Monthly Archive

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2024.

UK general election campaign: Midsummer update

June 21, 2024 in history, surveys | Tags: 2024, Boris Johnson, Conservative Party, debate, election, Guido Fawkes, history, hypocrisy, Karol Sikora, Keir Starmer, Labour Party, Nigel Farage, politics, Rachel Reeves, Reform Party, Rishi Sunak, survey, UK | Leave a comment

It is becoming increasingly clearer that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is likely to become the UK’s next Prime Minister.

We have only two weeks to go until the general election on Thursday, July 4, 2024.

Labour’s economy with the truth

Guido Fawkes has been digging into his archives to reveal Starmer past and present to his readers before they go to their respective polling stations.

I wrote about some of Starmer’s flip-flopping positions in my post last week. More follow below.

Jeremy Corbyn

On June 18, Starmer appeared for a phone-in on Nick Ferrari’s LBC show and refused to say whether he would have served in a Jeremy Corbyn Cabinet had Labour won the 2019 general election.

Starmer had been distancing himself from Corbyn for the past few years, despite offering the man support in 2019.

Now he seems to have reverted from distancing himself back to supporting his predecessor.

Last night, Thursday, June 20, the BBC broadcast a Question Time Leaders’ Special with the heads of the four main parties, including Scotland’s John Swinney from the SNP. Guido called it ‘a bit of a snoozefest’ and tells you why in the highlights.

However much Starmer wants the public to believe that his Labour Party is different to that of Jeremy Corbyn’s, he said on the programme that the lefty Corbyn would have made a better Prime Minister than Boris Johnson.

Guido has the video and a mention of how Starmer discussed Corbyn back in 2019 and now:

Guido says (red emphases and italics his):

Keir Starmer said last night that Jeremy Corbyn would have been a better Prime Minister than Boris Johnson. During the BBC Question Time special, he initially dodged backing his 2019 praise of Corbyn, continuing his trend of distancing himself from the left. However, he let slip that he thinks Corbyn would have been better, compared with Boris. An outlandish remark considering Corbyn would have sent the country into ruins – if he does think that then Starmer is far more left-wing than he pretends to be. Is there such thing as a changed Labour Party?

Starmer’s father’s occupation

Starmer wants people to believe that his father was an average factory worker, a ‘toolmaker’, in his words.

However, Rod Starmer had his own business in Oxted, Surrey, making customised tools. Americans call this ‘tool and die’, a specialised, precise line of work.

Rod Starmer was also interested in theatre and music. He frequented Oxted’s Barn Theatre and wrote an article about his son, Keir, in the theatre’s August 2014 newsletter (see page 3): ‘SIR KEIR STARMER KC, QC. The Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Commander.’

The article reads in part (purple emphases mine):

Keir went to Merle Common Primary School, he passed the eleven plus and went to Reigate Grammar School. He took a year off before going to Leeds to study Law. During the year he spent 6 months as a house parent in Church Town Childrens Home on Bodmin moor, looking after disabled 6 to 16 year old girls and boys. The next 6 months were spent in my factory operating a production machine…DEAD BORING…..Keir!!

Rod Starmer goes on to give us a potted history of his son’s stellar legal career. Clearly, he and his wife were very pleased with their son’s achievements. This is what he said about Keir’s becoming a Queen’s Counsel (QC — now KC, as we have a king). This is known as ‘taking silk’ because of the robes worn:

When Keir took “silk” we were very proud parents at the morning session at the House of Lords and after lunch followed him to the Law Courts and watched him installed into all Divisions. When the job as Director of Public Prosecutions arose Keir applied for the post, was successful and was appointed by the Attorney General. After a 5 year term, Keir is now back in Doughty Street Chambers. His time as DPP is acknowledged as being a success and has made the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] more radical.

Starmer senior included a photo of his son’s investiture as a knight at Buckingham Palace, telling us (bold in the original here):

At the Investiture at Buckingham Palace we were the proudest parents there; Keir was treated like a Lord and we were looked after like a Lords
Mum and Dad!!
The Citation at the ceremony was:-
“Sir Keir Starmer, for services to Law and to Criminal Justice”.
I can think of nothing better. Prince Charles did the Honours.

Guido also featured the article and concluded:

That should clear up any remaining doubt that Starmer’s father actually owned a toolmaking factory as opposed to just working in one. Maybe we can be spared the constant reminders of Starmer’s faux-modest roots…

Guido’s context was another leader’s debate a week ago on Sky News, wherein Starmer again claimed that his father was a ‘toolmaker’.

Legal career

On June 19, Guido watched Starmer on an ITV interview this week, wherein he said:

I’ve worked in the police force in Northern Ireland.

However, Guido tells us exactly what Starmer’s role was — and it was not as a frontline officer:

… Starmer didn’t “work in the police force in Northern Ireland”. He was a part time advisor to the NI policing board, which is and was not part of the police force there. In fact, the whole point is that the board is independent of the police force. Starmer is making it look like he was a frontline officer, when actually he was a human rights advisor to a separate organisation which has nothing to do with front line policing…

The interviewer, former footballer Gary Neville, did not counter Starmer’s claim, which is probably how the interview went ahead in the first place.

However, a Channel 4 News programme, which also aired this week, proved to be no better.

Before giving us a long list of Starmer’s failures as DPP, Guido says:

Channel 4 pol-ed Gary Gibbon is getting praise for his long segment on Keir Starmer’s time as Director of Public Prosecutions … There is no mention of Starmer’s long record of high-profile failures in the role. The below could have spelt the end of his ambitions many times over…

Here are a few failures from Guido’s list:

- Decided not to prosecute John Worboys for 75 sex assaults.
- Yet spent four years failing to prosecute 23 Sun journalists …
- Failed to build a case against Jimmy Savile and forced to apologise after being damned by report into failings.
- Repeatedly championed the innocence of convicted murder who later admitted that he was actually guilty …
- Ordered the CPS in Wales to drop the prosecution of a primary school teacher who had been accused of sexting a 16 year old boy, who went on to commit suicide.
- Damning report into Starmer’s tenure at the CPS showed it was performing well below the necessary standard, with the report attributing part of the blame to a ‘overload of initiatives’ from the CPS’ national leadership.
- Survey of CPS staff found that just 12% of them thought that the organisation was being well managed under Starmer’s leadership.

I highlighted one failure, which the Mail reported on in 2013, ‘Killer Simon Hall who protested his innocence for 12 years admits Joan Albert’s murder’:

A convicted killer who claimed he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice in a campaign championed on the BBC has finally confessed that he is guilty.

Simon Hall, 35, also had the support of MPs when he protested his innocence after being jailed for the violent murder of Joan Albert, 79, in 2003.

He made a series of appeals and his case was featured on the BBC programme Rough Justice – in which even Keir Starmer, who is now the Director of Public Prosecutions, questioned the verdict.

But yesterday it emerged that Hall has admitted his guilt to prison authorities, bringing his campaign to an end.

Mrs Albert, a widow, was found dead at her home in Capel St Mary, Suffolk, in December 2001. She had been stabbed five times during a burglary …

Tests carried out for an edition of BBC Rough Justice in 2007 suggested that the forensic evidence against him was far from conclusive.

Mr Starmer, a QC who is now in charge of all criminal prosecutions, was invited to comment because he had dealt with several cases of miscarriage of justice during his career as a barrister.

He told the programme: ‘Simon Hall’s case is peculiar because there is no particular reason to believe he is guilty of this offence.

‘The one crucial link is the fibre evidence. Break this and the case disappears.’

The case went to the Court of Appeal in 2010, but the conviction was upheld …

The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict and Hall was jailed for life …

A Suffolk Police spokesman said: ‘Over the ten years since Hall’s conviction there have been a number of appeals and campaigns which have asserted that Simon Hall was wrongfully convicted of Mrs Albert’s murder …

‘We sincerely hope that Simon Hall’s admissions to having committed this brutal crime will in some way enable the family to move on with their lives.’

Immigration flip-flop

Starmer is trying to appeal to mainstream voters by putting forward what he would consider to be a centrist line on immigration.

However, when he was campaigning to become Labour leader in 2020, he took a different stance.

Guido reminds us:

In a clear pitch to the left to win the leadership, he pledged to “end indefinite detention” for immigrants, and close Yarl’s Wood detention centre – an obsessive cause of the far left mainly trumpeted by Corbynista John McDonnell. Now Starmer is claiming to be tough on immigration. He may well have cynically changed position, but does Labour ever really change?

Radical climate protests

Guido also reminds us that, in 2019, it appeared Starmer supported Extinction Rebellion’s destructive and expensive protests in north London. Starmer said:

Climate change is the issue of our time and, as the Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don’t take action. It’s been lots of talk, now we need action and the plan today is about what action we’re going to take here, uh, in Camden.

Moving ever closer back to the EU

Starmer is not the only prominent Labour Party member to make his controversial positions known.

On Monday, June 17, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said that she wants a closer union between the EU and the UK.

Guido has the story:

Guido pointed out last week that Labour’s manifesto commitments will force the UK into “dynamic alignment” with the EU on rules concerning animal health, food safety, and plants. That would put the UK, for the first time since Brexit, back in the position of a lowly rule-taker. Now Rachel Reeves has gone further in letting the cat out of the bag by telling the FT that she wants a new “improved” deal if Labour gets in, which includes walking back from the “adversarial” and “regulatory divergent” post-Brexit position. These pre-election trails are designed to give politicians large wiggle-room to pursue their agendas. Regulatory alignment is necessarily a path to rejoining the bloc…

That day, Guido also reminded us that Reeves wanted to abolish selective schools in 2018:

Guido commented:

Last week Guido revealed Deputy Leader Angela Rayner pledged to abolish all private schools, a policy that would be a a financial and logistical disaster. Alongside Rayner was Reeves, cheerily nodding along to the idea of taking away parents’ freedom to choose where to send their kids. Though Reeves wanted to go even further…

Guido has unearthed a clip of Rachel Reeves in 2018 saying she has “always and will always oppose” selective schools. That includes grammar schools and private schools. She admitted she thinks schools shouldn’t be able to select highly skilled students …

Will she fulfil her promise to see fewer selective schools in the country – a subject she feels so “strongly” about? “Socialists say ‘equality.’ What they mean is ‘levelling down’”…

Labour infiltrators in Conservative camp

I have written before about left-leaning advisers to the Conservative government.

Many conservative Britons wonder how those people got their jobs.

On Thursday, June 13, Guido told us about the man who wrote the business policy for Labour’s 2024 manifesto, available here:

Taking part in Question Time tonight is “businessman and adviser” Iain Anderson. Guido wonders if the BBC intends to mention that Anderson, a corporate lobbyist, wrote Labour’s “long term plan for government-business relations” along with a colleague of his who has now alighted to work for Labour. It’s loftily titled “A New Partnership”…

Co-conspirators may remember Anderson (who was also chairman of Stonewall) very publicly switching from his avowed love of the Tories and Liz Truss to back Labour last year. Guido remarked at the time that only a cynic would think it happens to be fortunate for the consummate government lobbyist to ever-so publicly switch his decades-long party affiliation to the party well ahead in the polls ahead of a general election. And only a cynic would think Labour’s business plan is evidence of a strategy working well…

The Guardian informed us that the main author of Labour’s 2024 manifesto once worked for then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak:

Since February the former Treasury economist Ravinder Athwal has been diligently putting together the 136-page Labour manifesto – a lengthy and occasionally fraught process that has put him at the centre of the party’s competing factions.

Athwal, a Cambridge economics graduate, joined Labour in 2020 from his previous job as head of growth strategy at the Treasury, where he worked under the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak. Though he was brought in to head up Labour’s economic policy formation, he impressed so quickly that he was soon promoted to being director of policy and in charge of writing the document that could propel his party to power.

It also transpired that someone who worked at No. 10 has joined The Guardian: Amber de Botton.

On Wednesday, June 12, Guido gave us the newspaper’s announcement, excerpted below, and his comment:

A journalist for almost two decades, Amber … managed exclusives like Partygate …

Amber managed coverage for several UK elections and negotiated multiple TV debates including the first ever televised head-to-head debate in the UK. Amber then served as Communications Director at 10 Downing Street from 2022-23, where she was in charge of the UK Government’s communications strategy.

De Botton left Downing Street in September last year after Rishi’s Chief of Staff told aides to quit if they don’t believe the Tories can win. “Managed exclusives like Partygate”…

Words fail me.

Former Labourite joins Sunak at Conservative manifesto launch

While the above news is disappointing, there is always a twist in the tale.

A former Jeremy Corbyn campaigner joined Rishi at a 2024 Conservative campaign event.

The same day that Guido told us about Amber de Botton, he also told us about the lady with Rishi:

Guido was looking through old photos from when the Tories weren’t warning about a Labour supermajority this afternoon. At Sunak’s May 22^nd election campaign launch event in the ExCel centre in London a vaguely familiar face was standing next to Kemi Badenoch and Akshata Murty behind the PM. He gave her a hug at the end, though Guido recognised the woman from different campaign work altogether…

Hagir Ahmed is a former Corbyn campaigner, who’s been photographed at Momentum events and “Jeremy for Labour” phone bank sessions. She seems to have have a change of heart and was seen out campaigning with Tory MP Greg Hands since turning up to Sunak’s launch event. Was she converted by his bold action and clear plan?

Ahmed’s Twitter is full of pro-Tory content. Was Sunak embracing an agent of the party’s most loyal intelligence service?

Amazing.

Rising Reform

The Reform Party depend on Nigel Farage, their candidate in Clacton, Essex, to be their main campaigner, so it is no surprise that we have seen no one else in the news.

Former Party leader Richard Tice is in the background now.

Conservative MP Andrea Jenkyns pointed out that Reform are standing only to oppose Conservative candidates, not those from the Labour Party.

She posted a lengthy statement on X, the nub of which is in these excerpts (bold in the original):

Reform UK announced it would be standing in every seat in the country …

So you’ll understand my amazement to learn that Reform has opted NOT to stand in my neighbouring constituency of Leeds South against Hilary Benn, an arch-Remainer who led the charge to subvert democracy and stop Brexit.

… by voting Reform you will see dozens of genuine conservatives that have been fighting for your interests leave Parliament and be replaced by Starmer’s socialists.

Now, more than ever, I ask you to vote Conservative to stop a Starmer supermajority and the end of Britain as we know it.

I agree with Andrea Jenkyns on that point but realise that some of my readers are fully in the Reform camp.

My abiding concern about Reform candidates is that there will be loose cannons among them, just as there were in UKIP. One Reform candidate railed against women (‘sponging gender’) and thought they should be ‘deprived of health care’. He also called Winston Churchill ‘abysmal’ and praised Vladimir Putin. Although he wrote all that in 2022, he is or was the Reform candidate for Bexhill and Battle on the south coast.

Farage clearly has his haters, among them civil servants at the Home Office and a man in South Yorkshire, possibly a Unison activist, who unsuccessfully attempted to derail his appearance there. Guido has more on the incident. There was also the woman who attacked him with a milkshake on his launch in Clacton on the first day.

On Thursday, June 13, in a poll that The Times commissioned, YouGov had Reform at crossover with the Conservatives.

That evening, another seven-way debate among prominent MPs and, in the case of Wales, the Plaid Cymru leader, debate took place on ITV. Farage participated, representing Reform. Guido said that it was better than the first, which had all the same participants as the second.

The Telegraph featured the verdicts from their columnists Tim Stanley, Sam Ashworth-Hayes and Tom Harris. In short:

For Tim Stanley, Nigel Farage and Stephen Flynn were the big winners. For Sam Ashworth-Hayes, Angela Rayner showed some awareness of the need for big ideas to fix the NHS. Tom Harris argues the main loser was the audience.

Readers had the opportunity to voice their opinion in a poll included in the article. For them, Nigel Farage emerged as the big winner with 63 per cent of the vote:

According to Guido, former Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt, known for her spot-on spikiness at the despatch box, did not do well at all:

From repeated bickering exchanges with Angela Rayner, which made Mordaunt look like the one in opposition, to being told off by Julie Etchingham and forced to admit she was “agitated“, Mordaunt opened herself up to ridicule from the other panellists who would often say “oh dear” and “it’s just like the Commons” to sympathy from the audience. Penny pointing at all the panelists at the end while repeating “higher taxes higher taxes” put the cherry on top. More than a few people thought she was saying “hire taxis”…

It’s already being compared to her bizarre “stand up and fight” routine at party conference. Tory members are tearing the performance to shreds this morning…

Oh, dear.

The following day the BBC Disinformation Unit had to back down and admit that the Reform supporters they had called ‘bots’ were, in reality, fully alive humans.

Guido has the story and the video of the BBC’s disinformation expert Marianna Spring:

Guido tells us:

The crusade launched by BBC’s “Disinformation Correspondent” Marianna Spring to accuse Reform supporters on social media of being bots has ended up in farce. Spring got a two-minute segment on BBC News at Ten last night to talk about her week-long research project, which appears to be based on her observation that more people post messages in favour of Reform than other parties on social media. The party has just polled above the Tories…

So tawdry is Spring’s evidence of a mass bot campaign in favour of Reform that she spends most of the second half of the article going through all the accounts that turned out to be real people, including those who graciously agreed to speak to her on the phone to prove their authenticity. Reform says it’s “delighted at the organic growth of online support“. Is this the best the BBC has got?

Here is a member of the BBC’s Political Research Unit, or at least he was last year. He has allegedly said that Conservative MPs are ‘lower than invertebrates’. Yes, very impartial:

On Monday, June 17, Reform launched their manifesto.

Guido says:

Reform UK are unveiling their promise to the people: “Our Contract With You” – i.e. their manifesto. The launch is in Wales, “because it shows everyone exactly what happens to a country when Labour is in charge” and with a Tory opposition. Reform have had a draft version online for a few weeks. Expect to see a few more details and tidying up of the contract…

You can read the manifesto in full here.

It is just as vague as those from the other parties — and just as impossible to achieve. To cite one example, how exactly would a Reform government be able to send those crossing in small craft back to France?

Nonetheless, one of the UK’s most prominent oncologists, Professor Karol Sikora, threw his support behind Reform in two messages on X.

The shorter one says that neither Labour nor the Conservatives are offering anything useful:

The party with the best plan? Reform …

In a much longer message, he expresses his disappointment in the failure of the Conservatives to have reformed the NHS during their 14 years in power. I couldn’t agree more:

Admittedly, as he spells out, Reform do have good ideas that the Conservatives could have implemented: cutting waste and unnecessary managers, ending training caps for all British medical students (yes!!!) and giving patients vouchers to use private treatment if they cannot see a GP within three days.

It is also important to note that the more money the Conservatives have given the NHS, the less it does with it. This graph, from the IFS, has data from 2019 to 2023. The more staff levels increase, the lower the treatment volumes:

How can this be?

The IFS are scratching their heads, too:

This is all the more striking and puzzling when contrasted with the experience over the 2010s, when staffing (and funding) grew at a slower rate, but output grew more quickly.

They have a graph for that, too.

The IFS analysis concludes:

The NHS productivity problem is a big deal. The less productive the NHS is, the more the government – and therefore current or future taxpayers – have to spend for the same quality and quantity of healthcare services. The government’s poor fiscal position means that increasing NHS funding further would require difficult fiscal trade-offs to be made. It is therefore right that the government takes public sector productivity seriously. Everybody should want an NHS that can deliver more for the same amount of money. The risk is that the government and NHS will deprioritise management, capital and technology in order to pour ever-more money into front-line staffing, and undermine efforts to make that happen.

Conservatives sunk with Sunak

The Conservatives launched their Onward manifesto at Silverstone on Tuesday, June 11.

Guido says that some Conservative MPs did not react well to seeing the same pledges from Rishi’s ageing plan from 2023:

Some Tory MPs are reacting with serious despondency at the lack of anything new, especially on immigration. One right-wing wag dubs it the “dodo manifesto” – a slim chance to avoid complete extinction. The mood among many on the right is that it’s a good thing for sound policies to be off the document – so they aren’t part of the soon-to-be discredited Sunak package…

You can read it in full here. Guido has a summary.

The following day, Sky News held another leaders’ debate where Sunak and Starmer went head-to-head.

Guido concluded:

Guido can’t feel the dial shifting…

He then posted an update to that effect:

YouGov snap poll: Sunak 36%, Starmer 64%. Two-to-one…

Around that time, Lord Ashcroft’s poll of 2019 Conservative voters appeared. Participants said that promises went undelivered and MPs were out of touch with the concerns of voters, with 28 per cent of those polled saying MPs were not Conservative enough. Contrary to the notional received wisdom in the press and on the airwaves, only 11 per cent think that the Conservative Party is too right-wing:

Remember the 2022 Ready for Rish! campaign when he lost to Liz Truss?

Well, on June 19, 2024, Rishi wished the man he booted out of office in 2022 — Boris Johnson — a very happy birthday. What a hypocrite.

Guido has the audio and the soundbite:

Happy birthday, Boris! I hope he’s having a good day. It’s been great to having him supporting the Conservative Party, he’s been endorsing lots of candidates with videos and letters and that’s really great and I know makes a big difference.

Pathetic.

Equally pathetic is that CCHQ are withdrawing campaign funding for all but the safest seats. Surely, it should be the opposite?

Guido tells us about a Bloomberg report to this effect then his own research:

The situation is worse than it looks. Guido hears as early as the 13^th June candidates were informed that their campaign managers, responsible for crucial on-ground operations, were being moved to seats with 10,000+ majorities. Resources were even taken away from Cabinet ministers…

Inside CCHQ fears that the party would return 60-80 seats, which were once dismissed as overly dramatic, are now the expectation.

Mind you, the day before, the Channel crossings hit another record:

Sunak’s high from meeting the UK’s inflation target hasn’t lasted long. According to the Home Office, a record 882 people were detected crossing the English Channel yesterday, the highest number on a single day so far this year. Nigel Farage will be quick to jump on this one. Rishi ‘can’t stop the boats’…

This week’s Conservative scandal seems to involve an alleged bet on the election date.

Guido explains:

The Tories are having a hysterical meltdown as their Director of Campaigning, Tony Lee, “took a leave of absence from Party HQ yesterday” following the Gambling Commission’s confirmation that it is “investigating” his candidate wife for allegedly taking a punt on the election date. Tony Lee has deleted his LinkedIn account in the meantime. It follows the arrest of a police protection officer yesterday and similar allegations against a Tory MP…

Guido reminds co-conspirators that there is no crime committed here, despite the leaking from inside the Gambling Commission. Section 42 definition of “Cheating” as per the Gambling Act applies when you nobble a horse, bribe a croupier or mark cards – not when you have inside information that your bet is a dead certainty. Whilst the optics and ethical dimension of the bets are not good, it still requires interference to be a crime. Gambling industry experts believe the Commission is being over zealous and the investigations will result in individuals being cleared of committing any crimes. Not before the reputational damage is being done in the election campaign…

The PM’s close protection police officer was arrested “under suspicion of misconduct in public office”. Not a Gambling Act offence.

Guido points out that Labour always seem to have clean hands:

It’s curious to note that everyone investigated so far is a Tory or works for a Tory. Do Labour MPs not bet on the election date? For the Gambling Commission to act so politically is high risk for a public body, who are supposed to maintain studious neutrality during election purdah. Who will guard the guards themselves?

Then Guido told us that the ‘Lobby’ — political reporters — might have placed bets themselves on the election date:

Guido’s eyebrows have been raised all morning at the Lobby’s sudden outbreak of moralism over political betting. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes in SW1 will know that political hacks – who hear insider gossip all the time (though much of it is wrong) – are not averse to the odd flutter on matters such as election dates, seat projections and so on. The sources they trumpet have that insider knowledge…

Guido is therefore unsurprised to report that at least two Lobby journalists have privately admitted placing bets on the election date close to the announcement. Speculation was rife in Westminster on the weekend prior to the election being called. Indeed, there were press reports to that effect. By Sunday evening, true Westminster insiders were well aware the election was due to be called that week, with varying degrees of certainty. Amid all the excitement, is it the case that the lobby has inadvertently shot itself in the face?

It will be interesting to see whether any of the Lobby punters out themselves. If it’s a conflict of interest for politicians (contrary to Labour’s claims, insider political betting is not a crime), why isn’t it for well sourced Lobby journalists?

After that, Guido reported that one of the Gambling Commission’s commissioners worked for Keir Starmer at the CPS:

As the Lobby and Tories alike rampantly implode over further gambling revelations and the sudden absence of Tony Lee from the Director of Campaigns role, all while Labour writes (legally inaccurate) letters to exploit the situation, only Guido is taking a close look at the Gambling Commission. Who will guard the guards themselves?

One Commissioner is Lloydette Bai-Marrow, the a Co-Founder and Director the Black Women in Leadership Network … Bai-Marrow has praised David Lammy’s now-adviser for his attacks on the government, claiming that the Tories are creating the “illusion of a country as a leading force in anti-kleptocracy by passing legislation” …

Bai-Marrow worked at the CPS for three of the five years that Starmer was heading it up. For one year she was a Senior Crown Prosecutor. Is there anything else the Gambling Commission wants to make clear in the public domain before this goes further? Highly political announcements of investigations in election campaigns are, by definition, political interventions. Watch this space…

Watch this space, indeed.

———————————————————————–

On July 5, we are about to be in much more trouble than we already are. I do despair.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 28:6-9

June 18, 2024 in Catholic, Protestant | Tags: Bible, Book of Genesis, Catholic, Christianity, Esau, Forbidden Bible verses, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Mahalath, Protestant | Leave a comment

Bible spine dwtx.org The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry.

Genesis 28:6-9

⁶Now Esau learned that Isaac had blessed Jacob and had sent him to Paddan Aram to take a wife from there, and that when he blessed him he commanded him, ‘Do not marry a Canaanite woman,’ ⁷and that Jacob had obeyed his father and mother and had gone to Paddan Aram. ⁸Esau then realised how displeasing the Canaanite women were to his father Isaac; ⁹so he went to Ishmael and married Mahalath, the sister of Nebaioth and daughter of Ishmael son of Abraham, in addition to the wives he already had.

————————————————————————————————————————————

Last week’s post discussed Isaac’s blessing upon Jacob and sending him away to Paddan Aram to seek a wife born of his uncle, Laban, Rebekah’s brother. Jacob had to leave because Esau was in a state of potentially violent envy at his brother’s gaining his birthright.

Esau learned of Isaac’s blessing upon Jacob, which included the command not to marry a Canaanite woman (verse 6), something Esau had disregarded in marrying two Hittite women and keeping them both as wives.

Esau also saw that Jacob had obeyed Isaac and Rebekah by going to Paddan Aram. Not only did Laban live there, but it was also Rebekah’s father’s — Bethuel the Aramean’s — home.

Esau then realised how displeasing Canaanite women were to Isaac (verse 8).

It is surprising he would not have known that in his youth. Surely, Isaac would have made it abundantly clear, no doubt on more than one occasion. Jacob understood that message, so why hadn’t Esau? We will never know if Esau was being deliberately obstinate or if his mind was elsewhere.

Esau then went to Ishmael and married Mahalath, Nebaioth’s sister, both of whom were daughters of Ishmael, Abraham’s son by Hagar the servant; Mahalath was Esau’s third wife (verse 9).

Matthew Henry says that Esau understood that he had done wrong and, as the elder brother — putatively, the wiser one — he saw that his younger brother showed the better example:

Esau, though the greater man, now begins to think Jacob the better man, and disdains not to take him for his pattern in this particular instance of marrying with a daughter of Abraham. The elder children should give to the younger an example of tractableness and obedience; it is bad if they do not: but it is some alleviation if they take the example of it from them, as Esau here did from Jacob.

However, Esau’s rectified his marital situation in the wrong way, showing that he had learned very little from Isaac and Rebekah as well as Jacob’s example:

He saw that the daughters of Canaan pleased not his father, and he might have seen that long ago if he had consulted his father’s judgment as much as he did his palate. And how did he now mend the matter? Why, truly, so as to make bad worse.

Esau should not have married Ishmael’s daughter, because he was not the son that God wanted Abraham to have. Abraham had taken matters into his own hands, so to speak, and did not wait for God to guide him in patient anticipation of Isaac.

Esau did not understand or he was stubborn, giving in to his own carnal appetites. He should not have had three wives at once, either. Worst of all, Esau ignored God’s wishes and instead sought to please his father, but, even then in a disobedient way and perhaps with the hope of regaining his birthright. Furthermore, he showed no repentance for his desires, either for inappropriate wives or for the violence he had wished upon Jacob.

Henry elaborates (emphases mine):

(1.) He married a daughter of Ishmael, the son of the bond-woman, who was cast out, and was not to inherit with Isaac and his seed, thus joining with a family which God had rejected, and seeking to strengthen his own pretensions by the aid of another pretender. (2.) He took a third wife, while, for aught that appears, his other two were neither dead nor divorced. (3.) He did it only to please his father, not to please God. Now that Jacob was sent into a far country Esau would be all in all at home, and he hoped so to humour his father as to prevail with him to make a new will, and entail the promise upon him, revoking the settlement lately made upon Jacob. And thus, [1.] He was wise when it was too late, like Israel that would venture when the decree had gone forth against them (Num 14 40), and the foolish virgins, Matt 25 11. [2.] He rested in a partial reformation, and thought, by pleasing his parents in one thing, to atone for all his other miscarriages. It is not said that when he saw how obedient Jacob was, and how willing to please his parents, he repented of his malicious design against him: no, it appeared afterwards that he persisted in that, and retained his malice. Note, Carnal hearts are apt to think themselves as good as they should be, because perhaps, in some one particular instance, they are not so bad as they have been. Thus Micah retains his idols, but thinks himself happy in having a Levite to be his priest, Judg 17 13.

How sad that a son of a godly father and the grandson of our father in faith could have turned out like this.

We return to Jacob next week as he searches for a wife, a daughter of his uncle Laban.

Next time — Genesis 29:15-29

Third Sunday after Trinity, Year B, 2024 — exegesis on the Epistle, 2 Corinthians 5:6-10, (11-13), 14-17 — part 2

June 17, 2024 in Uncategorized | Tags: 2 Corinthians, Bible, Catholic, Christianity, crucifixion, Doctrine of Sanctification, Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement, exegesis, Jesus, Lectionary, Protestant, resurrection, sanctification, St Paul, Third Sunday after Trinity, Year B | Leave a comment

Yesterday’s post featured verses 6 through 10 of this Epistle for the Third Sunday after Trinity in Year B, 2024.

Today’s post concludes with verses 11 through 17.

The Epistle is as follows, emphases mine:

2 Corinthians 5:6-10, (11-13), 14-17

5:6 So we are always confident; even though we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord —

5:7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.

5:8 Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

5:9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.

5:10 For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil.

5:11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we try to persuade others; but we ourselves are well known to God, and I hope that we are also well known to your consciences.

5:12 We are not commending ourselves to you again, but giving you an opportunity to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast in outward appearance and not in the heart.

5:13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.

5:14 For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.

5:15 And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them.

5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way.

5:17 So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur (as specified below).

My first post ended with John MacArthur’s explanation of what happens with regard to receiving heavenly rewards from Christ.

The next three verses — 11 through 13 — pertain to Paul’s battle against the false teachers in Corinth who infiltrated the congregation after he left. They sowed division among the congregation, corrupted the services and denigrated Paul in an attempt to discredit him.

Before I begin, this is a reminder that Paul uses ‘we’ to refer to himself, rather than ‘I’.

Paul says, ‘Therefore’ — with that in mind — knowing the fear of the Lord, he (‘we’) tries to persuade others; he is well known to God and he hopes to the consciences of the Corinthian Christians (verse 11).

In Matthew Henry’s version, the verse reads as follows:

11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Henry ties this back to Christ’s judgement:

The apostle calls this awful judgment the terror of the Lord (v. 11), and, by the consideration thereof, was excited to persuade men to repent, and live a holy life, that, when Christ shall appear terribly, they may appear before him comfortably. And, concerning his fidelity and diligence, he comfortably appeals unto God, and the consciences of those he wrote to: We are made manifest unto God, and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

John MacArthur looks at ‘persuade’ first then at Paul’s defence of his character:

The key phrase here – and this is where we have to start – is in verse 11. It’s a verb, as often in interpreting Scripture we find the main verb yields the key to the interpretation, so it is here. And the main verb is this little phrase “we persuade men.” That unlocks the door to the purpose of this passage. We persuade men. Again, we is editorial, Paul uses we instead of I, though he’s referring to himself, because we is a more humble way to refer to himself. He does it all through this epistle. When he says “persuade men,” he uses the verb peithō. Peithō is an interesting verb. It does mean to persuade.

But it is translated in Galatians 1:10 in a very helpful way, under somewhat similar usage. In Galatians 1:10, Paul says, “For am I now seeking the favor of men or of God?” And there the verb peithō is translated “seeking favor,” seeking favor.” And that is a good translation for it here. We are seeking your favor. What do you mean? We’re seeking that you would look on us as a man of integrity. I want you to render a favorable judgment on me. It is important to me that you trust me, that you believe in my sincerity and my devotion to God and my honesty and my genuineness. Now in Galatians, he would not seek the favor of men by compromising the gospel. But here, he will seek their favor by speaking the truth about himself.

Now, “we persuade men” some commentators have felt refers to gospel preaching. And it is true that the verb “persuade” is so used. For example, in Acts 18 in verse 4 it is used in that very way. What it says is, “And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.” And over in the last chapter of Acts, verse 23, it says that he was trying to persuade them concerning Jesus both from the law of Moses and from the prophets from morning till evening. There persuading in the sense of bringing them to salvation, making them believe the gospel, persuading them about the truth of the gospel.

Here it is not the gospel that is at issue. This epistle is not evangelistic. He is not concerned to persuade men at Corinth about the gospel, he is concerned to persuade them about his integrity. That is the issue. He wants them to know that he is genuine. The following phrases make this very clear. Go back to verse 11. He says, “We persuade men but we are made known to God,” or made manifest to God. The point he’s making here is simply this. God knows me, I am manifest to Him. He knows me, He knows my heart, He knows my integrity. That’s the point. What I’m concerned about is that you know it as God knows it.

We are revealed to God. Our true spiritual condition God knows and He knows perfectly. It’s very clear to Him, Paul says, and I would like it to be clear to you. God, he says, knows me. We’re made manifest to God. God knows my sincerity, He knows my honesty, He knows my genuineness. He knows whether I have integrity or not. And although Paul has been so relentlessly and brutally maligned, misunderstood, defamed and misjudged, God knows his heart …

And he knew some day he’d stand before the judgment seat. That’s why “therefore” is there in verse 10. And he would stand before that judgment seat and he would be rewarded for that service that he rendered to his Lord. If his reputation was ruined, so was his usefulness. If his usefulness was ruined, so was his opportunity. If his opportunity was ruined so was his fruitfulness. If his fruitfulness was ruined, he had no reason to live. He only wanted to honor God with a life of service. So, you see, he’s defending himself, but not for his sake. For God’s sake because God is worthy of worship.

Paul voices his hope for the Corinthians in defending his reputation.

He says that he is not commending himself to them again but giving them a chance to boast about him — his credibility, his integrity — so that they might answer those who boast in outward appearance but not in the heart (verse 12), a clear reference to the false teachers.

Henry explains:

… if the people can say that the word has been manifested to their consciences, and been effectual to their conversion and edification, this is the best defence they can make for the ministry of the word, when they are vilified and reproached.

MacArthur has more:

He was concerned about the church. And that’s why he starts out the verse by saying, “We are not again commending ourselves to you.” You say, “Why does he say again?” Because he had been accused of doing this. Back in chapter 3 verse 1, “Are we beginning to commend ourselves again?” You see, what had happened was, as soon as Paul tried to defend himself, the false teachers said, “Oh yeah, there he goes, blowing his own horn, building up his own ego, commending himself again.”

He had been accused of that. And he had to walk a very fine line so he didn’t fall victim to that accusation …

Every time he responded to an accusation they said, “See, he’s building himself up, he’s commending himself again.” And so, he has to give this disclaimer. We’re not again commending ourselves to you. This is not the point. And by the way, the time at which he was probably accused of this was during what we call – and you learned about it earlier – the sorrowful visit, a brief visit to Corinth which broke his heart because he saw what the false teachers had been able to effect. So he’s saying I will not write a testimonial to myself. I realize the grave danger of serious division in the church, the stunting of spiritual growth and the hindering of effective evangelism. I realize all of that but I will not commend myself. I’m not going to go to these false teachers, he’s saying. I’m not going to go to them face to face and build a case for myself.

Here’s what I’m doing – back to verse 12. “But we are giving you an occasion to be proud of us that you may have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart.” What he is saying is, I’m not trying to commend myself to my enemies, I’m trying to arm my friends to defend me. That is a wise, wise approach. I am giving you an occasion. I’m giving you an opportunity. What I’m saying is not for the enemies.

You’re much better off to go to your friends and let your friends be your defenders. Your enemies know they have nothing personally to gain and they are more objective, your enemies will assume. This is so sound. You cannot effectively argue with your enemies who are bent on your ruin. You’re much wiser to arm your friends to be your defense, much more effective.

So he says, we’re not going to commend ourselves, that’s not the point, but we’re giving you an opportunity to be proud of us, proud in the right sense. We think of the word proud always as related to sin but it isn’t. To literally boast on our behalf in the good sense. To boast in the good sense or to be proud in the good sense means to speak the truth about someone, the truth that does exalt that person, that does emphasize their honesty and their integrity. And he’s saying, “I want you to take up my cause. I want you to answer my detractors.”

Paul knows the false teachers were accusing him of being insane. He says that if he is beside himself — having taken leave of his senses — then it is for God; if he is in his right mind, it is for the Corinthians (verse 13).

Have you ever heard someone who has gone through a trauma be referred to as having ‘been beside himself’? It’s not as commonly used as it was when I was growing up, but it means being somewhat out of one’s mind.

Henry tells us:

Some of Paul’s adversaries had, it is likely, reproached him for his zeal and fervour, as if he had been a madman, or, in the language of our days, a fanatic; they imputed all to enthusiasm, as the Roman governor told him, Much learning has made thee mad, Acts 26 24.

MacArthur says:

… he defended himself out of reverence for the Lord, concern for the church, and thirdly, devotion to the truth, devotion to the truth. One thing about Paul, he lived for the truth. He preached it, taught it, defended it, fought for it. The man passionately existed for the truth. Notice how he expresses this motive in verse 13. This is very interesting. “For if we are beside ourselves it is for God, if we’re of sound mind it is for you.”

Now you can understand from that verse what the debate was like in the Corinthian church. There were the friends of Paul, those who had been influenced by his life, those who had come to Christ under his preaching, those who had grown in their sanctification under his teaching, those who loved him and believed in him. And they viewed him as having a sound mind. But then there were the false teachers who came in and stirred up everybody and they – they – they were able to win over converts.

They started a full-scale rebellion led by the one who was influenced by Satan and who was orchestrating this whole rebellion. They had gotten people to join in, and their criticism of Paul was he’s beside himself. So you had the people who were Paul’s friends saying he’s of sound mind. You had the false teachers and those who chimed in with them – them saying he – he’s really beside himself.

MacArthur looks at the Greek:

Now what does he mean by this? Well “beside ourselves,” existēmi, means to be out of one’s mind, to be out of your mind. It’s used of insanity. They were accusing him of being insane, mad. In fact, they were accusing him of being a fool, bereft of a sound and sober mind.

… What were they – what were they assaulting? His passion, his zeal. He seemed like a man out of balance. He was fanatical. And this term “beside ourselves” does not refer to some clinical, mental derangement, insanity in some technical term, but refers to a man who has sort of lost control. He’s just so passionate, so zealous, he’s so devoted. And it refers to something else, dogmatism. You see, the world thinks people that are dogmatic are crazy.

In fact, Paul was more dogmatic than anybody because he was giving direct revelation. But this isn’t anything new. This is how the world always receives that kind of passion, that kind of zeal and that kind of absolute truth …

And here’s exactly what you have in 2 Corinthians chapter 5. If we are out of our minds it is for God. What do you mean? It is because it is the Word of God, it is divine truth. And if I am passionate and if I am zealous and if I am dogmatic, it is for God, it is to honor His Word which He has exalted to the level of His own name. Indeed the apostle was bold. He was fanatical zealous. He was dogmatic. It is for God, he says. It is the truth of God I’m dealing with. It is a stewardship. And so there was passion in the delivery of it.

I understand that. And I mean I don’t know anybody can dispense the truth of God without zeal and passion and conviction, and in a – in a measure of appropriate dogmatism. It honors God. God is honored when His Word is proclaimed. Paul told the Ephesians to pray for him that the Word would go forth. He told the Thessalonians to pray for him that the Word would go forth. That was his passion, preach the Word. he said to Timothy, having studied it to show yourself approved. And so, Paul says, “Look, if I – I acted like an insane man it’s because I’m dealing with divine truth. It’s for God because God has put this truth in me to proclaim.”

MacArthur reminds us that the same thing happened to John the Baptist and, later, to Jesus:

Listen to Matthew chapter 11 verses 18 and 19. Jesus speaking, He says this, “For John came and they say he has a demon.” Here came John the Baptist. You say, “Was he a zealous man?” Absolutely, absolutely. “Was he a passionate man?” Yes. “Was he a firm and dogmatic man?” I think so. He looked right at the Pharisees when they came down to where he was preaching and said, “You snakes, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” Oh, they said he’s demon possessed, he’s bereft of his mind. His mind is controlled by a spirit. He’s – he’s out of his senses. Another – another being is in control of this guy.

And then in the next verse, the Son of Man came and they say He’s a drunkard. That’s what they said about Jesus. “Oh, He’s out of his mind. Alcohol has gotten Him out of His mind, He’s lost His senses.” You know how a person who is drunk is. They’re – they’re crazy, they’ve lost balance, they’ve lost touch with reality, they don’t know what’s going on. They said of John the Baptist, “He’s controlled by a spirit.” They said of Jesus, “He’s controlled by alcohol.” That was how they explained away the zeal, the passion, the truth. In Matthew chapter 12 in verse 24, they said about Jesus, “This man casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” They said this man is filled with Satan. That’s how they explained Jesus. They said He’s mad because He’s filled with Satan.

MacArthur examines the second half of the verse, dealing with his right mind — being in control of his senses — to comfort individuals in their quest for faith in Christ:

… he says, “If we’re of sound mind it’s for you.” What does he mean? Sōphroneō, be of sound mind, means to be sober minded, to be in complete control, to be moderate. This is cool communication as opposed to hot communication. If we are calm, cool, collected, meek, humble, dispassionate, restrained, it’s for you.

What do you mean by that? When I am restrained and humble and selfless, it’s to come down to your level and be patient and kind and gentle in moving you along the path …

There’s a – there’s a place for the hot communication, there’s a place for the cool communication. And I think Paul is just taking both sides. He’s saying, “Look, if I – if I appear to be a man insane, do you understand that I am dealing with a stewardship from God? And if you see me as a cool and calm and patient and gentle man, it’s because I’m trying to deal with you. But in the end, the matter that is at stake here is the truth. So, I’ll defend myself because I – I want to be able to continue to propagate the truth.”

Paul then moves on to matters theological and doctrinal.

He says that the love of Christ urges him on, because he is convinced that Christ has died for all; therefore, all have died (verse 14).

Henry says that Paul means that if Christ had not sacrificed Himself on the cross for our sins, God would judge us all under the law, which no man can possibly keep:

What we were before, and must have continued to be, had not Christ died for us: We were dead, v. 14. If one died for all, then were all dead; dead in law, under sentence of death; dead in sins and trespasses, spiritually dead. Note, This was the deplorable condition of all those for whom Christ died: they were lost and undone, dead and ruined, and must have remained thus miserable for ever if Christ had not died for them.

MacArthur explains substitutionary atonement, Christ’s dying for our sins so that we may be saved:

… over and over and over the Scripture indicates this substitutionary aspect of the death of Christ. And by the way, I’m going to say something that you must understand, that sums it up. The only way – I’ll say it again – the only way that the death of Christ could benefit the sinner was by substitution. If He didn’t die in our place, then we have to die for our sins and that spells eternal death. The death of Christ is therefore meaningless apart from its substitutionary definition. He dies in our place. That’s what we believe. That’s what we preach.

… Paul says, I am literally pressed, pressured, driven, compelled by this love that Christ has for me because I have concluded, I have a settled conviction that One died for all. That is to say that He died for me. Me, Paul, blasphemer, injurious, murderer, Christian killer, persecutor, Pharisee, egotist, religionist, legalist, I was the worst of all of it, he says to Timothy in 1 Timothy, the chief of sinners. And One, namely Christ, died for all. He offered Himself for that all that includes me.

The question is, who are the all? And somebody would immediately say, “He died for the world.” The all means the world, all the people who have ever lived. And as I have pointed out many times in recent studies, there is an unlimited element through the death of Christ …

… he doesn’t say that One died for all because all were dead. What that would mean would be something very different because all sinners who have ever lived are dead in trespasses and sins, right? So if he said He died for all, therefore, or because all were dead, we would say, well, fine. The – the whole world is dead in trespasses and sin and He died for all of them. That’s not what it says. What it says is One died for all. Therefore all died. It’s not talking about a condition, it’s not talking about a state, He’s talking about an event. He’s saying that He died for the all who died when He died.

What do you mean by that? What Paul means by that is He died for the all who died in Him. That’s the only way you can interpret it. Anything else is exegetically untenable. He died for the all. Who are the all? They’re the all who died. That’s exactly what he says. He died for the all, therefore all died. It can’t be the whole human race because the whole human race didn’t die in Christ, did they? If the whole human race died in Christ, then the whole human race is what? Saved. So you can’t have the whole human race dying in Christ or the whole human race is saved. He’s getting very specific here. He died for the all who therefore died.

What is Paul saying? Paul’s saying here’s what I’m overwhelmed about. I’m overwhelmed that Christ loved me so much that the One Christ died for all and I was part of the all who died in Him. What – what is overwhelming to Paul is that while he was still a sinner, Christ was bearing his sins on the cross. That’s what’s astounding to him. He is not saying that Christ provided a possible salvation and I was smart enough to cash in on it. He is not saying that – that Christ threw it out there and I grabbed it and, therefore, part of the credit goes to me. He is saying is what is absolutely compelling to me is that while I was yet a sinner, He died, and when He died He was dying for my sins.

This is what he’s saying. This is Romans 6, isn’t it? We have been united with Christ in His death and in His resurrection, Paul says in Romans 6. The believer is joined to Christ in His death and resurrection. When you come to Jesus Christ, God accepts you because you repent and you believe. That’s – that’s what’s required. But there’s something required before that and that is that a sufficient atonement had been made for your sins. And Christ died as your substitute and He bore your sins on the cross, therefore, you died with Him there.

This is a limiting aspect of the death of Christ. It necessarily limits the application of the atonement. The atonement – listen carefully – can only be a real substitution for those who died in Christ. I’ll say that again. The atonement can only be a real substitution for those who died in Christ, on the basis of those statements in that verse. The all is everyone who died in Christ, everyone for whom Christ was the substitute. That is the sense of the atonement which is limited.

Let me say it. Christ is the Savior of the whole world. I don’t argue that, I believe that with all my heart. He is the Savior of the whole world. His work is abundantly sufficient to secure the salvation of all who put their faith in Him. There is a sweeping sense, therefore, in which all sinners can be called to repentance and all sinners can be held culpable if they refuse to repent. And they can be judged by that. But Christ, not only in His atonement expressed an unlimited feature, but a limited one in that in a special sense He procured on the cross for those who were in Him, not a possible salvation but a real salvation. The atonement has its unlimited aspects. We’ve talked about that.

You see benefiting from the atonement in unlimited ways the human race through temporal deliverance, He’s the Savior of all men in a temporal sense. That is He doesn’t destroy them all immediately upon their sin. You see providence, God’s care. In a very general sense He lets the rain fall on the just and the unjust. Divine goodness. And then you see gospel invitations given to every man, and every man held culpable for the rejection of that invitation to be punished eternally because he will not believe. All of those indicate to us that there is an unlimited aspect of Christ’s work on the cross.

But when you talk about substitution, you now are talking about the limited aspect of it. It is limited to those who died in Christ. Now you have to ask the question; who are those who died in Christ? To answer that, look at Romans chapter 3, Romans chapter 3. In Romans chapter 3 – this is very important – verse 25. Well, verse 24 talks about the gift of – of God’s grace which is the salvation or redemption in Christ. In verse 25 God displayed publicly as a propitiation, a satisfaction, a covering, appeasing the wrath of God, He displayed Christ as that. So He’s talking about Christ’s redeeming work, His justifying work, His work of salvation.

And then in verse 26 we get right down to it. The middle of the verse, “All this that Jesus Christ and that God whose purpose it is “might be just and the justifier of the one who” — What? – “has faith in Jesus.” There’s the qualifier. Who are those who died in Christ? Those who have faith in Jesus. It is in that sense that we can say Christ died for His own. He died for the church. In the substitutionary sense He died only for those who died in Him. Those who die in Him of whom He is the justifier are those who put faith in Jesus. Or it could be translated, is of the faith of Jesus. That would be who believed the gospel about Jesus Christ. So He is the substitute only for those who believe. That’s the point.

Otherwise you’ve got a major problem because you’ve got Christ dying as a substitute for the whole world. That means He was bearing the sins of the whole world in a substitutionary sense. And if, in fact, He was carrying Himself to the cross as a substitute for the sins of every person who ever lived, He would therefore have done away with the wrath of God and procured for them eternal life, and we’d all be universalists. So there has to be a limiting feature. And I think that’s what Paul is – is speaking of here when he narrows this down that One died for all, therefore all died. The One who died, died for the all who died in Him. The all who died in Him are those who believe.

Look at Ephesians 5:25 for a moment. And I know this is theological but it’s important. It’s the foundation of our faith. “Husbands, love your wives just as Christ also loved the church” – and here you have this narrowness again – “and gave Himself up for her.” Here again you see Christ substituting for the church, to sanctify her, to set her apart from sin, to cleanse her, to present her to Himself without spot or wrinkle or blemish and that she should be holy and blameless. So here you have Him clearly dying to bring the church to Himself.

Paul goes further, addressing bodily resurrection, saying that Christ died for all (all believers) so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died and was raised for them (verse 15).

MacArthur explains:

Christ not only died for us, as he says in verse 15, and we died in Him, but He also rose again for us and we rose in Him. Look at verse 15. “And He died for all that they who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.”

Now, let me just help you to see the tremendous truth that’s in this verse. He died for all. That is “He died for all who died in Him” – as we saw in verse 14 – “that they who live” – now, what does that presuppose? That death was not permanent. If you died in Him, you would also rise in Him because He rose. So he says He died for all that they who having died in Him and now live should no longer live for themselves but for Him, the One who died and rose again on their behalf, or as their substitute.

This takes you immediately back to Romans 6 again where Paul goes through this with such clarity. “Do you not know” – verse 3 – “that all of us who have been immersed into Christ Jesus have been immersed into his death. Therefore we have been buried with Him into death” – in order that, verse 4 – “as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection” …

You died in Him, you rose in Him, you’ll be glorified. That’s the simple truth here. Our dying in Christ was not only a dying to sin, but it was a resurrection – here’s the key – to righteousness. Because now that we’re alive in Christ and we have a new nature and a new life and the Spirit dwells in us, we live not for ourselves. He says they no longer live for themselves but for Him who died and rose again as their substitute on their behalf. It is a tremendous thing to realize that when you died in Christ, you rose to live a righteous life. We no longer live for ourselves.

Paul leads into his next thought — ‘therefore’ — he no longer looks at anyone from a human point of view; even though he once knew Christ from a human point of view, he no longer knows Him in that way (verse 16).

Paul refers there first to his days as the zealous Pharisee Saul who considered Christ a blasphemer whose followers should be put to death and secondly to his transformation as Paul the Apostle after his Damascene conversion.

MacArthur explains:

You know how I used to see them? I used to see them like I saw myself, circumcised the eighth day, of the nation Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, zealous for the Law, a Pharisee of the Pharisees, right? All that external stuff. And he says when I came to Christ, I saw all that as dung, Philippians 3, manure, filth, garbage, rubbish. I don’t see people that way anymore.

Now, that had tremendous implications. In fact, as he looked out over the world of his own day, he saw things differently as every believer did. First of all, he would no longer – no longer resent Gentiles the way Jews historically did. The ancient order of prejudice and hate was out of his heart. In its place there came a new love for men of whatever race. In Christ Jesus, there was neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free, male nor female.

The middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile was broken down by the cross of Christ and Paul felt himself a debtor both to the Jew and the Greek, to the Greek and the barbarian. It was the crowning glory of his ministry that he was a Jew who went to the synagogue in order that he might gain a group of Jews for Christ that could evangelize the Gentiles and make of the two one body. This is a complete revolution in Paul’s world. Jews and Samaritans hated each other. Greeks despised those barbarous outsiders. The proud Romans scorned those whom they conquered. There were all kinds of social barriers. But those all disappeared and Paul just saw eternal souls.

Furthermore, he could no longer judge by external features. He looked at the heart to discern its spiritual condition. Even among believers he couldn’t be content with some superficiality. That’s why he wrote these passionate letters. It wasn’t enough for the Corinthians to be converted. He wanted them fully sanctified. And when he writes to the Colossians, he says that he is so devoted to that that he will continue to admonish every man and teach every man with all wisdom in order to present every man complete in Christ. He has a whole new perspective, completely transformed. He is deeply burdened for souls now…

Now, in further discussion of his argument here, look what he says in verse 16, “Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.” And that’s what changed everything. You see, once he had a human acquaintance with Jesus, does that mean that he met Him personally? No. It just means that he made a human assessment of him. He had come to a conclusion about Jesus as a man. We have known Christ according to the flesh.

All he knew was there was this Jewish man named Jesus who created a tremendous amount of furor among the Jews because He contradicted the Law and the prophets. At least they thought He did. He intruded into their temple activities, even overturning the tables and throwing out the money changers several times. He was an insurrectionist and a rebel and a heretic, according to Paul.

He simply judged the human Jesus. He judged Him as a man worthy of death. And not only was He worthy of death but so was everybody who followed Him. Paul from the human viewpoint concluded that Jesus was a false Messiah, that this man was not the true Messiah. He never overthrew the yoke of Rome, He never led an insurrection or a rebellion against Rome, He led one against the Jews religiously. He was a blasphemer, He was a dangerous teacher of heresy and everybody who followed Him was worthy of death …

It may well have started, by the way, with the stoning of Stephen because they laid their garments at the feet of this very man, Paul, when they were stoning Stephen; took their cloaks off so they could throw the rocks with more freedom. “I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme and being furiously enraged at them I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities.” Amazing, isn’t it, how passionate he was? All of this, you see, because he made an assessment of Christ that was purely human. So, he says we have known Christ according to the flesh.

But the assessment of Saul the Pharisee was quite different than the assessment of Paul the apostle. Yet he says at the end of verse 16, “Now we know Him thus no longer.” We don’t have that view anymore of Jesus, no longer do I view Jesus as a Galilean Jew who was the enemy of Judaism, who deserved to die as did all of His followers. No longer since becoming a believer. Now he says He is God incarnate, the Savior, the Lord of heaven and He is the only one who can deliver men from sin and I see men as sinners and thus comes the compulsion for ministry.

This new knowledge of Jesus Christ then which he gained on the Damascus Road, remember? And what happened? When he was blinded by Jesus and fell into the dirt he said, “Lord, what will You have me to do?” And, all of a sudden, the One who had been designated as a heretic was designated as Lord. And when his assessment of Jesus changed, his assessment of everybody else changed too. Now, he realizes what is really at stake. Eternal souls.

Paul ends on a joyous note, saying that if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation (verse 17); everything old has passed away. ‘See, everything has become new!’

MacArthur gives us this analysis:

… verse 17, a very familiar, very popular verse committed to memory by many, “Therefore,” – and the therefore tells us the sequence is coming just one after another, “Therefore,” in verse 16, “Therefore” in verse 17. So it goes back to verse 15 where Christ died and we died with Him, where He rose and we rose in Him, and that new life causes us never to see anybody else the same. And it also causes us to realize, in verse 17, “If any man is in Christ he is a new creature, the old things passed away, behold, new things have come.”

What is this? This is just the most obvious response, the most obvious conclusion from verse 15. Listen carefully. If the death and resurrection of Christ had such a profound change, produced such a profound change in Paul’s life, therefore, he concludes if any man is in Christ, he’ll have the same kind of profound change. Old things will pass away and new things come. What’s he saying? He’s saying I realized at the very beginning that what had happened in me could happen in any man who was in Christ. You see that? That what had happened to me could happen to any man in Christ and would, no matter who she is or who he is, no matter how wicked.

And God delights in – in taking the chief of sinners, blasphemers, the worst, prostitutes, drunkards, tax collectors. Here is the wideness of God’s mercy that gave Paul his evangelistic commission, I concluded that if any man is in Christ he also will be a new creature, just like I was. And that’s how he began to view everyone. Either they were or they weren’t in Christ. What Paul had experienced, any man in Christ could experience. This new knowledge, this new perception, this new wisdom. Now, you – you had spiritual insight. You didn’t live for temporal things, you didn’t live for earthly things, you didn’t evaluate people on the – on the surface.

You – you lived for the Kingdom, you lived for Christ and you saw people at the heart and you saw them in their relationship to God, not in their relationship to each other. This new life is for any man who is in Christ. That’s the key. That’s the key, being in Christ. Being united to Christ, as Romans 3:26 says, that He is the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus. When you put your faith in Jesus Christ you are in Christ, His substitutionary death is your death and His resurrection life is your life, and now you live a new life. And in that new life, he says as clearly as possible, you are a new creature, you’re a new creature.

The expression “in Christ” sums up briefly and as profoundly as possible the inexhaustible significance of man’s redemption. It speaks of our security in Him who has Himself borne in His own body the judgment of God against our sin. It speaks of acceptance in Him with whom alone God is well pleased. It speaks of assurance for the future in Him who is the resurrection and the life and the guarantee of our inheritance. It speaks of the inheritance of glory in Him who is the only begotten Son, is the sole heir and, therefore, we inherit only in Him.

It speaks of participations in – participation in the divine nature in Him who is the everlasting Word. “In Christ.” And when you’re in Christ, you’re a new kainos, new in quality. Not just new in sequence, new in quality, new in creation, at a new level of excellence. “New creation” is a term Paul loves. He used in it Galatians 6:15, “Neither is circumcision anything nor uncircumcision but a new creation, that’s everything.” A new creation. That’s what God wants to do, recreate you in Christ. In fact, in Ephesians 4:24 he calls it “putting on the new self.”

MacArthur tells us that the Old Testament rabbis also used the term ‘new creature’:

The rabbis, by the way, in the Old Testament era, and even in more modern times used this term “new creature” to describe someone whose sins were forgiven. Paul may have used it with that in mind because it does encompass the forgiveness of sins since they were paid for in the death of Christ as our substitute. So dying and living with Christ has made Paul new. It has made him new. It has given him new knowledge. He will never view Christ the same and he will never view people the same, and anyone in Christ will have the same newness. The whole world changes, doesn’t it? Everything changes. In fact, he says it as simply as he can, “The old things passed away, new things have come.”

MacArthur says that the next stage is sanctification, which he describes as follows:

Now this newness, by the way, is a reality but it’s a process. And the ever-increasing understanding of this newness and expression of this newness is what we call “sanctification.” And it goes on until glorification when the fullness of that newness becomes reality. But look at the little phrases with which he closes verse 17, “old things passed away.” Now you don’t need to get too particular here, too specific. What he means is when spiritual issues became real, when spiritual sight became clear, when we who used to be dead were now alive to the spiritual realm, when we saw Christ for who He really was and we see people for who they really are, old ideas and old values and old plans and old loves and old passions and old desires and old principles and old beliefs are gone. They’re gone.

It doesn’t mean no more evil or no more sin. It just means that God has planted new desires and new loves and new inclinations and new appetites and new truths and new values, and they are nourished and developed and they triumph over the remaining flesh as we continue to be transformed into the image of Christ. You know, you need to keep that in mind.

All mature believers go through sanctification. Some aspects of it are marvellous, although other aspects might involve trials. Whatever they are, they are part of God’s glorious plan for each of us. Paul, even when enduring persecution and denigration, rejoiced always. That was his sanctification process as he realised that the risen Christ and the Holy Spirit continued to work through him, making him an ever stronger Apostle for God’s glory.

Third Sunday after Trinity, Year B, 2024 — exegesis on the Epistle, 2 Corinthians 5:6-10, (11-13), 14-17 — part 1

June 16, 2024 in Uncategorized | Tags: 2 Corinthians, Bible, Catholic, Christianity, death, Doctrine of Eternal Security, Doctrine of the Second Coming, exegesis, faith, Heaven, Holy Spirit, Jesus, judgement, Lectionary, Protestant, salvation, St Paul, Third Sunday after Trinity, Year B | 1 comment

Readings for the Third Sunday after Trinity, Year B, 2024 can be found here.

An exegesis for the Gospel, Mark 4:26-34, can be found here.