It seems to work for some blacks but not for others. Pro-Trump people need another angle or two. One size does not necessarily fit all.

The Republican Party in California should be encouraging other minorities, too, who disagree with the physical filth and disease permeating cities and suburbs in that state:

Washington delves into American history in order to better analyse the Democrats:

He is also critical of Hollywood:

Incidentally, an executive with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) was arrested on August 23:

I’m delighted that Isaiah Washington and many other blacks have decided the Democrats are no longer for them.

I hope he can persuade more Hollywood conservatives to out themselves politically.

I spotted this last week:

I hope this is satire, but, these days, who knows?

GenZ Conservative appears to claim this came from the Left, but gives us no source. Nonetheless, his/her text gives pause for thought:

… according to this poster it turns out that behaving in ways that were traditionally expected of American citizens is now extremist behavior. Avoiding drugs, promiscuity, and spending time outdoors used to be virtues that Americans would strive for. If the Social Justice Warriors that made this “info sheet” rule us, then I guess we will turn away from them. That won’t end well. In fact, it will end disastrously.

And that could make the left label you a far right extremist, or a deplorable! How crazy is that? Being a responsible, patriotic, or normal citizen will now get you blacklisted. I think that is ridiculous and will end poorly for the Western world.

There is a germ of truth in this, because CNN is promoting the idea that Republicans are ‘the greatest terrorist threat’:

The Left will make the 2020 presidential campaign tense — and tedious.

Bible evangewomanblogspotcomThe 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.

Hebrews 3:1-6

Jesus Greater Than Moses

Therefore, holy brothers,[a] you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God’s[b] house. For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) 5 Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.[c]

——————————————————————————————————–

Last week’s entry discussed Hebrews 2, in which the author explained why Jesus is superior to angels.

Christians understand that intrinsically. However, the author’s Jewish audiences were reluctant to give up their reliance on the Old Covenant. There were also some Jews, also addressed in Hebrews, who did not believe that Jesus is Messiah.

Hebrews addresses three different audiences at various times in various ways.

In order to understand Hebrews, we need to understand the Jewish mindset as it was and, in some cases, continues be to this day.

The author is passionate about putting forward the case for Christ being superior and all-sufficient. The New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant of Moses.

For those of us who were brought up as Christians, Hebrews is a thrilling book to read. It makes us rejoice that Jesus redeemed us and sits at the right hand of the Father.

Hebrews is written with passion, as Matthew Henry’s commentary says of the unknown author inspired by the Holy Spirit (emphases mine):

In how fervent and affectionate a manner the apostle exhorts Christians to have this high priest much in their thoughts, and to make him the object of their close and serious consideration; and surely no one in earth or heaven deserves our consideration more than he.

Are we thrilled about our Christianity? Do we truly delight in Jesus as Saviour? Possibly not as much as we should. Henry says:

Here observe, 1. Many that profess faith in Christ have not a due consideration for him; he is not so much thought of as he deserves to be, and desires to be, by those that expect salvation from him. 2. Close and serious consideration of Christ would be of great advantage to us to increase our acquaintance with him, and to engage our love and our obedience to him, and reliance on him. 3. Even those that are holy brethren, and partakers of the heavenly calling, have need to stir up one another to think more of Christ than they do, to have him more in their minds; the best of his people think too seldom and too slightly of him. 4. We must consider Christ as he is described to us in the scriptures, and form our apprehensions of him thence, not from any vain conceptions and fancies of our own.

That cannot be emphasised too much.

John MacArthur says the same thing:

Listen, Christian, I say to you what the Spirit says: Consider Jesus. I mean, when the stuff gets rough and the problems come, and everything goes bad, and you start thinking about certain things that are tempting you and so forth and so on, put your gaze on Jesus and keep it there intently until all that He is begins to be unfolded before your eyes. And that’s just the reason that so many Christians are weak and worried, is they don’t really know the depths or the riches of Jesus Christ. Do you know that? They don’t know it.

Jesus made a classic statement. He said, “Learn of me.” He didn’t say, “Learn about me.” He said what? “Learn of me.” Let me ask you this. Do you really enjoy your Christian life? Do you just eat it up? Do you get up every morning and say, “Lord, I just can’t wait to get out of this place and see what you’re going to do?” I mean, do you just love your Christian life? I mean, is it so exciting you can hardly stand it? It ought to be. Do you enjoy Jesus Christ? Do you just go through the day, “Lord, your fellowship and your presence is thrilling”? Do you just sometimes want to stand up and shout? You ought to enjoy Him like that.

Many Christians don’t enjoy Jesus. Not at all. They’re miserable, unhappy. Don’t know anything about joy. The only thing the Lord’s good for is to cry on. And the reason is, they don’t know Him experientially, they don’t know Him richly. They need to learn Jesus, you see.

This is why Hebrews is one of my favourite books of the Bible. We couldn’t get more encouragement than this to experience Jesus more personally and fully.

The author addresses the Jews who have become Christians (verse 1). We know this because instead of calling them ‘brothers’, as Peter and Paul addressed the Jews in Acts, he calls them ‘holy brothers’: those ‘who share in a heavenly calling’.

He exhorts them to ‘consider Jesus’. If that seems a lukewarm exhortation, MacArthur explains why it is just the opposite:

Now, the word “consider” is fantastic. The word does not mean it’s flighty. The word does not mean take a glance. The word means set yourself to gaze intently on Jesus. You say, “Well, what’s He saying this to Christians for? We already know Christ.” Listen, no one needs that message any more than I do, do you know that? God can say to me right now, “MacArthur, consider Jesus,” because I’m a long way from really discovering all of his glori[e]s, all of his beauties, all that He is.

So He says to these believers, “Just gaze on Jesus. Will you just keep gazing on Him and don’t keep looking around at all these rituals, and all these problems, and all these persecutions. Just consider Jesus. You don’t need anything else. He’s sufficient for everything.”

The author calls Jesus ‘apostle’ and ‘high priest of our confession’ of faith. Henry explains the importance of these titles which the Jewish Christians — and we — must consider:

2. The titles he gives to Christ, whom he would have them consider, (1.) As the apostle of our profession, the prime-minister of the gospel church, a messenger and a principal messenger sent of God to men, upon the most important errand, the great revealer of that faith which we profess to hold and of that hope which we profess to have. (2.) Not only the apostle, but the high priest too, of our profession, the chief officer of the Old Testament as well as the New, the head of the church in every state, and under each dispensation, upon whose satisfaction and intercession we profess to depend for pardon of sin, and acceptance with God. (3.) As Christ, the Messiah, anointed and every way qualified for the office both of apostle and high priest. (4.) As Jesus, our Saviour, our healer, the great physician of souls, typified by the brazen serpent that Moses lifted up in the wilderness, that those who were stung by the fiery serpents might look to him, and be saved.

The author goes on to discuss obedience (verse 3). Jesus was faithful to His Father in accomplishing His will, just as Moses was a faithful servant to His people.

The Jews regard Moses as the greatest human who ever lived. It is true that the Lord appeared to Moses more than any other person in the Bible and that Moses was a great leader. MacArthur enumerates his blessings and accomplishments. That said, Moses was but a faithful servant:

Moses was faithful. He carried faithfully God’s plan. He came out of in Egypt, into the wilderness. God refined him. It took 40 years for Moses to make something out of himself; 40 years for God to wreck him, and then 40 years God could use him. But 40 years in the wilderness, God broke him, made him the man he wanted him to be. Then he took the children of Israel out of the land. He was faithful. He believed God. He got to the Red Sea. And I’ve often thought to myself, “If I got to the Red Sea and somebody said, ‘Wave a stick and it’ll part, ‘ I would have said, ‘Catch that again?’“ But he did. I mean, he believed God. He was faithful. He led the children of Israel through. And then he was faithful to the time in the wilderness.

Though there were times when he was unfaithful. There were several times, even in Egypt when he slew the Egyptian, even in the wilderness when he smote the rock instead of speaking to the rock. But Moses for the most part was faithful. And so here the Holy Spirit emphasizes similarity, so as not to isolate the Jewish person.

Now, you’ll notice that it says he was faithful in all his house. What house are you talking about? Well, this means household, oikos. And Moses is seen as a faithful steward in God’s household. You say, “Well, what is God’s household?” Well, you go to the Old Testament and you about the house of David and the house of Israel. Who then is God’s household? Believers. The Old Testament believers, Israel, and any proselytes who may have been involved. Old Testament believers. Moses was faithful in God’s household.

He was a steward. Now, it says in 1 Corinthians, “Moreover, brethren, it is required in stewards that a man be found” – what? – “faithful.” Now, a steward is somebody who doesn’t own the house; he manages it for the owner. God owns the house of Israel; Moses was in charge of management. He was in charge of dispensing the facts and the things that God committed to his trust, to the people of Israel. And Moses was faithful.

However, Jesus is far greater than Moses. Jesus is both apostle and high priest. No one can claim that of Moses. MacArthur tells us:

At best Moses was an apostle. Who was the high priest? Aaron. So in this sense, Jesus is superior in his office, for he is both; Moses was only one. He is the sent one, sent from God. Apostolos means sent from God. In the Greek, it would refer to an ambassador. And Jesus is the supreme ambassador of God, sent to earth.

And what are the characteristics of an apostolos or an ambassador? Well, number one, he has all the right and all the power and all the authority of the king in the country who sends him, and so did Jesus. He came clothed with the power of God. He came with all of God’s grace, all of God’s love, all of God’s mercy, all of God’s justice, and all of God’s power.

Secondly, an ambassador has to speak with the voice of the one who sent him. And so Jesus came and said, “I speak not that which I decide to speak. I speak only what I hear the Father say.” So Jesus was the perfect sent one from God. He came with all of God’s power, and with God’s voice He spoke. But beyond that, He was always the high priest of our profession.

Now, we’re not going to spend time on the high-priest concept, because that unfolds in the whole later section of Hebrews. Suffice it to say that the word “priest” in the Latin is the word pontifex, which broken into two words, means bridge-builder. And Jesus was the one who built the bridge from God the man. He was the one who connected God and man. And so Jesus is not only the sent one from God, with all God’s power and speaking with God’s voice, but He is the one who takes man and God and brings them together. He’s the bridge-builder. And He’s also the bridge.

Then it says that He is the apostle and high priest of our profession. That is, He’s the one we confess. And don’t you see the point of the verse? Listen to this. “If you profess Christ, if you confess that He is your Lord, then you certainly ought to gaze on Him”, right? That’s what He’s saying. “You Jews, you have received Christ, you’ve confessed Him as apostle and your new high priest, you’ve received all that He has. Now gaze on Him intently.” What sense, having confessed Him as Lord, not to gaze on Him as such?

The author then states that, for these reasons, Jesus is worthy of more glory than Moses, just as the builder of a house is esteemed more highly than the house he built (verse 3). Did Moses build the community of God’s people? No. He managed that community — and very effectively — but he did not create it. God did (verses 4, 5). And Jesus — the Alpha and Omega — has always existed with His Father.

Furthermore, Moses served God by managing the community of the Old Covenant, preparing them for the Messiah. Jesus is the High Priest of the Church, the New Covenant, which carries with it the promise of eternal life.

MacArthur explains:

Who is Christ’s household? I’ll read it to you. It’s in Ephesians chapter 2, verse 19. “Now therefore you are no more strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God.” The household of God. Who is this? It’s the church. We’re [of the] new household. And Jesus is the one who cares for us. In 1 Peter 1 – pardon me, 2:4, it says “To whom coming is unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God and precious, ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house.”

So as the believers of the Old Testament are called “The house of Moses,” the believers of the New Testament are called “The house of Christ.” And as Moses was faithful to an earthly household, Jesus was faithful to a heavenly household. As Moses was faithful to the house God gave him, Jesus was also faithful to the house that God gave Him. And Jesus could say at the end of His life, “Father, I have finished the work which you gave me to do. I’ve told the house all that you instructed me to tell them.” He was faithful. And so the Holy Spirit delicately then begins by comparing Moses with Jesus on the basis of their faithfulness to a God-given task.

The author states that Christ — meaning Lord — is the Son who is faithful to His Father’s house (verse 6). Therefore, His position is superior to that of Moses, a servant.

MacArthur analyses verses 3 through 6 as follows:

Moses was faithful, but he’s a piece of the house. Jesus made the house. That’s the difference. Jesus created Israel. All things were made by him, Hebrews 1 – or John 1. And without him was not anything made that was made.

Moses is only a member of the whole spiritual household which Jesus himself built. Jesus created Israel; Jesus created the church. You say, “Boy, in order to do that, you have to be God.” That’s verse 4. “For every house is built by some man, but He that built all things is” – what? – “is God.” And who built all things? Jesus did. So who is Jesus? He’s God. He’s God. Every house is built by some man. I mean, somebody – a human instrument is used.

For example, you’re here today. You’re a part of God’s house. Somebody shared Christ with you, did they not? Somebody did that. Somebody introduced you to Jesus. Somebody introduced maybe several of you to Jesus Christ. And they’re responsible in a human sense for part of the house. But who really created the house? God did. It was God through them, wasn’t it? And so the distinction is just that clear. Moses is just part of the house; Jesus made the house. So you see, to hang on to the forms of Judaism doesn’t make any sense, because the greater than Moses is here.

All right. Then we see, first of all, His office is superior and His work is superior. Thirdly, the superiority of His person. His person is superior, verses 5 and 6. And here’s the climax. And before we look at it, let me just give you the distinction. In this passage you’re going to see that Moses is by person a servant; Jesus is by person a son. Did you get that? And there’s a lot of difference, friends, between a servant and a son, is there not? And it reminds me of John 8, because in John 8 – I think it’s in John 8:25, yes. “And the servant abideth not in the house forever, but the son abideth forever.” In other words, there’s a certain ranking for the son. Servants come and go; sons are sons for life. And so there’s a difference.

Look at verse 5. “And Moses verily was faithful in all his house” – what? As what? – “as a servant.” As a servant. He conducted himself as a servant. And this is kind of a dignified word. Thereupon, it also is used of angels. In the Septuagint, it’s used of prophets. This is a ranking word. He was a faithful, obedient, ministering, caring servant, and he was a good steward of God. In Exodus 40, eight times – in Exodus chapter 40, eight times it refers to Moses’ obedience to all that God commanded him. That’s pretty good. In Exodus 35 to 40, 22 times it refers to Moses’ faithfulness to obey all that God commanded him. Can you say that about your life? Can God say of you, “Twenty-two times he obeyed all that I commanded him”? Moses was – he was up there. As exalted as he was, Jesus was more exalted.

Jesus spoke of Moses during His ministry. Moses did indeed testify of Him (verse 5), which is why the Jews expected the Messiah. MacArthur elaborates:

… let me just show you John 5:46. “For had ye believed Moses,” Jesus said, “You would have believed me, for he wrote of me.” Jesus said, “Moses wrote all about me.” So you see, to accept Moses and not Jesus isn’t really to accept Moses.

Then also recorded for us in Luke 24:27, and beginning – this is Jesus on the road to Emmaus. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures, the things concerning Himself.” He took Moses and said, “Now, watch what Moses says about me.” In Acts chapter 3 verse 22, “For Moses truly said unto the Father, a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatever he shall say unto you.” And Peter went on to say, “And Jesus Christ is that prophet.” He is that prophet.

So you see, Moses pointed to Jesus. In fact, in Acts 28:23, yes, “And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets from morning until evening.” That means there was a whole lot of stuff there about Jesus in Moses’ writings.

The author concludes by stating that we — the faithful — are that house provided we believe in Christ without faltering and without losing our hope in Him. These ‘holy brothers’ were losing confidence in their conversions. Yet, despite all the hardship via persecution that they were experiencing, the author of Hebrews encourages them to stand firm in the faith, to be bold and confident about their new life in Christ.

This is why the author encourages them to ‘consider Jesus’, to think deeply about Him, thereby developing a greater relationship with Him.

As MacArthur says, this means putting navel-gazing and problems aside to focus on the future — eternal life:

If you’re going to run the Christian race, where are you going to look? Jesus.

I used to run the 100-yard dash at 2:20 in college. And one day we learned very soon that they don’t know it was – you can’t run when you watch your feet. Have you ever tried to do that? You can’t do it. I mean, you’ll run into a wall. You can’t do it. When you’ve got to stay in a lane, it’s amazing how your body works. You set your sight — just like when you drive — on something way down there, and you run right at that target. And when we used to run the sprints, we used to set our eyes on the tape. And we kept the eyes on the finish. That was not only motivation, but that’s what kept your sense of direction.

And when you’re running in the race as a believer, get your eyes off your feet. Get your eyes off yourself. You’re going to run into wall after wall after wall. You’ll be like the bruised and bleeding Pharisees that we talked about, who got that name because they thought it was a sin to look at a woman. They kept closing their eyes when they saw them, and they ran into all the buildings. There’s no sense in that.
You set your eyes on the tape. You look unto Jesus, the author and – the what? – the finisher of our faith. And you look at him and then you run. So many Christians run with their head down. It’s no wonder they run into everything.

That is a practical — and good — way of considering our Christian life. Truly considering Jesus — deeply, continuously — will turn us into long distance runners for that eternal, heavenly prize at the finish.

Next time — Hebrews 3:7-14

In 1818, John Keats’s poem Endymion was published.

It begins with these verses:

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.

I think of the first line often, especially when I look at architecture.

One of the joys of living in Europe is becoming acquainted with the architectural styles particular to each country. Even without a photograph identification, even an amateur architecture buff can often tell where the photo was taken.

However, since the end of the Second World War, eyesores have appeared everywhere, springing from a hyper-functional Bauhaus style taken to the nth degree.

Architectural Revival‘s Twitter account profiles the best of traditional architecture and the worst of the modern. They also retweet others on the subject.

Here is an example of British post-war architecture in Birmingham:

Of course, this goes on in non-European Western countries, too.

This man makes an excellent point. Please click on the first photo. It is inexplicable that Twitter would deem it ‘sensitive content’:

Returning to Britain, the postwar era also saw homeowners ruin pre-war homes. It was positively encouraged:

Here’s the video. By way of explanation, the late magician Paul Daniels appeared on BBC’s Room 101 to lament interior designers. Paul Merton, the show’s host, then showed Barry Bucknell’s instructions.

The man who owned our house during the 1960s must have seen this on television, because our interior house doors were like this, too. No longer, I am happy to say:

This was also the era of modern council estates. No matter where they are located — Britain, the US, France and elsewhere in the West — they became a bedrock for crime and gangs.

These tweets concern an example in London:

We are often told that architects can no longer design traditional buildings — things of beauty which are joys forever — because of the lack of building materials or techniques.

However, that is not true, as we can see in Germany:

Architects have done traditional rebuilds in Poland, too:

People enjoy not only seeing traditional buildings but also living in traditional houses.

When the Prince of Wales’s Poundbury community was being built nearly 20 years ago, it came in for much criticism and derision. Yet, 17 years on, the houses are maturing well:

Wow!

A return to traditional homes is taking place in Belgium, too:

However, we have had the Bauhaus-gone-mad style for so long because there is more money in it.

Roger Scruton is an English philosopher with a keen interest in traditional architecture. Unfortunately, he is being treated for cancer at present. I wish him all the best:

Scruton explains the architectural money angle involved:

People don’t like boxes. Comments to that tweet follow:

Architects and planners tell people who love traditional architecture that they are too stupid or ‘uninformed’ to appreciate modern buildings. This is what is happening to the iconic Château Laurier in Ottawa:

Again, more negative comments followed that tweet:

And this is what is happening to historic Allerton Manor outside of Liverpool. Words cannot describe it:

Even a young architect criticised the monstrosity:

The Ottawa and Liverpool eyesores make this one — location unknown — look good by comparison:

Fortunately, Roger Scruton’s many lectures and articles on traditional beauty are gaining ground:

Even an Austrian school is quoting him to youngsters:

Beauty IS important to people. Likewise, tradition.

Let’s help to put a stop to those who want us to live in boxes. Let’s educate each other and our children: it IS possible to build structures incorporating tradition and beauty.

————————————————————————————————-

Forbidden Bible Verses will appear on Monday, August 26.

Below are readings for the Tenth Sunday after Trinity — the Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost — August 25, 2019.

These are for Year C in the three-year Lectionary used in public worship.

There are two choices for the First Reading and Psalm. I have differentiated these by using blue in the headings for the alternative option.

Emphases below are mine.

First reading

Jeremiah explains how God chose him as a boy to be a prophet, not only to his own nation but also to the neighbouring pagan nations. Jeremiah’s time came years after Isaiah’s. He prophesied for forty or fifty years. Whereas the Lord purged Isaiah’s mouth with a hot coal, He chose a gentler method for the young Jeremiah, possibly because, as a boy, Jeremiah had committed fewer sins. Matthew Henry’s commentary adds further insight to a dramatic and exciting account of the Lord equipping the notionally unqualified. Verse 5 is one of my favourites. God has a purpose for each of us. Therefore, let us not turn our backs on Him.

Jeremiah 1:4-10

1:4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,

1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

1:6 Then I said, “Ah, Lord GOD! Truly I do not know how to speak, for I am only a boy.”

1:7 But the LORD said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am only a boy’; for you shall go to all to whom I send you, and you shall speak whatever I command you.

1:8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, says the LORD.”

1:9 Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth; and the LORD said to me, “Now I have put my words in your mouth.

1:10 See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.”

Psalm

David probably penned this Psalm in his later years. He wrote it at a time of personal suffering caused by others, but it is intended for everyone in giving praise to the Lord.

Psalm 71:1-6

71:1 In you, O LORD, I take refuge; let me never be put to shame.

71:2 In your righteousness deliver me and rescue me; incline your ear to me and save me.

71:3 Be to me a rock of refuge, a strong fortress, to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.

71:4 Rescue me, O my God, from the hand of the wicked, from the grasp of the unjust and cruel.

71:5 For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth.

71:6 Upon you I have leaned from my birth; it was you who took me from my mother’s womb. My praise is continually of you.

First reading – alternative

Isaiah tells the people what they must do in order to truly repent and find favour in God’s sight once more. Note that these concern loving one’s neighbour and loving the Lord.

Isaiah 58:9b-14

58:9b If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil,

58:10 if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be like the noonday.

58:11 The LORD will guide you continually, and satisfy your needs in parched places, and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters never fail.

58:12 Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to live in.

58:13 If you refrain from trampling the sabbath, from pursuing your own interests on my holy day; if you call the sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, serving your own interests, or pursuing your own affairs;

58:14 then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of your ancestor Jacob, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Psalm – alternative

This Psalm encourages us to praise the Lord, thanking Him for His many blessings and for His steadfast mercy.

Psalm 103:1-8

103:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name.

103:2 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and do not forget all his benefits

103:3 who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases,

103:4 who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,

103:5 who satisfies you with good as long as you live so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.

103:6 The LORD works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed.

103:7 He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the people of Israel.

103:8 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.

Epistle

Readings from Hebrews continue. The author exhorts the Jews of his time not to ignore that Jesus is Messiah. Should they dismiss Him, they will come in for great judgement from the Lord, just as their ancestors did for wilful disobedience.

Hebrews 12:18-29

12:18 You have not come to something that can be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest,

12:19 and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that not another word be spoken to them.

12:20 (For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned to death.”

12:21 Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.”)

12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,

12:23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

12:25 See that you do not refuse the one who is speaking; for if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven!

12:26 At that time his voice shook the earth; but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heaven.”

12:27 This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of what is shaken–that is, created things–so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

12:28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe;

12:29 for indeed our God is a consuming fire.

Gospel

The hypocrisy from the Jewish leadership is once more on view as Jesus mercifully heals a disabled woman on the Sabbath.

Luke 13:10-17

13:10 Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.

13:11 And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight.

13:12 When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, “Woman, you are set free from your ailment.”

13:13 When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God.

13:14 But the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had cured on the sabbath, kept saying to the crowd, “There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the sabbath day.”

13:15 But the Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water?

13:16 And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the sabbath day?”

13:17 When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing.

How merciful and loving is our Lord Jesus! I pray that many more souls will be converted in His Holy Name!

During our 2015 visit to Cannes, we went to Le Bistrot Gourmand and absolutely loved it.

It is located at 10 Rue Docteur Pierre Gazagnaire, in an unassuming side street just steps away from Cannes’s main market, Marché Forville.

Owned and run by Guillaume Arragon since 2007, the restaurant is known for its discriminating use of seasonal ingredients from the market.

We were fortunate enough to make two return visits since then.

2017

We were relieved that the grumpy older waiter who served us in 2015 had been replaced by a delightful young woman who made her job look effortless, even when the restaurant was buzzing with diners.

Chef Arragon also brought some of our dishes to the table and had a brief, yet friendly, chat with us.

Two days after our visit, there was a fire at the night club next door. In 2015, it was called Les Pénitents, because it was right across the street from the Chapelle de la Miséricorde. The next owner renamed the club Hell. That was where the fire took place. Oh, the irony. It took hours to put out, Nice-Matin reported at the time. Apparently, an electrical fault caused the blaze. God will not be mocked.

Starters

My far better half (FBH) ordered a satisfying plate of mushroom ravioli in a truffle cream sauce.

I opted for their stuffed courgette flowers, which were coated in a light tempura batter and deep fried. They were hot and crisp to the end. I thought their spicy dipping sauce was better than L’Assiette Provençale’s tomato-based sauce. Even so, I didn’t need much of this dipping sauce, either, and left most of it behind.

Mains

Once again, we both ordered the steak tartare with matchstick fries. This was every bit as perfect as it was in 2015.

Wine

We enjoyed a bottle of Côtes de Provence Rosé from Château Maïme.

Dessert

Had the delightful lemon tart from 2015 been on the menu, we would have made room for it.

As it was, we were more than satisfied with what we’d had and didn’t really want anything else.

2019

We had been anticipating our return visit to Le Bistrot Gourmand for weeks.

That’s how good the food here is.

Once again, the young woman and Chef Arragon served us, depending on the course. Chef also took our wine order.

Our bill came to €120.

Incidentally, I checked out the nightclub next door. Hell had closed its doors for good, never having recovered from the 2017 fire. No one has taken it over, either, which is interesting.

Starters

Both of us ordered the deep fried courgette flowers, which excelled themselves. The ricotta and basil stuffing was creamy and not overpowering. I did not eat much of the dipping sauce, although I can understand that customers would want a bit of piquancy.

Mains

Why mess with a winning formula? We both had the steak tartare with matchstick fries and side salad.

We think this is the best steak tartare in Cannes.

Wine

We ordered a wine unknown to us, a red Sancerre: Terre de Maimbray (€44), produced by Pascal and Nicolas Reverdy. Maimbray is the name of the hamlet where their estate is. Their wine was a revelation and we would order it again.

Dessert

It looks as if the lemon tart is gone forever.

We opted for two small cheese assortments, which were very good and went well with the red Sancerre.

Additional notes

You can see Le Bistrot Gourmand’s menu, with photos, here.

TripAdvisor gives the restaurant 4.5 out of 5.

This is an excerpted review from a New Zealander, which gives a bit of insight into Guillaume Arragon. This man and his wife also ordered the red Sancerre:

The owner is staunchly proud of fine, fresh food. He was telling us that he liked the site because it allowed him to have a kitchen bigger than the dining area, allowing him to prepare properly from fresh. I tried the cerviche followed by the tartare. My wife had the linguine. All dishes were superb. Generous portions, tasty and clearly made with a lot of love. The wine list was interesting and reasonably priced, enabling us to have an interesting red from Sancerre to accompany our delicious meal. If you want to try something different from the usual tourist stuff and you seek marvellous, fresh French fare, try this place. Really lovely.

I couldn’t agree more.

The unisex loo is sparkling clean and nicely appointed.

Conclusion

Le Bistrot Gourmand is on our list for a fourth visit.

This is an outstanding establishment which consistently offers innovative and appetising dishes at reasonable prices. When in Cannes, we would rather eat here in preference to a five-star ‘palace’ (luxury hotel) restaurant any day of the week.

L’Assiette Provençale — The Provençal Plate — is a great little restaurant to visit in Cannes.

It is located along the Old Port at 9 quai Saint Pierre.

We first ate there in 2017, and again this year.

2017

We ordered their €30 prix fixe menu.

I noted in my food diary: ‘** WOULD RETURN **’.

Starters

One of our first food experiences in Cannes 20 years ago was enjoying stuffed courgette flowers dipped in tempura and deep fried.

Not many restaurants offer this memorable treat. The restaurant where we first had them, La Poêle d’Or (The Golden Skillet), closed a couple of years later. A luxury boutique replaced it.

Therefore, we relished the opportunity to enjoy them once again. We were not disappointed. They came with a light tomato sauce that, to me, was superfluous to requirements. Stuffed with a mild, soft cheese, they needed no accompaniment.

Mains

My far better half (FBH) ordered grilled Mediterranean sea bass — loup — on a bed of mini-canellonis: a perfect balance of textures.

I had sauteed octopus — poulpe — and artichoke slices. The plate had a generous quantity of both.

Wine

We enjoyed a bottle of Cassis Bodin 2014. The domaine is run by the Abrizzi family in Cassis in the Var.

Dessert

We had a peek at the tarte au citron, but it looked like American lemon meringue pie, rather than the classic French version.

We declined in favour of a refreshing glass of limoncello.

2019

We could hardly wait to return.

We ordered from the €31 prix fixe menu. With wine, the bill came to €107.

Starters

I ordered the stuffed courgette flowers, which they term beignets, although they are far from being doughy beignets. They were light, hot and crispy up to the end. I did not bother with the tomato dipping sauce.

FBH was in a less summery mode that night and chose the royale des cèpes, a creamy, comforting mushroom concoction with cèpes as the star.

Mains

FBH ordered the roast guinea fowl breast, which came with a superb sauce and potatoes.

I had grilled loup, which was done perfectly.

Wine

We enjoyed a bottle of Cassis from Domaine de la Ferme Blanche (€45).

Desserts

FBH liked the cheese assortment.

I loved the coconut crème brulée, which was a great discovery, and one that I would order again. It had just enough coconut for texture and flavour. It was delightfully creamy.

Additional notes

TripAdvisor members give L’Assiette Provençale 4.5 out of 5. Justifiably so.

These are the current prix fixe menus, which, at €26 and €31, offer terrific value for money.

Service is excellent.

The unisex loo is very clean, too.

Conclusion

We’re looking forward to another visit to L’Assiette Provençale on our next trip.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,533 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,660,860 hits