You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2021.

The readings for Wednesday of Holy Week — traditionally known as Spy Wednesday — can be found here.

The following posts might also be of interest:

Gospel reading for Wednesday of Holy Week — John 13:21-32 (2016)

Wednesday of Holy Week — Spy Wednesday

More on Spy Wednesday

More on Judas

Today’s post looks at the Epistle — Hebrews 12:1-3 (emphases mine below):

Hebrews 12:1-3

12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,

12:2 looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.

12:3 Consider him who endured such hostility against himself from sinners, so that you may not grow weary or lose heart.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

The author of Hebrews was writing for a predominantly Jewish audience: mostly converts to Christianity along with some who had not yet come to believe in Christ as Saviour.

Most of these people were still clinging to Mosaic law. They found it difficult to accept that the New Covenant had abolished it. They were looking for something more: their old legalism.

Therefore, the author asks them, with such a great cloud of witnesses from the Old Testament, to lay aside ‘every weight and the sin that clings so closely’ in order to ‘run with perseverance the race’ set before them (verse 1).

John MacArthur explains, drawing on his own experience of having been on his school’s track team during his youth:

Well, here they were, trying to run this race of faith with weights of legalism hanging all over them: Still being attached to the temple, still being hung up on – on the ritual of the ceremonialism of Judaism, still being attached to the priesthood and all this kind of stuff. They were trying to run a race of faith, dragging weights, like a guy trying to run down the track with a ball and chain on both feet. Dead works is dead weight, folks. And they were trying to run with dead works. Legalism.

Now, our Lord calls them to a life of faith. And all they are is a whole lot of great big, fat blobs with super sweat suits on and weights all over their feet, trying to run a race. And He says, “Get rid of all that legalism. Strip down.” And it’s amazing what had happened to them. They were so big and blobby, with so much bulk and so much weight, that they ran a step and collapsed in a pile of legalistic sweat. Panting to death, hanging on to Judaism, wouldn’t let go. You can’t run the race of faith weighted down by self-righteousness. Did you know that? You can’t run the race of faith weighted down and bogged down by your own works, trying to please God and earn His favor. That’s just like dead weight. The race is run, beloved, by faith plus nothing, just believing God, and He’ll produce the fruits of that faith within you.

“Works is a way to please God.” Don’t speed you up; they slow you down. “Well, I’m going to do some works for God, and work for God, and that’ll please Him, and that’ll please Him,” and that’ll just drag you down. Unload Judaism. Drop all of the old covenant stuff and go.

MacArthur thinks that the sin the author of Hebrews is talking about is mostly one of unbelief, although all sin would apply in general:

“The sin that doth so easily beset us.” The word “beset” is interesting. It’s very graphic. I’m not going to tell you the word, because it’s kind of a complicated word; it doesn’t really matter anyway, but it comes from a verb that means to surround periistēmi. It means to surround or stand around. And this is – this is the picture of a guy running through race in a Harris Tweed overcoat. See? Just some huge, big thing, and he’s flopping along in it. Something that just surrounds him. And it is the sin which doth so easily surround us and encumber us.

Now, that’s not too – perhaps it’s a general thought. Perhaps He’s talking about any sin. And sin is certainly a hindrance, but I think He’s talking about something specific. He says here, “The sin which doth so easily beset us.” Now, if you’re trying to run – watch this – a race of faith, what would be the biggest hindrance? Unbelief. I think that’s obviously implied right there. The thing that they were running into was doubting God. Do you see? Doubting God, combine that thing, get the fat man running in his sweat suit, and then put an overcoat on him, and you’ve got the picture of them trying to run the race, and they’re just sitting there, big blobs in the middle of the track.

And you know there’s a lot of Christians like that today. As I say, you know, the people who are moving have got to also be hurdlers, because they’ve got to keep jumping over all of the – all of the piles of people who are sitting in the track. Believe me, that’s true, friends. I mean in the body of Christ, if the body doesn’t function, we got to jump over the non-functioning members. And they’re often in the way, believe me.

A lot of us, myself included, think that being a Christian is a time to relax. Christ’s blood redeemed us. His resurrection opened the gates of eternal life to us. Yet, it is actually a struggle against temptation. Most of us would also like more faith. Therefore, we need to be spiritually fit so that we are ready for the endurance of the race.

MacArthur says of the intention of the author of Hebrews, inspired by the Holy Spirit:

“Let us run with patience the race” – and the word “patience,” hupomonē is endurance. Some Christians are in the race, but they’re not running the race. So, I think we can safely say that the term “let us,” used in the primary sense that it’s used in the book of Hebrews is used for the intellectually convinced, but it also has direct implication to the believer in at least one other passage, and very likely we would say it does here as well.

So, what He’s saying then is two things – all that to say this: if you’re not a Christian, get in the race because there’s only one way to live and that’s by faith; and if you are a Christian, and you’re in the race, run the race with endurance. So, really, the statement is general.

Now, it’s sad to say that most Christians aren’t running. A for example are jogging, we’ll admit that. Some are trotting. A lot of them are walking. Most of them are crawling or sitting, going nowhere; and some of them are going backwards. But the Christian life is not a trot; the Christian life is not your morning constitutional. The Christian life is not a loaf; the Christian life is a race. There it is; look at it. Let us run with patience the race. The Greek word for race agōn from which we get agony. This is a race where you’ve got to put out a little bit. It’s not even a sprint, either; it’s not a dash; it’s a marathon kind of race. It is to be run with endurance. And like any good runner must train and follow rigid kind of standards if he’s going to effectively run, so must the Christian. To effectively run, there must be self-denial, discipline, tremendous exertion. The Christian life is not a thing of passive luxury.

In this race, we are to look up to Jesus at all times — ‘the pioneer and perfecter of our faith’ — who suffered so much for our sakes and endured the shame of the Cross only to reap the ‘joy’ of taking His seat at the right hand of God the Father (verse 2).

Matthew Henry explains:

2.) What trials Christ met with in his race and course. [1.] He endured the contradiction of sinners against himself (Hebrews 12:3) he bore the opposition that they made to him, both in their words and behaviour. They were continually contradicting him, and crossing in upon his great designs and though he could easily have both confuted and confounded them, and sometimes gave them a specimen of his power, yet he endured their evil manners with great patience. Their contradictions were levelled against Christ himself, against his person as God-man, against his authority, against his preaching, and yet he endured all. [2.] He endured the cross–all those sufferings that he met with in the world for he took up his cross betimes, and was at length nailed to it, and endured a painful, ignominious, and accursed death, in which he was numbered with the transgressors, the vilest malefactors yet all this he endured with invincible patience and resolution. [3.] He despised the shame. All the reproaches that were cast upon him, both in his life and at his death, he despised he was infinitely above them he knew his own innocency and excellency, and despised the ignorance and malice of his despisers.

(3.) What it was that supported the human soul of Christ under these unparalleled sufferings and that was the joy that was set before him. He had something in view under all his sufferings, which was pleasant to him he rejoiced to see that by his sufferings he should make satisfaction to the injured justice of God and give security to his honour and government, that he should make peace between God and man, that he should seal the covenant of grace and be the Mediator of it, that he should open a way of salvation to the chief of sinners, and that he should effectually save all those whom the Father had given him, and himself be the first-born among many brethren. This was the joy that was set before him.

(4.) The reward of his suffering: he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Christ, as Mediator, is exalted to a station of the highest honour, of the greatest power and influence he is at the right hand of the Father. Nothing passes between heaven and earth but by him he does all that is done he ever lives to make intercession for his people.

Therefore, we must look upon Him as our only Mediator and Advocate:

We must, [1.] Look unto him that is, we must set him continually before us as our example, and our great encouragement we must look to him for direction, for assistance, and for acceptance, in all our sufferings. [2.] We must consider him, meditate much upon him, and reason with ourselves from his case to our own. We must analogize, as the word is compare Christ’s sufferings and ours and we shall find that as his sufferings far exceeded ours, in the nature and measure of them, so his patience far excels ours, and is a perfect pattern for us to imitate.

Christ, the Son of God, suffered more at the hands of angry and twisted sinners than we ever will, so we must continually keep His example in mind as we endure our race in this world (verse 3):

Observe, [1.] There is a proneness in the best to grow weary and to faint under their trials and afflictions, especially when they prove heavy and of long continuance: this proceeds from the imperfections of grace and the remains of corruption. [2.] The best way to prevent this is to look unto Jesus, and to consider him. Faith and meditation will fetch in fresh supplies of strength, comfort, and courage for he has assured them, if they suffer with him, they shall also reign with him: and this hope will be their helmet.

MacArthur advises us:

I really believe we need to live by faith. And that’s the only way to take a spiritual diet and get off your sweat suit is start believing God. As soon as you start living by faith, you just start shedding the spiritual pounds. You strip down; you’re ready for action; you unload your overcoat, your sweat suit, and you’re ready to go. And it all happens by faith. Don’t be that kind of overweight, bulky thing in the middle of the track. GO on a spiritual diet and trim down. And a spiritual diet is simply understanding to live by faith. Eliminate all unbelief and self-righteousness, and then you’re stripped down, ready to run.

May we keep our eye on the prize of eternal life by focusing on Christ Jesus alone.

The readings for Tuesday of Holy Week are here.

The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine below):

John 12:20-36

12:20 Now among those who went up to worship at the festival were some Greeks.

12:21 They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.”

12:22 Philip went and told Andrew; then Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.

12:23 Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.

12:24 Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

12:25 Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

12:26 Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also. Whoever serves me, the Father will honor.

12:27 “Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say–‘ Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour.

12:28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”

12:29 The crowd standing there heard it and said that it was thunder. Others said, “An angel has spoken to him.”

12:30 Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not for mine.

12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.

12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

12:33 He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die.

12:34 The crowd answered him, “We have heard from the law that the Messiah remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?”

12:35 Jesus said to them, “The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, so that the darkness may not overtake you. If you walk in the darkness, you do not know where you are going.

12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become children of light.” After Jesus had said this, he departed and hid from them.

If much of this Gospel passage looks familiar, it was read two Sundays ago on the Fifth Sunday in Lent — Year B. My post for that day offers an exegesis for John 12:20-33.

Commentary for verses 34-36 comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

After the excitement of Palm Sunday, on the occasion of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the crowd was becoming disenchanted. They asked what Son of Man would be ‘lifted up’ (verse 34), words which, in that era, meant crucified.

John MacArthur explains that they were not remembering all of the relevant prophesies in Scripture:

Ah, this is a turning folks.  On Monday, they were hailing Him as the Messiah.  That begins to go downhill on Tuesday when He attacks the temple.  It’s really going downhill now because they all know He is saying, “I will be crucified,” and they are saying, “Wait a minute.  The Son of Man?” that Old Testament term from Daniel chapter 7, the Son of Man, the Messianic term“The Son of Man is to remain forever.”  And they were right about that.  He is the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9.  He has an everlasting kingdom in Daniel 7.  So who is this Son of Man who will be crucified?

Because they don’t understand Isaiah 53, they don’t believe Isaiah 52They don’t understand Daniel 9, that He would be cut off, Zechariah 12:10, that He would be pierced.  They only see a Messiah who sets up an everlasting kingdom, and so the cross, Paul says 1 Corinthians 1 is to the Jews a what?  Stumbling block, stumbling block.  “What Son of Man is this?”  So we’re starting down from Monday to Friday pretty fast, aren’t we?  This is Wednesday, maybe even ThursdayBy Friday, they’re convinced this man needs to diePerhaps, they didn’t even think about the fact that in His crucifixion, He was fulfilling exactly what He saidThis is the scope of the death of Christ in His own simple words before the crossStaggering.

Matthew Henry’s commentary says that, on occasion, we have selective retention when it comes to Scripture:

Note, We often run into great mistakes, and then defend them with scripture arguments, by putting those things asunder which God in his word has put together, and opposing one truth under pretence of supporting another.

Jesus then made a bold, definitive statement, exhorting them to walk with the light while the light was still among them, so that the darkness might not dominate them (verse 35).

That might sound gentle enough to us, but it was His closing invitation to them, which was also a warning.

MacArthur elaborates:

It’s the final warning God has run out of time He’s run out of patience This is the day the light went out It’s Passion Week It’s toward the end of the week Friday, He will be crucified At some point in the end of the week, Jesus speaks in verse 35, “‘For a little while longer, the Light is among you.  Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes.  While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.’

That is the first point in this text: the final call, the final call.  This is a call to unbelievers It is the last one This is it.  They’ve had generations and generations – hundreds and hundreds of years since they were recovered from their captivity and brought back to their land to rebuild it – to demonstrate their love for God, their obedience to God They have not been obedient Though they have not been idolatrous, they have continued to kill the prophets.  They have continued all the way up until their only hours from killing the Messiah, the Son of God.  There is one final appeal, one final appeal, and this is it. 

The people have given their verdict Back to verse 34.  You remember what was going on in verse 34?  Jesus had announced that He was going to die back in verse 24 in the metaphor of a grain of wheat falling into the ground and dying so that it could produce fruit.  He would not be able to bear spiritual fruit if He didn’t die.  He had to die.  He had come to die.  His death would be by crucifixion.  There was a metaphor for crucifixion; being lifted up.  In verse 32, He said, “I, if I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men to Myself.”

There He declares His coming crucifixion in terms that they all understood His crucifixion because, He says in verse 33 that this is the kind of death which He was to die.  The crowd understood it.  Verse 34, they rendered their verdict.  “‘We have heard out of the law – ” the Old Testament, “ – that the Messiah is to remain forever.”  He is to set up an eternal, everlasting kingdom.  “‘How can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’?  Who is this Son of Man?’” they say cynically.

So, on Monday they were saying He was the Son of David, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”  They were hailing Him as the Messiah because, of course, He had done miracles for three years.  They all knew about it and capped it off with the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead.  There was a euphoria This is Him.  This is the Messiah.  As He came into the city, hundreds of thousands of people acclaimed Him “Messiah.”  Tuesday, He attacks the temple He attacks their religious system, not the Romans, and creates doubt in their mind Then He says He’s going to die, and that’s the final straw.  They shift from seeing Him as the Messiah to seeing Him as an imposter “Who is this Son of Man who is going to be crucified?”  Within hours, they will scream, “Crucify Him!  Crucify Him!” 

The day of grace had come to its end This is the final call.  But again it shows the mercy, the grace, the compassion, the longsuffering, the patience and the kindness of the Savior He had preached among them for three years Everything He did was public Only a few hours remain now. 

Jesus repeated His message to believe in the light while the light was still present so that they might be the children of light (verse 36). Afterwards, He vanished from their sight.

MacArthur says:

Verse 36, “While you have the Light, believe.”  Walk equals believe “Believe in the Light so that you may become sons of Light.”  This is His final invitation, final invitation.  Make the journey of faith, believe, and once the light of the world is no longer present, the unbelieving world will be dark, and you will be like a traveler completely lost in a moonless night who wanders to his own danger and destruction Back in chapter 8 and verse 21, Jesus said, “I go away and you will seek Me and will die in your sin.  Where I am going, you cannot come.”  In verse 24, therefore, I said to you, you will die in your sins for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.  You will seek Me.  You will die in your sins if you do not believe.”

He said in that same chapter earlier, verse 12, “I am the Light of the world.  He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness.”  Come to Christ, you come to light.  Come to Christ, you become a child of light, a son of light.  Magnificent pictures, but you don’t have much time.  Receive Him while you are able He is the Light.  We know that metaphor through the gospel of John.  He is the Light of God’s life.  He is the Light of God’s wisdom, and the Light of God’s truth, the Light of God’s holiness, the Light of God’s righteousness.  He is the Light that shines in the darkness, and the darkness can’t put it out He has come to be the Light of the world.  But the opportunity is coming to its end The Light is hereNow is the time to believe.

Henry explains our Lord’s departure and surmises He might have returned to Bethany:

this he did, 1. For their conviction and awakening. If they will not regard what he hath said, he will have nothing more to say to them. They are joined to their infidelity, as Ephraim to idols let them alone. Note, Christ justly removes the means of grace from those that quarrel with him, and hides his face from a froward generation, Deuteronomy 32:20. 2. For his own preservation. He hid himself from their rage and fury, retreating, it is probable, to Bethany, where he lodged. By this it appears that what he said irritated and exasperated them, and they were made worse by that which should have made them better.

MacArthur says that was the end of our Lord’s public ministry:

These things Jesus spoke, and He went away and hid Himself from them.  Didn’t make another public appearance that week It was over.  It was over.  Luke 21:38 tells us that in the morning the people gathered to the temple expecting Him, but He wasn’t there He had come unto His own, and His own received Him not It wasn’t just a cloud veiling the sun.  The sun had set, and the darkness was complete.  His words were fulfilled.  “You will seek Me and will not find Me, and where I go, you can never come.”  That’s a judgment.  That is a judgment. 

His physical hiding was acting out the judgment It was a dramatic act portraying the judgment So the verdict is in on Israel.  They saw all the evidence.  They heard all the teaching.  They saw the miracles.  They were all done openly.  They were all done publicly, but it was over.  It was completely over.  In John 15:24, our Lord said, and He said this Thursday night with His disciples in the Upper Room, “If I hadn’t done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sinned, but now they have both seen and hated Me and my Father as well.”  They hated Me.  They hated my Father, and they saw everything I did.  That’s His final call, and He disappears.  What a sad day, the day the Light went out, the day the sun went down.  Three years, and He was there every day, and then He was gone.

His public ministry is over The rest of the chapter John summarizes his insights inspired by the Holy Spirit, and he helps us to make some sense out of this incredibly dark day So we have in verses 35 and 36, the final call to unbelief. 

Some will say that perhaps Jesus did not do enough, but John counters that in verse 37:

John wants to make sure that nobody gets away with that argument.  So in verse 37 he says this,“But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.”  You say, “Well, that’s just John’s word.  That’s just John’s word.”  No, it’s not.  Go back to chapter 11, verse 47.  Let’s go to the supreme court of Israel, the highest court in the land, the Sanhedrin.  The chief priests and the Pharisees convene in this council called the Sanhedrin, and what do they say when they come together in the council?  They were saying, “What are we doing?  For this man is performing many signs.”  No one ever denied the miracles of Jesus His enemies never denied one of His miracles, never tried to deny it.  In fact, at the end of the gospel of John, the final verse in chapter 21 says, “There were many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.”

Massive evidence, massive testimony confessed to not only by John, but by the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of Israel They didn’t even attempt to disprove what He did He healed the sick, expelled demons, controlled the winds and the sea, walked on water, turned water into wine, revealed to men their secret thoughts, raised the dead, and nobody ever denied any of it.  They were open miracles They were public miracles for everybody to see Many of them done in the most public place of all, in and around the temple, and still they refused to believe That’s what I read you in John 15:24.  They wouldn’t have the level of sin they have if they had not seen what they saw and heard what they heard.  “They have hated Me without cause.”  They refused to believe. 

Here’s the danger When they would not believe, the judgment came, and they could not believe.  You don’t want to pass into that category When they would not believe, the judgment came, and they could not believe.  Follow the text.  They were not believing in Him, verse 37 says.  They were not believing in Him, “To fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which He spoke: ‘Lord, who has believed our report?  And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’  For this reason, they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.’”

A state of unbelief, especially when it is a wilful refusal, is certainly not the place one wants to be.

We wonder how many believers there were during the ministry of Jesus. MacArthur says there would have been 500 believers in Galilee and 120 in Jerusalem at that time. That does not sound like many to us, but God had His remnant of believers. However, MacArthur says that for the nation of Israel, it was too late.

Paul tells us in Romans 11:25-28 that God’s judgement on Israel will not last forever, but, as we can see through over two millenia, it has certainly been a long one so far.

These are the readings for Monday of Holy Week.

The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases in bold mine):

John 12:1-11

12:1 Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.

12:2 There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him.

12:3 Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

12:4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said,

12:5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?”

12:6 (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)

12:7 Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial.

12:8 You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

12:9 When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.

12:10 So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well,

12:11 since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.

Commentary for today’s exegesis comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Today’s reading features the contrast of two polar opposites: Mary, the sister of Lazarus, and Judas, the betrayer and thief.

Lazarus and his sisters gave a dinner to honour Jesus, particularly because Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead (verses 1, 2).

John MacArthur points out that this was the last Sabbath under the Old Covenant:

By the way, this is the last legitimate Sabbath.  This is the final Sabbath in the Old Covenant because on Friday, Jesus will die and ratify the New Covenant The Old Covenant will fade away.  The New Covenant being ratified is in place, and there’s no more authorized official Sabbaths.  So the church immediately gathers itself on Sunday when He was raised from the dead, and continued to do that every Sunday up until this very Sunday today. 

John tells us that Martha served (verse 2). In an earlier visit to the house where Lazarus and his sisters lived, Jesus criticised Martha when she asked Him to ask Mary to help her with food preparations. Yet, she is still serving.

MacArthur rightly says that we are sometimes too critical of Martha:

I need to rescue Martha a little bit because Martha gets bad press.  That comes out of the account in Luke 10.  On another occasion, when our Lord was traveling, He came to Bethany and came to the village and Martha welcomed Him into her home.  She had a sister called Mary who was seated at the Lord’s feet listening to the Word.  Martha was distracted with all her preparations.  She came up to Him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone?  Then tell her to help me.” 

She’s a little obsessed with this serving stuff.  The Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha – ” and if you’re named Martha, you have heard that many, many times.  “You are worried and bothered about so many things, but only one thing is really necessary, and Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”  Let me tell you something.  The truth that Mary is listening to is forever The meal and the stuff in the kitchen, that has a short shelf lifeSo instruction, divine truth, worship is a priority.

Based upon that experience, and you can go back to John 12.  We sort of degrade Martha a little bit, and I think we need to lift her back up She served and service is regarded nobly in scripture, very noblyIn fact, the word “serving” there is the word diakone  from which we get the word “deacon” and servers in the church were a very important part of the life of the church People were first appointed in the sixth chapter of Acts There are references all through the book of Acts to people who served.  Paul in Romans 16 talks about all the people who served, men and women who served his ministry and the ministry of those associated with him So we don’t want to belittle this service that Martha rendered

There is a bone of contention as to whether this dinner actually took place at the home of Lazarus and his sisters. MacArthur said that it took place at the home of Simon, a healed leper. Only Jesus could have healed him, by the way.

However, Matthew Henry says there were two different dinners, one at Simon’s and this one at Lazarus’s:

It is queried whether this was the same with that which is recorded, Matthew 24:6, &c., in the house of Simon. Most commentators think it was for the substance of the story and many of the circumstances agree but that comes in after what was said two days before the passover, whereas this was done six days before nor is it likely that Martha should serve in any house but her own and therefore I incline with Dr. Lightfoot to think them different: that in Matthew on the third day of the passover week, but this the seventh day of the week before, being the Jewish sabbath, the night before he rode in triumph into Jerusalem that in the house of Simon this of Lazarus. These two being the most public and solemn entertainments given him in Bethany, Mary probably graced them both with this token of her respect and what she left of her ointment this first time, when she spent but a pound of it (John 12:3), she used that second time, when she poured it all out, Mark 14:3.

Mary was moved enough by the occasion to anoint the feet of Jesus with a costly and powerful perfume — nard — and wipe them with her hair (verse 3).

I would like to think this was part of Mary’s spontaneous, emotional make up as a person. It is interesting that she undid her hair in order to wipe our Lord’s feet, because no respectable woman at that time let her hair down, so to speak, in front of men other than her husband.

MacArthur discusses Mary’s action and tells us more about nard, which was often used in burials. It came from the Himalayas, which proves that trade routes to the East were in place at that time:

I don’t really think this is something calculated, premeditatedThis is the heart of Mary bursting, “And she took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard.”  That’s a lot of pure perfume, pure fragrant oil.  The term is “myron” which is a term for oil Nard was a very rare herb grown in the high pasture lands of China, Tibet, and IndiaIt wouldn’t find its way into a home in Bethany unless it had been carried there by camels from India, from China, far, far, far awayBecause it came so far, because it was so pure, it was very valuable, very valuable.  In fact, its value was known by the man who always thought only about the price of things: Judas.  He named the price in verse 5 as 300 denarii.  A denarius is a day’s wage.  That’s 300 days of work.  That’s essentially a year’s work if you take some days off out.  Very expensive. 

In Matthew 26:7 we read that it was in an alabaster jar Alabaster is a white translucent stone that would be carved out to contain this nard.  Probably, that’s how it was shipped and delivered and kept.  Now, why would people have this?  Well, for one use and we’ll see more about that in a minute, this kind of fragrant oil was used at a funeral.  Since there was no embalming, to somehow lower the impact of the stench of a decaying body, fragrant oils were placed on the body You remember Joseph of Arimathea.  Nicodemus did that to the body of Christ.  They anointed His body with spices and things like that at His own burial. 

This is a very valuable thing to the family They’ve got some of their estate in this very valuable oil in this alabaster jar Maybe it was to be used for the funeral of family members.  It hadn’t been used for Lazarus’s funeral, so that maybe open to question, but families did use perfume like this for purposes like that.  It could also be used just for the ladies to enjoy the fragrance and the home to enjoy the fragrance

Here are the Gospel differences in describing this event. There was also a similar episode with a fallen woman:

According to Mark 14:3, she smashes the alabaster jar and opens it Matthew and Mark tell us it went on His head and here we find in John that it went all the way down to His feet Then she loosened her hair, which was a radical thing for a woman to do in the presence of men, and used her hair to wipe His feet.  Foot washing at a meal was part of the meal because people had sandals, and there was no pavement …

It’s not the first time we’ve seen this on behalf of Jesus Go back to Luke 7.  It had happened before earlier in His ministry, not in Bethany, but in Galilee.  Not in the house of Simon the leper, but in the house of a Pharisee Not by a believing woman whom Jesus knew, but by a prostitute He didn’t know Luke 7:37, “There was a woman in the city who was a sinner and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisees’ house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume standing behind Him at His feet weeping.  She began to wet His feet with her tears, kept wiping them with the hair of her head and kissing His feet and anointing them with perfume Now, when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet, He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.’”

That would be the most frightening things imaginable for a self-righteous Pharisee to imagine himself to be touched by a prostitute He wouldn’t survive that because Pharisees as legalists were highly seducible, even by a touch.  But the touch of a most sinful woman, couldn’t diminish the pure, holiness of Christ Instead of it making Him unholy, He could make her holy Apparently, this was a lavish way for people to express overwhelming love and affection

Judas, the betrayer, piped up and asked why the perfume wasn’t sold with the proceeds going to the poor (verses 4, 5).

John, sometimes called the apostle of love, was always pointed in his descriptions of Judas, and one of these is in verse 6. John was quick to tell us that Judas was a thief. According to John, Judas didn’t care at all about the poor, but, as he was the one in charge of donations given to Jesus and the apostles, he also dipped into those funds from time to time for himself.

Both of our commentators have much to say about the covetous nature of the betrayer.

MacArthur begins with another description of Judas from John 6, Christ’s own words, in fact:

The scene is tortured by the intrusion of a man identified by Jesus back in chapter 6 as a devil.  Verse 70, chapter 6, “One of you is a devil,” and He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, “For he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.”  Always one of the twelve, one of the disciples who was going to betray Him.  That is his epitaph, and it was his epitaph before he died.  That’s how he was identified: greed, ambition, worldliness, self-interest, owned his heart, driving him now to a frenzy, a frenzy.

He cast his lot in thinking he would be wealthy.  He cast his lot in thinking he would be elevated to some position of power and authority, and it began to become clear to him pretty early I think that this thing wasn’t going the direction he wanted it to go While everyone else was growing to love Christ more, he was growing to hate Him more He labored in difficulty.  There was resistance.  There was rejection.  He was left with nothing but the basest necessities of life.  From day to day, it was merely survival.  The idea of a kingdom was becoming ridiculous to him.  Everything was going wrong, but he has to keep up the hypocrisy so he says in verse 5, “Why was this perfume not sold for 300 denarii and given to poor people?”  It sounds so noble, but John tells us in verse 6, “He said this not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.” 

When the thing began to go the direction he didn’t think it should go, he began embezzling the money, the little money they had to sustain them He wanted the money and all the money he could get He was ready now to get out, whatever was going to be the end of this thing for Jesus.  Jesus had said He was going to die.  They were going to take His life.  He can see the hostility, the animosity.  He knows the end is coming.  He knows He’s not going to be able to be in the position he is to get the money that’s in the box very much longer.  He wants as much as he can get.  By the way, this is sadMatthew 26:8 says the other disciples chimed in on this Yeah, why wasn’t that sold and the money given to the poor?  Stirred up by Judas to join the protest.  It actually says the disciples protested.

He had a lot of influence That’s why he had the money box because everybody what?  Trusted him.  I will say this, true honor to Jesus Christ, a place where true honor is offered to Jesus Christ will always bring out the hostility of those who belong to Satan If you honor Jesus Christ, those who belong to Satan will be hostile This is a devil.  It actually says Thursday night of this week coming, the devil himself entered into him He was not just a devil, but the devil himself entered into Judas

Henry has a lengthy analysis of Judas’s greed and devilishness:

The pretence with which he covered his dislike (John 12:5): Why was not this ointment, since it was designed for a pious use, sold for three hundred pence” (8l. 10s. of our money), “and given to the poor? (1.) Here is a foul iniquity gilded over with a specious and plausible pretence, for Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. (2.) Here is worldly wisdom passing a censure upon pious zeal, as guilty of imprudence and mismanagement. Those who value themselves upon their secular policy, and undervalue others for their serious piety, have more in them of the spirit of Judas than they would be thought to have. (3.) Here is charity to the poor made a colour for opposing a piece of piety to Christ, and secretly made a cloak for covetousness. Many excuse themselves from laying out in charity under pretence of laying up for charity: whereas, if the clouds be full of rain, they will empty themselves. Judas asked, Why was it not given to the poor? To which it is easy to answer, Because it was better bestowed upon the Lord Jesus. Note, We must not conclude that those do no acceptable piece of service who do not do it in our way, and just as we would have them as if every thing must be adjudged imprudent and unfit which does not take its measures from us and our sentiments. Proud men think all ill-advised who do not advise with them.

Also:

(2.) It did come from a principle of covetousness. The truth of the matter was, this ointment being designed for his Master, he would rather have had it in money, to be put in the common stock with which he was entrusted, and then he knew what to do with it. Observe,

[1.] Judas was treasurer of Christ’s household, whence some think he was called Iscariot, the bag-bearer. First, See what estate Jesus and his disciples had to live upon. It was but little they had neither farms nor merchandise, neither barns nor storehouses, only a bag or, as some think the word signifies, a box, or coffer, wherein they kept just enough for their subsistence, giving the overplus, if any were, to the poor this they carried about with them, wherever they went. Omnia mea mecum porto–I carry all my property about me. This bag was supplied by the contributions of good people, and the Master and his disciples had all in common let this lessen our esteem of worldly wealth, and deaden us to the punctilios of state and ceremony, and reconcile us to a mean and despicable way of living, if this be our lot, that it was our Master’s lot for our sakes he became poor. Secondly, See who was the steward of the little they had it was Judas, he was purse-bearer. It was his office to receive and pay, and we do not find that he gave any account what markets he made. He was appointed to this office, either, 1. Because he was the least and lowest of all the disciples it was not Peter nor John that was made steward (though it was a place of trust and profit), but Judas, the meanest of them. Note, Secular employments, as they are a digression, so they are a degradation to a minister of the gospel see 1 Corinthians 6:4. The prime-ministers of state in Christ’s kingdom refused to be concerned in the revenue, Acts 6:2. 2. Because he was desirous of the place. He loved in his heart to be fingering money, and therefore had the moneybag committed to him, either, (1.) As a kindness, to please him, and thereby oblige him to be true to his Master. Subjects are sometimes disaffected to the government because disappointed of their preferment but Judas had no cause to complain of this the bag he chose, and the bag he had. Or, (2.) In judgment upon him, to punish him for his secret wickedness that was put into his hands which would be a snare and trap to him. Note, Strong inclinations to sin within are often justly punished with strong temptations to sin without. We have little reason to be fond of the bag, or proud of it, for at the best we are but stewards of it and it was Judas, one of an ill character, and born to be hanged (pardon the expression), that was steward of the bag. The prosperity of fools destroys them.

[2.] Being trusted with the bag, he was a thief, that is, he had a thievish disposition. The reigning love of money is heart-theft as much as anger and revenge are heart-murder. Or perhaps he had been really guilty of embezzling his Master’s stores, and converting to his own use what was given to the public stock. And some conjecture that he was now contriving to fill his pockets, and then run away and leave his Master, having heard him speak so much of troubles approaching, to which he could by no means reconcile himself. Note, Those to whom the management and disposal of public money is committed have need to be governed by steady principles of justice and honesty, that no blot cleave to their hands for though some make a jest of cheating the government, or the church, or the country, if cheating be thieving, and, communities being more considerable than particular persons, if robbing them be the greater sin, the guilt of theft and the portion of thieves will be found no jesting matter. Judas, who had betrayed his trust, soon after betrayed his Master.

Jesus rebuked Judas, telling him to leave Mary alone because she was keeping the nard for His burial (verse 7). He also pointed out that the poor would always be among them but that He would not (verse 8).

MacArthur interprets this as follows:

It’s right to take care of the poor It’s right to care for them, but not now, not now.  I’m here.  You don’t always have Me I don’t want to spiritualize that.  I just want to say that in life there are priorities.  There is temporal relief, and there is eternal worship, and you better know the difference

MacArthur compares Judas’s sinful words in denying an honour bestowed on our Lord with the price he received for betraying Him:

His first words ever spoken are in verse 5.  These are the first words in the Scripture from the lips of Judas: “Why was this perfume not sold for 300 denarii and given to poor people?”  Do you want to know his last words?  Matthew 27, “I have betrayed innocent blood.”  That’s Judas.  For 300 denarii, he would rob Jesus of the gift of Mary’s love.  Later, he would sell Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.  Three hundred denarii, that’s about a year’s wages; 30 pieces of silver, 4 months.  The perfume was worth 3 times to him what he sold Jesus for

Several years ago, someone commented here to say that Judas wasn’t really bad, only misunderstood, largely because of the bad press he got in the New Testament! No. There is no rationalisation of Judas. He was a bad man, and he committed suicide after Jesus was condemned on Good Friday. Judas was a tortured soul, a man given over to judgement in life and in death (Matthew 27:3-5):

Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus[a] was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:15-19 has a different version of his death:

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, 16 “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong[d] he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

MacArthur sums up Mary and Judas:

Bitter, greedy, murderous, betraying hatred is juxtaposed against this lavish love that is memorialized permanently.  Mary: overflowing extravagant, sacrificial loveJudas: bitter, greedy, murderous, betraying hate, extreme.

Not surprisingly, people flocked to the house of Lazarus to see him and to see Jesus (verse 9). Not everyone came in faith. Some came out of curiosity.

The Jewish leaders wanted to put Lazarus to death — along with Jesus — to stop him evangelising. Because of his resurrection, many Jews were becoming followers of Jesus (verse 11). That must have really rankled.

The Jewish hierarchy — the notionally holiest men in the entire Jewish population — could not deny that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, so they wanted to kill the evidence, then probably deny it ever happened. They were so wilfully blind and, because of that, so sinful. How sick and perverse. God passed judgement on them with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. To date, it has never been rebuilt.

Bible boy_reading_bibleThe 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.

1 Corinthians 10:23-33

Do All to the Glory of God

23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 (C)Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

Last week’s post discussed the dangers of mixing Christianity with pagan worship, something which the Corinthian Christians were prone to doing. An admixture of Christianity and other religions is called syncretism.

After telling the Corinthians not to engage in such a practice because it might drive them away from their eternal salvation in Jesus Christ, Paul puts his proscription in a more positive way.

Here he returns to what he said in Romans 14 and 15 about weaker and stronger Christians. The stronger should not offend the weaker, lest they drive them away from the Church. My posts on the subject follow:

Romans 14:13-19 – food, weaker brothers, stronger brothers, conscience, faith

Romans 14:20-23 – food, alcohol, weaker brothers, stronger brothers, conscience, faith

Romans 15:1-3 – the example of Christ, weaker brothers, stronger brothers, selflessness

Now on to today’s reading.

Paul says that, although Christians have freedom in Christ — therefore, ‘all things are lawful’ — not everything is ‘helpful’, nor does every act of freedom in Christ ‘build up’ a Christian in the faith (verse 23).

Matthew Henry explains the gravity of that verse (emphases in bold mine):

A Christian must not barely consider what is lawful, but what is expedient, and for the use of edification. A private Christian should do so even in his private conduct. He must not seek his own only, but his neighbour’s wealth. He must be concerned not to hurt his neighbour, nay, he must be concerned to promote his welfare; and must consider how to act so that he may help others, and not hinder them in their holiness, comfort, or salvation. Those who allow themselves in every thing not plainly sinful in itself will often run into what is evil by accident, and do much mischief to others. Every thing lawful in itself to be done is not therefore lawfully done. Circumstances may make that a sin which in itself is none. These must be weighed, and the expediency of an action, and its tendency to edification, must be considered before it be done. Note, The welfare of others, as well as our own convenience, must be consulted in many things we do, if we would do them well.

I highlighted that sentence in purple because I have been guilty of that in the past. Those are relatively seemingly simple things, such as going to a party. Don’t force believers to go if they do not wish to attend.

Logically, it follows that we should not seek our own good in human interaction, rather the good of our neighbour (verse 24). The Lord hates sin. Therefore, if we encourage others to sin, even in their own conscience, we have committed a sin against God. Say that one invites a friend to a Super Bowl party or to a Rugby World Cup celebration. Certainly, believers can attend both. However, those who are abstemious or are under self-imposed food restrictions might see those as wrongful gatherings. Stronger Christians — who can attend, enjoy within reason and leave — should not force weaker Christians to take part in such parties, lest they be tempted to sin — in their own conscience — with alcohol or, perhaps, food.

By the way, I’ve been to a Rugby Union party, given by a former England player. They are the best in terms of endless food and drink. Yet, there is no drunkenness, and no arguments occur. I cannot think of better hospitality. This is the dilemma: do we invite the weaker to celebrate or do we decline extending such an invitation? For some of our friends, we would have to decline such an extension, unfortunate though it is.

Paul lays out ground rules for food consumption in verses 25 to 27. Eat whatever the market sells, for God permits all His animals to be eaten, even at the house of an unbeliever.

But — and as we say today, ‘it’s a big “but”‘ — there is an exception. If someone tells you that what you are about to eat has been sacrificed, then refrain from eating it. You would not do this as much for yourself personally as for the person informing you of that fact (verses 28, 29).

Paul asks why our personal choices can offend another believer (verses 29, 30).

John MacArthur provides answers which explain those verses:

If you have to choose between offending a Christian and offending a non-Christian, offend a non-Christian.

You say, “Hey – well – we’re trying to win them?” The way to win them is for them to see the validity and the honesty and the purity of your Christianity. Right? And if you’re sitting at the table, fighting each other, he’s not going to get a Christian message no matter what you eat. You see?

“The way to win people,” Jesus said, “is to love each other.” Isn’t that right? You love each other, and the world’s going to know we’re His disciples. So, you have to choose between offending a Christian and offending a non-Christian, offend a non-Christian, and make sure you maintain the unity of the love of the body of Jesus Christ, because that’s the greatest testimony that we have in the world. See, that’s his point.

So, condescension rather than condemnation. Don’t do something that’s going to make your Christian brother condemn you. Verse 29, “Why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?”

In other words, I certainly don’t want to say, “Well, I’m going to do this,” and have him condemn me for it. I don’t want to get in a position where my liberty, my act of liberty is going to be condemned by another man’s conscience. The word “judge” means condemn. Don’t let him condemn. Injure your host, if you will, and you know what your host will see? He will see an act of love.

And he will say, “If that man loves that other brother enough to make that sacrifice, there must be something to that. Verse 30 adds a further point, “If I by grace be a partaker” – in other words, if I recognize God has given me this food – “why would I be evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?”

Now, let me tell you what that means. It would be pretty ridiculous to say, “Thank you, Lord, for the gracious gift of this food,” and then go ahead and eat it while your brother was condemning you. That’s inconsistent. Don’t thank God and go out and do something that’s going to make some other Christian condemn you for doing it. “Lord, thank you for the marvelous liberty that you’ve given me. Lord, bless this meal,” and eat up, and drink up, and here’s a Christian brother condemning you, condemning you. That’s ridiculous. You can’t think God for something that another Christian brother is going to stumble over.

So, condescension over condemnation. If you have to choose between a Christian and a non-Christian, offend a non-Christian at that point in order that your love might be made manifest to the world. And I don’t mean that you should just run out and offend non-Christians just at will. Just in case you might think that, verse 32 says, “Give no offence neither to the Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the Church of God.” The basic rule, beloved, don’t offend – what? – anybody. But if you have to choose, offend yourself before you offend a weaker brother; and if you have to choose, offend an unbeliever before you offend a weaker brother. But if you can, don’t offend anybody. Condescension over condemnation. Don’t do anything that’s going to cause somebody else to condemn you.

Paul ends on a positive note, saying that a believer should give glory to God in whatever activity he is engaging in: eating, drinking or other things (verse 31).

Nothing that we do should offend anyone — Jew, Gentile or our fellow believers — following Paul’s own example, in order that many more can be saved (verse 32).

Henry concludes:

Our own humour and appetite must not determine our practice, but the honour of God and the good and edification of the church. We should not so much consult our own pleasure and interest as the advancement of the kingdom of God among men. Note, A Christian should be a man devoted to God, and of a public spirit.

My next post on 1 Corinthians will appear after Easter.

Next time: 1 Corinthians 11:1-16

In 2021, Palm Sunday is March 28.

This is the second and final Sunday in the brief season of Passiontide, just before Easter.

The readings for Year B as well as related posts on Palm Sunday and Lazarus Saturday can be found below:

Readings for Palm Sunday — Year B

There are three choices of Gospel readings for this day. I have chosen the second one from the Liturgy of the Palms (emphases in bold mine):

John 12:12-16

12:12 The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem.

12:13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord– the King of Israel!”

12:14 Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written:

12:15 “Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion. Look, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt!”

12:16 His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written of him and had been done to him.

Our Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem took place before He asked His Father to glorify Him, last week’s reading: John 12:20-33.

Commentary for today’s exegesis comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

In order to add more context, these are the intervening verses between this week’s and last week’s readings — John 12:17-19:

17 The crowd that had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to bear witness. 18 The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.”

Before going into the triumphal entry of Jesus, let us look at what happened after He raised his good friend Lazarus from the dead. He shared dinner with the sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha (John 12:2-8):

So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. 3 Mary therefore took a pound[a] of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii[b] and given to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. Jesus said, “Leave her alone, so that she may keep it[c] for the day of my burial. For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

Now on to today’s reading.

Millions of people were in and around Jerusalem for Passover, which would culminate later in the week.

Hundreds of people knew about Jesus resurrecting Lazarus from the dead in Bethany. He had been in his tomb for four days. This was the last major miracle in our Lord’s ministry. The last miracle was His healing of the centurion’s ear hours before His death.

Once those people learned that Jesus was going to Jerusalem from Bethany, they wanted to greet Him (verse 12).

John MacArthur says that Jesus allowed this to happen. In fact, MacArthur posits that He created this situation:

So understand this: Jesus creates a demonstration He creates all of this.  He sets this up.  He sets it up by healing Lazarus, raising him from the dead.  He comes to Bethany, the point of that miracle, days or maybe a few weeks earlier.  He lingers there.  He remains there to draw the crowd to see Him, to see Lazarus, to strengthen the testimony of that miracle power He deliberately sets Himself in a situation to draw the largest possible crowd of people, and a crowd comes on Sunday to Bethany and overruns that little village.  Then another crowd packs the city of Jerusalem

We’re talking hundreds of thousands of people in that city and this Passover season.  He wants to generate the enthusiasm of the masses.  He wants not only to be received for who He is, the King, even if it’s only a fickle reception But He also wants to exacerbate the fury of the leaders of Israel so that they will against their own plan wind up crucifying Him on the very day that God has ordained at the Passover He forces the Sanhedrin to change their plans with respect to His execution to harmonize with the purpose of God

The crowd brought palm branches, crying out ‘Hosanna!’ and hailed Him as King of Israel (verse 13).

Two crowds assembled to see Jesus: the huge numbers from Bethany (verse 17) and another enormous gathering from Jerusalem (verse 18).

John tells us that Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it (verse 14). John leaves out the detail here that the synoptic Gospels explore in more depth. MacArthur says:

As He begins His journey, He asks two of His disciples to do something.  He sends them to a nearby hamlet, and He says, “Go to this place, and you will find a post, and you will find a donkey and a donkey’s colt tied to the post.  I want you to bring those animals to Me.  Bring the donkey and bring the donkey’s colt.”  Now, when the disciples reached the village, they found the right home.  They saw exactly what Jesus said they would see; these two animals tied to a post.  They start to untie the animals to take the animals with them, and the owner comes out and says, “What are you doing?  Why are you taking these animals?”  You remember their answer?  Very cryptic, brief answer.  They said, “The Lord needs them.  The Lord needs them.” 

That should indicate to you that whoever was the owner of that house and those animals knew the Lord.  They don’t have to describe who they’re talking about.  “The Lord needs them.”  Plenty of reason to think that this may well have been a follower of Jesus who was eager to provide for Him whatever He asked for.  The disciples then, once they’d secured the animals, took off their outer cloaks, which they would be wearing in the morning up in the mountains where they were They threw the outer garments over the colt and over the mother of the colt and brought them to Jesus.

You remember the story.  Jesus chose the colt to ride and not the mother Why the two?  Jesus wanted to come into the city in humility He didn’t even ride the older more mature animal.  He rode the weaker, younger animal The mature animal was brought along to lead the young colt because the colt will always follow his mother This is the way Jesus could demonstrably express the humility that was going to come His way during that week.  As He approached the city and the crowd began to gather around Him, people spread their garments in front of Him, like throwing down the red carpet They spread their clothes in the path so that the little animal could walk along their garments, and then they would pick them up.

Palm branches were used in the ancient world by both Jew and Gentile in celebrations and as a means of bestowing honour upon someone important.

Matthew Henry explains:

The palm-tree has ever been an emblem of victory and triumph[;] Cicero calls one that had won many prizes plurimarum palmarum homo–a man of many palms. Christ was now by his death to conquer principalities and powers, and therefore it was fit that he should have the victor’s palm borne before him though he was but girding on the harness, yet he could boast as though he had put it off. But this was not all the carrying of palm-branches was part of the ceremony of the feast of tabernacles (Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:15), and their using this expression of joy in the welcome given to our Lord Jesus intimates that all the feasts pointed at his gospel, had their accomplishment in it, and particularly that of the feast of tabernacles, Zechariah 14:16.

The crowd’s cry of ‘Hosanna’ was also significant, as Henry tells us:

That they cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God (Revelation 7:10) so did these here, they shouted before him, as is usual in popular welcomes, Hosanna, blessed is the king of Israel, that comes in the name of the Lord and hosanna signifies salvation. It is quoted from Psalm 118:25,26. See how well acquainted these common people were with the scripture, and how pertinently they apply it to the Messiah. High thoughts of Christ will be best expressed in scripture-words. Now in their acclamations, [1.] They acknowledge our Lord Jesus to be the king of Israel, that comes in the name of the Lord. Though he went now in poverty and disgrace, yet, contrary to the notions their scribes had given them of the Messiah, they own him to be a king, which bespeaks both his dignity and honour, which we must adore and his dominion and power, to which we must submit. They own him to be, First, A rightful king, coming in the name of the Lord (Psalm 2:6), sent of God, not only as a prophet, but as a king. Secondly, The promised and long-expected king, Messiah the prince, for he is king of Israel. According to the light they had, they proclaimed him king of Israel in the streets of Jerusalem and, they themselves being Israelites, hereby they avouched him for their king. [2.] They heartily wish well to his kingdom, which is the meaning of hosanna let the king of Israel prosper, as when Solomon was crowned they cried, God save king Solomon, 1 Kings 1:39. In crying hosanna they prayed for three things:–First, That his kingdom might come, in the light and knowledge of it, and in the power and efficacy of it. God speed the gospel plough. Secondly, That it might conquer, and be victorious over all opposition, Revelation 6:2. Thirdly, That it might continue. Hosanna is, Let the king live for ever though his kingdom may be disturbed, let it never be destroyed, Psalm 72:17. [3.] They bid him welcome into Jerusalem: “Welcome is he that cometh we are heartily glad to see him come in thou blessed of the Lord and well may we attend with our blessings him who meets us with his.” This welcome is like that (Psalm 24:7-9), Lift up your heads, O ye gates. Thus we must every one of us bid Christ welcome into our hearts, that is, we must praise him, and be well pleased in him. As we should be highly pleased with the being and attributes of God, and his relation to us, so we should be with the person and offices of the Lord Jesus, and his meditation between us and God. Faith saith, Blessed is he that cometh.

Returning to the young donkey, our Lord’s use of it was a fulfilment of Scripture (verse 15), Zechariah 9:9:

The Coming King of Zion

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
    Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
    righteous and having salvation is he,
humble and mounted on a donkey,
    on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

John admits that he and the other Apostles did not understand the full significance of these events until much later (verse 16). They must have spent a lot of time recalling various prophecies from the Old Testament and all of what Christ had told them of Himself. They knew He was the Son of God but there was so much proof.

MacArthur explains why this was so:

Verse 16, “These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him.”

They didn’t get it when it was happening.  I just have to say it this way: they were ignorant actors in the drama, but don’t be surprised.  They had been ignorant for a long time They didn’t get most things.  They did not understand most things They did not certainly understand why He was talking about dying They even tried to rebuke Him for that in the words of Peter.  They didn’t understand why He was humbling Himself and washing their feet He said, “I have to do this.  I have to do this.  This is part of my humiliation.”  When He said, “I’m going away,” they panicked and Philip says, “Where are you going to go?  We don’t know where you’re going.  We don’t know how to get there.” 

Even in chapter 1 of Acts, they were still lingering in the dark about the kingdom “Are you going to bring the kingdom now?  Is it coming now?”  It was all very confusing to them until He was glorified Why?  Then it all began to make sense.  Why?  Because previous to His glorification, what had He done?  He had gone back to the Old Testament and taught them the Old Testament, all the things in the Old Testament about Himself Remember, on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24?  And then in the Upper Room in the night of His resurrection, He explained Old Testament prophecies that He had fulfilled in His death and resurrection, and it began to make sense Then in Acts 2, right after His glorification, right after He ascends into heaven, the Holy Spirit comes and with the Old Testament course that He gave them after His resurrection, and the arrival of the Holy Spirit Then they remembered that these things were written of Him  

I’ve been telling you over the last number of months that when you now open the book of Acts after chapter 1 begins, they start to make sense out of the Old Testament.  Then when the Spirit comes, it really explodes.  John is looking back as he writes this, and he’s saying of himself and the rest, we didn’t understand what was going on We didn’t understand it.  In other words, we were caught up with the crowd We were caught up with the enthusiasm We were caught up with the messianic fever We never did understand until we looked back after His glorification and begun to make sense of what He had said. 

All the way along, all week long, they’re going to be confused Thursday night in the Upper Room, they’re very confused, very confused.  So even His own beloved followers show perplexity. 

What about the crowd who hailed Jesus then turned against Him less than a week later?

The crowd?  Well, they’re described in verse 17 and 18.  They’re there as we read earlier.  They’re curious.  They’re fascinated.  Why are they there?  Are they there because they’re interested in Jesus’ theology?  No.  They heard that He had performed this sign They’re attracted by the supernatural, false followers, thrill seekers, who by Friday choose Barabbas, a well-known criminal to be released; Jesus to be held prisoner, and then screamed for Him to be crucified.  Fickle crowd.

The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem surrounded by crowds of well-wishers made the Pharisees angry:

If the crowd is fickle, the Pharisees are angry, verse 19.  So the Pharisees said to one another, you see that you are not doing any good.  What you’re trying to stop is not working.  You’re not having any effect.  “The world has gone after Him.”  That’s such an important statement

MacArthur concludes:

That shows you the massive impact of Jesus on a superficial level to people who were only looking for supernatural experiences and events The same people screamed for His crucifixion a few days later.  It’s really a testimony to the far-reaching reality of superficial faith.

If this happened today, one could well imagine the Twitter trends every day of Holy Week, complete with videos.

Readings for Holy Week continue with John’s Gospel. More to come on Monday.

President Trump has given three interviews in mid-March. More on those below.

Americans clearly miss him and his clear-cut, sensible policies. Joe Biden’s administration is reversing many of them. Remember the manufacturing plants that were going to stay in the United States? Ford has now reneged and is going back to its original plan of moving one of its plants from Ohio to Mexico:

In other news, it took more than two months for the media, led by the original source, the Washington Post, to retract the story about Trump’s phone conversation with Georgia’s secretary of state about the election. WaPo finally retracted their false quotes attributed to the former president on Tuesday, March 16:

RedState has an excellent article about this further example of fake news (emphases mine below):

The alleged contents of this conversation had been part of the national conversation ever since January 9 when Washington Post reporter Amy Gardner published a story claiming, based on a single anonymous source, that President Trump had attempted to pressure Ms. Watson into creating evidence of fraud where all right-thinking people know that all voting in Georgia, especially in Fulton County, was totally on the up-and-up. The story blew up. It slid neatly into the Pantheon of Evil Acts By Trump worshiped by the left, the media, and NeverTrump. Through the miracle of journalisming, something we lay folks can’t be expected to understand, the anonymously sourced story was quickly and independently confirmed by NBC, ABC, USA Today, PBS, and CNN.

When President Trump was impeached after leaving office for giving a speech on the National Mall on January 6, this unsourced, though now multiply “corroborated,” allegation found its way into the “impeachment brief” submitted by the House “impeachment managers,” see page 10 if you care to wade through this dross. And, they, relying upon that integrity and sense of fair play for which progressives are famous, even used it in their impeachment arguments …

One final note. If the Daily Caller or Free Beacon or even the Washington Examiner had pulled a bullsh** stunt like this, they would be out of business (read The Washington Post Doesn’t Deserve to Exist After Making up Trump Quotes to Own the Orange Man). Facebook and Twitter would have de-platformed them by now (read Based on Brian Stelter’s Own Arguments, CNN and Washington Post Should Be Deplatformed). They would be ritually sacrificing staffers to try to keep advertisers from fleeing, and they would still fail. The Washington Post and Amy Gardner will simply move ahead. They will continue to sling wild conspiracy theories based on uncorroborated single sources, and they will continue to be treated as though they are serious newsgathering organizations.

Trump quickly compiled quotes from all the journalists condemning WaPo — including one from Glenn Greenwald, not a fan of his by any stretch of the imagination. When clicking that Telegram link, click on ‘Context’ to view in its entirety. It is easier just to visit his website’s announcement with all the quotes.

On Saturday, March 20, at Mar-a-Lago, he made reference to Joe Biden’s tripping on the airplane stairs and quickly added that he himself won the election by more than 75 million votes:

That Trump won is very likely to be true. On March 19, Howie Carr interviewed Jonathan Allen, one of the authors of Lucky: How Joe Biden Barely Won The Presidency. At the 8 minute point of the interview, Allen tells Carr that Trump lost within 43,000+ votes in three states. Peter Navarro, who wrote three reports for Trump on the 2020 election results, maintained that only six counties needed recounts, yet the swampy advisers around Trump said not to pursue the matter. After all, they have careers to preserve.

Former Democrat — now proud Republican — Georgia state congressman Vernon Jones was a guest of President Trump’s at Mar-a-Lago twice in one week:

On Monday, March 22, Harris Faulkner of Fox News interviewed Trump. They discussed the border situation and Biden’s reversal of his policies:

Trump is clearly concerned about the Second Amendment (guns), packing the Supreme Court and the weakness of Mitch McConnell, now the Senate Minority Leader.

There was also this:

On Tuesday, March 23, Trump gave an interview to Greg Kelly of Newsmax, wherein he discussed the ‘gross incompetence’ of the border situation, Operation WarpSpeed and more:

Biden’s fall also came up for discussion. Trump said he had ‘expected it’:

James O’Keefe of Project Veritas was Trump’s guest at Mar-a-Lago on March 23:

Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-North Carolina), elected in 2020, was Trump’s guest the following day:

And, finally, on Thursday, March 25, Laura Ingraham of Fox News interviewed him. This interview, which is 26 minutes long, is excellent. It covers the recent policy changes that have happened since Biden took office, including his first press conference that day, and ends with a discussion about Trump’s social media plans. Trump seems less sure about a new social media platform, saying that it would be rather complicated and that he enjoys his current communication streams on his website and Telegram.

The former president says he has been relaxing, yet keeping busy. It certainly looks like it.

Parliament is entering Easter recess on Thursday, March 25, 2021.

A few notable news items follow from both Houses — and the Scottish Parliament.

Scottish Parliament — MSPs standing down

A number of MSPs are standing down from their seats in Holyrood. Scots will elect new MSPs in May.

The Scotsman has a useful list, complete with photos, cited below. Emphases mine:

While all 129 of Holyrood’s seats will be contested at this year’s ballot, more than a quarter of the current crop of MSPs are standing down – including high profile figures like Ruth Davidson, Iain Gray and Jeane Freeman.

Highlights follow.

Independent

I will miss Ken Macintosh, who was a faultless convener presiding over fractious debates during the past year:

Ken Macintosh has been an MSP since the opening of the parliament in 1999, before unsuccessfully seeking the Labour leadership twice. He was elected as the parliament’s fifth presiding officer in 2016, but announced in September that he would not be seeking re-election as an MSP.

Scottish Conservatives

Ruth Davidson will be elevated to the House of Lords:

The former Scottish Tories leader took over the party’s reins at Holyrood once more when MP Douglas Ross was elected as the new leader last year. Ms Davidson will now take up a seat in the House of Lords.

Scottish Labour

Iain Gray is ending a long career as an MSP:

Former Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray was first elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 and is currently Labour’s education spokesman at Holyrood.

SNP

Here is the list of SNP MSPs who are standing down. Many have been in Holyrood for a number of years:

Jeane Freeman was in charge of health during the coronavirus crisis. Many residents of Scottish care homes died during that time.

One wonders what she will do next:

Health Secretary Jeane Freeman confirmed she will not seek re-election. The Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley MSP said she had “more she wanted to do” outside of politics.

The Scotsman has an interesting article from 2018 about her career history at that time:

Jeane Freeman, for it was she, has moved on to greater things as Health Minister in the Scottish Government. In the first half of this decade, she was a useful cog in the SNP machine as a former Labour apparatchik who, when the wind changed, discovered she was really a Nationalist.

Long a habituée of the quango circuit, Ms Freeman’s new appointments included the disastrous Scottish Police Authority. In her peak year of 2013-14, she pulled in £57,000 from that source alone. There were a couple of NHS roles, not forgetting the Judicial Appointments Board.

All this added up to 376 paid days in the financial year. One might have thought the Scottish Commissioner for Public Appointments (for such a person exists) might have done the arithmetic and asked questions but that is to over-estimate the vigilance of our non-barking watchdogs.

At the same time, Ms Freeman fronted “Women for Independence” and ran a lobbying firm which targeted the public sector. When a member of the public tabled a Freedom of Information request in 2015 about her business meetings with Scottish Ministers and officials, he was given the classic brush-off – the question would cost too much to answer.

Not unreasonably, he then wondered how lobbying activity could be monitored if ministers refused to provide information about their contacts on such implausible grounds. Another of our civic protectors, the Freedom of Information Commissioner, dismissed his complaint. Scotland really is a village …

There are still individuals floating around the Scottish quango circuit who were being put up for every chairmanship that occurred 20 years ago. The qualifications are that they challenge nothing, remain anonymous and nod their heads when directed by ministers. Political influence is as prevalent as it ever was – just much less transparent. Ask Ms Freeman.

This all fits into the wider pattern of centralisation which has systematically downgraded every other centre of influence within Scotland – public bodies, local government, police boards, funding-dependent third sector organisations – in order to create a closely integrated structure which brooks no challenge.

There is a powerful political agenda waiting to be created around the need to restore diversity and scrutiny within Scotland in order to challenge the power of the centre. Some might see that requirement as a paradoxical outcome of devolution while others recognise it as depressing – but largely predictable.

Linda Fabiani was the convener for the Holyrood inquiry examining the way Alex Salmond’s case was conducted. Hmm. Interestingly, The Scotsman makes no mention of this:

Ms Fabiani was first elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 as an MSP for Central Scotland, but since 2011 she has represented East Kilbride.

Then there’s Mark McDonald:

The Aberdeen Donside MSP resigned from the SNP after sending a woman an inappropriate text message which referenced a sex act.

House of Commons news

Historic Westminster by-election in Scotland

A historic by-election will be taking place in Scotland as the SNP’s Neil Gray announced he would be standing down. He made his final speech in Westminster — the mother of all Parliaments — on Tuesday, March 23:

An arcane parliamentary point needs to be explained:

Although the actual Manor of Northstead in Yorkshire no longer exists, the estate has been redeveloped as a park.

In political terms, this is a temporary position for MPs who have resigned and is given out at the pleasure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Wikipedia explains:

By virtue of the fact that it became and was retained as a Lordship of the Crown beyond the sale and eventual disappearance of the estate, since the nineteenth century the post of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead has played a role in the procedure for effecting resignation from the British House of Commons by Members of Parliament (MPs). While no longer having any actual role or responsibility, it remains a nominal paid office of the Crown, a sort of sinecure, appointment to which is one of the things that by law disqualify an MP from the House. This principle goes back to the Act of Settlement 1701, and is now regulated by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Since 1624, MPs have not been permitted to resign their seats directly. While several such offices have been used for this purpose in the past, in the present day only two are used: the Northstead post and that of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham.[1][2]

Appointments to the posts are made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Using two posts allows more than one MP to resign simultaneously, although more commonly, single resignations are effected by alternating appointments to the Northstead and Chiltern Hundreds offices. One of the most recent MPs to be appointed to the Northstead office was former Prime Minister David Cameron, who announced his decision to resign from his Parliamentary seat of Witney on 12 September 2016.[5]

Neil Gray was praised again in the House of Commons today during Business Questions, including by Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg. Here are more compliments from Tuesday:

This means there will be a by-election in Gray’s former constituency of Airdrie and Shotts:

This is the first time there will be a Commons by-election in an SNP-held seat:

Boris reasserts his position as Prime Minister

On March 24, Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared before the Liason Committee, comprised of heads of the parliamentary Select Committees.

The session lasted around 90 minutes and covered several topics, one of which was devolution.

Scotland and Wales are trying to whittle away the significance of the UK government.

Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire) asked Boris how he saw his position. He confirmed that he is the Prime Minister of Scotland as well as the United Kingdom:

Part of the answer is to employ civil servants with the ability to accommodate the interests of the United Kingdom as well as those of the devolved nations:

House of Lords news

Two notable things happened in the House of Lords this week.

Unusual tie vote

The Lords voted on an amendment to a Government bill, only to find the result was tied. As such, the amendment failed, meaning that the Government won that round:

Hereditary peer says old biscuits perfectly edible

The House of Lords still has 90 hereditary peers.

One of them is Lord Palmer, whose family part owns the famous biscuit manufacturing firm Huntley and Palmers Ltd.

If anyone in the Lords should know when a biscuit is past its best, it would be he.

I’m bookmarking this for future reference:

With Parliament in recess, I’ll be able to do some springtime projects around the house. If I find a stale biscuit, I’ll let you know.

For months now, questions have been asked of Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the SNP.

They have to do with how much she knew about the Me Too case surrounding her SNP predecessor, Alex Salmond.

The powerful political party of independence in Scotland has been in the headlines for months as other sexual harassment complaints have been levelled between other SNP members. To say that some of them have their minds in the gutter is an insult to gutters.

Furthermore, earlier this month, the Scottish Parliament passed the SNP’s far-reaching Hate Crime Bill.

Local elections will be taking place in May. Will the SNP still control Scotland’s devolved government at Holyrood?

Returning to Sturgeon and Salmond, the main question has been ‘What did she know and when did she know it?’

Tom Harris of The Telegraph has an excellent summary of past and present from Monday, March 22, 2021: ‘James Hamilton’s convenient conclusions don’t exonerate Nicola Sturgeon entirely’.

Let us begin with the past, when Alex Salmond lived and worked at the first minister’s residence in Edinburgh, Bute House, which is an elegant Georgian building located just off Princes Street in Charlotte Square.

Emphases mine below:

Let us revisit those years in which Salmond was first minister, and let us not fail to remind ourselves that during that entire time, Sturgeon was not only his deputy but his closest friend and colleague as well as a senior minister. For it is events in that period, not more recent events, that were at the root of the current crisis. The SNP and its followers have spent a good deal of time on social media and elsewhere trying to promote the narrative that somehow the complainants have been let down both by the Scottish government (meaning the civil service, not its political leaders) but also by the partisan manoeuvrings of the MSPs who make up the committee; a leak of its conclusions became a political football last week.

But it was Salmond’s tenure at Bute House, not events since, that is key to all this.

During that period, rumours swirled around Westminster and across news rooms about unhappy civil servants, mainly women, who were unhappy with the first minister’s behaviour. The rumours were no doubt exaggerated and it should be pointed out that when Salmond was finally brought to trial for sexual offences based on the evidence of ten complainants, he was acquitted on all charges. Nevertheless, the complaints were made and everyone in politics knew about them, and we knew (or thought we knew) the identity of at least some of those who had complained.

But you know who didn’t know about those rumours? You know who was completely blindsided until she first heard, from Alex Salmond’s own mouth, about the complaints against him as late as 2018, four years after he left office? That’s right, his protégé and trusted lieutenant, Nicola Sturgeon. We are asked to believe that this was a coffee-spitting moment, that nothing had prepared her for what Salmond was about to tell her.

In fact, women had been complaining about Salmond since 2009:

In 2009, Angus Robertson, the then Westminster leader of the SNP, was asked by the management of Edinburgh Airport to speak to Salmond about the “inappropriate” nature of then serving first minister’s behaviour towards female members of staff. Robertson did so; he interviewed Salmond, put the complaints to him and then concluded that there was nothing else to report and closed the case

But even though this event happened in 2009, while Sturgeon was Salmond’s loyal deputy, we are asked to believe that no report or hint about it was ever conveyed to her.

Is it not rather more likely that Sturgeon was as aware of these rumours as every journalist in Scotland and beyond. Is it not more logical to conclude that she chose not to do anything about them because she considered that the greater prize, one far more important than the safety at work of female civil servants or airport staff, was the SNP’s central goal of independence?

Now let us fast forward to the present.

The SNP are a particularly tightly knit party:

The same Angus Robertson is a close political ally of Sturgeon’s; he is standing in May’s Holyrood elections and was selected after the ruling SNP executive – controlled by Sturgeon and her husband, party chief executive Peter Murrell – made it almost impossible for Robertson’s most likely rival for the nomination, Joanna Cherry MP, to stand. Robertson’s account of his intervention on behalf of Edinburgh Airport was detailed in a letter Robertson wrote to the committee investigating the Salmond scandal.

Earlier in March, Sturgeon gave evidence to the Holyrood committee investigating the Salmond inquiry. It was an eight-hour session, and I watched the last three hours.

Salmond had appeared the week before in front of the committee. His evidence was concise and judicious.

Sturgeon, on the other hand, answered every question with a form of ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I cannot remember’. She often used a form of the words ‘soul searching’ more than once to indicate that she wished she could remember more details, including those from a meeting at Bute House between her and Salmond.

The committee was comprised of four SNP MSPs (including the convener, Linda Fabiani) and one MSP each from Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

The question afterwards was, ‘Did Nicola Sturgeon break the ministerial code?’ Did she withhold knowledge from the committee?

It was up to barrister James Hamilton to decide in the first instance. He determined that Sturgeon did not, in fact, break the ministerial code. (Full report here.)

The Telegraph‘s article led with this:

So the (rather unsurprising) verdict is in: Nicola Sturgeon’s own adviser to her government has concluded that she did not break the ministerial code in statements to the Scottish Parliament.

Barrister James Hamilton delivered his verdict to a breathless press pack this afternoon. His conclusions will be welcomed by the SNP and by Sturgeon herself, obviously, as a glimmer of light in a very dark landscape recently. As if there was much doubt about it, she will now lead her party into May’s elections, and elections are what the SNP care about most.

Sturgeon spoke to the media on Monday after his findings were announced:

However, the story does not end there.

On Tuesday, March 23, The Telegraph had a follow up article: ‘Holyrood inquiry: Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament and SNP government “badly” let down Alex Salmond complainants’.

It says:

James Hamilton, the Irish lawyer who conducted the ministerial code investigation, concluded that it was for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether they were misled.

This new report is the one from the aforementioned Holyrood committee: the four SNP MSPs and the three others.

The report is 192 pages long. The article summarises the report’s findings:

Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament and her government “badly” let down women who lodged complaints against Alex Salmond, a damning Holyrood inquiry has concluded.

The committee examining the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints against Mr Salmond found the First Minister gave “an inaccurate account” of what happened at a meeting with him and so misled the cross-party investigation.

In a 192-page report, the MSPs also said the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints, and the subsequent judicial review, was “seriously flawed”.

The two civil service complainers who triggered the investigation told the committee in private they had not seen a “meaningful change in culture” in Ms Sturgeon’s government and it had “given itself a bigger hill to climb because of the failure of the process.”

The complainers – Ms A and Ms B – also said they had been “taken aback by the lack of contact and support from the Scottish Government” following the conclusion of the judicial review, adding that “it felt as though we were just left to swim.”

The report said there was a “fundamental contradiction” between Ms Sturgeon’s evidence about her meetings with Mr Salmond and that of his team.

MSPs concluded she had left him with the impression she might intervene in the complaints process. They also said that her written evidence was “an inaccurate account of what happened”, and that “she has misled the committee on this matter”.

They also said they were “concerned” about how long it had taken Ms Sturgeon to inform the government’s permanent secretary that she was aware of the complaints and it was “inappropriate for the first minister to continue to meet and have discussions” with Mr Salmond.

It seems unlikely that Nicola Sturgeon could be forced to stand down as Scotland’s first minister.

However, the Scottish Conservatives tried to by holding a vote of no confidence at Holyrood on March 23:

Murdo Fraser, a Tory member of the committee, said: “The committee verdict is in – Nicola Sturgeon misled Parliament and the public.

“It seems clear that Nicola Sturgeon will refuse to abide by the principle of democratic accountability for her government’s monumental mistakes.

Someone will have to be the fall guy or gal, because the report states:

The Committee finds that this state of affairs is unacceptable by an organisation such as the Scottish Government and that those responsible should be held accountable.

There is much more in the article.

Nicola Sturgeon skates away, like water off a duck’s back.

The Rev. Stuart Campbell is the author of the best known pro-independence website, Wings Over Scotland.

On March 23, he commented on the above findings in ‘The Switch’. He concludes:

The committee’s key finding that it “may have insufficient powers to hold the executive to account” was OPPOSED by the four SNP members.

In other words, they actually WANT the Scottish Parliament to be too weak to hold the Scottish Government to account, and for it to have fewer and weaker powers …

The abject refusal by SNP MSPs of more powers for Holyrood in case those powers might impose actual democratic accountability on their own administration is in some senses the most revealing and most shaming aspect of the entire affair.

It is an all but open admission that Nicola Sturgeon has survived only by using every means at her disposal to escape proper scrutiny

But more than that, they show a First Minister very comfortable within the confines and limits of devolution, and deeply unwilling to accept significantly more power for Scotland’s parliament because of the difficult responsibilities that come with it.

And that’s a characteristic which readers might wish to reflect honestly and soberly on when considering the likelihood of her ever delivering independence.

One of Wings Over Scotland‘s readers summed up then-Prime Minister Tony Blair’s approach to his concept of Scottish devolution, an executive without checks and balances:

Tony Blair’s Labour basically designed something for Scotland they would have wanted for Westminster: an executive that could not be held to account by the parliament or the judiciary.

When Alex Salmond became First Minister in 2007, he tried to separate the powers by NOT having the Lord Advocate as a minister in his government. Nicola Sturgeon invited the Lord Advocate right back in.

That the SNP under Sturgeon is now endorsing the flawed devolved parliament design is the real tragedy for Scotland

Right now, they’re very happy with devolution – with periodical noses about “independence” when they need to harvest votes at an election – and in the unlikely event that Scotland became independent under Sturgeon’s SNP, she and her cabal and acolytes would be perfectly happy to keep the original devolved parliament design flaws and have the parliament and judiciary of an independent country firmly under the control of the executive, with no accountability or transparency.

Anybody who desires an independent Scotland that aspires to be an open, transparent, accountable, modern democracy should recoil in horror from Nicola Sturgeon’s vision for Scotland.

One wonders if many Scots will forget all of this by the time the May elections roll around.

Sixteen-year-olds will also be able to cast their ballots, probably bringing more votes the SNP’s way.

As I write, informed Scottish voters, whether pro-independence or unionist, are figuring out how to vote strategically. Many are suspicious of Sturgeon’s stated desire for independence. Is it just a cynical ploy for SNP votes? More on that in a future post.

Tuesday, March 23, 2021, marks the first anniversary of the UK’s coronavirus lockdown and restrictions, many of which are still in place as I write.

We had a brief reprieve during the summer, but everything closed again on Saturday evening, December 19, 2020, just in time to put a stop to the promised Christmas family get-together.

I was and continue to be a lockdown and restriction sceptic. Others are free to decide for themselves.

The Telegraph has a lengthy Twitter thread on the past year. Excerpts follow:

Two areas of England have been locked down since July 2020:

Today, a number of commemorative events took place across the nation:

Still under COVID-19 house arrest, my far better half and I have not left our town since March 18, 2020.

Of course, Boris and the two most senior members of SAGE, Vallance and Whitty, gave a 5 p.m. coronavirus briefing.

When is one of the reporters going to ask one of the following questions?

I am too angry to write any more about this subject right now. I never imagined Western countries would become police states.

At the weekend, demonstrations took place across Europe protesting lockdown and other continuing coronavirus restrictions. Most of those were peaceful.

Meanwhile, in Bristol, on Sunday, March 21, 2021, a violent group of rioters took exception to the proposed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill making its way through Parliament. It passed its second reading last week and goes into committee for further debate this week.

It has been a long time since such violence has touched our shores. It was as if poison had come from across the pond, so to speak.

Having seen videos of what happened, millions of people living in England will now hope that the proposed legislation makes it through Parliament and the Lords with few amendments.

On Monday, March 22, Chief Constable Andy Marsh of Avon and Somerset Police detailed the damage and injury for Sky News. A number of officers had to be sent to hospital, two with injuries that required immediate treatment. One of those officers had a punctured lung, another a broken arm. Chief Constable Marsh said that every one of them is doing well and are out of hospital. Twelve police vans were also destroyed. Police have arrested seven people but the Chief Constable says that he will need the public’s help in the coming days to arrest more:

You can see the police vans being set alight in this video:

Here is a burnt-out police car:

And who will pick up the tab for replacements? Taxpayers:

The riot’s name was Kill the Bill. On the face of it, it was about the legislation, however, the police are also known colloquially in England as ‘the Bill’, for many reasons, one of which was that they used to carry a Bill of Parliament with them to certify their authority:

It is attempted murder when you look beyond the name of the riots….’kill the bill’…..nothing to do with the ‘bill’ passed in Parliament.

No doubt Bristol’s authorities thought they saw the last of their problems once they started acquiescing to demonstrators’ demands last summer. But the radical left always want more:

ITV News has a video of a police van being rocked back and forth. It also includes the broken windows at Bristol’s Bridewell Police Station. Bristol residents quickly disowned the gratuitous vandalism:

Police tried to do the right thing last summer, but the ‘softly, softly’ approach does not work in the long run. Think Seattle. Think Portland:

This is what happened Sunday afternoon:

This is what happened on Sunday night:

According to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California), rioters are attempting to achieve peace through violence. Sounds like the Bolsheviks of a century ago:

The British public are understandably unhappy:

Note the reaction to this tweet from Home Secretary Priti Patel:

Yes, the English will want rioters brought to book and properly sentenced:

Some think that Bristol’s Labour council might be onside, just as Democrat-controlled cities were with American protests last year:

Labour MPs also opposed the proposed legislation last week, even though the principles of the bill, not specifics, were being discussed.

As much as we support the police, they, too, need to rethink their optics and their tactics.

Only a week ago, the public saw this in London during the vigil for Sarah Everard:

Just days later, police in England went after soft targets at pro-democracy rallies but appeared seemingly helpless when confronted by anarchists:

It’s not a good look.

By and large, the British support the police but find their modus operandi confusing, to say the least. No new laws will help that.

© 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

  • 1,661,219 hits