You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ category.
Political stories abound this week, both north and south of the English border.
Scotland: a postscript
Following up on my May 7 post on Scotland’s new First Minister John Swinney, he has given past and future leadership rival Kate Forbes MSP a prominent role in the Holyrood government.
Yet, in reality, how prominent is that role?
The casual follower of politics would think that it was an important one.
On Wednesday, May 8, Guido Fawkes reported (purple emphases mine):
Initial terms of the Swinney-Forbes deal have been carried out. John Swinney has been sworn in as First Minister today and has just appointed Forbes to replace Shona Robison as deputy First Minister. Forbes says:
I am deeply honoured to accept John’s invitation to be his deputy first minister. This is a moment of extraordinary privilege for me. I look forward to working with John and cabinet colleagues to deliver for the people of Scotland and build a better country.
Interestingly, Guido says that Swinney is scrapping the Holyrood post of Minister for Independence.
Hmm! Independence is the SNP’s raison d’être.
Wings Over Scotland had more, with a screenshot of a Holyrood document that says:
Kate Forbes, the youngest-ever Deputy First Minister, will take on the Economy portfolio and responsibility for Gaelic
In a debate that day, the House of Lords made much of Forbes’s responsibility for preserving the Gaelic language and enhancing its use across Scotland, but, overall, the Wings Over Scotland post told us that Forbes’s appointments were not that important in the grand scheme of things:
All he’s done is give Kate Forbes the smallest possible sliver of Shona Robison’s [Finance Minister’s] job and everything else has stayed the same.
As anyone remotely familiar with the Scottish Parliament will know, the economy is almost entirely reserved to Westminster.
Holyrood was never intended to exercise any significant control over it, so shaving it away from the Finance Secretary’s brief is a token gesture …
(It will however allow Forbes to oversee the creation of the unpopular, undemocratic “Green Freeports”, which were no part of the SNP’s 2021 manifesto.)
Furthermore:
… the office of Deputy First Minister is ceremonial – it’s very much the exception rather than the rule if the DFM ever becomes the actual FM.
Therefore:
So all we learned today is that Kate Forbes was pretty cheaply bought (like the other supposed contender for the SNP leadership), and that business will continue as usual. The appointment of Forbes will do nothing other than antagonise the Scottish Greens, and while we’re all in favour of that, it can only make the job of getting anything done in the next two years harder …
As we told you last week, then, get ready for two incredibly boring years of nothing much happening, which is exactly what Swinney was manoeuvered into place for.
One of the two Alba Party MPs in Westminster, Kenny MacAskill (a former SNP MP), analysed Swinney’s appointment as SNP leader and First Minister:
It was a coronation not a challenge for John Swinney, thus avoiding what he’d previously faced when leading the SNP. But even though he won comfortably then and would have done so again, it’s indicative of a malaise surrounding him.
For whilst he commands widespread respect, he neither enthuses the wider membership, let alone activists … Moreover, whilst experienced, stepping back and being intent on stepping down, that along with recent ministerial portfolio performances have taken much of the sheen off his political persona.
He’s not the continuity candidate, more the “circling the wagons” candidate. After Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation the task was to continue it and Humza Yousaf was the one chosen to do that, albeit only just sneaking in ahead of Kate Forbes. With his fall it became obvious that Sturgeonism was over.
But her legacy had to be protected, reputations defended and even positions maintained. Kate Forbes would have been a reset of the Party. Changes at HQ as well as in Government would have followed. A new direction would have been taken. That has all been cast asunder.
The New SNP oligarchy in a panic that Forbes might win dragooned John Swinney from his retirement. Hence why senior figures were out pleading for it or at home phoning to achieve it.
His victory will see them sleep easier, even if decline will continue. But as I used to say about Labour and it now applies to the SNP, those in charge don’t really care so long as they remain in situ. They’ll even take defeat before removal from control …
Plus ça change as they say.
Labour boast of two new MPs
Wednesday, May 8, was also a notable day in the House of Commons as Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer could display a further bounty of new MPs at PMQs.
One was the newly-elected Labour MP for Blackpool South. He replaces the Conservative MP Scott Benton, who had to stand down in the constituency, thereby triggering a by-election.
The second came as a shock: Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover. As I watched PMQs and listened to Starmer make the announcement, I thought, ‘Surely, some mistake’, but, no.
The Telegraph shared my bemusement:
It is hardly surprising that a Conservative MP for Dover would take issue with the Government’s failure to get to grips with the cross-Channel migrant crossings, which affect the Kent port perhaps more than anywhere else. But for Natalie Elphicke to cross the floor of the Commons and join Labour is positively bizarre.
Rishi Sunak may be struggling to “stop the boats” as he has promised – indeed 1,300 asylum seekers have made the journey since April 30 – but at least he is trying to arrest the flow. Labour pays lip service to tougher border controls but only because it knows voters are concerned about what is happening. The Opposition has no realistic or workable plan to deter the influx. We know this, not least because Mrs Elphicke has said so on a number of occasions.
She wrote in one newspaper: “Not only have Labour got no plan of their own to tackle illegal immigration, they simply do not want to.” She described the party leader as Sir Keir Softie because of his approach to the problem. “In trying to sound tough, [Labour] have revealed that they are anything but,” she added.
Elphicke never struck me as a wet Conservative. Furthermore, she is not standing as a candidate in the upcoming general election, still to be announced.
The Telegraph went through the same process as I did:
If she felt compelled to leave the Conservatives, she could have sat as an independent or joined Reform. Since she is not proposing to defend the seat at the next election there is speculation (which has been denied) that she may have been offered a peerage.
Whatever the case, Starmer made Rishi Sunak look weak, as this is not the first time in recent weeks that a Conservative MP has crossed the aisle. Dan Poulter, an NHS mental health physician, was another whose presence on the Labour benches made PMQs at the end of April:
Certainly her defection was timed to cause maximum damage to her erstwhile party, when she popped up behind Sir Keir just before Prime Minister’s Questions. Has there been some grubby deal? We should be told.
Guido posted Elphicke’s full statement as to why she joined Labour: their housing policy, although there is her dislike of Rishi Sunak, too. Most of us did not know that one of her main interests is social housing. Apparently, she grew up in a council house. Rumour has it that she will become a housing adviser to Labour.
Note that most of the following is likely to be Labour boilerplate:
Today I announce that I have decided to join the Labour Party and that I will sit in Parliament as a Labour MP.
When I was elected in 2019, the Conservative Party occupied the centre ground of British politics. The party was about building the future and making the most of the opportunities that lay ahead for our country.
Since then, many things have changed. The elected Prime Minister was ousted in a coup led by the unelected Rishi Sunak. Under Rishi Sunak, the Conservatives have become a byword for incompetence and division. The centre ground has been abandoned and key pledges of the 2019 manifesto have been ditched.
On housing, Rishi Sunak’s Government is now failing to build the homes we need. Last year saw the largest fall of new housing starts in England in a single year since the credit crunch. The manifesto committed to 300,000 homes next year – but only around half that number are now set to be built. Renters and leaseholders have been betrayed as manifesto pledges to end no fault evictions and abolish ground rents have not been delivered as promised.
The last couple of years have also seen a huge rise in homelessness, in temporary accommodation and rough sleeping with record numbers of children now in temporary accommodation, without a secure roof over their head.
Meanwhile Labour plan to build the homes we need, help young people onto the housing ladder and care about the vulnerable and homeless. That’s why I’m honoured to have been asked to work with Keir and the team to help deliver the homes we need.
We need to move on from the broken promises of Rishi Sunak’s tired and chaotic Government. Britain needs a Government that will build a future of hope, optimism, opportunity and fairness. A Britain everyone can be part of, that will make the most of the opportunities that lie ahead. That’s why it’s time for change. Time for a Labour Government led by Keir Starmer. The General Election cannot come soon enough.
Guido reminded us of how she got elected as MP in 2019 (red emphases his):
Eyebrows went very high when Elphicke was spotted sat on the opposition benches. It has now been confirmed. A PMQs stunt executed well…
Elphicke was elected Tory MP for Dover in 2019 after her MP husband Charlie was charged with three counts of sexual harassment. Her statement focusses on housing and Tory failures to deliver on housing manifesto promises. Who will it be next week?
Guido also posted a laundry list of the times Elphicke criticised Labour, including Sir Keir Starmer. Excerpts follow. This is the Natalie Elphicke I remember, the one who wanted action taken on the Channel crossings:
- Said Labour’s “latest relaunch completely ignored the small boats crisis“ …
- Wrote an op-ed for the Express titled: “Don’t trust Labour on immigration they really want open borders“…
- Said that “Labour back fewer and weaker border controls when it comes to illegal arrivals on our shores.“
- Attacked Labour for planning to force taxpayers to “pay asylum seekers nearly £20,000 a year“.
Housing came up only once in the list:
- Attacked Labour for achieving 100 times fewer council homes than the Tories.
Guido concluded:
Should make for a fun first meeting with her local Labour colleagues…
He posted about that very topic on May 9 and included the audio of the soundbite:
The internal fallout over Natalie Elphicke’s defection continues, with the Labour leader of Dover District Council, Kevin Mills, saying he had reacted with “horror” when he heard she was crossing the floor. Mills said on BBC Radio 5 Live that she should have stood down as an MP instead:
Well, I had to check yesterday wasn’t April 1st when I was told by officers…. [I was in] complete shock…I have to say to some degree of horror… Extremely concerned, I would say.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement from the leader of Elphicke’s local authority …
It did not seem as if Elphicke’s new fellow MPs thought much of her defection to their side, either.
Guido told us that, in 2022, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves had expressed something off-colour to Elphicke, a two-word imperative ending in ‘off’. Meanwhile, on May 8, 2024:
Guido isn’t sure every Labour MP is the biggest fan of defector Natalie Elphicke. Florence Eshalomi and Lloyd Russell-Moyle have got busy tweeting about how great the current Labour candidate for Dover is. Just in case Natalie tried to stand for Dover at the election…
UPDATE: A Labour source gets in touch over the defection: “What’s the point?“
Like the editorial writers at The Telegraph, veteran Guardian columnists were also at pains to understand the defection.
Polly Toynbee wrote that it was ‘a one-day-wonder’:
No, no, this is an uncharacteristic mistake. Keir Starmer’s welcoming hand on Natalie Elphicke’s shoulder is a picture his enemies will relish as proof he was never really a Labour man. Where was the steadying hand of a Pat McFadden or Sue Gray to make him stop and think: just say no?
It is easy to see how, in the hectic frenzy of 24-hour Westminster, the astonishing gift of the most comically unlikely MP crossing the floor at PMQs looked irresistible. The wow factor was a great theatrical coup, a sugar-rush of triumph. God knows what’s in it for her; some revenge for an unknown slight? Or a last-minute bid to dissociate herself from her nasty party? Maybe she’s just part of the great chicken run of “gissa job” Tory MPs clambering off before the Tory ship goes under.
The notion that she’s defecting because Rishi Sunak has abandoned the centre ground, as she claimed, is laughable. She belonged to the Common Sense faction of Conservative MPs, one of the most rightwing cabals of culture warriors, chaired by Suella Braverman’s svengali, John Hayes, who would topple over if he moved any further right: fellow members include Jonathan Gullis, Edward Leigh, Andrew Rosindell, Danny Kruger and, formerly, Lee Anderson, until he scarpered to Reform. If she’d brought that whole crew over to crash his party, would Starmer have embraced them too?
Policy discipline has been the hallmark of Starmer’s phenomenal revival of the party: ejecting anyone off-message, imprinting his brand on all candidates duly paraded, word-perfect, in recent byelection victories. Neil Kinnock, who expunged Militant, knows a thing or two about defining a party: “We’ve got to be choosy,” he told The Week in Westminster on BBC Radio 4. “It’s a very broad church but churches have walls and there are limits.”
Glee over Elphicke plainly abandoned any intellectual definition of what it is to be “Labour”. Where was Elphicke’s line-by-line recantation of all her past atrocious sayings? Kate Osamor was given back the whip super-fast on the same day: she had long apologised for linking Gaza with the Holocaust …
This is a one-day-wonder: Elphicke is not standing again and will be as forgotten as Christian Wakeford (if the name escapes you, he defected to Labour in 2022). Dr Dan Poulter’s hop across the floor last month drew a loud raspberry from inside the NHS. He said he could no longer look his NHS colleagues in the eye, after years, even as a health minister, of voting through the most brutal NHS funding cuts ever. But he’s the kind of Tory penitent Labour can accept, while Elphicke is off the scale …
This is a one-day stumble for Keir Starmer. Elphicke will vanish into pub-quiz land. But, as rumours abound, other jumpers may follow: her admission to the party has set the lowest bar: if not her, can anyone be turned away?
In the flutter of excitement, Labour high command momentarily forgot they are the masters now (almost). They need no defectors: all that matters is defecting voters, and I doubt Elphicke brings many. Dignity matters, and it devalues Labour membership to accept the dregs of the defeated party opposite. Starmer may regret this precedent in tough times ahead when trying to impose policy discipline on any future Labour mavericks.
However, John Crace was less sure about this being a ‘one-day-wonder’ event but agrees that this could come back to haunt Starmer:
Defections tend to be one-day wonders. An awkward photo op with your new party leader. Thirty minutes in the limelight at prime minister’s questions. And then oblivion. Seldom to be seen or heard of again.
… Dan Poulter. He was barely seen in the Commons when he was a Tory MP. Don’t expect that to change much as he serves out his time as an opposition backbencher before stepping down at the coming election.
Labour must have been hoping that Natalie Elphicke would follow a similar trajectory. Another embarrassing day for the government. Tories wondering if the game is up if Rishi Sunak can’t even keep the rightwing headbangers in his party on side. It hasn’t quite panned out like this. The reverberations of Nat’s defection have continued into a second day. And the embarrassment is almost all Labour’s …
Normally it’s the Tories who crash and burn on these occasions. Today it was Labour’s turn.
A totally self-inflicted wound. Starmer could have told Elphicke: “Thanks, but no thanks. We appreciate your offer but don’t think you’re quite the right fit. Why don’t you sit as an independent for a while to process your feelings about the Tories properly? Maybe join Labour in six months’ time when you’re ready.” Then the party might have claimed the moral high ground and still banked the win. Instead, it got greedy.
Crace ended by pointing out how tired Conservative MPs and the Government look these days:
Meanwhile, almost nothing was happening in the Commons. It seldom does these days. The government has almost given up doing anything. Just wasting time before the election. Even Penny Mordaunt [Leader of the House] looks washed up. She used to use her weekly Thursday session at business questions as her personal leadership campaign. To remind Tory MPs what they could have had. Might have yet. But today, even she looked beaten. Flat. Her jokes died on her lips. Her heart wasn’t in it. This must be the end of days.
He is not wrong. The debate schedules have been appalling light over the past six months, as if MPs had solved every issue and could go home early.
When MPs from all parties point this out to Penny Mordaunt, she claims she is under constraints when it comes to scheduling debates. Hmm.
But I digress.
ConservativeHome‘s Henry Hill wrote an opinion piece for The Telegraph in which he says Natalie Elphicke is under a misapprehension if she thinks Labour will solve the housing crisis:
… she has previously written for ConservativeHome in support of rent freezes, and said that the only good types of occupancy are owner-occupation and social housing – not the “private renting experiment”.
Now I’m a fanatic on housing. But it’s important to note that none of these proposals address the fundamental need to actually build millions of houses. It’s all more state-assisted borrowing, which will only inflate prices further, with state tenantry as the increasingly-necessary alternative.
It has always been an open question whether Labour will actually live up to its big talk on the housing crisis. If Starmer is drafting Tory Nimby’s to work on his policy, that isn’t a good sign.
It seems that only Elphicke’s constituents did not mind that she had switched parties. She’s local and they like her. The Guardian reported:
The news spread quickly in Dover, with most people who spoke to the Guardian already aware that their MP had defected. Voters from across the political spectrum shared their surprise at the move, yet many were positive about Elphicke, whom they consider a linchpin of the community.
Mae Montenegro, 50, said she would vote for Elphicke regardless of her party affiliation as she is an active member of the community, including attending her local church, St Paul’s, where she recently organised an anniversary celebration for the priest. “It’s her decision,” she said. “I want a person who represents the community, not the party.”
Robert Hewer, 74, had voted for Elphicke previously and would vote for her again, as her hardline views on immigration reflect his perception that “immigration is eroding our culture”.
“She’s a people person, she supports the local community,” he said. “She’s anti-uncontrolled immigration, which is a big issue in Dover and the UK. I can understand her move because the Conservatives haven’t done what they promised. They’ve let her down and she’s making a point.”
A former miner, Hewer was brought up to vote Labour, but switched to the Conservatives a decade ago in support of Brexit. He would consider returning to Labour in future, though he considers Keir Starmer “too woke”.
This would not deter him for voting for Elphicke again, however. “I would vote for her, because I know her,” he said. “Know the devil you’re getting into bed with.”
Alwyn Conway, 80, agreed that Elphicke had done “good work” in the area, and shared Hewer’s apprehension about a Labour government. While he felt it was a matter of “the devil and the deep blue sea”, he added that “with the Conservatives you know where you are. It might be out of the frying pan and into the fire”.
But Conway said he may still vote for Elphicke in the general election: “If Natalie’s changed over and she’s of the opinion of stopping boats, that could swing me in her favour. I vote for the person, not the party.”
Of course, that is a moot point, because she will not be running for re-election.
Let’s end with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
Elphicke’s defection clearly rattled him on Wednesday, as evidenced at the opening of PMQs.
Guido provided a video clip and a brief commentary:
Fresh off the news that Tory MP Natalie Elphicke defected to Labour, PMQs got off to a testy start. Rishi Sunak hit out at the “virtue signalling lawyer from North London“, to which Starmer fired back with an even more scathing attack: people “know there’s nothing behind the boasts, the gimmicks, the smug smile. He’s a dodgy salesman, desperate to sell them a dud”. Strong words…
Guido’s sketchwriter Simon Clark later explained that Rishi was unaware of Elphicke’s move until just moments before he went to the despatch box and pointed out that the PM’s initial terseness disappeared as PMQs went on. What’s more, the Conservatives had taken quite an electoral beating in council elections on Thursday, May 2:
Did the Tory whips know? No one knew. In the hubbub of pre-PMQs, the Leader of the House went to give the news to Rishi standing at the Speaker’s side. His most vociferous Conservative had defected in the last 90 seconds – the unkindest cut of all.
Rishi is getting seriously short of members. And quite short of Members. But what a brave face he put on it …
In defeat – in the aftermath of “the biggest by-election swing in history” as LOTO put it, the PM behaved with a dignity and a posture that was entirely admirable, and even amazing … He congratulated all former councillors, PCCs and mayors, saying, “I hope his new ones do him as proud as I am of all of mine”.
Keir’s script was less gracious but no doubt more pleasing to his supporters. “He’s lost 1,500 Tory councillors, half of his party’s mayors, and a leadership election to a lettuce.” It took a full second for his deputy to realise her leader had made joking and she almost made laughing. “How many times does the public, and his own MPs need to reject him before he takes the hint?”
Rishi replied more joshing than jousting, to remind him of Tony Blair’s advice, that “He can be as cocky as he likes about local elections, but in general elections, it’s policy that counts.”
Labour laughed and were probably right to do so. If policy counted, the Tories would be 20 points further behind the 20 they currently are.
However, Starmer managed to land a zinger when Rishi asked him a question. For those unfamiliar with the format, Starmer asks the questions, and Rishi answers:
He said, What about that Sadiq Khan? He believes there’s an equivalence between the terrorist attack by Hamas and Israel defending itself. So will LOTO take this opportunity to … (etc and so forth).
It set Keir up for a repartee we have grown to know and love: “He’s getting ahead of himself before a general election, asking me questions.”
Oh, dear. It’s not the first time that’s happened between the two and probably won’t be the last in the months that follow.
Yesterday, someone online posted the following photo of a page from a history book:
Someone else, replying to the image, said that it came from a volume by the famous British historian AJP Taylor.
The first page to the chapter ‘The Great War: Old Style, 1914-1915’ (book title unknown — to me, anyway) is illuminating in revealing how much freedom was in place in England at that time.
The final sentences on the page conclude (emphasis mine):
… broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.
Despite what many would call the ‘horrors’ of living in that era, we discover that there were no passports, income tax was low, education mandates were in place as well as health and safety laws.
In case the image disappears from this post, excerpts follow. Consider all of this highlighted:
Until August 1914, a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman … He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence … The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.
For my overseas readers, the Liberals were a political party, the forerunners of the current Liberal Democrats. Note that they were partly instrumental in increasing the size of the state through increased public expenditure — provided by the taxpayer.
I wonder if any of the above is still taught in schools today.
Last week, my entries concerned Scottish politics, namely the SNP’s (see here, here, here and here).
With a swift resolution within a week of Humza Yousaf’s resignation as Party leader and First Minister, John Swinney has succeeded him in both positions.
John Swinney is a household name in Scotland, for better or worse.
On Monday, May 6, The Guardian reported on his return to the helm (emphases mine):
Few people understand the internal dynamics and historical loyalties of the Scottish National Party better than John Swinney, who joined the party at 15 and quickly rose to become national secretary by his early 20s.
… at 60, Swinney is a generation older than his predecessor, Humza Yousaf …
The man who promises to unite the SNP after a year of extraordinary upheaval – including the arrest of senior figures in Police Scotland’s investigation into SNP finances, successive policy rows and the end of the governing partnership with the Greens – was born in Edinburgh in 1964, where his father owned a car repair garage.
After studying politics at the University of Edinburgh, he pursued a career in finance before entering first the Westminster parliament and then Holyrood, as one of the first intake of MSPs in 1999. His presentation is often described as bank managerial, but in person his wry humour and comradely decency is much more in evidence. He is an active member of the Church of Scotland, and Labour’s Jim Murphy – who was Scottish secretary at the time – once joked: “There’s nobody in Scotland who doesn’t like John Swinney.”
Really? Okay …
The article continues:
Though firmly on the gradualist wing of the party when it comes to Scottish independence, he remained close to the more radical Alex Salmond, taking over after Salmond unexpectedly quit as leader in 2000, until Swinney resigned in 2004 after party critics moved against him following a poor European elections result.
He went on to serve as an unstintingly loyal deputy to Salmond’s successor, Nicola Sturgeon, surviving a vote of no confidence in 2021 after a row over the government providing its legal advice to the special Holyrood committee set up to examine the handling of harassment complaints against Salmond.
Last year, after Sturgeon’s home was searched and she and her husband, Peter Murrell, were arrested as part of the police investigation into SNP finances, Swinney chaperoned her around the Holyrood parliament, standing by her side as she spoke to reporters.
Swinney stepped back a bit last year in Holyrood, but now he is once again ready for a leadership role:
When Sturgeon quit last spring, Swinney also announced his own return to the backbenches after 16 years as a cabinet secretary, expressing his desire to spend more time with his wife, Elizabeth, who has lived with multiple sclerosis for many years and with whom he has a son.
In his leadership acceptance speech on Monday, Swinney admitted he had been “physically and mentally exhausted” at that point but said that 12 months later he was “rested and ready”.
… saying he intended to lead the party into the 2026 Holyrood elections and beyond.
We shall see. I expect more of the same incompetence.
Yesterday’s post examined the outgoing Scottish First Minister’s — Humza Yousaf’s — time in Holyrood.
The one before that discussed his resignation as First Minister.
Today’s will look at questions surrounding his personal life.
However, before we get to that, let’s look at the motions by Scottish Conservatives and Labour for a vote of no confidence as well as Kate Forbes’s chances of becoming the next First Minister. She ran against Yousaf in the 2023 leadership election and lost by a Brexit margin: 48% to 52%.
No confidence motions unsuccessful
Neither motion for a vote of no confidence on Tuesday, May 1, 2024 succeeded.
The Scottish Conservatives put forward one of no confidence in Humza Yousaf as First Minister.
Scottish Labour’s concerned the SNP government as a whole.
The Times told us that, with Labour’s motion, the Greens saved the SNP’s day (purple emphases mine):
Scottish Labour’s attempt to unseat the Scottish government has failed after the Greens voted against a confidence motion.
The Green co-leader Patrick Harvie said that the motion was “chaos for the sake of chaos” as his party voted against it. The motion was defeated by 70 votes to 58 …
If the motion had passed, the entire Scottish government would have been forced to resign, with Holyrood given 28 days to elect a new first minister before an election was called.
Yousaf has admitted in a BBC interview that he “paid the price” for the way he ended the SNP’s power-sharing deal with the Scottish Greens. Speaking for the first time since announcing his resignation, the outgoing first minister said that ending the agreement was the right decision.
“But I have to acknowledge the manner in which I did it caused great upset and that’s on me,” he said.
Yousaf said it was clear to him that the SNP’s power-sharing deal with the Scottish Greens was “coming to an end anyway” but said he regretted the manner in which he ended it.
At the confidence vote at Holyrood, the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, said Scotland that was “crying out for change” as he urged MSPs to back his motion …
Yousaf said he was proud of the SNP’s record in government, telling MSPs he had not “heard a single positive idea” from Labour in his 13 months in the top job …
But it was Harvie who put the final nail in the coffin of the motion, when he said: “This proposal portrays the true motives of others: chaos for the sake of chaos.”
He added: “Let’s just consider what would happen if it passed; a month to seek another government, then an election around the time that voters around the country were heading off on their summer holidays, a new government formed perhaps by August, leaving just a little more than a year and a half until the legally required dissolution for the 2026 election” …
Opposition members also used the opportunity to take aim at the potential next occupant of Bute House. Sarwar pointed to reports suggesting that Kate Forbes could struggle to appoint ministers and described John Swinney as “the finance secretary that broke the public finances and the worst education secretary in the history of the Scottish parliament”.
One has to hope that John Swinney is not the next First Minister.
Kate Forbes’s chances of succession
Most ordinary Scots and most Britons who know about Scottish politics think that Kate Forbes would bring common sense and stability to the SNP government.
During the 2023 campaign, her detractors complained that she, a thirty-something married mother, was a Wee Free, a member of a conservative Presbyterian breakaway denomination popular in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The same issues are coming up again.
One of my readers, dearieme, sent me a link to an April 30 editorial by Kenny Farquharson in The Times, excerpted below:
Kate Forbes is unfit to be first minister of a 21st-century Scotland. A 1920s Scotland, maybe. A 1950s Scotland, perhaps. But not Scotland in 2024.
Amid the machinations over who replaces Humza Yousaf as leader of the SNP, we need to keep this thought uppermost in our minds. It can’t be Kate …
What message would a Kate Forbes first ministership send? That single mothers are sinners? That sex outside marriage is wrong? That ghouls should be allowed to stand in the street outside abortion clinics muttering incantations? That most of us in secular Scotland are going to hell?
What comfort could be drawn from a Forbes first ministership by gay couples, given that this fundamentalist Christian politician has said she would not have voted for equal marriage? How secure would gay people feel about their hard-won civil rights?
On the day of Yousaf’s resignation Allan Kennedy, a lecturer in early modern Scottish history at Dundee University, said on Twitter/X: “Kate Forbes as first minister would be some impressive playing of the long game on the part of the Covenanters” …
I want a secular Scotland. I want this century to be the very first in Scotland’s story where religious belief and ecclesiastical power did not routinely dictate the way people were governed or lived their day-to-day lives. I want a Scotland that need not fear any US-style curbs on a woman’s right to choose an abortion.
Modernity is a concept worth defending. I did not think it would need defending in 2024, but apparently it does. During the last SNP leadership campaign I called Forbes “the MSP for the 19th century”. I stand by that. I would prefer a politician whose values chimed with the nation he or she sought to lead …
Forbes represents an authentic strain of rural Scottish presbyterianism. But she cannot successfully reconcile the moral strictures of the Free Church with the values of contemporary urban Scotland in all its diversity and dynamism.
Which is why I say again: in the third decade of the 21st century, Kate Forbes is unfit to be first minister of Scotland.
On May 2, Dr James Eglinton, the Meldrum senior lecturer in Reformed theology at the University of Edinburgh, responded in The Times:
Could Kate Forbes serve effectively as first minister of Scotland? In The Times this week, Kenny Farquharson argued she could not … In his argument, Scotland should “defend modernity” by setting a clear glass ceiling above Forbes and those like her.
Before we can defend modernity, though, we must define it — and herein lies the problem. The kind of modernity cherished by Farquharson was a product of the 18th century and died out in the mid-19th century. It does not capture how modernity functions in Scotland today, and says nothing about whether Forbes could serve well as first minister.
In Farquharson’s argument, modernity is monolithic, a package deal of views that all enlightened, right-thinking people will hold precisely because they are enlightened and right thinking. In that way, while modernity likes to talk about authenticity and individuality, it prizes and expects sameness of thought from those individuals.
When the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant advanced that view, his ideas were novel and captivating to many. By the mid-19th century, though, Europe grew tired of that rigid expression of freedom, and came to see it as attainable only through coercion, silencing and self-censorship. Whereas the 18th century idealised the uniformity of acceptable beliefs, the 19th century valued the unity of people whose freedom to think took them to radically different conclusions. In the process, it gave us liberal democracy and our freedoms of belief and expression.
From then on, modernity has been a very different thing. It depends on individuals negotiating life on their own terms and recognising that each other person does the same. In that way, it is a constant negotiation, a shared effort to extend the freedom to others that we demand for ourselves. Nowadays, academics talk of multiple modernities — as numerous as modern people themselves — rather than a single modernity.
Is Forbes rooted in the 19th century? Certainly, in that she represents liberal democracy. Good for her. Is she a 21st-century person? As a working mum from a theologically conservative church in frontline secular politics, she is as modern as any of us …
We shall see what happens in the weeks ahead. We don’t even know if Kate Forbes will run again.
Now on to remaining aspects of Humza Yousaf’s life.
Two SNP-related marriages
Interestingly, both of Yousaf’s wives, past and present, have links to the SNP.
In 2010, Yousaf married Gail Lythgoe, originally from Essex, who, somehow, caught the Scottish independence bug.
The couple divorced in 2016.
CaltonJock has more from his February 22, 2023 post:
Lythgoe, a graduate teaching assistant at Glasgow University’s law school, was convener of the SNP’s student wing from 2010 to 2012 and sat on the SNP’s ruling national executive.
She was also a parliamentary assistant to SNP MSP Joan McAlpine, and worked at the Yes Scotland campaign in the 2014 referendum.
The split was not made public and only only emerged after Yousaf blamed it when he was fined £300 and had six penalty points added to his driving licence, after being caught by police driving a friend’s car without insurance.
Pleading guilty to the offence he said the incident was the result of stress brought about by his personal circumstances during his separation”.
Yousaf said the final split with his wife was amicable but since then she has left the SNP and actively urged people to vote for the Scottish Greens in the local election instead of the SNP. She wrote: “Glasgow needs diversity not cult-like voting habits, vote green.”
Yousaf’s current wife is Nadia El-Nakla, a divorcée with one child when the couple married in 2019. El-Nakla is an SNP councillor — the equalities spokesperson — in Dundee.
The couple have a daughter together and, in March 2024, the Yousafs announced that they were expecting another child.
Born in Dundee, El-Nakla has a Palestinian father and a Scottish mother.
She is a qualified psychotherapist counsellor with an MSc in Counselling from Abertay University in Dundee.
Perhaps this is why Yousaf said last autumn that he had plans to resume counselling in order to build his resilience. He already had counselling when his first marriage broke down.
On October 15, 2023, The Sunday Times reported:
Humza Yousaf has said he plans to resume counselling for his mental health while first minister, saying “people shouldn’t wait until a crisis moment” to seek help.
In an interview ahead of the SNP’s conference in Aberdeen, Yousaf said previous help he had sought for his mental health had built “resilience” and would be something he would return to in the future.
The first minister told a show at the Edinburgh Fringe that he sought counselling in 2016 during his time as transport minister, when he was also facing the breakdown of his first marriage.
Speaking to Holyrood Magazine, he said he was not sure if he could have continued to be a minister if he had not sought help.
“I definitely think counselling has given me resilience. I was just talking to my wife, actually, last week about making sure I continue counselling as first minister,” he said …
Yousaf also said his therapist recommended he use an app to practice mindfulness, a type of meditation that attempts to focus the individual on being in the moment.
He also spoke of how he dealt with the personal impact of the job, in particular leaning on his family.
“On a personal level, my family is so, so important, and I make time to set some appropriate boundaries,” he said.
The first minister said during his campaign for the SNP leadership that he would try to keep Monday evenings free to spend with his family …
Speaking as someone who watches First Minister’s Questions regularly on BBC Parliament, I rather doubt that Yousaf is practising mindfulness or getting counselling for resilience. He is no different to Nicola Sturgeon in his aggressive responses to Conservative and Labour Party leaders, which, on occasion, are rather offensive. In the private sector, such a bulldog style would be called ‘unprofessional’ or ‘unacceptable’.
In-laws’ visit to Palestine
Incredibly, at least to many Britons who had read or heard about it in the media, Yousaf’s parents went to Palestine on holiday to visit family after the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel.
Yousaf then pulled rank as First Minister to make arrangements to have them evacuated and then went on to hold a meeting with Turkey’s President Erdoğan while his wife and Mrs Erdoğan met privately for tea.
Effie Deans of Lily of St Leonards reminds us that Yousaf is Scotland’s First Minister, not the UK’s Foreign Secretary.
She gave us the story on January 14, 2024:
Humza Yousaf’s wife Nadia El-Nakla is Scottish. She was born and brought up in Dundee. But unlike most Scots she has family living in Gaza. Her parents chose to ignore Foreign Office advice about visiting Gaza and ended up in a warzone after the 7th October Hamas attack on Israel. That was unfortunate and naturally Humza Yousaf and his wife were concerned about their safety. But it is important that we distinguish between a politician’s political role and his personal life. Humza Yousaf is First Minister of Scotland. His wife is a Dundee SNP councillor. The Scottish Government has no role in foreign affairs …
When El-Nakla’s family were trapped in Gaza Humza Yousaf contacted the British government and Foreign Office to expedite their rescue from Gaza, but he didn’t do so as a private citizen like the rest of us would have done if our family were trapped in Gaza, he did so as First Minister of Scotland. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with that role. Humza Yousaf’s wife’s family deserved no more extra special help than any other British citizens trapped in Gaza just because SNP members had elected him leader of their party.
In time El-Nakla’s parents were able to leave Gaza with the help of the British government. I don’t recall any thanks from either Humza Yousaf or Nadia El-Nakla nor indeed from her parents.
Next, we discover that Nadia El-Nakla went to Turkey in November to attend an international summit calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
It seemed rather odd that at the time that she should do so. It cannot be often that a Dundee councillor meets the First Lady of Turkey and other important figures. Indeed, it is rather surprising that they knew of her existence.
She is said to have attended in a personal capacity. One assumes therefore that she paid for the trip out of her own money and didn’t claim expenses for her iPad. But the truth is that El-Nakla would have been nowhere near this meeting if she had not been married to Humza Yousaf.
Next, we discover that Humza Yousaf has a meeting with Recep Erdoğan the president of Turkey at the COP28 meeting in December. Yousaf did so without permission from the British government and without Foreign Office staff being present as is required.
The reason for this is that the First Minister has no role in foreign affairs, which is reserved to the British government. The UK cannot have two foreign policies one directed from London and the other from Edinburgh. Yousaf is not the leader of a nation state and therefore Scotland has no international role at all. El-Nakla is no more the wife of an international politician than the leader’s wife of a province in Turkey, who doubtless does not get to meet Erdoğan’s wife.
There is more:
Scotland gives £750,000 in aid to Gaza and shortly afterwards El-Nakla’s parents get to leave Gaza. Then we discover perhaps why El-Nakla went to Turkey to meet Erdoğan’s wife and why later Humza Yousaf was so desperate that no one would be present at his meeting with Erdoğan.
El-Nakla has just admitted that the Turkish government helped her family in Gaza to move to Turkey. It’s an amazing coincidence. Such generosity on the part of President Erdoğan. What did he get in return?
… he went to a lot of trouble to make sure that Foreign Office officials were not present, but I do know this, it is not the role of the First Minister of Scotland let alone a Dundee councillor to have international meetings so that non-UK citizens can move from Gaza to Turkey.
However, that does not seem to be enough of a solution:
El-Nakla now wants her Gazan family to come to the UK. She points out that Ukrainian refugees are living near her, why can’t her Gazan family not also come here as refugees?
Well, if El-Nakla wants Gazans in general rather than her family in particular to escape Gaza why doesn’t she ask Egypt to open the border? Perhaps she could fly to Egypt to have a meeting with the wife of President el-Sisi. Humza Yousaf could then attend an environment meeting somewhere where he happens to meet el-Sisi and the border between Gaza and Egypt could be opened.
But there is a problem here. Egypt does not want to open its border to Gaza and nowhere else in the Arab world wants to take refugees from Gaza and indeed when Israeli officials suggest resettling Gazans elsewhere, they are condemned by the whole world including I imagine El-Nakla and Humza Yousaf.
Utterly extraordinary, to say the least. Who would have that much nerve?
Yousaf’s family makes the news
In March 2024, Yousaf’s family made the news.
On Sunday, March 17, Scotland’s Herald reported that Yousaf did not declare his family’s rental properties in his register of ministerial interests:
Humza Yousaf is facing questions about why he hasn’t publicly declared his family’s £1.3million rental property empire in his register of ministerial interests.
The First Minister lists a single rental property in Dundee owned by his wife, Nadia El-Nakla.
However he has not included the eight rental properties in Glasgow owned by his parents and their accountancy firm, Yousaf & Co. Limited.
He has also spoken about private landlords, rent caps and eviction procedures in parliament without orally declaring any interest.
The Scottish Government said Mr Yousaf had only declared his wife’s rental flat as he could be seen as a “direct beneficiary” of it.
However the Scottish Tories said the First Minister needed to be “fully transparent”.
There is no suggeston of any wrongdoing by Mr Yousaf’s parents.
MSPs must declare their own financial holdings, such as rental properties, in a Holyrood register.
But ministers are held to a higher standard and also complete a second, more detailed register overseen by the Scottish Government’s top official, the Permanent Secretary …
Declarations should “cover interests of the Minister’s spouse or partner, and close family which might be thought to give rise to a conflict.”
Immediate family includes “parents, siblings or children” where an interest “might be thought to give rise to an actual or perceived conflict” …
The property folio could potentially give rise to a perceived conflict of interest for Mr Yousaf.
In May 2020, he voted on and agreed to Coronavirus legislation that changed the rules on tenancies and evictions while one of the family’s tenants was heading for eviction as they had been in arrears for more than three months.
Records from Scotland’s Housing and Property Chamber show that a property agent acting for Mr Yousaf’s father applied to the tribunal for a payment order and an eviction order for the flat on Albert Road in Glasgow owned by Yousaf & Co Ltd.
The documentation said that the tenant was due to pay £450 a month in rent, but had run up arrears of £4,950 to August 2020.
In February 2021, the tribunal agreed to make both the payment order and eviction order.
A Scottish Government spokesperson disagreed with the call for the family’s properties to be included in Yousaf’s register of interests:
The First Minister includes his wife’s rental property in his listed interests in line with his commitment to be transparent about interests to which he could be perceived to be a direct beneficiary.
This is not the case with the rental properties owned by the First Minister’s parents, therefore they are not required to be declared.
Hmm.
Two days later, on March 19, The Times reported, ‘Yousaf family firm removes “antisemitic” Palestinian posters’:
Humza Yousaf’s parents have removed pro-Palestinian posters from their family shop after they were criticised by a Jewish group.
The Yousaf & Co accountancy firm, established by the first minister’s father, Muzaffar, after he emigrated from Pakistan in the 1960s, had a large pro-Palestinian window display at its prominent Glasgow headquarters.
It included images in which the Palestinian flag is imposed over the entirety of a map of the Israeli state, surrounded by two hands snapping a chain encircling the country, alongside the slogan Free Palestine …
When Hamas invaded Israel, Yousaf’s parents-in-law, Elizabeth and Maged El-Nakla, became trapped in Gaza after a family visit coincided with the outbreak of war. They were eventually allowed to leave after spending almost a month trapped in the territory.
Yousaf’s wife, Nadia, has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza …
Yousaf & Co has been asked for comment.
Brother-in-law’s arrest
On January 16, 2024, The Sun, among other media outlets, reported that Yousaf’s brother-in-law had been arrested for a second time. The second arrest was in relation to a horrific murder in Dundee:
… Ramsay El-Nakla, younger brother of the First Minister’s wife Nadia, had secured bail after being accused of dealing heroin.
But officers stepped in as he got ready to leave the dock and nicked him in connection with another alleged incident.
He was among three arrested after a man reportedly fell from the window of a flat in Dundee last week.
A 36-year-old was seriously injured after he plunged from a tenement block on the city’s Morgan Street.
Emergency services rushed to the scene last Wednesday morning.
Cops taped off the street and locals reported a large police presence in the area.
Residents said they spotted a binman and a street sweeper going to help the injured man before paramedics arrived. He was then taken to Ninewells Hospital.
El-Nakla, 36, was first arrested last Thursday in connection with a different alleged incident …
On April 9, he was due to appear in Dundee Sheriff Court.
The Spectator‘s Steerpike told us:
Police Scotland has today confirmed that they have arrested Yousaf’s brother-in-law and charged him with abduction and extortion. It follows the death of a man who fell from a block of flats in Dundee in January.
Ramsay El-Nakla, 36, is the brother of Yousaf’s wife, Nadia El-Nakla and is due to appear in court later today. In a statement, Police Scotland said that:
A 36-year-old man has been arrested and charged with abduction and extortion following an incident where a man fell from a block of flats on Morgan Street, Dundee on Wednesday, 10 January. He died a week later in hospital. Three others were previously arrested and charged following the same incident. The 36-year-old man is due to appear in Dundee Sheriff Court today, Tuesday, 9 April, 2024. A report will be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal.
It comes three months after El-Nakla first appeared in court on charges of supplying heroin and being in possession of cocaine and cannabis. Back then Yousaf said ‘It would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage’ adding ‘I’m very keen not be seen to interfere with any court case, let alone one involving my brother-in-law.’
What will his line be now…?
Who knows?
In any event, the wheels have come off Humza Yousaf’s wagon in much the same way he came off his scooter in Holyrood when he had injured his leg a couple of years ago:
A man so sure of himself at the time … perhaps less so now — despite all his bluster at First Minister’s Questions.
Yesterday’s post discussed the resignation of Scotland’s First Minister, Humza Yousaf, on Monday, April 29, 2024.
Today’s entry looks back at his career in the Scottish Parliament.
Before that, let us look briefly at the February 22, 2023 post from CaltonJock which tells us more about Yousaf’s youth (purple emphases mine):
Humza Yousaf was born on 7 April 1985 in Glasgow, Scotland. He enjoyed a trouble free lifestyle being privately educated at Hutchesons’ Grammar School, a fee paying independent school in Glasgow then going on to study Politics at the University of Glasgow, graduating with an MA in 2007.
He left university to work as a parliamentary assistant for a number of MSPs and has been financed from the public purse ever since. He has no experience of work outside the public sector.
Ministerial appointments
Yousaf was fortunate to have held rather important ministerial appointments in the Scottish parliament, beginning in 2012. He was Minister for External Affairs and International Development under then-First Minister Alex Salmond. When Nicola Sturgeon succeeded Salmond, Yousaf retained the position but under a different title, that of Minister for Europe and International Development.
In 2016, Sturgeon made him Minister for Transport and the Islands.
In 2018, Sturgeon promoted him to Cabinet Secretary for Justice, a post which he held until 2021. The level of police recorded crimes rose from 244,504 to 246,511 in 2020-2021. During that time, he came up with the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, further amended only recently, on April 1, 2024, by which time he had been serving as First Minister for a little over a year.
After the May 2021 elections, with Jeane Freeman MSP’s standing down, Sturgeon made Yousaf her replacement as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, a position he held until he won the SNP leadership contest after Sturgeon resigned in February 2023.
In July that year, the WHO declared that Scotland had six out of ten coronavirus hotspots in Europe.
In September 2021, news emerged that Scottish waiting times for an ambulance reached six hours. Yousaf urged the public to ‘think twice’ before ringing for one. Audit Scotland found that 500 elderly people in Scotland died that year because of delayed access to emergency treatment.
Let’s take a closer look at Yousaf’s actions during his time as an MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament).
Transport Minister failings
While Yousaf was the Cabinet Minister for Transport, he was caught driving without car insurance.
On December 8, 2016, Scotland’s Herald reported:
TRANSPORT Minister Humza Yousaf has blamed the break up of his marriage after being caught by police while driving without insurance.
Mr Yousaf, who is already under pressure over poor service on Scotland’s railways, said he had made an “honest mistake” and would not contest the charge.
However, Yousaf had greater failings in the area of transport, as the aforementioned CaltonJock reminds us:
On 18 May 2016, he was promoted Minister for Transport and the Islands and was at the centre of controversy and public criticism over the poor performance of ScotRail, with its trains facing severe delays, cancellations and overcrowding.
Sturgeon was called upon to sack him over his shambolic handling of transport after the prolific Twitter-using Transport Minister admitted he knew nothing about his brief as he tried to defend his failings.
He was quizzed by MSP’s at Holyrood over his administration’s handling of the beleaguered network amid stalled projects and declining services after it emerged the bill for rail upgrades had rocketed by £379 million.
The intervention became necessary when a report from quango Transport Scotland revealed the cost of five schemes had risen to £1.5 billion from £1.1 billion.
The transport workers union Aslef called for Mr Yousaf to be sacked amid a growing crisis on the railway network.
Aslef general secretary Mick Whelan said: “The Scottish government response to the rail crisis has been pathetic. Transport Minister Humza Yousaf has stood by while Abellio Scotrail takes Scotland’s passengers and taxpayers for a ride”.
Hate speech
As if coping with coronavirus were not enough, on October 29, 2020, Yousaf wanted to ban freedom of speech in one’s own home, something he finally realised on April 1, 2024.
The Scottish chronicler, Effie Deans, posted on her site, Lily of St Leonard’s, ‘Why does Humza Yousaf want to police what I say in private?’
She says:
Humza Yousaf has explained that he wants to punish Scots for having insulting conversations at home. While we would retain the right to be offensive anyone stirring up hatred against various protected groups will be prosecuted. What this means is that we would no longer be allowed to speak freely in our own homes.
Yousaf had cited some hypothetical examples of private speech that should be criminalised. Yet, Effie Deans pointed out that such instances of criminality are:
already covered by other laws.
True!
Interestingly, Yousaf himself made a speech at Holyrood which many Scots — and other Britons — found objectionable. He complained with escalating anger that white people occupy most of the prominent positions in Scotland. That should come as no surprise since between 94% and 96% of Scots are Caucasian:
Around a year later, on April 15, 2024, the Revd Stu Campbell, author of Wings Over Scotland, noticed that not all of Yousaf’s text for that speech reached the official Scottish parliament transcript. Last month, he wrote to Holyrood to find out why and told the story in ‘The mutability of history’.
Campbell says that the transcript, which he linked to, reads as follows:
That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white.
However, in reality, as can be seen on the video, Yousaf went through a whole list of examples, which I won’t quote here but which you can read on Campbell’s post.
Campbell also remarked on the disagreeable tone of the speech:
He issued a string of sharp, accusatory and exclamatory sentences, each clearly separated by pauses, in an angry manner. What the Report presents reads very differently, like a calm list with no particular inflection.
Tone is of course to SOME degree a matter of personal interpretation (although I doubt any reasonable observer watching the speech either live or on video would doubt or dispute the Cabinet Secretary’s anger), but no amount of personal interpretation justifies material ALTERATION, such as the addition of words to the speech or the combining of multiple sentences into one, in order to better fit that interpretation.
Yousaf displayed biases during his time as Justice Minister, too, according to CaltonJock:
His social media shenanigans on Twitter got him into several scrapes when he was Justice Secretary.
He rushed to slam Rangers football players on Twitter for being filmed supposedly making sectarian chants – a video which was subsequently shown to be a fake, for which Yousaf refused to apologise.
The rush to judgement which was all the more troubling in light of his responsibility for the Scottish prosecution service.
The malicious prosecution of Rangers Football Club Directors was the illegal prosecution of innocent men in Scotland by the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, with taxpayers being hit with a £51million and rising compensation bill with every penny being taken from front-line services.
A senior police officer who abused his power resigned, and a sheriff who abused his power is also resigning. Sturgeon and Yousaf the Cabinet Secretary for Justice remain silent on a scandal that contaminates Scottish justice.
Identity politics
During the 2023 SNP leadership contest, Guido Fawkes did some digging around in Yousaf’s past votes in Holyrood which betray what he was saying on the campaign trail.
On February 22 that year, Guido told us about Yousaf’s absence from a 2014 vote on gay marriage (red emphases his):
Humza Yousaf has become the frontrunner in the SNP leadership race. The Scottish Health Secretary has been quick to present himself as a champion of the LGBT community – in contrast to his nearest rival – and the SNP has lapped it up. In the past, Humza’s support hasn’t always been so forthcoming.
In 2014 Yousaf didn’t turn up for the pivotal vote to legalise gay marriage. He claims this was due to an unavoidable meeting with Pakistan General Consul about a Scot on death row – a meeting he booked 19 days prior, just two days after he was told the date he would need to attend the historic gay marriage vote. Surely unrelated to the fact Glasgow imams, an influential voice within his constituency, opposed the reform.
Guido concluded:
Humza has also previously voiced his support for Imran Khan – the populist former Prime Minister of Pakistan who banned gay dating app grindr. It seems his unequivocal LGBT support only extends as far as it’s politically expedient…
On February 25, Guido posted the reason why Yousaf missed the 2014 vote, which came from Alex Neil, an MSP who remembers, via Times Radio:
We were having a free vote at stage three.. and any minister who wasn’t going to vote for the bill, or we wanted to skip the vote, had to get the permission of the first minister to do so. There was a request from Humza, because, in his words, of pressure he was under from the mosque for him to be absent from the vote. And Alex Salmond, the first minister, gave him permission to do that. And a ministerial meeting was arranged to take place at exactly the same time as the vote in Glasgow to give Humza cover for not being there. Now, I’m not saying Humza was against the bill or anything like that because he wasn’t, he had voted at stage one, but because he had voted in stage one, in his words, he was put under pressure by his words, put under pressure by the leaders of the mosque in Glasgow about the possibility he might vote for it at stage three, and he requested to skip and he was skipped and the meeting was arranged deliberately to give him cover for the timing of the vote. That’s all I’m saying. But the key point is, Kate, on the one hand has been brutally honest to her own cost, brutally honest about what her honest opinion is. Humza I don’t think has been so upfront. And I think he should just be honest, that he skipped a vote and the reasons why he skipped the vote, because I think what people want in this campaign is openness and transparency and honesty. And when I was asked the question, is it true that he skipped the vote, I’ve given the correct answer the true answer, he did skip the vote.
Afterwards, CaltonJock says that Yousaf posted a spurious explanation on Twitter:
“Meeting Pakistan Consul discussing Scot on death row accused under Blasphemy Law not one could/want avoid.” But Mr Ashgar was sentenced to death for blasphemy eight days after the meeting meaning his “death row” status was not known at the time the meeting was set up.
Yousaf’s pandemic as Health Minister
CaltonJock tells us about Yousaf’s time managing the pandemic as Health and Social Care Minister:
He disappointed the public with his response to the Covid pandemic with a botched attempt to grab a headline when he announced that ten children up to the age of nine had been admitted to Scottish hospitals in the previous week “because of Covid”.
Professor Steve Turner, Scotland officer for the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, contradicted him and said that children’s wards were “not seeing a rise in cases with Covid” and added that the children in question had been hospitalised for other reasons.
Yousaf apologised for causing “any undue alarm”.
When the WHO declared Scotland the site of six out of ten European coronavirus hotspots:
The Scottish Government was accused of being ‘missing in action’ after it emerged that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister John Swinney and Yousaf himself were all away on holiday at the time.
Yousaf said he had promised to take his stepdaughter to Harry Potter World, tweeting that: “Most important job I have is being a good father, step-father & husband to my wife and kids”.
Half a million facemasks had to be withdrawn under his tenure because they were past their expiry date:
This represented, conservatively, a possible waste of public funds to the tune of £4.5Million, money that might have been spent on employing 130 nurses for a year.
And there is no hard evidence that a single life has been saved by the use of these masks; in fact, the very lack of PR by politicians or health executives since their unveiling suggests strongly that there have been no patient – or staff – benefits whatsoever.
However, perhaps not all blame can be laid at Yousaf’s feet. Professor Jason Leitch, Scotland’s National Clinical Director, gave some strange advice about mask wearing.
Considering that Scotland had some of the strictest pandemic rules in the UK, Leitch told Yousaf that masks were not needed as long as one was carrying a drink.
On January 23, 2024, The Telegraph reported on what emerged at Britain’s coronavirus inquiry that day:
Mr Yousaf said he knew that he did not have to wear a mask when seated but did not know the rules around whether he needed one when “standing talking to folk”, despite being the health secretary.
Prof Leitch replied: “Officially yes. But literally no one does. Have a drink in your hands at ALL times. Then you’re exempt. So if someone comes over and you stand, lift your drink.”
Jamie Dawson KC, counsel to the inquiry, challenged Prof Leitch that he was advising Mr Yousaf how to avoid the SNP government’s own rules using a “workaround”.
He asked: “If the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care didn’t understand the rules, what chance did anybody else have?”
Prof Leitch said it was a “tricky area” and argued that the advice “follows the rules” as people were allowed to stand and talk without a mask if they were drinking.
However, Mr Dawson said: “You told him to have a drink in his hands at all times whether he was drinking it or not.”
Then there were all the deleted WhatsApp messages from the pandemic months:
Prof Leitch also claimed he did not delete his messages every night as he had told colleagues in a WhatsApp group.
He was shown a message where he said that “WhatsApp deletion is a pre-bed ritual” but told the hearing it was a “slightly flippant” comment …
The inquiry was later shown another message where he urged colleagues to delete messages.
On Sept 30 2020, he told members of a WhatsApp group: “Thanks all…and my usual gentle reminder to delete your chat…particularly after we reach a conclusion. Thanks all…”
He said it was not his intention to avoid messages being obtained under Freedom of Information laws but admitted using the auto-delete function in one group chat.
The Ukranian women
On March 16, 2023, during the SNP leadership campaign, Yousaf met with a group of Ukranian women, refugees in Scotland.
Amazingly, he asked them where the men were. They politely explained that their men were back home fighting the Russians:
The Mail had more on the story:
Ukrainian men who are of military age are largely forbidden to leave the country as the war with Russia continues. This means that the majority of the displaced Ukrainians arriving elsewhere in Europe are women, children or the elderly.
Mr Yousaf told the BBC a number of Ukrainian men were elsewhere in the building when he made the remark. He said in an interview later: ‘They of course were rightly saying to me that for many of them their families are not able to make it, not all of their families are able to make it. I don’t think any of the women were at all offended or upset.‘
But opposition parties tore into the gaffe this afternoon, with Scottish Labour’s deputy leader Jackie Baillie saying: ‘This is further evidence that Humza Yousaf is out of his depth. This is embarrassing.’
The Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton added: ‘From the man who would lead Scotland, this is clumsy and insensitive.
‘Many of these women could have male relatives fighting and dying on the Eastern front, defending not just Ukraine but the free democracies of our world. A worrying lack of awareness on display here.’
Yousaf as SNP leader and First Minister
On Monday, March 27, 2023, Humza Yousaf became SNP leader and Scotland’s First Minister.
Guido gave us the vote tally — a Brexit result of 52% to 48%. Amazing:
Humza Yousaf 52.1%
Kate Forbes 47.9%
Yousaf wins, 52% to 48%. The golden ratio…
Indeed.
That night, Dan Wootton, who was still on GB News, called Yousaf ‘woke’ and ‘useless’ in his editorial (full show available):
Two days later, Yousaf appointed his first cabinet. Guido noted:
Humza has added “NHS Recovery” to the Health Secretary title, presumably to reflect the urgent care it needs after his own tenure leading that department…
SNP issues
The SNP have had an unresolved financial scandal which first came to light a few weeks before the May 2021 election.
Nicola Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, the Party’s executive, was arrested in connection with it on April 5, 2023.
That day, Guido told us that Yousaf had heaped praise on Murrell in the past:
With the news of Peter Murrell’s arrest breaking this morning, spare a thought for Humza Yousaf. Murrell wasn’t just a “proven election winner” for Humza’s party, he was also a “close acquaintance” of the First Minister. Just weeks ago, Yousaf was mulling over plans to keep him in post as the SNP’s exec, saying “anyone that doesn’t want a proven winner on their side, particularly in politics, I think that would be a little bit daft”. Yousaf’s praise for Murrell didn’t end there, he said the arrested SNP chief executive had done “more for our party and our movement than just about anybody else”. Clearly a great loss to the independence cause.
A few days later, Scottish police seized an SNP-owned motorhome vehicle which had been parked at Murrell’s mother’s house for well over a year. The Party had never used it for official purposes.
On April 11, it emerged that the SNP had been without auditors for six months.
Guido told us:
The SNP’s new era of “transparency” and “respect” is off to a roaring start under Humza Yousaf, who today claimed he had no prior knowledge that the party he now leads hasn’t had an auditor for the past six months. The same Humza Yousaf who sat practically an elbow’s length away from Nicola Sturgeon at the cabinet table while this was going on.
Following this morning’s news that Johnston Carmichael mysteriously quit as the SNP’s auditors “round about October“, Yousaf said:
“They resigned last year. I think it was in and and about October last year. But the fact that we don’t have auditors in place is one of the major priorities. You can imagine when I found that out, being the party leader, the party is quickly looking to secure another auditor […] When I learned about the fact that we don’t have an auditor in place, of course I’ve instructed the party to get on with finding another auditor, so we are working very hard to do that […] It’s certainly problematic. I won’t deny that at all.”
He added the situation was “extraordinary“, which is hard to disagree with. Extraordinary as it may be, Peter Murrell is nonetheless still a party member. Despite spending almost 12 hours in police custody last week…
On April 13, Guido posted a quote from Yousaf on the auditor situation; he claimed not to have known about it. Hmm:
Frankly, it would have been helpful to know beforehand…
Then the Party’s treasurer Colin Beattie was arrested in connection with the unresolved financial scandal.
On April 18, Guido reported the following, accompanied by a third-party video:
First Minister Humza Yousaf has spoken publicly for the first time since his party’s Treasurer Colin Beattie was arrested in connection with the SNP finance investigation. Yousaf is about to give a speech outlining his “priorities” for the Scottish government going forward, which he admits have been, erm, undermined somewhat by yet another arrest…
Yousaf said:
It’s clearly a very serious matter indeed, I’ve said already people are innocent until proven guilty… Of course I’m surprised that one of my colleagues has been arrested, but it’s a very serious matter indeed… it’s certainly is not helpful, of course… I’m not going to take away from the fact that the timing of this is far from ideal.
Guido concluded:
Yousaf stressed he does not believe the SNP is a “criminal operation“. This is where we are now. Colin Beattie, like Peter Murrell, still hasn’t been suspended from the party…
And, finally, on matters political, Margaret Ferrier, an SNP MP, had to stand down for violating coronavirus rules at the height of the pandemic. This was a parliamentary decision that was three years overdue; the process is the punishment.
As a result, a by-election took place in her constituency of Rutherglen and Hamilton West, which had a long tradition of voting Labour.
On the day of the by-election, October 5, Yousaf took his frustration out on Douglas Ross, an MP, an MSP and the leader of the Scottish Conservatives. The Presiding Officer demanded an apology from Yousaf.
Guido has the story and the video:
Humza Yousaf is obviously feeling the pressure from today’s Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election. This afternoon the First Minister went on an manic rant at Douglas Ross, accusing the Scottish Conservatives leader of “post-truth […] lies“, and repeatedly refusing to apologise despite the demands of Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone. You can tell that by-election is on a knife-edge…
I know Douglas Ross, despite having three or four or five jobs – I’ve lost count, Presiding Officer – was down at the Conservative Party Conference this week. Or as others have rightly dubbed it, the conspiracy party conference […] His post-truth, his lies about the police service, it simply will not wash here in Scotland.
After three demands for an apology, Yousaf finally relented, claiming he was “happy to apologise to the chamber for any offence“. Which is not quite the personal apology Johnstone demanded…
Yousaf was worried about the SNP holding the seat, and he was right so to be. Labour’s Michael Shanks won.
There’s still a little bit more to the Humza Yousaf story. More on that tomorrow.
On Thursday, April 25, 2024, the coalition government between Scotland’s Scottish National Party (SNP) and Scottish Greens dissolved.
Guido Fawkes reported (red emphases his):
Humza Yousaf has called an emergency cabinet meeting this morning to scrap his governing deal with the Scottish Greens. The SNP agreed to run the government with the Greens, who have seven seats, in 2021 under the Bute House [the First Minister’s stately residence, Edinburgh] agreement. They will now run a minority government with 63 MSPs…
The SNP scrapped its own target to cut emissions by 75% by 2030 to widespread ridicule as the Greens promised a vote to its members on whether to keep the Bute House deal going. Humza Yousaf said this week that SNP members weren’t to be given a say because they “already had a vote” on it years before. Hilarious…
Scottish Green members would have voted overwhelmingly to ditch the SNP while their politicians were still pretty keen to stay in power. Leaving Yousaf with one option…
That day, Scottish Conservatives brought forward a vote of no confidence in Yousaf’s leadership to be debated this week. Scottish Labour raised a similar vote, one in the SNP government.
Guido added:
UPDATE II: The Scottish Greens have signalled they will support the Tories’ motion of no confidence. The end is in sight…
Ultimately, because the coalition was dissolved, the two top Greens, Lorna Slater (a Canadian) and Patrick Harvie, lost their Scottish government roles.
An STV article published that day explained the reason for the collapse of the coalition (bold in the original, purple emphases mine):
The Scottish Greens have attacked Humza Yousaf as “weak and thoroughly hopeless” after he ended the Bute House Agreement in a surprise move on Thursday morning.
Co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater met with the First Minister at Bute House in Edinburgh where they both lost their jobs as government ministers.
In a furious statement, the Greens said the SNP “can’t be trusted” and accused the party of “betrayal”.
Speaking to journalists in Holyrood, Harvie, who served as minister for decarbonising buildings, tenants’ rights and active travel, suggested the SNP would no longer be in government by Christmas.
Let us remind ourselves via this Daily Mail article of Lorna Slater’s lack of interest in the environment. She preferred being driven around by a chauffeur:
After the 2021 Scottish election, the SNP, then under Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership, did not win enough votes for a majority government, hence the coalition with the Greens:
The Bute House Agreement was signed by Nicola Sturgeon and the Green leaders in 2021 and was continued into Yousaf’s premiership.
It saw the two parties agree on a raft of policies, from climate change to housing and gender reforms.
But the scrapping of the 2030 climate targets and the Scottish Government’s reaction to the Cass Report – which prompted the NHS to pause puberty blockers – put the two parties at odds.
The Greens were due to vote on ending the Bute House Agreement in the next month.
The party accused the SNP of selling out future generations by walking away from the deal.
“This is an act of political cowardice by the SNP, who are selling out future generations to appease the most reactionary forces in the country,” co-leader Lorna Slater said.
“Voters deserve better, Scotland deserves better. Scottish Green voters certainly deserve better.
“They have broken the bonds of trust with members of both parties who have twice chosen the cooperation agreement and climate action over chaos, culture wars and division. They have betrayed the electorate.
“And by ending the agreement in such a weak and thoroughly hopeless way, Humza Yousaf has signalled that when it comes to political cooperation, he can no longer be trusted.”
Harvie accused Yousaf of caving in to:
“backwards forces” in his party.
Scottish Labour are no fans of the SNP government, either:
In response to the end of the powersharing deal, Scottish Labour deputy leader Dame Jackie Baillie said: “This chaotic and incompetent Government is falling apart before our eyes.
“Humza Yousaf is too weak to hold his own Government together and he is too weak to deliver for Scotland.”
Everything is going down the pan: schools, NHS waiting lists and drug deaths, to name but a few pressing socio-economic issues.
Here is a full list of SNP failures that someone posted online:
Ahh, everything started out so promisingly on Yousaf’s first night in Bute House, March 28, 2023, when he won the leadership contest:
Six months later, Time put him on the cover as one of their ten ‘trailblazers shaping the future’. You can say that again:
It all depends on what way one considers ‘shaping the future’. For better or for worse?
Certainly, Time has made mistakes before, such as with its 1938 cover boy from Weimar Germany. Josef Stalin also adorned the magazine’s cover twice not so many years afterwards.
Returning to Edinburgh, however, the wheels started coming off Yousaf’s government in the way that he came off his scooter during the pandemic at one point. (Nicola Sturgeon was still First Minister at the time.) He took his scooter to navigate the halls of Holyrood because of a leg injury. The Sun covered what happened one day on his way to a debate:
Over the past weekend, nearly everyone thought that he would resign on Monday, April 29, rather than face a vote of no confidence.
That morning, the BBC reported:
He has arrived at Bute House in Edinburgh, the first minister’s official residence, for a press conference at 12:00.
The SNP leader has been under pressure since he ended a power-sharing deal with the Scottish Greens last week.
Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament had tabled two confidence votes – one in the first minister and another in the SNP government …
He had written to Scotland’s opposition parties asking them to find “common ground” ahead of the confidence votes.
The first minister’s decision to end the Bute House Agreement – the power-sharing deal with the Scottish Greens – followed a backlash over the SNP scrapping 2030 climate targets and gender policies.
The article explained the politics behind Yousaf’s attempt to survive as First Minister:
The SNP has 63 MSPs in the 129 seat parliament. If the seven Green MSPs vote against him, he is reliant on support from sole Alba party MSP [formerly an SNP MSP], Ash Regan, to continue in his role.
Ash Regan had run against Yousaf in the 2023 leadership contest.
It sounded as if talks with Alba, led by former Westminster MP and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, took place at the weekend:
Mr Yousaf, the MSP for Glasgow Pollok, has reportedly ruled out cutting a deal with Alba, a pro-independence party formed by former First Minister Alex Salmond after he broke from the SNP.
Alba’s support would lead to a 64:64 tied vote in which case the presiding officer would be expected to vote to maintain the status quo.
The article went on to say:
The motion of no confidence in him personally is not binding, but if he lost he would come under intense pressure to step down.
If he lost the government vote, MSPs would have 28 days to vote for a new first minister or automatically trigger a Scottish Parliament election.
Scottish Labour has said the motion of no-confidence in the Scottish government would remain tabled even if Mr Yousaf resigns.
Douglas Ross, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said Mr Yousaf had “jumped before being pushed” by the no confidence vote which they had tabled …
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton declined an offer of talks with Mr Yousaf over the weekend and called for him to resign.
And, lo, at noon, Humza Yousaf announced his resignation:
Guido has a video clip of Yousaf’s resignation speech:
However, he is not going anywhere until a leadership contest has taken place.
Guido says:
After a whopping 397 days as First Minister Humza Yousaf is resigning. At least he managed to last over a year, just…
Humza said he “underestimated the level of hurt” he would cause by ending the Bute House agreement in the way he did. What exactly did he expect?
Humza spent the weekend realising he couldn’t do a deal with Salmond and someone else had to try to keep the ship going. Salmond says he was still trying at 7:30 a.m. today. He will remain FM rather than passing to his deputy Shona Robinson until a leadership election is completed. Sturgeon’s deputy John Swinney is keeping tight-lipped…
Another BBC report told us more about the proposed votes of no confidence which, as I understand it, must be debated before MSPs vote on them:
Mr Yousaf had been facing two motions of no confidence this week, one tabled by the Scottish Conservatives in his own leadership as first minister and another from Scottish Labour on the government as a whole.
The timing of the votes has not yet been confirmed by parliament and it was unclear whether Mr Yousaf’s announcement will lead to either being pulled.
Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross told BBC News that Mr Yousaf should have quit with immediate effect and that his party’s motion of no confidence could still go ahead.
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said he would wait to see how the week “plays out” but that the “principle” of his party’s no confidence motion in the government “still stands”.
If it passed, government ministers would be obliged to stand down. Only a simple majority would be required, meaning the number of members voting for would have to be greater than those opposed.
The parliament would then have 28 days to choose a nominee for first minister. If it was unable to do so, the parliament would be dissolved for an election.
The SNP currently have 63 MSPs, meaning they could be defeated if all MSPs from other parties voted against them.
However, the Greens are unlikely to vote against Yousaf or the SNP. They consider that his resignation suffices:
… BBC News understands that the Greens, who have seven seats, will not support either of the no-confidence motions following Mr Yousaf’s statement.
In any event, Humza Yousaf will soon be waving goodbye to the opulent Bute House and returning to Dundee, where he and his wife, a local councillor, live with their children.
It will be interesting to see how the leadership contest unfolds, given that there are no candidates worthy of leadership in the Scottish ‘parliament’, or more accurately, a national assembly. Devolved government of the nations outside of England is yet another Tony Blair initiative gone wrong, no matter what way one cuts it.
Someone online posted the link to a 2016 article from Scotland’s Daily Record, ‘Photographer reveals the gritty pictures of poverty stricken Glasgow too shocking to publish in 1980’.
The article has a selection of photographs from a Frenchman, Raymond Depardon, who was accustomed to visiting war zones. In 1977, he won a Pulitzer Prize for his photographs of Chad.
The thing that struck me was how feminine the girls, the lady with a baby carriage and the older woman looked. By 1980 in the United States, most girls and women were firmly ensconced in trousers. Seeing skirts and dresses shows that, for an American, time did not march on back then as much as it did in the US. Now that much of Western Europe has caught every American trend going, time moves much more quickly on this side of the Atlantic, unfortunately.
Even Glaswegian graffiti in 1980 was pretty basic. Here, again, American taggers had already moved on to elaborate, gang-identified designs, some of which were illegible to the uninitiated.
That year, The Sunday Times commissioned Depardon to chronicle Glasgow in pictures. The paper’s editors refused to publish the photographs. They were too realistic. I’m not sure what they expected to see. After all, it was Glasgow. When I went to Scotland in the Spring of 1978, even then people warned my classmate and me to go to Edinburgh instead, which we did. Every Briton who is 60+ now knew that Glasgow was rough back then.
In 2016, the Barbican Gallery in London put on a retrospective of Raymond Depardon’s photographs, which were also included in his book published that year, Glasgow.
Raymond, who was 73 in 2016, spoke to the Daily Record. Excerpts from the article follow, emphases mine:
The images include three drunks boozing beside a fire, children playing in the street and a poignant shot of a boy crying outside a shop.
… he will never forget the time he spent in a city that shocked and delighted him in equal measure.
He said: “I came to Glasgow twice, once in the autumn of 1980 and once in the spring. I was shocked by the poverty. I wasn’t expecting to find a population in the north of Europe that was so deprived.
“There was also a civil war going on but, unlike in Beirut, there were no other photographers. I was alone on the streets and had no one to talk to about what I had seen. I felt very much like a fish out of water.
“I had spent the last decade covering civil wars and oriental rebellions. On my arrival, I was surprised by the people, the architecture and above all the light. Everything seemed very exotic.
“I worked in Glasgow like I did on the streets of Beirut, without prejudice and despite being shocked by the destitution, I loved every minute. No matter where I went, the people were welcoming and never seemed sad with their lot.”
The photojournalist, who took the official portrait of French president Francois Hollande in 2012, said he would not have got such superb shots without the help of some friendly Glasgow kids.
Although the language barrier was there, Depardon said that the children took him to their play areas — the streets of the city:
“They didn’t understand me but would take me by the hand and trail me around their landmarks. It’s thanks to them that I was able to capture the incredible images.
“Maybe at 38, I was like them, still a child. They didn’t pay me any attention. I was just part of their game.
“My favourite photo is of a little boy who is crying in front of a shutter. It made me think of a Dickens novel.”
He said: “I was sad that my Glasgow photos were never published back in the 80s. I am really proud to be exhibited at the Barbican and I had great pleasure in telling my friends there to choose whichever photos they liked.
“I hope the photos which I happily took 36 years ago will still bring pleasure to those who see them today.”
The acclaimed British author William Boyd, who studied in Glasgow in the 1970s, wrote the foreward to Depardon’s book on the city:
He writes: “When you left the centre of town or the area where the university was, it was very easy to find yourself in a neighbourhood of abject urban poverty and squalor.
“It wasn’t just the manifest decrepitude of the housing or the diminished quality of the goods in the shops – you saw deprivation and desperation etched in the faces of the young and the old.
“As it happens I had been looking at Depardon’s photographs before I returned to Glasgow two weeks ago. The city is largely transformed today from the one that Depardon photographed in the early 1980s.
“The abandoned wharves, shipyards and warehouses of the riverside – Glasgow’s imperial industrial heartland and the source of its wealth – are now landscaped parks and yet, you can turn a corner and this new 21st century city disappears and in its place are the wide rainwashed streets of an older Glasgow.”
I wonder what Boyd would make of Glasgow in 2024, with so many of the big stores in Sauciehall Street and surrounds boarded up. The same, sadly, is true of Edinburgh — and, even sadder, London’s Oxford Street.
I realise that a number of department store chains have gone out of business over the past several years but wonder what that says about us as a society that our high streets are so deserted. Depardon’s photographs from 44 years ago look innocent by comparison.
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 and John MacArthur.
The Semites
21 Sons were also born to Shem, whose elder brother was[a] Japheth; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber.
22 The sons of Shem:
Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram.
23 The sons of Aram:
Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshek.[b]
24 Arphaxad was the father of[c] Shelah,
and Shelah the father of Eber.
25 Two sons were born to Eber:
One was named Peleg,[d] because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.
26 Joktan was the father of
Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 27 Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 28 Obal, Abimael, Sheba, 29 Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.
30 The region where they lived stretched from Mesha towards Sephar, in the eastern hill country.
31 These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.
32 These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Last week’s post gave us more detail on Ham’s sons and his descendants.
Today’s verses introduce Shem’s sons and his descendants.
Japheth was Shem’s elder brother; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber (verse 21).
Matthew Henry’s commentary answers questions that many might have about the wording of the verse (emphases mine):
We have not only his name, Shem, which signifies a name, but two titles to distinguish him by:—
1. He was the father of all the children of Eber. Eber was his great grandson; but why should he be called the father of all his children, rather than of all Arphaxad’s, or Salah’s, etc.? Probably because Abraham and his seed, God’s covenant-people, not only descended from Heber, but from him were called Hebrews; ch. 14 13, Abram the Hebrew. Paul looked upon it as his privilege that he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, Phil 3 5. Eber himself, we may suppose, was a man eminent for religion in a time of general apostasy, and a great example of piety to his family; and, the holy tongue being commonly called from him the Hebrew, it is probable that he retained it in his family, in the confusion of Babel, as a special token of God’s favour to him; and from him the professors of religion were called the children of Eber. Now, when the inspired penman would give Shem an honourable title, he calls him the father of the Hebrews. Though when Moses wrote this, they were a poor despised people, bond-slaves in Egypt, yet, being God’s people, it was an honour to a man to be akin to them. As Ham, though he had many sons, is disowned by being called the father of Canaan, on whose seed the curse was entailed (ch. 9 22), so Shem, though he had many sons, is dignified with the title of the father of Eber, on whose seed the blessing was entailed. Note, a family of saints is more truly honourable than a family of nobles, Shem’s holy seed than Ham’s royal seed, Jacob’s twelve patriarchs than Ishmael’s twelve princes, ch. 17 20. Goodness is true greatness.
2. He was the brother of Japheth the elder, by which it appears that, though Shem is commonly put first, he was not Noah’s first-born, but Japheth was older. But why should this also be put as part of Shem’s title and description, that he was the brother of Japheth, since it had been, in effect, said often before? And was he not as much brother to Ham? Probably this was intended to signify the union of the Gentiles with the Jews in the church. The sacred historian had mentioned it as Shem’s honour that he was the father of the Hebrews; but, lest Japheth’s seed should therefore be looked upon as for ever shut out from the church, he here reminds us that he was the brother of Japheth, not in birth only, but in blessing; for Japheth was to dwell in the tents of Shem. Note, (1.) Those are brethren in the best manner that are so by grace, and that meet in the covenant of God and in the communion of saints. (2.) God, in dispensing his grace, does not go by seniority, but the younger sometimes gets the start of the elder in coming into the church; so the last shall be first and the first last.
Shem had five sons: Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram (verse 22).
MacArthur tells us more, including about some of the men named in the rest of the verses in this chapter, and gives us a preview of what comes in future chapters of Genesis:
Now, verses 22 and following list the sons of Shem. They all settled in the Middle East. Lud, mentioned in verse 22, was the farthest north, up by the Black Sea. Havilah, Ophir, Sheba, and several others were the farthest south. All the way – literally all the way down to the Gulf of Aden at the tip of the Red Sea, when it goes into the Arabian Ocean. I mean this group stretched across the Middle East from north to south. All the way to Lud in the north, all the way to Havilah and Ophir – remember the gold of Ophir? – in the south, and the rest – the bulk of them in the middle, in the land surrounding Canaan to the east. So, all the way to the south, the north, and east of the land of Canaan.
Just a couple of them are mentioned. Elam is mentioned in verse 22, the father of the Elamites. There was a king – we’ll find about him in Genesis 14 – named Chedorlaomer. Remember him? King of Elam invaded Canaan so that the sons of Canaan served the sons of Shem. They didn’t have to wait till the Canaanites were conquered by the Israelites; Chedorlaomer was a Shemite who conquered Canaanites in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis.
And among the allies of Chedorlaomer was this Tidal king of Goiim, the nations [Goyim being the word the Jews use for Gentiles, people of the nations], the Hagoyim, the coastland people from Japheth …
Elamites lived east of Mesopotamia, had their capital in a little place called Susa or Shushan, mixed with the Medes and made up the Persian Empire. You also notice Asshur, father of the Assyrians, conquered by Nimrod. They became racially mixed. You have the name Arphachshad or Arpachshad. He is in the line of Abraham. We’ll see that over in chapter 11, verse 12. Lud, the father of the Lyddians in Asia Minor. Aram, the father of Arameans or Syrians who play a major role in the rest of the Bible history. And by the way, it was the Arameans who developed – guess what language? – Aramaic. A couple of portions of the Bible – Daniel and Ezra – are in Aramaic.
Shem’s son Aram had four sons: Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshek (verse 23). The footnote says that, in Hebrew, Meshek is Mash.
MacArthur points out:
The sons of Aram – Uz. Do you know who lived in Uz? … Job lived in Uz, Job 1:1.
Shem’s son Arphaxad had a son who was worthy of mention, Shelah; Shelah was Eber’s father (verse 24).
Eber had two prominent sons, Joktan and Peleg; Peleg means ‘division’ and was so named because the earth’s peoples were divided at that time (verse 25).
Henry explains the two possibilities lying behind that division:
Because in his days (that is, about the time of his birth, when his name was given him), was the earth divided among the children of men that were to inhabit it; either when Noah divided it by an orderly distribution of it, as Joshua divided the land of Canaan by lot, or when, upon their refusal to comply with that division, God, in justice, divided them by the confusion of tongues [Babel]: whichsoever of these was the occasion, pious Heber saw cause to perpetuate the remembrance of it in the name of his son; and justly may our sons be called by the same name, for in our days, in another sense, is the earth, the church, most wretchedly divided.
Joktan fathered Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah (verse 26), Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah (verse 27), Obal, Abimael, Sheba (verse 28) and Ophir, Havilah and Jobab (verse 29).
They lived in the region from Mesha towards Sephar, in the eastern hill country (verse 30).
These were the sons — and descendants — of Shem by clans and languages, in their territories and nations (verse 31).
Genesis 10 concludes, having covered the families of Noah’s three sons, including Japheth and Ham (see here and here), saying that their respective nations spread out over the earth after the Flood (verse 32).
Next week, we find out how Shem’s family line produced Abram (later Abraham).
Next time — Genesis 11:10-26
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 and John MacArthur.
13 Egypt was the father of
the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, 14 Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.
15 Canaan was the father of
Sidon his firstborn,[a] and of the Hittites, 16 Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, 17 Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, 18 Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites.
Later the Canaanite clans scattered 19 and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon towards Gerar as far as Gaza, and then towards Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, as far as Lasha.
20 These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Last week’s post introduced in more detail the sons and descendants of Ham. Noah put a curse on one of Ham’s sons, Canaan, the father of sorts of the Israelites’ Promised Land, also of the same name.
Today’s verses expand on Ham’s sons and descendants. For those who missed it a few weeks ago, also pertinent to today’s verses is the curse Noah pronounced on his grandson Canaan, Genesis 9:24-29.
Matthew Henry’s commentary tells us (emphases mine):
Observe here, 1. The account of the posterity of Canaan, of the families and nations that descended from him, and of the land they possessed, is more particular than of any other in this chapter, because these were the nations that were to be subdued before Israel, and their land was in process of time to become the holy land, Immanuel’s land; and this God had an eye to when, in the meantime, he cast the lot of that accursed devoted race in that spot of ground which he had selected for his own people; this Moses takes notice of, Deut 32 8, When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
Egypt — one of Ham’s sons — was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites (verse 13) as well as the Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites (verse 14).
John MacArthur says:
… any time you see “im” it’s an ending that means a people. And all those “ims” in verses 13 and 14. They could be “ites” or “ims.” Later he changes to “ites,” but “ites” or “ims,” it’s the same thing; it’s people groups.
Canaan, the bearer of Noah’s — and God’s curse — likely for unbelief, although Scripture does not specify it, was the father of Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites (verse 15), the Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites (verse 16), the Hivites, Arkites, Sinites (verse 17) as well as the Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites (verse 18).
MacArthur emphasises the vast number of clans here:
So, the Canaanites were people who descended from Canaan, but there were all kinds of families of them. All kinds of families.
Later, the Canaanite clans scattered (verse 19).
MacArthur discusses the Hittites:
The Hittites, an interesting people, they had sort of a life of their own. The Hittites – we don’t need to introduce something that’s not important in this text, but in case you’re wondering what happened to the Hittites, they had an empire of their own, which today is in the area of modern Turkey. At the time of Abraham, they were in the land of Canaan, and they were a powerful people. They were still a power a thousand years after Abraham at the time of Solomon.
Are these the same people who had the highly powerful Ottoman Empire, which existed between 1299 and 1922? At varying points in history, that empire spread from as far north as Poland down to Kosovo in the opposite direction. The Ottomans had their defeats, but their empire collapsed only after the First World War with the Turkish War of Independence which lasted between 1919 and 1923. The last sultan, Mehmed VI, left Turkey on November 17, 1922, and the Republic of Turkey was created on October 29, 1923. That was only a little over a century ago.
Then there is the question of which of Noah’s sons’ descendants settled the eastern part of Asia.
MacArthur posits two possibilities.
The first involves the Hittites:
Most of the evidence connects the heritage of Asian people to the descendants of Ham. Perhaps the Hittites who came out of Ham were the ones who populated China. Let me read you just a thought on this. The Hittite Empire endured a long time – as I said, over a thousand years. And there are indications survivors of the Hittite Empire fled into China, that they went into China east of Turkey, moving, migrating on a route which Marco Polo took when he opened a new era of commerce many centuries later. And some say it’s the Hittites who got the name Chitti, which brought to the east the name Cathay, which, of course, is a name associated with the Orient.
And some archeologists say that the Hittites and the Mongols have very similar features: shoes which had toes that turned up, hair in a pigtail, pioneer work in smelting and casting iron, and the domestication of horses. That’s one possibility.
The second involves the Sinites:
The other possibility of the origin of the Asians is from the Sinites. Look at verse 17, at the end of the verse, “Sinite” – S-I-N-I–T-E. When we talk about American-Chinese relations, what do we call those? What do we call them? Sino-American relations. Why do we call them Sino-American relations? Well, the word “sin” – S-I-N – is a common word in the Orient. There is a dynasty – the Sin [Qing] Dynasty. It’s a word that means purebred. Many emperors used Sin as a title. There is the study of China. Do you know what it’s called? Sinology. And so, it is possible that they came from Ham. But I’ll tell you this; they came from Noah’s family. There is a Chinese scholar in the church who keeps giving me lessons in the Chinese language all through the book of Genesis and showing me how the Chinese letters – Chinese letters are really pictures – prove their connection. They have words that are connected that demonstrate in pictures the story of the garden of Eden – the serpent, the tree, Adam, Eve, the whole thing.
One of the ones that’s very interesting, that I just discovered, is the Chinese word for ship – the Chinese figure for ship; it’s not really a word, it’s a figure. The Chinese figure for ship is made of three components – if I had a board; I’d draw it for you – three components. Component number one is a container. Component number two is a person. And they depict a person by a mouth that’s open. Because what distinguishes a person is the ability to communicate, speak.
So, these three figures are all pressed together for the sign of a ship. And one of them is a container; it’s the sign for a container. One is the sign for a person. And the other is the number eight. That’s the Chinese word for ship. A ship is how eight people got in a container and survived. That’s how the Chinese language – and that’s one of hundreds of illustrations; there’s an entire book on this. They take their roots all the way back to the ark. And it’s most likely that they came either from the Hittite strains of Ham, or from their Sinite strains of Ham.
The borders of Canaan — the Promised Land — stretched from Sidon towards Gerar as far as Gaza, and then towards Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, as far as Lasha (verse 19).
That concludes the sons — including descendants — of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations (verse 20).
MacArthur gives us a biblical view of what happens to the Israelites as they laid claim to the land of Canaan:
… out of Egypt they came, they wandered around in that desert south of Israel and east of Israel for 40 years, and they’re ready to go into the land of Israel, that little thin strip of land that we’re so familiar with between Africa and Europe, and Asia to the east, and they were to go in and take possession of that land. After the 40 years of wandering they had been purged, the generation that came out of Egypt had died off, Moses was set apart at that point to be their leader until the time to enter the land, and then the mantle was passed, as you know, to Joshua, and you know the story of them going in, sending spies, the whole time moving in and taking the Promised Land.
Now at that time, that land was called the land of what? Canaan. The land of Canaan. And that is because it was occupied by descendents of Ham through Canaan. Canaanites. And here are the Jews on the brink of going in to take this land. And God had told them go in, take the land, it belongs to you, and kill the people who live there. You are acting as instruments of divine judgment. You need to go in on behalf of God and be the instrument of judgment against the wicked Canaanites. And they were wicked. Vile, idolatress people. Who if not eliminated, would corrupt the Israelites. And as you know the history, the Jews did not eliminate them as God told them to, and they suffered the corruption. Because they didn’t, it cost them ultimately to again to into captivity into Babylon, and lose the glory of their great land.
But here are the Jews on the brink, they’re ready to go in to take this land. Turn to the 15th chapter for a moment of Genesis. And I think it’s important for you to kind of see what’s going on here. Here is where initially the land is promised to the descendents of Abraham, the Jewish people for whom Abraham and those who came after him; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jacob’s name is changed to Israel, and that’s the line of descent that ends up being Jewish people.
But here in the original promise to Abraham that we know as the Abrahamic Covenant, God promises to Abraham and his descendents this land. Let’s pick it up in verse 7 of Genesis 15. God said to Abram as he was called initially, “I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess it.” And he said, “O Lord God how may I know that I shall possess it?” You’re telling me that there’s gonna be a land that I’m going to possess? A great land, in fact a land that extends far beyond the current borders of Israel in its original pledge, that engulfs most of the Middle East, east of Israel.
The Lord made a covenant, seemingly with Abraham but really with Himself:
And when the sun was going down, verse 12, says Moses the writer, “A deep sleep fell upon Abram.” God gave him a divine anesthetic, knocked him out. “And behold terror and great darkness fell upon him.” I mean, he went into a serious coma. They indicate that there was a fear, overwhelming fear, indicative of the presence of God. And God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendents will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years”. God gives him a prophecy that there’s going to be an enslavement of the Children of Israel, the Children of Abraham, for 400 years. Actually, specifically, 430 years they were in Egypt, “But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions”. That’s exactly what God did. The Israelites came out of there with a measure of wealth, delivered from Egypt by, as you know, the ten plagues, the Red Sea parted for them. “As for you, Abram, you shall go to your fathers in peace, you shall be buried at a good old age.” And the fourth generation after the 400 years of captivity, they shall return here. For the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” Here is the land I’m gonna give you, He says to Abram, right here in front of you. You left there, you’ve come here, here’s the land. But I want you to know your descendants are gonna get this land, I’m gonna make a covenant, I’m cutting the pieces right here, to signify the seriousness of this covenant as if to say may I die if I don’t keep the covenant. But I’m telling you, the covenant is not gonna be fulfilled immediately; in the intervening period there’s gonna be a 400-year enslavement. And you’re not gonna be able to come back and take this land, look at this, until the inequity of the Amorite is complete. The Amorite is another word for Canaanite.
I can’t bring you into the land until you can act as my instrument of judgment on an iniquitous people. so from the very beginning, God had pledged to Abram this land. What land is it? Go down to verse 18. “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying ‘To your descendents I have given this land from the River of Egypt, as far as the Great River, the River Euphrates.'” That would be from the Euphrates way at the east, way back in the Iraq/Iran fertile crescent area; we don’t know where the ancient River Euphrates exactly was and where it exactly flowed, to the River of Egypt. Probably not understood to be the Nile, but rather, what has been known in ancient times as Wadde El Orach, the southern border of Judah. “I’m giving you all that land, the land of the Kenite, the Kennezite, the Cadmonite, the Hittite, the Parazite, the Rupham, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Girgashite, the Jebusite; the Jebuse being an ancient name of Jerusalem, and the ancient occupants of God’s city. So all of these people were a part of their whole Canaan culture. But He said I can’t give you the land until the iniquity of these people is full.
We now jump not 420 years later, but closer to 600 plus years later. The 430-year captivity is past, it didn’t come for a while after Abraham as you know, they didn’t go into Egypt in Abraham’s time. They went into Egypt after Abraham and the stories of Joseph are the ones that are linked with Egypt.
So, there’s some time to pass, then there’s 430 years, and now here we are jumping ahead 600 or so years, and the inequity of these people is full. The inequity of the Canaanites, the Amorites meaning Canaanites is full. And God has now brought his people through this equitous trek. Forty years in the wilderness, they stand on the edge of the Jordan to cross and take the land. They’re entitled to it, because God pledged it to Abram.
And to show you how binding the pledge was, I want you to go back to verse 17 for a minute. I think this is one of the most interesting little pieces of insight in the Old Testament. When the sun set, remember now, Abram’s in a coma. Usually when there’s a covenant, you cut the animals, and both parties walk though. Both parties together walk through the dead animals. They’re cutting the covenant, and signifying by walking between the bloody pieces, may such happen to me if I don’t keep the covenant.
But Abram didn’t go through this ritual. He didn’t go through the pieces, God knocked him out. Came about when the sun had set. It was very dark. “And behold there appeared a smoking oven, and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.” Who was that? God, by himself. That’s why we say the Abrahamic Covenant is a unilateral, unconditional covenant made between God and Himself. It’s not dependent on Abraham. It is unilateral, it is a covenant which God makes with Himself. He will give Abram a people. He will give that people the land. That’s His promise.
Going forward in time with the Israelites:
And when they were standing on the edge of the Jordan River looking across at the land, and ready to go take the land, and the surrounding area, the question would immediately come into their mind, what right do we have to this land? The answer: the promise of God to Abram. This is your covenant land. But why should we go in and dispossess the Canaanites? Because their inequity is complete. God has a limit. And you will be his instruments of judgment. But why Canaanites? Well, they would know the answer to that, wouldn’t they … Let’s go back to chapter 9. Because Canaan was the one who was cursed …
That is not to say that the rest of the family weren’t sinners – they were all sinners, of course. But this is a unique curse that shows up in the line of Canaan, ultimately in the Canaanites. And the Canaanites become the enemies of God’s people all through the Book of Genesis. Starting in chapter 11 we’ll see it, all the way to chapter 50. They are the enemies of God’s people. In fact, the sin of the Canaanites was so massive and so great, that it defiled the land. You can read about that, Leviticus 18:28, Joshua 23; their inequity was so great, they had totally defiled the land.
And so this is to help the Jews understand that when they go in, they are acting as the judges of God, or I should say the executioners, bringing out God’s judgment. And what is this specifically, this curse, “…a servant of servants he shall be to his brothers”. A servant of servants he shall be to his brothers. That is, he’s gonna be a slave. He’s gonna be a slave, first of all, to the family of Shem. Because it was out of the family of Shem that Abraham came and the Jews came. These people were wicked.
… if you study the territory of Ham, the territory of Canaan coming from Ham – it included Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities of the Plane. Go down to verse 15, Canaan became the father of Sidon his firstborn, and now you see them develop the Jebusites, Amorite, the Girgashite, the Hivite, the Arkite, the Sinite, the Arvadite, the Zemaritem the Hamathite; afterward the families of the Canaanite were spread abroad, they’re going everywhere extending from Sidon, that’s on the coast of what is now Israel, toward Gerar as far as Gaza on the south, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim – they sweep all the way to Sodom and Gomorrah. That whole area was the area of these people who were the descendents of Canaan. Wicked, wicked people. Corrupt and corrupting. We’ll see that in chapter 13, chapter 15, 18, chapter 19, and particularly in chapter 38 of Genesis.
And they, by the way, interestingly enough, were the people whose lifestyle was characterized by nakedness. When we get to Leviticus chapter 18, if you wanna look it up, I think as I remember, 24 times the issue of uncovering nakedness is mentioned there, and it was part of the lifestyle of the Canaanites. Somehow … that experience of nakedness that occurred with Ham shows up generations later in this immoral pen[chant] for uncovering peoples nakedness; that is for having activities outside of God’s boundaries. God didn’t make them evil; in fact, God waited for centuries, until their evil had reached an intolerable limit. God’s hatred of these sins particularly caused him to ready the Children of Israel to take that land …
And I might just say the promise to Abraham of the land for the people of God is still in place today. It’s still their land, it still belongs to them, and God will see that they receive it.
On that note, a couple of weeks ago, someone posted the following graphic online:
In case the graphic disappears in time, it is a quote from Mossab Hassan Yosef, the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, one of the founders of Hamas.
Mossab Hassan Yosef was no stranger to Israeli jails, yet was appalled by the brutality of Hamas towards their fellow Arabs.
In time, he left his past behind. He became a Christian. He now lives in the United States.
The graphic says that no one knows Hamas or Gaza as well as he does.
Recently, this is what he said about the Hamas-Israeli conflict:
There is no difference between Hamas and the so-called ‘Palestinians’, as the vast majority of them support Hamas … There are no ‘Palestinian People’. There are conflicted tribes, and without Israel as the common enemy, they would kill each other.
It would be interesting to read more about what this man has to say.
Next week we look at Shem’s line, the Semites.
Next time — Genesis 10:21-32
The Fourth Sunday of Easter is April 21, 2024.
Readings for Year B can be found here.
An exegesis for the Gospel, John 10:11-18 (the Good Shepherd), is also available.
The First Reading is as follows (emphases mine):
Acts 4:5-12
4:5 The next day their rulers, elders, and scribes assembled in Jerusalem,
4:6 with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.
4:7 When they had made the prisoners stand in their midst, they inquired, “By what power or by what name did you do this?”
4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders,
4:9 if we are questioned today because of a good deed done to someone who was sick and are asked how this man has been healed,
4:10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead.
4:11 This Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone.’
4:12 There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.”
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
At this point, those assembled in the room for the first Pentecost have received the Holy Spirit, not least the Twelve (Matthias replaced Judas).
Peter and John preached at the temple daily. They also healed a man who was lame from birth (Acts 3:1-10):
The Lame Beggar Healed
3 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.[a] 2 And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple that is called the Beautiful Gate to ask alms of those entering the temple. 3 Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked to receive alms. 4 And Peter directed his gaze at him, as did John, and said, “Look at us.” 5 And he fixed his attention on them, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!” 7 And he took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. 8 And leaping up he stood and began to walk, and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God, 10 and recognized him as the one who sat at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, asking for alms. And they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.
Peter then preached boldly about healing in the name of Jesus Christ and talked about the people’s and the rulers’ denial of the Messiah, calling for Him to be put to death. He also preached about our Lord’s resurrection (Acts 3:14-16):
14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. 16 And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus[c] has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.
As a result, the Jewish hierarchy arrested Peter and John and imprisoned them.
That provides the backdrop to today’s verses.
The next day, the Jewish rulers, elders, and scribes — the Sanhedrin — assembled in Jerusalem (verse 5).
Matthew Henry says they were eager to put a stop to the preaching, the healing and the message about the Resurrection:
… they adjourned it to the morrow, and no longer; for they were impatient to get them silenced, and would lose no time …
The judges of the court. (1.) Their general character: they were rulers, elders, and scribes, v. 5. The scribes were men of learning, who came to dispute with the apostles, and hoped to confute them. The rulers and elders were men in power, who, if they could not answer them, thought they could find some cause or other to silence them. If the gospel of Christ had not been of God, it could not have made its way, for it had both the learning and power of the world against it, both the colleges of the scribes and the courts of the elders.
MacArthur discusses the Sanhedrin:
The scribes, the elders, and the rulers, along with the high priest, made up the Sanhedrin, and the Sanhedrin was the high ruling council of Israel.
This is the Supreme Court of the Jews. And even in the Roman times, they had the right to arrest. It had 70 members, and then the high priest was ex-officio president, so there were 71. And it included the priests and the scribes – you remember the scribes were the ones who were the experts in the law – and the elders, who were from the people. And then it included, in addition, the people from the priestly family, and they were really a motley bunch, to say the least.
MacArthur says that the temple had a rota, a scheduled rotation of priests, so that they served only on certain days. When the days came for a priest to serve, they were his time to shine, as it were:
… there were 24 courses of priests in the Levitical order, and there were so many priests that they divided into 24 courses, and of those courses, only certain priests ministered every week. So, when the priests were ministering in the temple, that meant it was their week, and you waited a long time for your week, and when your week finally came, it was a big deal. And least of all, did you want all of this commotion going on during your week, that you’d waited so long for?
And so here, in the middle of the week of these particular priests, all of this hubbub is going on, and they’re really concerned. This is religious opposition. And remember as I said earlier, persecution of the church often comes from religious groups, still even often from Judaism. All right, second person that we meet is the captain of the temple, the sagan, and this is the head of the temple police. Here is the political opposition. In some parts of the world, there is political opposition against the church.
The other factor in stopping Peter and John was the possibility of falling foul of the Romans governing the city. Rome did not tolerate civil disorder. The Jewish hierarchy had a love-hate relationship with the Romans:
Now, the Roman government was very tolerant, but against disorder publicly, they were merciless. And so, he wasn’t about to get himself in a position where there was a riot, or he would really be in trouble. Then we meet the most important group, and that is the Sadducees. Now, you say, “What are the Sadducees?” Well, within the framework of Israel there were many groups. There were the Pharisees, and there were the Zealots, and so forth, and one interesting group was the Sadducees. Now, we don’t really know where that name comes from; some say from Zadok, but there’s really no way to tell.
But Sadducees were a religious and a political group, so they combined the worst of both in their persecution. They were the power sect in Israel. They were the religious liberals. They were the high priestly family; all the high priests at this point were Sadducees. They were the opposition party to the Pharisees, like the Republicans and the Democrats, with a religious flavor. They were the opposition. Now, the opposition of the Pharisees dominates the gospels, and the opposition of the Sadducees dominates the book of Acts, so both of them get into play.
It’s also very interesting that they were very wealthy. The Pharisees tended not to be wealthy; they tended to be extremely wealthy. They were also the collaborationist party. They were the ones who were always scratching Rome’s back for the mutual scratch, you know. They really didn’t care that much about the common people; they only cared about maintaining the status quo, and keeping their power and their prestige in Israel.
So they maintained a collaborationist attitude with Rome, kept on friendly terms with Rome, in order to maintain their prestige, power, and their comfort. They were a small group, very minority, but were greatly dominant in the political influence of Israel. They didn’t care for anything about religion, other than the fact that it was social custom, and so they were strict liberals. They were strict social religionists.
Among those assembled were Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family (verse 6).
Henry tells us:
The names of some of them, who were most considerable. Here were Annas and Caiaphas, ringleaders in this persecution; Annas the president of the sanhedrim, and Caiaphas the high priest (though Annas is here called so) and father of the house of judgment. It should seem that Annas and Caiaphas executed the high priest’s office alternately, year for year. These two were most active against Christ; then Caiaphas was high priest, now Annas was; however they were both equally malignant against Christ and his gospel. John is supposed to be the son of Annas; and Alexander is mentioned by Josephus as a man that made a figure at that time. There were others likewise that were of the kindred of the high priest, who having dependence on him, and expectations from him, would be sure to say as he said, and vote with him against the apostles. Great relations, and not good, have been a snare to many.
MacArthur has more:
Verse 6 introduces Annas, and you remember Annas, who was the high priest formerly, but had been deposed by the Romans. He was the senior ex-high priest, but he really ran the show. He was the power behind the scenes. In fact, when Jesus was taken in the Garden of Gethsemane in John 18, they immediately took Him to Annas, because Annas was really the power of the whole structure in Israel. He was a Sadducee. Now, he had a son-in-law by the name of Caiaphas, who was Roman-appointed high priest, and he was as bad as Annas was.
Then it says “John, and Alexander.” Now, it’s very difficult to know who they are; there’s no way to know. But it is interesting that Annas did have five sons, one of his sons named Jonathan, and some of the manuscripts read Jonathan instead of John, so it may have been his son. And some say that Alexander is a form of Eleazer, and Eleazer is a known son of Annas. So perhaps they were two sons of Annas, perhaps we’re reading into it; that, we just really don’t know. But anyway, they were of the kindred of the high priest.
They had Peter and John — ‘the prisoners’ — brought before them and asked (verse 7), ‘By what power or by what name did you do this?’
The hierarchy were always concerned about authority, something about which they asked Jesus. Of our two former fishermen, Peter and John, MacArthur says that the head Jews despised them:
Theirs was the prerogative of teaching, and nobody else had the right, and least of all, to walk right in the temple where all of these teachers were, stand up, and teach contrary truth to that truth which they had been teaching. They were really upset because these two were teaching. Who were they to teach? They’re not approved …
… They weren’t versed in Jewish theology. “These guys are not even Jewish theologians,” they said. “They’re ignorant of rabbinic law. They haven’t been to the proper schools. How can they know anything?”
You remember they accused Jesus of the same thing. “Who is He that’s saying all of this? He’s never been to our school. Where’s He getting His information?” And then Jesus answered, “I get it directly from God.” Oh, you know, school is a little extraneous. And secondly, it says not only were they ignorant in terms of Jewish theology, but the second word, ignorant, means that they are commoners; they are not professionals, they are strictly amateurs. “Who are these uneducated amateurs?” That’s exactly what they’re saying.
And to make it even worse, they were from Galilee, which, of course, was the ultimate in despising. And so, they had no right to step into the narrow world of the instructors, and stand up in the very temple, and teach doctrines contrary to their own. And they were mad, because they did not agree with their theology. Now, whenever you stand up in the face of opposition, and you proclaim a truth that they deny, you’re going to get in trouble, and so they were angry. They had every reason to be, from their perspective, because they needed to preserve their own position.
Also:
They “preached through Jesus the resurrection,” but they were preaching Jesus, and that, they hated. They had determined that Jesus was a blasphemer, and here they were back, announcing all over town that Jesus was Messiah, and you all have killed your Messiah. Now, that is not real popular stuff. And you try announcing that today in the midst of a congregation of Jewish people, and you’re going to find some reaction.
Peter proclaimed, “Jesus is Messiah,” and he indicted the whole nation of Israel for missing the Messiah, and he got a reaction. So, they didn’t like that he taught, and they didn’t like what he taught. And thirdly, they didn’t like the resurrection idea. He “preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” He kept announcing that Jesus was alive. Well, that’s a fearful thought. I mean, if they have executed their Messiah, and He’s back alive again, that’s scary for them, because what would hinder Him from moving right out to bring about the vengeance that they would justly deserve?
And let’s be honest enough to think that they knew they were hypocrites. I don’t think they covered that up very well. I’m sure they knew they were hypocrites in their hearts, and they probably took a second thought, and thought, “Well, maybe we did blow it. Maybe we did execute our Messiah. Boy, if we did and He’s alive again, this is bad news. Better to shut these guys up.” Apart from the fact that the Sadducees’ theology did not permit a resurrection, which irritated them to death. And do they didn’t like the fact that they taught, and they didn’t like the truths that they taught, and so they reacted.
MacArthur describes the scene:
Now, they got together in their council and their Sanhedrin, and they brought in Peter and John. Now, this is a tough pill for them to swallow, because they’re still not rid of Jesus, you see. He’s still the issue. Verse 7 says, “And when they had set them in the midst” – now, that’s interesting, because they usually assembled – in the precincts of the temple, there was an inner place called the Hall of Hewn Stones. And they sat in a semi-circle, and they faced the president, who sat out here, and they always stuck the prisoner in the middle.
So, when it says, “They put them in the midst,” that gives you a good idea, even, of the picture of Peter and John standing here, with a semi-circle of the 70, and the president behind them. Now, this is so exciting. Do you know what God had just done? God had just given them the wonderful opportunity to preach to the Sanhedrin. This is a good case of Satan overdoing it. Satan does this all the time. He gets himself into real trouble. By persecution, he opens avenues that are never opened any other way.
Do you know that there was no way that they could have set up an afternoon to present the gospel to the Sanhedrin? There was no way possible to preach to those men, except this way. That’s why I say in the design of God, to submit is the whole key. They submitted, and God put them right where He wanted them. It’s a fantastic thing. God allows them to carry their testimony to the Sanhedrin itself. What an opportunity. And precisely why we must be submissive in persecution.
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, beginning with, ‘Rulers of the people and elders’ (verse 8).
Henry explains:
Peter, who is still the chief speaker, addresses himself to the judges of the court, as the rulers of the people, and elders of Israel; for the wickedness of those in power does not divest them of their power, but the consideration of the power they are entrusted with should prevail to divest them of their wickedness. “You are rulers and elders, and should know more than others of the signs of the times, and not oppose that which you are bound by the duty of your place to embrace and advance, that is, the kingdom of the Messiah; you are rulers and elders of Israel, God’s people, and if you mislead them, and cause them to err, you will have a great deal to answer for.”
Peter put it to the Sanhedrin that they were accusing him of wrong by his doing a good deed to someone who was sick and asking how the healing occurred (verse 9).
Henry says:
He justifies what he and his colleague had done in curing the lame man. It was a good deed; it was a kindness to the man that had begged, but could not work for his living; a kindness to the temple, and to those that went in to worship, who were now freed from the noise and clamour of this common beggar. “Now, if we be reckoned with for this good deed, we have no reason to be ashamed, 1 Pet 2 20; ch. 4 14, 16. Let those be ashamed who bring us into trouble for it.” Note, It is no new thing for good men to suffer ill for doing well.
Peter then gave an abridged sermon encompassing his previous messages: all the people of Israel should know that the man was healed ‘by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead’ (verse 10).
Of the brevity, MacArthur tells us:
Now, apparently in this message, which is only 92 Greek words, it embodies all of the apostolic preaching characteristics.
Henry gives us this analysis:
[2.] He transfers all the praise and glory of this good deed to Jesus Christ. “It is by him, and not by any power of ours, that this man is cured.” The apostles seek not to raise an interest for themselves, nor to recommend themselves by this miracle to the good opinion of the court; but, “Let the Lord alone be exalted, no matter what becomes of us.” [3.] He charges it upon the judges themselves, that they had been the murderers of this Jesus: “It is he whom you crucified, look how you will answer it;” in order to the bringing of them to believe in Christ (for he aims at no less than this) he endeavours to convince them of sin, of that sin which, one would think, of all others, was most likely to startle conscience—their putting Christ to death. Let them take it how they will, Peter will miss no occasion to tell them of it. [4.] He attests the resurrection of Christ as the strongest testimony for him, and against his persecutors: “They crucified him, but God raised him from the dead; they took away his life, but God gave it to him again, and your further opposition to his interest will speed no better.” He tells them that God raised him from the dead, and they could not for shame answer him with that foolish suggestion which they palmed upon the people, that his disciples came by night and stole him away. [5.] He preaches this to all the bystanders, to be by them repeated to all their neighbours, and commands all manner of persons, from the highest to the lowest, to take notice of it at their peril: “Be it known to you all that are here present, and it shall be made known to all the people of Israel, wherever they are dispersed, in spite of all your endeavours to stifle and suppress the notice of it: as the Lord God of gods knows, so Israel shall know, all Israel shall know, that wonders are wrought in the name of Jesus, not by repeating it as a charm, but believing in it as a divine revelation of grace and good-will to men.”
Then Peter said that Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone’ (verse 11).
That is a very familiar line from Scripture, as MacArthur reminds us:
Peter doesn’t back off, and they knew they were spiritual hypocrites, and the lingering fear that perhaps He was Messiah must have begun to eat inside. And then, as if to dig a deeper hole for them, he says this. In verse 11, he quotes Psalm 118:22, right out of their own prophecy.
Because their question was, “Well, if this is the Messiah, He wouldn’t be dead and brought back again. We don’t see that.” And so, he quotes, “This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which has become the head of the corner.” “You know, your own Psalm 118:22 said there would be a stone to be the cornerstone, but the builders would reject it, but it would be brought back to be the head of the corner. That’s a prophecy of the death, resurrection of Messiah. It’s right there. You’ve got it all.”
Buildings had cornerstones. In fact, they’ve found some from the original temple – or one of the temples, I should say – that measures 38 feet in length. They would run up to the corners. They were tremendous things. And one that wasn’t perfect would be thrown away, because everything else would be imperfect all the way up. They had to have a perfect cornerstone. And so the prophecy simply says Jesus will be the cornerstone, but the builders would reject it, thinking it imperfect, but God would bring it back, and make it the corner.
That’s exactly what happened with Jesus. They threw it away. “That’s not our cornerstone.” God raised Him from the dead, and stuck Him right back in, created a new temple – Ephesians 2:20 – the church. And in Matthew 21:42, our Lord even claimed to be that stone. And in Romans 9:31-33, Paul said He was that stone.
Henry gives us superb advice in Christian apologetics:
Probably St. Peter here chose to make use of this quotation because Christ had himself made use of it, in answer to the demand of the chief priests and the elders concerning his authority, not long before this, Matt 21 42. Scripture is a tried weapon in our spiritual conflicts: let us therefore stick to it.
Peter concluded by making a powerful statement: ‘There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved’ (verse 12).
Henry impresses this verse upon us:
We are undone if we do not take shelter in this name, and make it our refuge and strong tower; for we cannot be saved but by Jesus Christ, and, if we be not eternally saved, we are eternally undone (v. 12): Neither is there salvation in any other. As there is no other name by which diseased bodies can be cured, so there is no other by which sinful souls can be saved. “By him, and him only, by receiving and embracing his doctrine, salvation must now be hoped for by all. For there is no other religion in the world, no, not that delivered by Moses, by which salvation can be had for those that do not now come into this, at the preaching of it.” So. Dr. Hammond. Observe here, First, Our salvation is our chief concern, and that which ought to lie nearest to our hearts—our rescue from wrath and the curse, and our restoration to God’s favour and blessing. Secondly, Our salvation is not in ourselves, nor can be obtained by any merit or strength of our own; we can destroy ourselves, but we cannot save ourselves. Thirdly, There are among men many names that pretend to be saving names, but really are not so; many institutions in religion that pretend to settle a reconciliation and correspondence between God and man, but cannot do it. Fourthly, It is only by Christ and his name that those favours can be expected from God which are necessary to our salvation, and that our services can be accepted with God. This is the honour of Christ’s name, that it is the only name whereby we must be saved, the only name we have to plead in all our addresses to God. This name is given. God has appointed it, and it is an inestimable benefit freely conferred upon us. It is given under heaven. Christ has not only a great name in heaven, but a great name under heaven; for he has all power both in the upper and in the lower world. It is given among men, who need salvation, men who are ready to perish. We may be saved by his name, that name of his, The Lord our righteousness; and we cannot be saved by any other. How far those may find favour with God who have not the knowledge of Christ, nor any actual faith in him, yet live up to the light they have, it is not our business to determine. But this we know, that whatever saving favour such may receive it is upon the account of Christ, and for his sake only; so that still there is no salvation in any other. I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me, Isa 45 4.
MacArthur says:
People always say, “Well, you can get saved a lot of ways.” We were in Israel, went up to Haifa, and they’ve got the Bahaism Temple up there, and it has nine doors to God: Muhammadism, Confucianism, Buddhism, every kind of ism there is. And that isn’t true; there aren’t nine doors to God. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father” – what? – “but by Me.” There is no other name. There is no salvation in any other. There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.
And Peter is saying, in effect, “People, if you don’t turn to Jesus, you will be damned. There is no other way.” People always accuse Christians of being narrow. We’re not narrow, friends; any more narrow than the word of God. Unfortunately, the word of God is the most narrow book ever written. It’s always right, and never wrong, and anything that contradicts it is wrong. It is only in His name. They said to them – they said to him, “Who healed that man?” And he said, “Jesus did.” And he uses the same word for healing the man that is used when it says it made him well.
How did you make this – the end of verse 9. “What means he is made well,” is the same word as salvation, and so he does a play on words. This man was physically healed by Jesus, and you’ll never be spiritually healed, unless it’s by Him. He’s the only way. There’s no salvation in any other. The word salvation means deliverance from sin. No other name, no other name. I close with this, very quickly. In February 1959, at the South Pole, 17 men in Operation Deep Freeze Number Four, took their spare time and built a 16-foot-square chapel.
And on that chapel they put a sign, called The Chapel of All Faith. The structure contained an altar, over which they had a picture of Jesus, a crucifix, a Star of David, and a lotus leaf representing Buddha. The inscription on the wall read, “Now it can be said that the earth turns on the point of faith.” An all-faiths altar was recently dedicated at a university – it’s called an inter-religious center – at one of the Midwestern universities. The altar, it revolves. One is for Protestant, one for Catholic, one for Jewish, and then there’s one miscellaneous that’s adaptable to any religion.
That’s just exactly what the Bible says is so wrong. It would have been very easy for Peter and John to have mumbled innocuous platitudes about religion, and won the smiles of all, and the early church would have been immediately acquitted from the world’s hatred by a reasonable, broad-minded, downgrading of Jesus Christ. But not so, not so. This is it. Be submissive, be Spirit-filled, and boldly use it as an opportunity to preach the gospel.
MacArthur has an important message about persecution.
First, the early persecutions were physically brutal and fatal:
The first persecution, for example, broke out under Nero Domitius, the sixth Emperor of Rome, and about the time A.D. 67, which isn’t too long after the church began. And Nero contrived all kinds of punishments for Christians; he sewed some up in the skins of wild animals, and then turned hungry dogs loose on them. He used others, dressed in wax shirts and attached to trees, to be lit as torches in his garden. The next persecution under Domitian was perhaps even more inventive. Christians were imprisoned. They were put on racks, they were seared, they were broiled, they were burned.
They went through scourging, stoning, and hanging. Many were lacerated with hot irons, others thrown on the horns of wild bulls. In the fourth persecution, beginning in about 162 A.D., some Christians were made to walk with already-wounded feet over thorns, nails, sharp shells; some were scourged until their flesh was gone, others were beheaded, and so it went. Under the eighth persecution at Utica, 300 Christians were placed alive around a lime kiln and told that they were to make offerings to Jupiter or be pushed in. Unanimously they refused, and all 300 of them perished in the lime.
Lime, which is used in making traditional (old fashioned) plaster, is a highly caustic substance, so their skin would have been burnt through a chemical reaction. It is horrifying to contemplate.
Secondly, while people in parts of Africa and parts of Asia still undergo shocking physical torture and horrifying deaths for their Christian belief, today’s persecution in the West makes the Church and her followers into laughing stocks instead:
Satan’s persecution, as time has progressed, has become all the more subtle than it was then. It’s not nearly as obvious how it is that Satan persecutes today. And incidentally, today, apparently much more successfully, Satan’s techniques are working. Now, our text records for us the first persecution. This is the beginning of the steady stream of persecution that has gone on since the commencement of the church. In one way or another, the Christian church is always under persecution. It is not always political.
It is sometimes personal. It is sometimes religious. It sometimes comes from illegitimate Christianity. That is the greatest persecutor of evangelical Christianity is probably liberal Christianity, at least in the American situation. In one way or another, then, the church has suffered persecution ever since what we’re going to see in Acts, chapter 4, began at all. And as I said, persecution is subtle today. It’s not what it used to be. Satan usually directs the persecution today not at the physical body, but at the ego.
He directs his persecution at pride, or acceptance, or status, et cetera, and it’s really very effective. He doesn’t threaten the Christian by saying, “If you witness, I’ll cut your head off.” He threatens the Christian by planting within his mind the fact that if you witness you might lose your job, or your status, or somebody might think you’re strange. In these days, persecution has a tremendous effect, in a very subtle way. The form of persecution in the early church made heroes out of those who died.
And it came to be such a normal thing for Christians to die that many Christians developed a martyr complex, and just went around trying to put themselves into positions where they could be martyred. I mean, they wanted to belong, you know? But today, the persecution that comes is more effective; it doesn’t make heroes out of anybody. And it’s a sad thing; while the church today is not being killed physically, the church has succumbed to a kind of living spiritual death …
In fact, by letting them all live in an insipid kind of godless Christianity, he has a greater effect than if he wiped them all out, and had to face the issue again that the seed of the church is the blood of the martyrs. And so, Satan, whose persecution in the past has slaughtered Christians physically, has found it much more effective to kill the church by making it complacent, indolent, fat, rich, socially oriented, and accepted. And insipid, as it’s watered down its theology to accommodate the world; much more effective than if all Christians were boiled in oil.
Now, there are some places in our world where persecution does reign, physical persecution. Even some places here in America. But one way or another, Satan is antagonistic to the church. He persecutes the church. Obviously, and flagrantly, and blatantly physically, or subtly, by the persecution to become involved in the world, to strip off that which offends, in order that you might maintain your prestige, your status, or whatever it is that you desire from your ego. Now, Jesus, in John, chapter 15, warned the church in the statement to His disciples that they might as well expect persecution.
In verse 18 of John 15, we read this: “If the world hate you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own.” You see, that’s why, John says, “Love not the world.” What happens when a Christian falls in love with the system is, the system no longer really is hindered by this guy, they are no longer offended by this guy, and Satan has accomplished a greater persecution than if you had taken that guy and killed him, physically, because he has destroyed his effect. In fact, he has made him a negative …
Peter went on a step further, in 1 Peter 2:21, and said this – and this is an important statement. He, in effect, said we should expect it. “For hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps.” If you confront the world, the world will react violently, one way or another. Now, you may succumb to the persecution of Satan, so that you fiddle out and kind of get laid by the wayside, long before you ever confront the world, because you’re really doing that to save your ego from being persecuted.
But Paul said to Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:12, “You” – pardon me – “Yea, and all that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” Now, that’s a very clear statement. “Yea, and all that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” You say, “Well, you know, I go along, and I don’t suffer persecution.” Read the verse again. “All that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” If you’re not suffering persecution, why aren’t you? Because you’re not living godly in Christ Jesus, just that simple.
If you live the kind of life that God intends you to live in Christ, you will by the very nature of that life butt heads with the world, and when I say world, I mean the system. If you are not suffering some persecution, you have either fallen right into the flow of the system so that they don’t know the difference, or they haven’t discovered yet who it is that you really are; you have hidden it well. But you begin to live openly and godly in the world, and you’re going to bang heads with Satan, and with his establishment.
You begin to confront the world, and the persecution is automatic. Now, we see this in the early church. First of all, it looks so great. You know, we always say, “If you really live a Christian life, the world will be drawn to you.” Sure, they’ll be drawn to the beauty of your person, but as soon as they find out what it is, then, all of sudden, that which draws them to you – unless they come to Christ – turns to be a negative. The early church, for example, in chapter 2 and 3, everything looked real positive.
Chapter 2, the world was amazed at them, and they found favor with all the people, and everything looked great. And all of a sudden, they found out what it was they stood for, and everything shifted gears mighty fast. Now, in chapter 3, you’ll remember that Peter had gone with John to the temple, and there he had healed a lame man. A crowd had gathered together in the courtyard. Peter and John had stood in Solomon’s portico, up off the floor, a little bit, of the courtyard, and he and John had between them the lame man, and Peter began to preach …
That’s the kind of confrontation that brings hostility. But that’s the kind of confrontation that God expects us to be involved in. It is not that kind of a mealy-mouth hiding, in order to protect our ego, our status, and our prestige, and our name among the world. The response to what Peter did was very interesting. Look at verse 4 of chapter 4, and we’ll kind of begin to look at our text. “But many of them who heard the word believed.” Now, that’s what we’re trying to effect. We’re not trying to hide, because if we hide, not only do we not suffer, but nobody gets saved, either; that’s the problem.
Sure, you say, “Well, if I do that, I’m liable to get really messed up.” That’s right. You’re liable to get messed up, and somebody else is liable to get straightened out, and your life is expendable, my friend; so is mine. True? My life is expendable for the sake of somebody else. As soon as I start trying to live to protect my ego, and to protect my status, and to protect my prestige, then my life has become self-centered, and it’s no good to God or to anybody else.
If I’m not willing to confront the world for the sake of the salvation of those in the world, then I don’t have, really, anything to offer God or anybody else, and I’m only kidding myself. Now, it says in verse 4 that “Many of them who heard the Word believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand.” Now, the word was about should be translated came to be five thousand men. That means this is the total of men; at this point, this is the membership roll of the church. This is the male volume, anyway.
And there are two words for men in the Greek, two really most dominant words: anthrōpon or anthrōpos, and that word has to do with man generically, man as a race. Then the other one is andros, or here, ton andrōn, plural. This means man as opposed to female, and it would be best translated males. And so, what it says is this, “And the number of the men came to be,” or “the number of the males came to be five thousand.” That means, in addition to that, they were probably at least another five thousand women, and children.
That’s a large church for such a fast beginning, and you never hear another listing of how many from here on out. It grew so fast from this point, that it got past the possibility of keeping an accurate count. But many believed, and that was the reaction. Now, that was worth the price that Peter paid. It’s always worth the price to confront the world, that God may do His work. If we never confront the world, we’d blow it, because it is to the world that we are sent with the gospel.
You say, “Well, I might lose my job.” Praise the Lord, so lose your job – who cares about your job? I mean, God can handle you. He can provide everything you need, and promises that He will. Now, this doesn’t mean you’re to be a lousy employee, and waste all your time preaching the gospel; you better reread Ephesians. You’re to work like you ought to, and give an honest day’s work for an honest day’s earning. But wherever you are in this world, they ought to know that you stand for Jesus Christ.
Today’s Church in the West also has many lukewarm believers:
If trial – watch it – and persecution on a personal level is God’s way of maturing a Christian – and it is, if you read James 1 – then trial and persecution on a whole church-wide level is God’s way of maturing His whole church, and building it up.
Persecution always results in growth – mark that. That has to be the beginning thing, because that’s your commitment to do what’s right, even if persecution is involved. Persecution results in growth for many reasons. Number one, it strips off all of the dead weight. If you’re a part of a group of people that are having to lay their lives on the line for Jesus Christ, then we’re only going to have people in that group who are willing to do that, right?
And part of the problem of the church today are all the tares that’s sown among the wheat, and the easiest way to get rid of the tares is just to make the wheat pay the price, or make the church pay the price of total discipleship. And the tares will just drop off, because they’re not really that committed, and don’t want to get that involved. And so, as a church is persecuted, it is purified. The waste is stripped off, false believers leave, the strong are left, and God works freely through them.
… In James, chapter 1, you know, he says, “Count it all joy when you fall into trials and temptations.”
That’s a wonderful opportunity to grow. That’s the way you grow, is by going through the test, you see. If we live godly in the world, we will suffer persecution. If we suffer persecution, we ought to be happy, because persecution will make us grow, and it will reach others for Christ, and that’s what we’re all about. True? But somewhere, you’ve got to make the commitment that you’re willing to do that; make your life expendable, rather than to hide and protect yourself. So, we look forward to persecution with great anxiety and great joy, for righteousness’ sake.
… Second principle – in dealing with persecution, be submissive to it – secondly, be filled with the Spirit, verse 8: “Then Peter” – what’s the next word? – “filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them.” Now, you see, the key to anything in the Christian life is the power of the Holy Spirit, right? And Peter at this point has yielded to the Spirit of God. It’s an aorist passive. It indicates, perhaps, that he was already ready, because he was already filled with the Spirit.
… The Spirit – the filling of the Spirit is simply when a believer walks in obedience to the Word and the Spirit, you see. Peter had already taken the steps to be Spirit-filled, because he was obedient. He had preached, and he had submitted as God had brought the persecution, and that was under the control of the Spirit, at that point. That’s why it’s an aorist passive; it had already been done. It is simply submission, is all it is.
Submission to the triune God is the only way to salvation.
May all reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday.
Churchmouse Campanologist 