[go: up one dir, main page]

Forbidden Bible Verses — Leviticus 12

January 20, 2026 in Anglican, Catholic, Protestant | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bible and crossThe 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 from Matthew Henry, John Gill, Bible Hub and Inspired Scripture.

Leviticus 12

Purification After Childbirth

12 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. 5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.

6 “‘And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. 8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtle-doves or two pigeons,[a] one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.’”

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

Last week’s post concluded God’s commands to Moses and Aaron regarding what creatures the Israelites could and could not eat and touch.

We now come to God’s commands concerning childbirth, given only to Moses; Aaron was excluded.

The timing of this is apposite, as February 2 is Candlemas, the 40th day after Christmas, during which we remember Mary’s readmmission to public worship and hers and Joseph’s sacrifice of two birds at the temple in Jerusalem:

February 2 is Candlemas

Jesus presented at the temple (Part 1)

Jesus presented at the temple (Part 2)

Candlemas: the prophetess Anna

The Feast of Candlemas (last day to display Nativity scenes)

It seems unfair that a mother was ceremonially unclean for longer when she gave birth to a daughter than to a son, but our commentators provide reasonable explanations for that difference.

N.B.: Matthew Henry’s and John Gill’s use of the word ‘abortion’ means miscarriage, not wilful termination as we understand the meaning today. Abortion as we understand it today was practised by Gentiles, not by Jews.

Also, this is a difficult passage to discuss, because it appears to denigrate women. I can tell you only what various Bible scholars say. One day, when we are in the kingdom of Heaven, we will understand God’s intentions for His people throughout history in this regard.

The Lord spoke to Moses saying (verse 1) that he should speak to the people of Israel and tell them that if a woman conceives and gives birth to a boy, then she will be unclean for seven days, just as she would be were she menstruating (verse 2).

The KJV renders verse 2 as follows (emphases mine below):

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.  

Of verse 1, John Gill‘s commentary tells us why God delivered these commands after the kashrut, or kosher, ones:

The laws in the preceding chapter were delivered both to Moses and Aaron, but what follows in this only to Moses; but inasmuch as the priest had a concern in it, it being his business to offer the sacrifices required by the following law, it was no doubt given to Moses, to be delivered to Aaron, as well as to the people. R. Semlai remarks, that as the creation of man was after that of the beasts, fowls, fishes, &c. so the laws concerning the uncleanness of men are after those relating to beasts, &c, and they begin with the uncleanness of a new mother, because, as Aben Ezra observes, the birth is the beginning of man …

Gill calls our attention to the uncleanliness that God declared on women when they menstruated, deemed to be an infirmity:

… according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean; the same number of days, even seven, she was unclean on account of childbirth, as she was for her monthly courses, called here an infirmity or sickness, incident to all females when grown up, at which time they were separate from all persons; and the case was the same with a new mother; see Leviticus 15:14.

Both Gill and Henry tell us that those attending the mother after childbirth were also unclean during that time.

They had to separate from the rest of the household, including the father, as Gill tells us:

… she shall be unclean seven days; be separate from all company, except those whose presence is necessary to take care of her in her circumstances, and do what is proper for her, and even these became ceremonially unclean thereby; yea, her husband was not permitted to sit near her, nor to eat and drink with her …

Matthew Henry‘s commentary says:

During these days she was separated from her husband and friends, and those that necessarily attended her were ceremonially unclean, which was one reason why the males were not circumcised till the eighth day, because they participated in the mother’s pollution during the days of her separation.

Orthodox Jews still abide by some of these rules for both menstruation and childbirth, by the way.

Inspired Scripture gives us reasons why God considered women’s reproductive blood unclean under the terms of the Old Covenant. It revolves around Eve’s Original Sin:

Because of original sin, God warned Moses that a woman was ritually unclean for seven days after giving birth to a boy … A woman was also unclean for seven days if there was blood in her menstruation: “When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.” (Lev. 15:19). “Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.” (Lev. 18:1). God reveals through Ezekiel that menstrual blood is also a symbol of sin. Ezekiel used it as a symbol of mankind’s defilement of the land through sin: “Son of man, when the house of Israel was living in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds; their way before Me was like the uncleanness of a woman in her impurity.” (Ez. 36:17). The menstrual bleeding made the woman “ritually unclean” to be in the Temple. This was not equivalent to being “morally unclean”. Why was a woman unclean after giving birth or during her period? To answer this, a believer must understand the symbolism behind blood.

… As a punishment for her sin, God told Eve in the Garden of Eden that He would “multiply” her pain in childbirth, something God never meant to be either bloody or painful: “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’” (Gen. 3:16). Blood symbolizes life (Lev. 17:11). The blood inside the baby gives it life. If blood gives a baby life, the discharge of blood during childbirth symbolizes the penalty of original sin. How could a baby have sinned inside the womb? Because every person is conceived in sin because the original sin: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” (Ps. 51:5). “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned . . ” (Rom. 5:12).

… If the discharged blood symbolizes death or original sin, that blood could not be in God’s presence. The mother was temporarily separated from God by the sin of the discharged blood, even though she had done nothing wrong. The message was that sin of any kind, even unintentional or inherited sin, had to be atoned for before the woman could be in God’s presence. Moreover, there was no way for people to cleanse themselves without God: “Who can make the clean out of the unclean? No one!” (Job 14:4).

This is why no human being can be righteous on his own merits. We do not have any inherent merits in the sight of God and needed His Son to offer the perfect sacrifice for our sins:

Because we were sinful at conception, everyone is sinful before God. There is nothing that believers can do on their own to be righteous: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Ro. 3:23). “Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.” (Ecc. 7:20). “And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for in Your sight no man living is righteous.” (Ps. 143:2). “Can mankind be just before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker?” (Job 4:17). If you think that you can be righteous by being a good person or for your deeds, was Christ’s death on the cross necessary? (Gal. 2:21).

Our commentators discuss miscarriages, which were called ‘abortions’ in that era.

Henry says:

The law here pronounces women lying-in [mothers giving birth] ceremonially unclean. The Jews say, “The law extended even to an abortion, if the child was so formed as that the sex was distinguishable.”

Gill suggests that the law, as God delivered it, did not necessarily pertain to miscarriages, but the Jews interpreted it as doing so:

The Jews from hence gather, that this law respects abortions; that if a woman has conceived and miscarries, eighty one days after the birth of a female, and forty one after a male, she must bring her offering {m}; but the law seems only to regard such as are with child, and proceed to the due time of childbirth, whether then the child is born alive or dead …

God told Moses that, on the eighth day after a male child’s birth, the flesh of that newborn’s foreskin must be circumcised (verse 3).

The eighth day meant that the mother was no longer unclean, as Gill tells us:

… because before that its mother was in her separation and uncleanness, and then was freed from it; and so the Targum of Jonathan.

Gill adds that the calculation of eight days could vary when the Sabbath was involved:

The circumcision of a male child on the eighth day was religiously observed, and even was not omitted on account of the sabbath, when the eighth day happened to be on that, See Gill on “Joh 7:22” see Gill on “Joh 7:23.” It is an observation of Aben Ezra on this place, that the wise men say “in the day,” and not in the night, lo, he that is born half an hour before the setting of the sun is circumcised after six days and a half, for the day of the law is not from time to time.

Inspired Scripture adds a reflection on the numerical importance of the numbers seven and eight in the Bible:

After the seven-day ordination (Lev. 8:35-36), the priest’s duties began on the eighth day (Lev. 9:1). Seven is a number of completeness in the Bible. God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh (Ex. 20:11). The number eight in the Bible symbolizes a new beginning. After the seven-day festival of Tabernacles, the people were together for a holy convocation to celebrate a new beginning on the eighth day (Lev. 23:36). Christ also rose from the dead on a Sunday, the first day of the week or the eighth day (Matt. 28:1). Thus, for a male child to be circumcised on the eighth day, it was a sign of a new beginning with God (Lev. 12:3).

Inspired Scripture reminds us that, even under the Old Covenant, the visible/outward sign of physical circumcision was to be a call for an invisible/inward sign of spiritual circumcision, i.e. avoiding sin:

The child was circumcised on the eighth day because Isaac was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth (Gen. 21:4). The purpose of the circumcision was to symbolize a person’s Covenant with God (Gen. 17:10-11). Although the Covenant was a sign of a person’s relationship with God, it was a sign that no one else could see. God cares more about your inward relationship with Him than any outward signs. Thus, the Jews were told to also circumcise their hearts: “So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.” (Dt. 10:16). God later repeated this obligation when He spoke to the prophet Jeremiah: “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD and remove the foreskins of your heart, men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or else My wrath will go forth like fire and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.” (Jer. 4:4). Paul also explained that the circumcision of the heart was what mattered most: “But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.” (Ro. 2:29). Does your heart show God’s Covenant through your inward desires and hopes? Or, is your Covenant only visible by outward signs that you put on for others to see?

However, the mother’s ceremonial uncleanliness had not been accomplished, even then.

God told Moses that the mother had to continue for another 33 days ‘in the blood of her purifying’ (as if she were still bleeding); ‘she shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed’ (verse 4). 

Henry tells us that this would have been especially challenging for the wife of a priest at that time because she would have been allocated more privileges from the sacrificial meals:

During this time they were only separated from the sanctuary and forbidden to eat of the passover, or peace-offerings, or, if a priest’s wife, to eat of any thing that was holy to the Lord.

Gill says that the Zoroastrians (Persians of that faith) and the ancient Greeks practised a similar separation. Because we know so little about him, Zoraster was thought by some historians to have been Jewish, although that does not explain the ancient Greek practice:

… for though at the end of seven days she was in some respects free from her uncleanness, yet not altogether, but remained in the blood of her purifying, or in the purifying of her blood, which was more and more purified, and completely at the end of forty days: so with the Persians it is said, a new mother must avoid everything for forty days; when that time is passed, she may wash and be purified {n}; and which perhaps Zoroastres, the founder of the Persian religion, at least the reformer of it, being a Jew, as is by some supposed, he might take it from hence:

she shall touch no hallowed thing; as the tithe, the heave offering, the flesh of the peace offerings, as Aben Ezra explains it, if she was a priest’s wife:

nor come into the sanctuary; the court of the tabernacle of the congregation, or the court of the temple, as the same writer observes; and so with the Greeks, a pregnant woman might not come into a temple before the fortieth day {o}, that is, of her delivery:

until the days of her purifying be fulfilled; until the setting of the sun of the fortieth day; on the morrow of that she was to bring the atonement of her purification, as Jarchi observes; See Gill on “Le 12:6.”

Then God gave a different command for the mother giving birth to a girl: ‘if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days’ (verse 5).

Henry indicates that we should be especially happy for the New Covenant, which Jesus Christ established for us:

Why the time of both those was double for a female to what it was for a male I can assign no reason but the will of the Law-maker; in Christ Jesus no difference is made of male and female, Gal 3 28; Col 3 11.

Gill explains the difference in days was because the male child was circumcised and shed his own blood soon after birth whereas the female infant did not yet would mature to menstruate once a month:

… the reason of which, as given by some Jewish writers, is, because of the greater flow of humours, and the corruption of the blood through the birth of a female than of a male: but perhaps the truer reason may be, what a learned man {p} suggests, that a male infant circumcised on the eighth day, by the profusion of its own blood, bears part of the purgation; wherefore the mother, for the birth of a female, must suffer twice the time of separation; the separation is finished within two weeks, but the purgation continues sixty six days; a male child satisfies the law together, and at once, by circumcision; but an adult female bears both the purgation and separation every month.

Gill says that the Jewish practice has since been modified to take into account the customs of where one resides:

The Jews do not now strictly observe this. Buxtorf {r} says, the custom prevails now with them, that whether a woman bears a male or a female, at the end of forty days she leaves her bed, and returns to her husband; but Leo of Modena relates {s}, that if she bears a male child, her husband may not touch her for the space of seven weeks; and if a female, the space of three months; though he allows, in some places, they continue separated a less while, according as the custom of the place is.

Gill then gives us the ancient Greek philosophy on the matter:

According to Hippocrates {q}, the purgation of a new mother, after the birth of a female, is forty two days, and after the birth of a male thirty days; so that it should seem there is something in nature which requires a longer time for purifying after the one than after the other, and which may in part be regarded by this law; but it chiefly depends upon the sovereign will of the lawgiver.

As Christians, we might ask why any of this is pertinent to us apart from the aforementioned Candlemas.

Bible Hub has a homiletic from J A Macdonald, ‘The Purification of the Church’, which discusses the role of the number 40 with regard to Christ’s Bride, states in part (bold in the original):

II. COLLECTIVELY CONSIDERED.

1. The Church is the mother of the children of God.

(1) Every man was intended to be a figure of Christ. The first man was such (Romans 5:14). This privilege is shared by his male descendants (Genesis 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 11:7). So every woman was intended to be a figure of the Church of God (1 Corinthians 11:7-9). The marriage union, therefore, represents the union between Christ and his Church (Ephesians 5:22-32). And the fruit of marriage should represent the children of God (see Isaiah 54:1-8; Isaiah 49:20-23; Galatians 4:25-31).

(2) But all this may be reversed. Men, through perversity, may come to represent Belial rather than Christ. Women may become idolatrous, and represent an anti-Christian rather than a Christian Church. Thus Jezebel, who demoralized Ahab, became a type of those anti-Christian State Churches which demoralize the kings of the nations (see Revelation 2:20-23; Revelation 17.).

2. In her present state she is impure.

(1) Under the Law she was far from perfect. The elaborate system of ceremonial purifications imposed upon her evinced this. Her history and the judgments she suffered go to the same conclusion. The uncleanness of the mother in the text is not an exaggerated picture,

(2) Nor is she perfect under the gospel. The saints are in her. Many of her children have experienced the circumcision of the heart. But many more have only had that which is outward in the flesh. The “tares” – hypocrites and unbelievers – are mingled with the “wheat,” a state of things which is destined to continue “until the harvest” (Matthew 13:30, 39).

3. But she is in the process of her purification.

(1) The first stage in this process was marked by the rite of circumcision. During the time prior to that event, she was in her “separation,” viz. from her husband and friends, and those in necessary attendance upon her were unclean. This indicates the great difference which the cutting off of the Great Purifier of his people makes to the spiritual liberty of the Church (Romans 7:1-4).

(2) Still the period of her uncleanness was extended to forty days from the beginning. Her “separation” terminated on the eighth day, but during the whole period she must not eat the Passover, nor the peace offerings, nor come into the sanctuary (verse 4). These forty days may be presumed to be similar in typical expression to the forty years of the Church in the wilderness before it was fit to enter Canaan (see Deuteronomy 8:2, 16).

(3) In the case of the birth of a female this period of forty days was doubled. This may be designed to show that under the gospel, where the distinction of male and female is abolished (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11), still the wilderness state of the Church is continued. Our Lord was forty days upon earth before he entered into his glory, and in that state represented the state of the Church that is spiritually risen with him, but not yet glorified.

(4) The entrance of the mother into the temple when her purification was perfected represented the state of the Church in heaven (see Ephesians 5:27). The offerings with which she entered showed that her happiness is the purchase of the Redeemer’s passion. Her feasting upon the holy things expressed those joys of the heavenly state elsewhere described as “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7-9). – J.A.M.

Henry says that we should be grateful for God’s allowance of the mother’s purification:

… the exclusion of the woman for so many days from the sanctuary, and all participation of the holy things, signified that our original corruption (that sinning sin which we brought into the world with us) would have excluded us for ever from the enjoyment of God and his favours if he had not graciously provided for our purifying.

Inspired Scripture offers a more optimistic overview of isolation, that of the relationship between mother and her newborn baby:

In the Bible, the number 40 is a number that symbolizes testing: “4 Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed.” (Lev. 12:4). This time of separation was one way to allow for the mother and the child to be isolated and bond together. This time of isolation also protected the child from germs that are ubiquitous in public places.

Inspired Scripture also interprets this as a way for us to bring up young people in faith:

Leviticus Chapter 12 and the parallel verses in the book of Luke are also important because they provide the origin for baby dedications that are used by most churches today. The dedication was not just a symbol between the child and God, it also included the parents and the community of believers. As part of the dedication, believers commit to circumcising the child’s heart by raising the child in God’s Word: “You shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up.” (Dt. 11:19; 4:9-10; 6:7; 31:12-13). “Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Prov. 22:6; Ps. 78:4-6). “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” (Heb. 5:12; Eph. 6:4). Do you know God’s word well enough to teach it? If so, are you teaching God’s Word to your children?

Please do not rely on others — e.g. teachers, whether in religious schools or at Sunday School — to do it, because it will rarely be accomplished as well as it should.

We now come to God’s commands to Moses concerning the necessary animal sacrifices for newborn babies.

The Lord stipulated that the mother, once her purification was complete, ‘whether for a son or for a daughter … shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin offering’ (verse 6).

Not every mother — including her household — could afford sacrificing a lamb, which would have had to be without blemish, therefore, quite expensive. We come to the alternative in verse 8.

Henry explains the reason for the burnt offering, a sacrifice given to honour God (Exodus 29:18), and the sin offering, one of atonement:

A woman that had lain in [given birth], when the time set for her return to the sanctuary had come, was not to attend there empty, but must bring her offerings, v. 6. 1. A burnt-offering; a lamb if she was able, if poor, a pigeon. This she was to offer in thankfulness to God for his mercy to her, in bringing her safely through the pains of child-bearing and all the perils of child-bed, and in desire and hopes of God’s further favour both to her and to the child. When a child is born there is joy and there is hope, and therefore it was proper to bring this offering, which was of a general nature; for what we rejoice in we must give thanks for, and what we are in hopes of we must pray for. But, besides this, 2. She must offer a sin-offering, which must be the same for poor and rich, a turtle-dove or a young pigeon; for, whatever difference there may be between rich and poor in the sacrifices of acknowledgment, that of atonement is the same for both. This sin-offering was intended either, (1.) To complete her purification from that ceremonial uncleanness which, though it was not in itself sinful, yet was typical of moral pollution; or, (2.) To make atonement for that which was really sin, either an inordinate desire of the blessing of children or discontent or impatience under the pains of child-bearing. 

Gill’s painstaking research into the ancient Jewish scholars aligns with Henry’s and gives us another benefit of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on the Cross:

But why a sin offering for childbearing? is it sinful to bear and bring forth children in lawful marriage, where the bed is undefiled? The Jews commonly refer this to some sin or another, that the childbearing woman has been guilty of in relation to childbirth, or while in her labour; and it is not unlikely that she may sometimes be guilty of sin in some way or other, either through an immoderate desire after children, or through impatience and breaking out into rash expressions in the midst of her pains; so Aben Ezra suggests, perhaps some thought rose up in her mind in the hour of childbirth because of pain, or perhaps spoke with her mouth; meaning what was unbecoming, rash, and sinful. Some take the sin to be a rash and false oath: but there seems to be something more than all this, because though one or other of these might be the case of some women, yet not all; whereas this law is general, and reached every new mother, and has respect not so much to any particular sin of her’s, as of her first parent Eve, who was first in the transgression; and on account of which transgression pains are endured by every childbearing woman; and who also conceives in sin, and is the instrument of propagating the corruption of nature to her offspring; and therefore was to bring a sin offering typical of the sin offering Christ is made to take away that, and all other sin; whereby she shall be saved, even in childbearing, and that by the birth of a child, the child Jesus, if she continues in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety, 1 Timothy 2:15 these offerings were to be brought …

Gill gives us detail on where these offerings were brought in later times, once there was a temple:

When the temple was built, these were brought to the eastern gate, the gate Nicanor, where the lepers were cleansed, and new mothers purified {y}.

The mother’s offering of the lamb was to be given to the priest officiating ‘and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her‘, after which the mother would be clean from her flow of blood; God said that this law applied to all mothers regardless of whether the baby was female or male (verse 7).

Gill posits that women should give thanks to God for a good and safe birth, which was much less frequent in his and Henry’s time than it is in ours. Yet, parents can be thankful these days that modern medicine has progressed over the past 150 years:

… though now with the rest of the ceremonial law it is abolished, yet it has this instruction in it; that it becomes women in such circumstances to bring the freewill offerings of their lips, their sacrifices of praise, and in a public manner signify their gratitude and thankfulness for the mercy and goodness of God vouchsafed to them, in carrying them through the whole time of childbearing, and saving them in the perilous hour.

However, God made an allowance for the poor: ‘And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtle-doves or two pigeons,[a] one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean’ (verse 8).

Mary and Joseph could afford only this offering when they presented Jesus at the temple.

This is from the Candlemas reading (Luke 2:22-24):

22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, ‘Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord’[b]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: ‘a pair of doves or two young pigeons’.[c]

For many centuries, Christian women who had given birth stayed at home for a few weeks. When they returned to church in the pre-Reformation era, a short ceremony called the Churching of Women was performed, acknowledging that the mother was able to return to worship in public. Even after the Reformation, the Anglican Communion retained this ceremony, about which you can read more here.

The instructions in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer used in the Church of England state that the mother should bring an offering (e.g. monetary):

The Woman, that cometh to give her thanks, must offer accustomed offerings; and, if there be a Communion, it is convenient that she receive the holy Communion.

Today, the Anglican Churches in North America have a ceremony called Thanksgiving for the Birth or Adoption of a Child. The Church of Ireland, also Anglican, has a similar ceremony.

However, Anglicans are not alone in giving thanks in church for newborns. Britain’s United Reformed Church also has a ceremony, albeit for both parents, called Thanksgiving for the Birth of a Child, in which the parents vow to bring up their baby in the Christian faith. The guidelines state:

Where possible the act of thanksgiving should follow the reading of Scripture and the sermon or another form of proclamation of the Word. It is most appropriate when other children in the congregation are present. The act looks forward to baptism at a point in the future and is therefore not a substitute for baptism.

It is heartening to know that some churches still have the spirit of Leviticus 12 and Luke 2 in mind.

We now leave the rather contentious subject of women and childbirth behind.

Next week we look at God’s commands and advice on skin diseases.

Next time — Leviticus 13:18-23

Second Sunday after Epiphany — Year A — exegesis on the Epistle, 1 Corinthians 1:1-9, part 2

January 18, 2026 in Catholic, Protestant | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Second Sunday after Epiphany is January 18, 2026.

Readings for Year A can be found here.

The exegesis for the Gospel, John 1:29-42, wherein John the Baptist proclaims Jesus as the Lamb of God, is here. Also helpful is this companion piece on our Lord’s calling of the twelve Apostles.

The Epistle is as follows (emphases mine):

1 Corinthians 1:1-9

1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

1:2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1:4 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that has been given you in Christ Jesus,

1:5 for in every way you have been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind

1:6 just as the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among you

1:7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1:8 He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1:9 God is faithful; by him you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Year A Epistles for the next several Sundays will come from St Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians.

Here we have the introduction to the first letter to the congregation in Corinth.

Part 1 of this exegesis provides background from Acts 18, discusses Corinth and covers verses 1 through 3 in light of the Pauline definition of sainthood.

The Corinthians, despite their standing with God through Christ as saints, were deeply sinful people.

Paul needed to call them back to behaving in a holy way.

John MacArthur, in his second of two sermons from 1975 on these verses, says:

… Paul begins the first chapter of Corinthians, verses 1 to 9, by telling them who they are; and he lays down that foundation of “here’s who you are.” Then, from 1:10 clear through the end of chapter 16, he says, “Here’s how to act commensurate with who you are.” Now, Paul, then, in verses 1 to 3, just simply calls them saints. Now, from 4 to 9, he expands what that means. What does it mean to be a saint? What is involved in being a saint?

What is it to be a saint, in terms of what do I receive for it? What are the benefits of being a saint? Now, if you’ve come this morning looking to find out the benefits of Christianity, this is a sales pitch. This is a divine presentation of why you should be a Christian, as opposed to not being one …

They come in verses 4 to 9. Now, there are three dimensions in this, and you have an outline there to follow, and you can look at it as we go. Simple things, but they come in three dimensions, and in three tenses: past, present and future. The benefits of being a saint cover all of the periods of a life: the past, the present, and the future. In the past, there’s grace; for the present, there are gifts; in the future, there are guarantees.

What it boils down to is your past is forgiven, your present is taken care of, and your future is guaranteed. You can’t beat that. That’s the greatest kind of policy there is. Takes care of all the past mistakes, gives you all you need to live in the present, and secures absolutely your future. That’s what Christianity offers. If you want all that, all that’s necessary is for you to be a saint. You say, “Right. How do I be a saint?”

Not by becoming canonized, but by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s what we’re going to talk about. All right, first of all, let’s look at the grace concept, which deals with the past; verse 4 and verse 6.

Paul says that he gives thanks to his God always for the Corinthians because of the grace of God that has been given to them in Christ Jesus (verse 4).

Matthew Henry‘s commentary points out that Paul often wrote his appreciation of the congregations that he shepherded:

Paul begins most of his epistles with thanksgiving to God for his friends and prayer for them. Note, The best way of manifesting our affection to our friends is by praying and giving thanks for them. It is one branch of the communion of saints to give thanks to God mutually for our gifts, graces, and comforts. He gives thanks, 1. For their conversion to the faith of Christ: For the grace which was given you through Jesus Christ, v. 4. He is the great procurer and disposer of the favours of God. Those who are united to him by faith, and made to partake of his Spirit and merits, are the objects of divine favour. God loves them, bears them hearty good-will, and bestows on them his fatherly smiles and blessings.

MacArthur gives us a full definition of what grace is:

“I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God.” The first benefit of being a saint is grace.

And these are aorist verbs: It was given you in Christ Jesus. The idea is some time in the past, at a very point in time, a moment of time – that’s what an aorist verb is, it happens in a moment of time – you were given grace …

So, he says the first benefit of being a saint, “just think of it, people,” he says to the Corinthians, “just think of what you have had. I thank God that you had received the grace of God. At a moment in time in the past, it became yours.” And he refers, of course, to their salvation, the time when they received God’s saving grace. This is the first and most obvious benefit of being a saint. It’s what happened to you when you became a saint. You were saved; you received salvation. It was commensurate with you being a saint.

And he says, “I thank God for this.” Now, notice the term “in Christ Jesus.” This is familiar to Paul, and all blessing and all grace comes when you and I are united in Christ. And again, this is unique with Christianity. This isn’t believing the teaching of Christ; many do that. It isn’t believing about Christ. It is being in Christ. And that is an appropriation of committing myself to Him in total unity by faith. And once I am in Christ, then the grace of God is mine.

Now, what is this grace? I want to look at it for a minute, because it’s so basic to Christianity. I mean, we talk about grace all the time. That’s the name of this place, Grace. That’s a very important thing for us to understand. Now the word grace is charis, a very familiar word, and it was a greeting that people used back in verse three. “Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” That was the familiar Christian greeting.

It’s a lot better than, “Hi, how are you?” And, you know, and we ought to use it. But here, we find the word grace, and it means favor, but it doesn’t mean favor like we think of. We use the word for party favors, and I do So-and-so a favor, and it really is kind of watered down. But the word literally means undeserved, unrecompensed kindness. It means mercy. It is not some little ingratiating act; it is undeserved, unrecompensed kindness.

It is super-magnanimous, for it is undeserved, and it cannot be paid back. Grace always in Scripture has to be a free gift, unearned. Now, let me expand this for a minute. In order for us to understand grace, and saving grace, we need to understand some things. And I think maybe the best way to approach this would be to see three things that can’t coexist with grace, and this will help you to define grace. First of all, any recognition of human guilt cannot coexist with grace.

Now, mark it: grace and guilt cannot go together. Grace must provide for the alleviation of guilt. God cannot say, “I am gracious, and I give you salvation. One false move, and I’ll take it away.” No, that’s not very gracious; that’s just laying a law on us, isn’t it? You see, grace cannot coexist with human guilt. Grace must provide for the elimination of guilt. It has to. Grace is not grace if God says, “I will be gracious unto you if you don’t sin.” That’s no grace.

If grace is withheld from the sinner in the least degree because of his sin, then it isn’t grace. Grace is undeserved, unmerited forgiveness. Grace must allow for sin. Grace can only operate when there’s sin there; if there’s no sin, there’s no grace, right? There’s got to be something to forgive, or grace isn’t grace. And so, what happened? God, knowing that the penalty for sin had to be paid, sent Christ to the cross. And in Romans 3:25 and 26, it says, “Christ died to take care of sin, so that God might still be gracious.”

God had to do with His justice; God had to deal with it. God is a God of justice. He can’t just say, “Well, forget the sin; who cares?” No, no. Because of justice, sin had to be taken care of. Once sin was taken care of in Christ, God could be gracious to sinners, because the price had been paid. So, the cross pays the penalty for all sin. It frees God from the obligation of His justice, and He says, “I will be gracious to you,” and He acts in grace.

Now, watch. Once God acts in grace, grace will never be able to recognize guilt. So, once you are forgiven and have received saving grace, how much guilt do you have? None. Because grace is that, by definition, which overrules guilt. I talked to a Christian this week who is so absolutely distraught with guilt that he cannot even cope with life. He cannot accept forgiveness. He continues to hold himself guilty for things. He is overwhelmed by his sin, and will not recognize the freedom he has in being forgiven of God.

He does not understand what grace is. He may understand it theologically; he doesn’t understand it practically. Grace means there will be no guilt. I forgive you. I will be gracious to you. I know you don’t deserve it. I know you can’t earn it, and I know you can’t pay it back. That’s okay; grace is grace, and grace means you can’t pay it back, and aren’t expected to. How much, then, of a sinner’s sins are forgiven? All of them. Listen, no wonder he thanks God for grace.

Are you thankful for that kind of grace? Are you thankful for the grace that’s forgiven you all your sin, and holds you absolutely guiltless before God for the rest of your eternity? You say, “That’s terrific.” And I say to you, if you’re not a Christian, isn’t it somewhat inviting for God to say to you, “I will cleanse all your sin before My eyes. I will forgive all of it. I will set aside all your guilt. I will hold you blameless and holy forever.” Isn’t that a kind of nice offer?

Well, that’s the first thing that grace can’t coexist with: human guilt – so mark it. When God saved you, He took away all guilt and all sin. Forgiven you all your trespasses for His name’s sake, all of them. Grace reigns in your life. Secondly, grace cannot coexist with human obligation. Grace is not something you have to pay back. Grace is not to be remunerated. You’re not to say, “Well, God was gracious to me and He saved me, and now I’ve got to pay Him back.” You can’t do that.

It was a gift. Can you pay a gift back? No. It’s not a gift if you do. In Romans, chapter 4, it says, “Whatever is earned is not grace.” Grace cannot be reckoned of debt. In other words, when the week is done, or the two-week time, and the guy comes around with a paycheck, and hands you your paycheck, you don’t say, “Oh, my boss, my boss, how gracious you are. Oh, this extended love is beyond me. I thank you, I thank you.” No. No, if the check doesn’t come, you go and say, “Where’s the money?” …

Thirdly, grace cannot coexist with any recognition of human merit. That is, it does not come to the best people. You can’t say, “Well, it’s obvious who the good people are. Look at us who are saved.” You’re no better than anybody else. Neither am I. And that’s wonderful consolation. It wasn’t my goodness that got me here. Aren’t you glad of that? Some of you aren’t too sure about that. Grace cannot exist with human merit. In other words, God didn’t save the good ones …

You did not deserve salvation. Grace doesn’t go with that. Grace is the free, loving forgiveness of God, independent of your deserving it. All of us are vile sinners. “There is none righteous” – Romans 3:10 says – “no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeks after God. The poison of asps is under their lips. They are full of bitterness and cursing.” All men are the same: sinners before God. No, grace cannot coexist with human merit.

You did not earn your salvation. It was only God’s grace. Now, do you see how giving you those three concepts help you to understand what grace is? Just think of it, people, just think of it. When you were saved, grace included the fact that no sin or guilt would ever be held against you the rest of your eternity. When you were saved, you were given the freedom to know that you’d never have to pay that back. That’s His gift. There are no have-tos.

Thirdly, know this: that He saved you even when you did not what? Deserve it. That’s grace. That’s the sum of it. I don’t know about you, but that helps me define it. And I’ll tell you, I can say with Paul, I thank my God for that kind of grace. You know, I’ve been looking at the television, like you have, and I’ve been watching the masses of humanity running, and Vietnam, and Cambodia, and I say to myself, “God, why me? Why me? Why did you do this for me?” …

God saved us, not only to do good works for the world’s sake, but He saved us to pour blessing on us for our sake; to pour out His riches on us forever. And lastly, and most importantly, saving grace is to glorify God. God saved us to be to the praise of His glory. And that’s in so many passages. Ephesians 3, He said, “I saved you that all men might see the mystery, that was hidden in the past.” He says, in Ephesians, “Now, unto Him be glory in the church.”

He says if you let your light shine among men, they’ll glorify your Father who’s in heaven. The Lord saved us, number one, to do good works for the sake of unsaved men; two, to pour out blessings on the sake of believers; three, to give glory to His name, because when we do what is right God is honored. And so, He was gracious for our sake, for the world’s sake, for His sake.

Paul tells the Corinthians that, in every way, they have been enriched in Christ: ‘in speech and knowledge of every kind’ (verse 5).

Henry explains:

He specifies utterance and knowledge, v. 5. Where God has given these two gifts, he has given great capacity for usefulness. Many have the flower of utterance that have not the root of knowledge, and their converse is barren. Many have the treasure of knowledge, and want utterance to employ it for the good of others, and then it is in a manner wrapped up in a napkin. But, where God gives both, a man is qualified for eminent usefulness. When the church of Corinth was enriched with all utterance and all knowledge, it was fit that a large tribute of praise should be rendered to God …

Paul says that, at the same time, the Corinthians also had the testimony of Christ strengthened among them (verse 6).

Henry elaborates, tying in the gifts of speech and knowledge from verse 5 with testimony:

… these gifts were a testimony to the truth of the Christian doctrine, a confirmation of the testimony of Christ among them, v. 6. They were signs and wonders and gifts of the Holy Ghost, by which God did bear witness to the apostles, both to their mission and doctrine (Heb 2 4), so that the more plentifully they were poured forth on any church the more full attestation was given to that doctrine which was delivered by the apostles, the more confirming evidence they had of their divine mission.

MacArthur discusses testimony in line with grace in verse 4:

Look at verse 6. “You have the grace of God given you in Christ Jesus” – when? – “when the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you.” The word confirmed means settled, made steadfast, made solid. How is it that the testimony of Christ is made solid? The word testimony in the Greek is marturion, from which we get the word martyr. It is translated, in Acts 1:8, witness. It’s the same word as witness, and it refers to the gospel.

Look at it there. “Even as the gospel of Christ” – the witness of Christ – “was confirmed in you” – or settled in you, made steadfast in you. It could have reference as well to the apostles, who came and preached, and did signs and miracles to confirm it. But the thing that he’s pointing out is that they accepted it, and it became theirs. It was confirmed, not before you, but where? In you. It was settled in you. It was made solid in you.

And how is it that the gospel of Jesus Christ becomes confirmed in me? It is by what? By faith. It is by believing it. In Acts 20, we find the very same word used, just to give you some verses to support its meaning as referring to the gospel. Acts 20:21: “testifying to the Jews and the Greeks” – and the word testifying is marturion, same word – “and he testified repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. That was the message, the gospel; same term exactly.

Verse 24, Paul says, “I received of the Lord Jesus to testify” – or “to give witness” – “of the gospel of the grace of God.” This term, then, is used to refer to the gospel. In Acts 22:18, again, he says, “They will not receive your marturion concerning me” – your witness, your presentation of the gospel. Chapter 23:11, The Lord says to Paul, “You have given witness of Me” – or “testified of Me” – “in Jerusalem, you will also do it in Rome.”

Same word again. It refers to the preaching of the gospel. So. And it’s used also to refer to that in 2 Timothy 1:8: “Don’t be ashamed of the testimony,” marturion. It’s used in 1 John 5: “And this is the record.” You know, that word record is the word marturion. “This is the witness, that God has given life, and the life is in His Son.” So, the word marturion, used here, refers to the gospel. When the gospel of Christ was settled in you, then that grace was made yours.

So, you have in verse 4 the divine side, in verse 6, the human response. You hear about saving grace and all that it is, and you believed it, and it was settled in your heart. And then the benefit became yours. Saving grace: all sin totally forgiven forever; no guilt ever yours again. What a fantastic thought. And that grace includes the pouring out of riches, and more riches, and more riches, on your life, for now and throughout eternity. That’s the blessings of grace.

And the grace equips you to do good deeds to men. That’s the first benefit of being a saint. Let me give you the second one. The first benefit is past tense, you received grace. Present tense, gifts, verses 5 and 7. Saving grace continues in the present, and it manifests blessings through all the believer’s life. Let’s look at verse 5. This is so great. Just think of what you have in being a believer. “That in everything you are enriched” …

Matthew 11:25, He said, “I have hidden these thing from the wise and prudent, and I’ve given them to the babes.” Second Corinthians 4:6 says that He’s given us “the light of the knowledge of Jesus Christ.” We have truth. We have knowledge. The new man was given to us, and it’s renewed in knowledge. God has committed His truth to us. We know Him, we know the Son, we know the Spirit, we know the revelation, and I’ll tell you something, we need to understand that knowledge.

We need to work with that knowledge. We need to make it ours. Paul prayed to the Lord about the Ephesians. He said, “Oh, I pray that You may give them the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge that they have.” He said the same for the Colossians, in Colossians 1:9 and 10. “That they may have the knowledge of Your will,” he said; that they may get a grip on that. God has given us all knowledge, people, and all we need to do is appropriate it.

He’s given us all utterance; all we need to do is open our mouths. We are gifted. God’s gifts to us, how beautiful. Just think of it; just think of it. You have everything. You have everything. You have been made, according to Colossians 1:12, “Fit for His kingdom.” Can you get a grip on that? You are fit for the kingdom, right now. You have it all. Ephesians 2 says, “All His grace is poured on you.” Peter said, “You have everything pertaining to life and godliness.”

Following on from that point, Paul adds that no Corinthian — or true Christian — is lacking in any spiritual gift as s/he awaits the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ (verse 7), His Second Coming.

Henry says:

… it is no wonder that when they had such a foundation for their faith they should live in expectation of the coming of their Lord Jesus Christ, v. 7. It is the character of Christians that they wait for Christ’s second coming; all our religion has regard to this: we believe it, and hope for it, and it is the business of our lives to prepare for it, if we are Christians indeed. And the more confirmed we are in the Christian faith the more firm is our belief of our Lord’s second coming, and the more earnest our expectation of it.

MacArthur cautions against getting spiritual gifts — charismati — confused with the Charismatic Movement:

I feel that verse 7 has primary reference of the believers to minister to each other. They were adequate to reach the world, and they were adequate to build the church. They lacked nothing. “You come behind in no charismati.” That’s where we get the word charismatic, which is a good word, and it means those who have been given gracious gifts of God to minister to His church. And we reject what is known as the charismatic movement, which is a misconception of the term, but we do not reject the word. It’s a biblical word.

They came behind in nothing. They had everything. Beloved, you’ve got spiritual gifts, every single one of you who are Christians have gifts of the Spirit. It is given to you to minister to the body, and they are adequate to build this church.

… you need to know what your spiritual gifts are, whether you have the gift of teaching, or preaching, or exhortation, or administration, or help, or the gift of giving, or the gift of faith, or whatever it is, that ministers to one another. This is so critical for you. You need to know those gifts … 

… when you were born in Christ, you were made whole, with all the parts. It’s only a matter of exercising those parts until they can function in a mature way. You have everything you need. There is no lack. You are complete in Him. Get it.

Colossians 2:10: “You are complete in Him.” And when a Christian sins, and when a Christian falls into laziness, and when a Christian falls into ineffective service, and when a Christian falls into impurity, it is not because he has a lack of anything. It is because he is not appropriating what he has. You do not need something else. Listen, God has stocked your shelf. You don’t need anything. You have everything for health, and vitality, and growth, and reproduction.

… Just listen to this: what is the benefit of being a saint; what is the benefit of being a Christian? One: grace, which means absolute forgiveness and guiltlessness forever. Two: gifts, so that you can speak the truth to a world that desperately needs to hear it, and so that you can minister to the believers.

… Lastly, I look forward to the coming of Jesus, because it means heaven for me, and I don’t deserve it – but I’ll take it.

So will you, by grace. Isn’t that exciting? It means that I’ll be like Jesus. “When I shall see Him, I shall be like Him.” I don’t deserve that, but oh, what grace. I look for His coming. You say, “You’re kind of gloating, John.” Not gloating – I feel just like John the apostle, in Revelation 10. He took the scroll that represented the title deed to the earth, “and he ate it, and it was sweet in his mouth, and bitter in his stomach.” You know what that meant?

That meant that his view of the coming of Christ was sweet, because of what it would mean for Jesus, and what it would mean for him; and it was bitter, because of what it would mean for the world. Yes, it’s sweet, and yes, it’s bitter, but we hope for His coming; we look for it.

Paul tells the Corinthians — and us — that Christ will strengthen them to the end so that they may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (verse 8), another reference to the Second Coming.

Henry says:

He who had begun a good work in them, and carried it on thus far, would not leave it unfinished. Those that wait for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ will be kept by him, and confirmed to the end; and those that are so will be blameless in the day of Christ: not upon the principle of strict justice, but gracious absolution; not in rigour of law, but from rich and free grace. How desirable is it to be confirmed and kept of Christ for such a purpose as this! How glorious are the hopes of such a privilege, whether for ourselves or others! To be kept by the power of Christ from the power of our own corruption and Satan’s temptation, that we may appear without blame in the great day! O glorious expectation, especially when the faithfulness of God comes in to support our hopes!

MacArthur says the same:

When He comes, He will confirm you; that is, He will settle you, make you steadfast unto the end, “blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The day of the Lord, the day of Christ. This combination term here means the time of Christ’s return. Listen to this: “When Christ returns” he says “you will be confirmed blameless.” Now, get that, people. That is some kind of promise.

… Now, you see, this is positional truth. Blameless. No wonder I’m looking for His coming. I’m going to be declared blameless, and dwell with Him forever in heaven, and be just like Him.

Paul concludes this section on sainthood by pointing out that God is faithful; by Him, we were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord (verse 9).

Henry gives us two other Bible verses along that line, one from St Paul and the other from the Psalms:

He who hath called us into the fellowship of his Son is faithful, and will do it, 1 Thess 5 24. He who hath brought us into near and dear relation to Christ, into sweet and intimate communion with Christ, is faithful; he may be trusted with our dearest concerns. Those that come at his call shall never be disappointed in their hopes in him. If we approve ourselves faithful to God, we shall never find him unfaithful to us. He will not suffer his faithfulness to fail, Ps 89 33.

MacArthur ends his sermon with this:

“Faithful is He that called you, Who also will do it.”

… I’m going to wind up at the judgment throne of the Lord, absolutely holy, and spend eternity with Him in His holy presence. Hey, people, do you know now why Paul said at the beginning of verse 4, “I thank my God?” Those are the benefits of being a saint. They’re offered to you. When the testimony of Christ is settled in your heart by faith, they become yours. I hope our gratitude translates into action. Let’s pray.

Thank you, Father … for what You have done, are doing, and will do, all secured, because faithful is God. In Jesus’ blessed name, the One who saved us, Amen.

May all reading this have a blessed week ahead.

Second Sunday after Epiphany — Year A — exegesis on the Epistle, 1 Corinthians 1:1-9, part 1

January 17, 2026 in Catholic, Protestant | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 comment

The Second Sunday after Epiphany is January 18, 2026.

Readings for Year A can be found here.

The exegesis for the Gospel, John 1:29-42, wherein John the Baptist proclaims Jesus as the Lamb of God, is here. Also helpful is this companion piece on our Lord’s calling of the twelve Apostles.

The Epistle is as follows (emphases mine):

1 Corinthians 1:1-9

1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

1:2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1:4 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that has been given you in Christ Jesus,

1:5 for in every way you have been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind

1:6 just as the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among you

1:7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1:8 He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1:9 God is faithful; by him you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Year A Epistles for the next several Sundays will come from St Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians.

Here we have the introduction to the first letter to the congregation in Corinth.

Paul introduces it by referring to himself by name, adding that he was called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and mentions the Corinthians’ spiritual brother Sosthenes (verse 1).

Those familiar with the New Testament will recall that Sosthenes appears in Acts 18, which gives us a short account of the establishment of the church in Corinth. The following two posts are from my Forbidden — Essential — Bible Verses series:

Acts 18:5-11: Paul, Corinth, Silas, Timothy, election, predestination

Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia to accompany Paul in Corinth.

Most of the Jews in Corinth refused to hear what Paul had to say. So Paul began preaching in Titius Justus’s — the Gaius of 1 Corinthians 1:14 and Romans 16:23 (full name Gaius Titus Justus) — house, next door to the synagogue. (Gaius was a Gentile.) Furthermore, Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, also converted to Christianity — along with his household.

Nonetheless, despite those notable conversions and those of many more Corinthians, Paul was apprehensive. The Lord appeared to him in a vision — not the first — and told him to continue to preach, and boldly.

The Lord told Paul there were many of His own people in Corinth, therefore, Paul had to preach salvation to them. Verse 9 was yet another that indicates election and predestination.

Paul remained in Corinth for 18 months.

Acts 18:12-17 – St Paul, Corinth, Gallio, Sosthenes, tribunal

The Jews in Corinth who disagreed with Paul’s preaching put him before a tribunal, in front of Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, the district Corinth was in.

Being a Roman, Gallio was not interested in a Jewish dispute. At that time, Christianity was seen as a Messianic sect of Judaism.

Gallio said that the Jews would have to resolve the dispute themselves. He ‘drove’ them from the tribunal, which implies that they lingered on to dispute with him and that he would have had to set the lictors — Roman police — onto them.

‘They’ — the mob or the lictors, we don’t know — seized upon Sosthenes, likely to becoming a convert and Paul’s friend mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:1. They beat him up. Gallio ignored them all.

This post has a brief biography of Gallio, a learned and even-tempered man. He was the son of Seneca the Elder and brother of Seneca the Younger. As well esteemed as he was, even by Emperor Claudius — his contemporary — he died by committing suicide.

Thanks to Paul’s preaching, Crispus, the rabbi at the synagogue in Corinth, converted to Christianity (Acts 18:8) along with a number of Corinthian Jews as did his successor Sosthenes (Acts 18:17).

John MacArthur, in one of his sermons from 1975 on these verses, gives us more detail of what happened and Sosthenes’s subsequent role in the Corinthian church:

… so Paul introduces himself, then, by establishing the fact that this is authoritative; that he is God’s man speaking to them. Now, from there he goes on, and he adds another very interesting note at the end of verse 1. “And Sosthenes” – and you see the word brother, so he probably would put it “and brother Sosthenes.”

This is terrific. I mean, you could read right by that, and never understand what that meant. That is absolutely fantastic – “brother Sosthenes.” You say, “What’s he doing in there? Did he write this, too?” No. Paul usually used an amanuensis. Amanuensis is a name for a secretary, but since he’s a man, we’ll call him an amanuensis, okay? It’s better than calling him a secretary; he might not like it. Amanuensis – like just a penman.

Paul would dictate it, and he would write it, and very often Paul, in his letters, would sign with his own signature. Maybe sometimes he wrote the letter himself, but he usually dictated it to an amanuensis. So, here is this guy, Sosthenes, but he never bothers to put the name of the secretary or the amanuensis in the front, unless there’s a very, very good reason. And it is this: Sosthenes isn’t just writing this, he’s agreeing with it. You see, do you get the point?

“Paul and Sosthenes to the church” – hey, he’s in agreement. You say, “So what? I mean, what credibility does that add?” Well, I’ll tell you what credibility it adds. Sosthenes knew the Corinthian situation. You say, “How do you know?” Go back to Acts 18, and see one of the most interesting things that happened in Corinth. Acts 18 records the founding of the church at Corinth by Paul, and we’ll meet Sosthenes. Oh, incidentally, Paul didn’t really get a great reception when he came to Corinth.

As was typical, the Jews threw him out. But what was really typical, after the Jews threw him out, the revival began; and the chief ruler of the synagogue got saved. Verse 8: “Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with his whole house; many Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.” Well, since the chief ruler of the synagogue was saved, they had to get a new one. So, you know who the new ruler was? Sosthenes.

He was the new guy, leading the mob against Paul. He was anti-Paul. Well, they decided they were going to attack Paul, so they got him and dragged him to the judgment seat. Incidentally, this summer when we were in Corinth, we were there at that judgment seat. What an exciting thing to realize what went on there, where they – I mean, they still have the rocks under there, and the whole thing, you know. But anyway, they got Paul over to that – that’s the judgment seat – and they said, “This guy is persuading men to worship God contrary to the law.”

They didn’t say what law – Jewish law, Roman law, whatever. They were trying to get an indictment against him and get rid of him. Gallio was smart, and he just threw the whole thing out of court; just threw them all out. In verse 16: “He drove them from the judgment seat.” Clear the court. And then what happened in verse 17? Some manuscripts say the Greeks beat him, and some manuscripts say the Jews beat him. And who did they beat? “Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue.”

Why would the Greeks beat him? Well, they would have beaten him for taking up Gallio’s time. “Get out of here.” They didn’t like the Jews anyway. You say, “Well, why would the Jews beat him?” The Jews would have beat him because he did such a lousy job of presenting their case that it got thrown out of court, and his own people beat him up. Whoever beat him, he got beaten. Well, what is interesting about this is, here is the leader of the anti-Paul movement being beaten up in 18:17.

By the time Paul writes 1 Corinthians, he says, “brother Sosthenes.” Fantastic. I mean, I’m sure Paul just zeroed in on that guy. What an amazing and marvelous story of conversion, and Sosthenes, having been in on it in Corinth, would have known the situation. So, when he adds Sosthenes’ name, all of a sudden, the people in Corinth say, “Uh oh, he knows us. He lived here. Paul was here a year and a half. This guy’s from this place.” So, it just added some potency to his introduction.

It is worth adding a few explanatory notes about Corinth, which was a bustling port, consequently an important centre of trade, at the time.

MacArthur tells us:

… it was destroyed in 146 B.C., and then it was rebuilt a hundred years later by Caesar – and Caesar populated it with free men from Rome. It was originally populated with Romans, then slaves came, then there were Greeks there who came, and then Jews came. As the trade business boomed, people came from Phoenicia and Phrygia, and so it became a mongrel population, as any trade center would become.

It also became a place of evil. There is a verb in the Greek language, and that verb is korinthiazesthai. It means to corinthianize. You know what that means? It means drunken debauchery and immorality. The name of that city became synonymous with evil, and so the word dropped its capital letter and became a verb for evil. It was a vile city. Every town, every major city, usually had what was called an acropolis.

Have you ever heard of The Acropolis in Athens? There’s a – it’s a mound with buildings on it; you’ve seen pictures of it? Well, that is not really a proper name. Acropolis just means, it’s the Greek word for the high place, and every town had a high place, somewhere to go when a battle came. And there is an Acrocorinthus, there is a high place, just south of Corinth. You look and there’s this huge, 2,000-foot thing, juts up like a great big granite block in the middle of the skyline.

And it was fortified on the top, and on a clear day, they could stand on the top and see Athens, 45 miles away. And it’s usually clear over there – at least at that time of the world, it was – a beautiful area. And so it was a very important area for strategy, for securing the city. The people could be moved up there in the case of a battle, from the city which was below, and all the farm lands that were below. But also on the Acrocorinthus was the temple of Aphrodite.

And Aphrodite was the goddess of love, and their love wasn’t really very ethereal, and it wasn’t very emotional. It was mostly just rotten and vile. Their interpretation of Aphrodite went like this: the temple of Aphrodite had a thousand priestesses who were prostitutes, and every night they came down the hill and plied their trade in the town. Well, that was the worship of the Corinthians. They were a vile, evil people. They had too much money, too much luxury, and too much indulgence.

Paul puts his name at the beginning of the letter so that no one has to scroll through to the end to find out who wrote it. That was the customary practice at that time.

He also stamps his apostolic authority on the letter.

Matthew Henry‘s commentary explains why:

Of the inscription, in which, according to the custom of writing letters then, the name of the person by whom it was written and the persons to whom it was written are both inserted. 1. It is an epistle from Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, to the church of Corinth, which he himself had planted, though there were some among them that now questioned his apostleship (ch. 9 1, 2), and vilified his person and ministry, 2 Cor 10 10. The most faithful and useful ministers are not secure from this contempt. He begins with challenging this character: Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God. He had not taken this honour to himself, but had a divine commission for it. It was proper at any time, but necessary at this time, to assert his character, and magnify his office, when false teachers made a merit of running him down, and their giddy and deluded followers were so apt to set them up in competition with him. It was not pride in Paul, but faithfulness to his trust, in this juncture, to maintain his apostolical character and authority. And, to make this more fully appear, he joins Sosthenes with him in writing, who was a minister of a lower rank. Paul, and Sosthenes his brother, not a fellow-apostle, but a fellow-minister, once a ruler of the Jewish synagogue, afterwards a convert to Christianity, a Corinthian by birth, as is most probable, and dear to this people, for which reason Paul, to ingratiate himself with them, joins them with himself in his first salutations. There is no reason to suppose he was made a partaker of the apostle’s inspiration, for which reasons he speaks, through the rest of the epistle, in his own name, and in the singular number. Paul did not in any case lessen his apostolical authority, and yet he was ready upon all occasions to do a kind and condescending thing for their good to whom he ministered.

MacArthur gives us five reasons for Paul’s reminder to the congregation of his apostolic authority:

Now, this is something that Paul repeatedly did, and there were many reasons why he did this. You do not find the other writers of the New Testament doing this in the way Paul does. Of course, not all of the apostles wrote in the New Testament, but nevertheless, Paul is the one who is continually identifying himself as an apostle. And I think there are some very specific reasons why he does this. He says: “called an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God.”

He identifies his calling to be in identification with Christ and by God’s expressed will. Now, I want you to get this at the very beginning. Paul is not doing this in order to gain self-glory …

He is not saying, “I am apostle, clap for me.” He is saying, “I am an apostle; listen to me. I have authority, and I speak with authority. What I am about to say to you comes from Jesus Christ at the will of God, for therein lies my calling.”

So, it has nothing to do with vanity, it has nothing to do with self-glory; he absolutely and totally disdains self-glory and personal merit. Later on in 1 Corinthians, he says, “I am the least of the apostles. I don’t deserve any of this. I am what I am by the grace of God.” And so, it is not for that reason that he calls himself an apostle – a sent one, an ambassador, an envoy, and a messenger of Jesus Christ. You say, “Then what is the reason?”

Well, I sat down this week, and maybe for the first time, really tried to think through, categorically, why Paul does this in almost every single letter. The only times he doesn’t do it is where he includes another name; where he says, “Paul and Silvanus unto Such-and-such a group.” And wherever there is only his name identified initially, he does call himself an apostle. And I came up with what I think are five reasons that he does this, and I’m just giving them to you for your future reference, as well as now.

He does this, first of all, because of his relation to the twelve. Now, there were originally twelve disciples. One of them was disqualified; his name was Judas. His place was taken, according to Acts 1, by a man named Matthias, and the ranks of the twelve were then completed, filled up. They became the foundation for the early church; they became the authoritarian group. As you come into Acts, chapter 6, it is the apostles that are really running the church.

Even in Acts, chapter 2, the people were studying “the apostles’ doctrine” – that is, the apostles’ teaching. The apostles laid the foundation for the church, and the twelve were known by the church as the authoritative voice of Christ. Now, on top of this, here comes a sort of a Johnny-come-lately by the name of Paul, one who at first introduction to the church was breathing out threatening and slaughter, and killing Christians, and maiming them, and throwing them in to prison, and doing all kinds of things against the church.

He had not lived and walked with Jesus Christ in His pre-death years. He had not seen the resurrected Christ before He ascended into heaven. And the qualifications for an apostle, according to the Scripture – Acts 1 – were that they know Christ in His post-resurrection reality, and that they be specifically and personally and directly chosen by Christ. They had to have seen the resurrected Christ and been called specifically by Him into the apostolate.

That’s the reason we can’t have any apostles today. That’s the reason there couldn’t be any past the biblical ones, because no one since then has seen the living resurrected Christ, and been specifically commissioned by Him. He has ascended into heaven, where He is until He comes again. So, the apostolate has ceased …

And I believe that he states this because of his relation to the twelve, that he might establish the fact that he is in equality with them as a foundational teacher of revelatory truth. Secondly, I believe that he gives himself this title in the Scripture because of his relation to false teachers. He was continually being harassed by false teachers. Teachers would come in, and they would say to the people whom Paul had just taught, “He has no credibility, he has no authority. He is not one of the apostles.”

The Judaizers particularly did this. And Paul was constantly being knocked. He was constantly being persecuted. He was constantly being buffeted around, even by people who claimed to be his friends; at least they were Jews, and he was a Jew. And he answers this, I think, in 1 Corinthians 4:9. He says, “I think that God has set forth us the apostles last, as if it were appointed to death: we are made a spectacle to the world, and angels, and men” …

False teachers are constantly doing this to the apostle, and I believe that one of the reasons that he establishes his apostolate is because he defends himself against those who would discredit him.

Thirdly, I feel that Paul gives himself this title because of his relation to Christ. This has not to do with the false teachers as much as it has to do with the Christians. The Christians – in Jerusalem, at least – were not really sure about Paul; and maybe in many other areas, initially they weren’t too sure about him, either. About whether he had credibility; whether he had a legitimate apostolate.

And one of the reasons I believe he repeats his apostleship statement again and again is in order to ensure the readers that he is equal to the rest of the apostles. Because, you see, they weren’t too sure about it. False teachers had infected them, and given them bad information. You remember when Paul came back to Jerusalem after his third missionary journey, he had to take his life in his hands, because even the Christians were after him? They had heard all kinds of terrible things about him.

Equally had the Galatian Christians been sold a bill of goods about the apostle. And he wants them to know that he is an apostle of Jesus Christ, and he is, in every sense, commissioned by Christ. “I am related to Christ just like the rest.” He said, “I never speak anything that was not given to me of Jesus Christ. I am determined to know nothing” – he says in 2:2 – “among you, except Christ, and Him crucified.” So, because of his relationship to Christ, he says this …

Fourthly, I think he uses this title to express his relationship to the readers themselves. He wants them to know that he has been sent to them; that he is not just an apostle, but he is an apostle – verse 2 – “unto the church of God which is at Corinth.”

His calling was to them. He had been called of God to go to them with the message. In 1 Corinthians 9, he defends this again. He says, “Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not you my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yea, doubtless I am to you: for the seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord.” “Your very church, the fact that it exists after my 18 months of effort, proves that I was sent by God to you.”

So, he states his title again, in order to express that he is related to them as a special messenger from God. Then too, lastly, fifth, I think that he expresses his title to show his relation to God. So, his relation to the twelve, to false teachers, to Christ, to the readers, and lastly, to God. When he says, “I am an apostle by the will of God,” he, in effect, is saying, “What I say to you comes as a delegation from God. God has delegated to me this information to give to you.”

MacArthur adds an interesting fact about the word ‘apostle’:

Now, they understood this. They understood the word apostleship. There was a Jewish supreme court; remember their name? Sanhedrin. They were made up of seventy of the wisest elders of Israel, and they made the decisions regarding every Jew in the world – religious decisions, moral decisions. And when anyone had a problem in any place, they would send that to the highest court, and it would go to the Sanhedrin if it couldn’t be settled at the council of their own synagogue.

And the Sanhedrin would make a judgment, and a verdict on this decision, and then they would dispatch a man to take the verdict back to the community of Jews that had asked for it. That man was called apostolos. He was called an apostle, a sent one, a messenger, an envoy, an ambassador, an agent. And he would be sent back, and he would say to that group, “I speak with the authority of the Sanhedrin. Here is their verdict,” and he would give them the verdict.

Paul is saying, “I am not an independent operator. I come as an envoy from the throne of God, and what I give you are God’s judgments.” You see? So, he is establishing his authority every way possible. From the viewpoint of his relation to the other apostles, the viewpoint of his relation to the readers, the viewpoint to the relation of the false teachers who were knocking him, his relation to Christ, and his relation to God. In every way, he has authority, and he verifies it.

Paul affirms that he is writing to the church of God that is in Corinth, clarifying that the members are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all others elsewhere who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is their Lord as well as the Corinthians’ (verse 2).

Henry elaborates on Paul’s intention for Christian unity in the verse:

The persons to whom this epistle was directed were the church of God that was at Corinth, sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints. All Christians are thus far sanctified in Christ Jesus, that they are by baptism dedicated and devoted to him, they are under strict obligations to be holy, and they make profession of real sanctity. If they be not truly holy, it is their own fault and reproach. Note, It is the design of Christianity to sanctify us in Christ. He gave himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify us to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. In conjunction with the church at Corinth, he directs the epistle to all that in every place call on the name of Christ Jesus our Lord, both theirs and ours. Hereby Christians are distinguished from the profane and atheistical, that they dare not live without prayer; and hereby they are distinguished from Jews and Pagans, that they call on the name of Christ. He is their common head and Lord. Observe, In every place in the Christian world there are some that call on the name of Christ. God hath a remnant in all places; and we should have a common concern for and hold communion with all that call on Christ’s name.

Those who know 1 and 2 Corinthians probably found it amazing at some point to find that Paul calls the congregation saints. They were sinful, including in church.

MacArthur explains the Pauline concept of sainthood, in which all true Christians share:

The term saint in the word of God is simply defined right here in 1 Corinthians, chapter 1, verse 2. If you’ll look at it, we’ll just begin by examining that term. “Under the church of God which is at Corinth; to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” Now, there you have the term saint used to define those who are sanctified in Christ, who call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Anyone made holy in Christ, anyone calling upon His name, that is, any believer, any true Christian, is a saint. You have the right to that title …

Now, Paul begins in this particular portion – just to give you an overview of the first nine verses – by declaring these Corinthians to be saints, which, as we will see, is quite a declaration, when you start looking at the things that characterized their living. But He declares that they are saints, and then proceeds immediately to discuss the benefits of sainthood from verses 4 to 9 …

Now, I think there is a great purpose intended in the mind of the apostle in so doing this. He starts out by stating their identity as saints. The word saint is hagios; in the Greek, it means holy one. They are holy. What is so amazing about this is that the fact is that 1 Corinthians, from really the first chapter in verse 10, clear on out till it’s finished, deals with wrong doctrine and wrong behavior. If you could imagine a doctrinal error or a behavioral moral error in the church, Corinth had it.

They did everything evil, conceivably, that a church could do; and yet he begins by saying to them, “You are saints.” Now, clearly, we must remember something that we’ve distinguished in the past, and that is, there is a very clear difference between your position before God and your practice; between your standing and your state, as they used to call it in the past, and your actual behavior. I am a Christian. I am a saint. I am one who has been made holy before God.

I am, in the eyes of God, as righteous as Jesus Christ; however, I do not always act like it. My standing is defined as holiness, my behavior is defined as unholiness. So, if you don’t understand that distinction, you’ll really never be able to interpret the New Testament, because you’ll get everything confused. The Corinthians were holy. Holy before God because they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, not holy in the way they lived. They had not yet made their life match their position.

They had not yet lived up to who they were.

Paul gives them a benediction — a prayer of blessing — by way of greeting: ‘Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ (verse 3).

Grace and peace from God the Father and God the Son are the two most valuable things a Christian could wish for and receive.

MacArthur says:

“You’re saints, you’re holy.” So having identified them, he gives them a greeting in verse 3, just the common Christian greeting. “Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” That was just the greeting, and I love that greeting. Grace is favor, and peace is its fruits. Grace is the Greek greeting, peace is the Hebrew, shalom – eirēnē in Greek. He says: “You’re saints; therefore you have grace and God’s peace.”

You know, you can’t say that to an unsaved person, can you? You can’t say, “Grace and peace.”

Henry has more:

Of the apostolical benediction. Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. An apostle of the prince of peace must be a messenger and minister of peace. This blessing the gospel brings with it, and this blessing every preacher of the gospel should heartily wish and pray may be the lot of all among whom he ministers. Grace and peace—the favour of God, and reconciliation to him. It is indeed the summary of all blessings. The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace, was the form of benediction under the Old Testament (Num 6 26), but this advantage we have by the gospel, 1. That we are directed how to obtain that peace from God: it is in and by Christ. Sinners can have no peace with God, nor any good from him, but through Christ. 2. We are told what must qualify us for this peace; namely, grace: first grace, then peace. God first reconciles sinners to himself, before he bestows his peace upon them.

I shall continue this exegesis tomorrow, beginning with verse 4.

May all reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Leviticus 11:39-47

January 12, 2026 in Catholic, Protestant | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bible spine dwtx.orgThe 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 from Matthew Henry and John Gill.

Leviticus 11:39-47

39 “And if any animal which you may eat dies, whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening, 40 and whoever eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. And whoever carries the carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening.

41 “Every swarming thing that swarms on the ground is detestable; it shall not be eaten. 42 Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, any swarming thing that swarms on the ground, you shall not eat, for they are detestable. 43 You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, and become unclean through them. 44 For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. 45 For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”

46 This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, 47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.

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

Last week’s post discussed God’s prohibition of the Israelites’ eating ‘swarming things that swarm on the ground’ as well as His commands about unclean situations involving cooking vessels and ovens. Water was clean even if defiled by a proscribed creature falling into it, however, anyone who touched that creature was temporarily unclean. He also gave commands concerning seeds which one of these creatures would have touched.

Here is the full set of dietary laws from Leviticus 11, repeated in Deuteronomy 14:

Leviticus 11:1-8 – God, Moses, Aaron, kashrut law, kosher law, forbidden meats (camel, rabbit, rock badger, hare, pig)

God gives Moses and Aaron commands on clean and unclean meats. The camel, rabbit, rock badger and hare are forbidden, either because of their lesser digestion (as contrasted with that of cattle) or their daily habits (burrowing, indiscriminate eating).

———————————————

Leviticus 11:9-12 – God, Moses, Aaron, kashrut law, kosher law, forbidden seafood (e.g. shellfish, eels, lampreys)

God gives Moses and Aaron commands on clean and unclean creatures from seas and rivers. Anything without fins and scales is forbidden, e.g. shellfish but also eels and lampreys.

———————————————

Leviticus 11:13-23 – God, Moses, Aaron, kashrut law, kosher law, forbidden birds and insects

God gives Moses and Aaron commands on clean (e.g. quail) and unclean birds (hawks) and insects (locusts clean, beetles unclean).

———————————————

Leviticus 11:24-38 – God, Moses, Aaron, kashrut law, kosher law, forbidden swarming creatures on the ground, earthenware vessels, water

God issues Moses and Aaron with commands on forbidden swarming creatures on the ground as well as what constitutes cleanliness and uncleanliness with regard to earthenware vessels and water if one of these creatures falls in it or if someone touches the animal.

In concluding, God makes it abundantly clear what is ‘detestable’, or as the KJV renders it ‘abominable’. This is to reinforce in Moses’s, Aaron’s and the other Israelites’ minds what was to be avoided.

These laws no longer apply under the New Covenant. Yet, at the time, God created the restrictions to keep His people apart from the world, undefiled. Although we do not have to worry about what food we eat, Christians are still obliged to keep themselves apart from sin in the world and to be holy.

God gives Moses and Aaron final commands on food, but this time discusses unclean aspects of clean animals.

He said, ‘And if any animal which you may eat dies, whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening‘ (verse 39).

John Gill‘s commentary explains the nuances involved here (emphases mine):

Any clean beast, as the ox, sheep, goat, deer, &c. what, if rightly killed, is very lawful to eat of; but if it died of itself through any distemper, or was torn by the wild beasts, so the Targum of Jonathan:

he that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the even; not the bones, nerves, horns, hoofs, or skin, as Jarchi observes; these might be handled, because some of them, at least, were wrought up into one instrument or another, by artificers, for use and service, but the flesh of them might not be touched; whoever did touch it was ceremonially unclean, and might not go into the sanctuary, or have conversation with men, until the evening of the day in which this was done.

The way to clean oneself was with water: ‘and whoever eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. And whoever carries the carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening’ (verse 40).

Gill says that if the animal died by means other than by human hands, it was unclean. Furthermore, carrying such an animal was worse than touching it, even though its removal from the camp would have been necessary:

For though it might be eaten, if rightly killed, yet not if it died of itself, or was strangled, or torn to pieces by wild beasts:

shall wash his clothes; besides his body, which even he that touched it was obliged to:

and be unclean until the even; though he and his clothes were washed, and he might not go into the court of the tabernacle, or have any concern with holy things, or conversation with men:

he also that beareth the carcass of it; removes it from one place to another, carries it to the dunghill, or a ditch, and there lays it, or buries it in the earth:

shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; from whence, as before observed by the Jewish writers, uncleanness by bearing is greater than uncleanness by touching, since the former obliged to washing of clothes, not so the latter; so Jarchi here; and yet still was unclean until the evening, though he had washed himself in water, as Aben Ezra notes; and so says Jarchi, though he dips himself, he has need of the evening of the sun.

The Lord then returned to his prohibition of ‘swarming things that swarm on the ground’: ‘Every swarming thing that swarms on the ground is detestable; it shall not be eaten’ (verse 41).

The KJV renders it:

41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

However, Gill says there were exceptions with regard to worms, if found in a sack of pulses, fruits or other non-animal edibles:

Nothing is called a creeping thing, as Jarchi says, but what is low, has short feet, and is not seen unless it creeps and moves: and “every creeping thing” comprehends, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom observe, the eight creeping things before mentioned, Leviticus 11:29 and mention is made of them here, that they might not be eaten, which is not expressed before; and being described as creeping things “on the earth,” is, according to Jarchi, an exception of worms in pease, beans, and lentiles; and, as others observe, in figs and dates, and other fruit; for they do not creep upon the earth, but are within the food; but if they go out into the air, and creep, they are forbidden:

[shall be] an abomination; detested and abhorred as food:

it shall not be eaten; it shall not be lawful to eat such a creature.

Gill gives us a reason for the law against creeping things, mostly the disgusting food upon which they fed:

And indeed such are not fit to eat, and cannot be wholesome and nourishing; for, as a learned physician observes {y}, insects consist of particles exceeding small, volatile, unfit for nourishment, most of them live on unclean food, and delight in dung, and in the putrid flesh of other animals, and by laying their little eggs or excrements, corrupt honey, syrups, &c. see Ecclesiastes 10:1 and yet some sorts of them are eaten by some people.

The Lord made His prohibition even more emphatic: ‘Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, any swarming thing that swarms on the ground, you shall not eat, for they are detestable’ (verse 42).

Gill reminds us of the Lord’s curse on the serpent after Eve ate of the fruit from the tree of knowledge:

Whatsoever goeth upon the belly,…. Jarchi’s paraphrase is, “whatsoever goeth,” as worms and beetles, and the like to them, “upon the belly,” this is the serpent; and to go upon the belly is the curse denounced upon it, Genesis 3:14 this and every such creature are forbidden to be eaten;

Other creeping creatures qualified for prohibition:

… there are others who either have no feet, or what they have so short, that they seem to go upon their belly …

and whatsoever goeth upon [all] four; that is, whatsoever creeping thing; for otherwise there are beasts that go upon all four that are clean and fit to eat; but this is observed to distinguish this sort of creeping things from those that go upon their belly, and from those that have more feet, as in the next clause; Jarchi particularly instances in the scorpion:

or whatsoever hath mere feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth; such as caterpillars, and particularly the Scolopendra, which the eastern people call Nedal; so Jarchi says, this is Nedal, a reptile which hath feet from its head to its tail, called Centipeda; and the Targum of Jonathan is, “from the serpent, to the Nedal or Scolopendra, which has many feet.” Some of then, have seventy two, thirty six on a side, and others eighty four; some fewer, but all have many:

them ye shall not eat, for they [are] an abomination; abominable for food, and to be had in the utmost aversion.

The Lord further reinforced this: ‘You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, and become unclean through them’ (verse 43).

The KJV says:

43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

Gill clarifies that the uncleanliness was temporary:

that ye should be defiled thereby; in a ceremonial sense.

Matthew Henry‘s commentary has more:

This law concerning their food, which seemed to stoop so very low, aimed thus high, for it was the statute-law of heaven, under the Old Testament as well as the New, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. The caution therefore (v. 43) is, You shall not make yourselves abominable. Note, By having fellowship with sin, which is abominable, we make ourselves abominable. That man is truly miserable who is in the sight of God abominable; and none are so but those that make themselves so. The Jewish writers themselves suggest that the intention of this law was to forbid them all communion by marriage, or otherwise, with the heathen, Deut 7 2, 3. And thus the moral of it is obligatory on us, forbidding us to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness; and, without this real holiness of the heart and life, he that offereth an oblation is as if he offered swine’s blood (Isa 66 3); and, if it was such a provocation for a man to eat swine’s flesh himself, much more it must be so to offer swine’s blood at God’s altar; see Prov 15 8.

The Lord then reinforced the necessity of His people becoming holy. The next two verses also apply to Christians, albeit not through food.

God said (bold mine): For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground (verse 44).

Gill says that the Jewish penalty for consumption of some of these creatures was a beating:

… according to the Jewish writers, such transgressions were punishable with stripes. Jarchi observes out of the Talmud {l}, that he that eateth “putitha” (a small water reptile) was to be beaten four times, and if an ant or pismire five times, and if a wasp or hornet six times.

Henry says:

I am the Lord your God, v. 44. “Therefore you are bound to do thus, in pure obedience.” God’s sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, oblige us to do whatever he commands us, how much soever it crosses our inclinations.

The Lord reminded His people Who delivered them from the Egyptians: ‘For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy‘ (verse 45).

Gill explains that God was taking the Israelites to Canaan, the Promised Land, therefore, they had to be holy to live in such a place:

For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt,…. He had brought them out of it, and was now bringing them on in the wilderness towards Canaan’s land, in order to settle them there; and this is observed, to show what obligations they lay under to him to observe his commands; for since he had done such great things for them, it became them to be obedient to him in all things: and the more, since his end herein was, as he observes to them,

to be your God; to make it appear that he was their God, and they were his special people, whom he had chosen for himself above all people upon the earth; that he was their King and their God, to protect and defend them, to provide for them, and take care of them, and bestow all good things on them proper for them:

ye shall therefore be holy, for I [am] holy; separate from all others as he was, living holy lives and conversations, agreeably to his will made known to them, in imitation or him who had chosen and called them to be his people; for, since holiness is his nature, it becomes them who are his house and family, his subjects and people.

Henry gives us a Christian application, which is most useful. When was the last time anyone attending church these days heard that s/he must be holy?

I am holy, v. 44, and again, v. 45. If God be holy, we must be so, else we cannot expect to be accepted of him. His holiness is his glory (Exod 15 11), and therefore it becomes his house for ever, Ps 93 5. This great precept, thus enforced, though it comes in here in the midst of abrogated laws, is quoted and stamped for a gospel precept, 1 Pet 1 16, where it is intimated that all these ceremonial restraints were designed to teach us that we must not fashion ourselves according to our former lusts in our ignorance, v. 14.

The Lord concluded the commands of His dietary laws in the final two verses.

He said, ‘This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground’ (verse 46), ‘to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten’ (verse 47).

Gill points out:

This is a recapitulation of the several laws respecting them, though not in the exact order in which they are delivered in this chapter.

Henry explains that these dietary laws were only temporary as Christ fulfilled the law as a whole for us:

This law was to them a statute for ever, that is, as long as that economy lasted; but under the gospel we find it expressly repealed by a voice from heaven to Peter (Acts 10 15), as it had before been virtually set aside by the death of Christ, with the other ordinances that perished in the using: Touch not, taste not, handle not, Col 2 21, 22. And now we are sure that meat commends us not to God (1 Cor 8 8), and that nothing is unclean of itself (Rom 14 14), nor does that defile a man which goes into his mouth, but that which comes out from the heart, Matt 15 11. Let us therefore, 1. Give thanks to God that we are not under this yoke, but that to us every creature of God is allowed as good, and nothing to be refused. 2. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and take heed of those doctrines which command to abstain from meats, and so would revive Moses again, 1 Tim 4 3, 4. 3. Be strictly and conscientiously temperate in the use of the good creatures God has allowed us. If God’s law has given us liberty, let us lay restraints upon ourselves, and never feed ourselves without fear, lest our table be a snare. Set a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite; and be not desirous of dainties or varieties, Prov 23 2, 3. Nature is content with little, grace with less, but lust with nothing.

Next week we shall read of God’s commands concerning the birth of a boy. As we are approaching Candlemas on February 2, we are reminded that the Holy Family observed the same laws after the Christ Child was born.

Next time: Leviticus 12

First Sunday after Epiphany, the Baptism of the Lord — Year A — exegesis on Psalm 29

January 10, 2026 in Catholic, Protestant | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The First Sunday after Epiphany in which we recall the Baptism of the Lord is January 11, 2026.

Readings for Year A can be found here.

The exegeses for the First Reading, Epistle and Gospel are as follows:

The Psalm is as follows (emphases mine):

Psalm 29

29:1 Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.

29:2 Ascribe to the LORD the glory of his name; worship the LORD in holy splendor.

29:3 The voice of the LORD is over the waters; the God of glory thunders, the LORD, over mighty waters.

29:4 The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty.

29:5 The voice of the LORD breaks the cedars; the LORD breaks the cedars of Lebanon.

29:6 He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox.

29:7 The voice of the LORD flashes forth flames of fire.

29:8 The voice of the LORD shakes the wilderness; the LORD shakes the wilderness of Kadesh.

29:9 The voice of the LORD causes the oaks to whirl, and strips the forest bare; and in his temple all say, “Glory!”

29:10 The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD sits enthroned as king forever.

29:11 May the LORD give strength to his people! May the LORD bless his people with peace!

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry, John Gill and Bible Hub.

Who among us has not been startled by a loud clap of thunder apparently coming from nowhere, not to mention the frequent bursts of lightning which so often accompany it?

Yet, David marvelled at such natural phenomena, understanding God’s glory in them, as Matthew Henry‘s commentary tells us:

It is the probable conjecture of some very good interpreters that David penned this psalm upon occasion, and just at the time, of a great storm of thunder, lightning, and rain, as the eighth psalm was his meditation in a moon-light night and the nineteenth in a sunny morning. It is good to take occasion from the sensible operations of God’s power in the kingdom of nature to give glory to him. So composed was David, and so cheerful, even in a dreadful tempest, when others trembled, that then he penned this psalm; for, “though the earth be removed, yet will we not fear.” I. He calls upon the great ones of the world to give glory to God, ver 1, 2. II. To convince them of the goodness of that God whom they were to adore, he takes notice of his power and terror in the thunder, and lightning, and thunder-showers (ver 3-9), his sovereign dominion over the world (ver 10), and his special favour to his church, ver 11. Great and high thoughts of God should fill us in singing this psalm.

John Gill‘s commentary gives us other interpretations as to when David wrote this Psalm:

In the Vulgate Latin version is added, “at the finishing of the tabernacle”; suggesting that this psalm was composed at that time, and on that occasion; not at the finishing of the tabernacle by Moses, but at the finishing of the tent or tabernacle which David made for the ark in Zion, 2 Samuel 6:17. The title in the Arabic version is, “a prophecy concerning the incarnation, ark, and tabernacle.” In the Septuagint version, from whence the Vulgate seems to have taken the clause, it is, at the “exodion,” “exit,” or “going out of the tabernacle”; that is, of the feast of tabernacles; and which was the eighth day of the feast, and was called true, which word the Septuagint renders exodion, the word here used, Leviticus 23:36; though it was on the first of the common days of this feast that this psalm was sung, as Maimonides {w} says. Some think it was composed when the psalmist was in a thunder storm, or had lately been in one, which he in a very beautiful manner describes.

Gill also mentions that at least one of the ancient Jewish scholars saw this as Messianic prophecy:

Kimchi thinks it refers to the times of the Messiah; and it may indeed be very well interpreted of the Gospel, and is very suitable to Gospel times.

David exhorts heavenly beings to ascribe to the Lord glory and strength (verse 1).

However, the KJV implies that David is addressing powerful rulers:

1 Give unto the Lord, O ye mighty, give unto the Lord glory and strength.  

Henry says:

Every clap of thunder David interpreted as a call to himself and other princes to give glory to the great God. Observe, 1. Who they are that are called to this duty: “O you mighty (v. 1), you sons of the mighty, who have power, and on whom that power is devolved by succession and inheritance, who have royal blood running in your veins!” It is much for the honour of the great God that the men of this world should pay their homage to him; and they are bound to do it, not only because, high as they are, he is infinitely above them, and therefore they must bow to him, but because they have their power from him, and are to use it for him, and this tribute of acknowledgment they owe to him for it.

Gill says similarly and adds:

… this is not to be understood of them exclusive of others, as appears from Psalm 96:7; moreover, all the saints and people of God may be intended, who are all princes and kings; and may be said to be mighty, especially those who are strong in faith; and these are they who give most glory to God;

Gill gives us a Christian interpretation:

… give unto the Lord glory and strength; give glory to Jehovah the Father, by celebrating the perfections of his nature; by commending the works of his hands, the works of creation; by acquiescing in his providential dispensations; by returning thanks to him for mercies received, temporal and spiritual; particularly for salvation by Christ, and, above all, for Christ himself; by exercising faith in him as a promising God; by living becoming his Gospel, and to the honour of his name: give glory to the Son of God, by ascribing all divine perfections to him, by attributing salvation to him, and by trusting in him alone for it: give glory to the Spirit of God, by asserting his deity, by referring the work of grace and conversion to him, and by depending upon him for thee performance of the good work begun: give “strength” to each person, by acknowledging that power belongs to them, which is seen in creation, redemption, and the effectual calling; or else strength may mean the same thing as praise and glory; see Psalm 8:2, compared with Matthew 21:16; and both may design strong praise and glory, expressed in the strongest and with the greatest vigour and vehemency of spirit.

David calls again to ascribe to the Lord the glory of His name, exhorting us to worship the Lord in holy spendour (verse 2).

The KJV renders it more poetically:

2 Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.

Henry calls our attention to the three exhortations of ‘Give unto the Lord’ in those two verses:

How often this call is repeated; Give unto the Lord, and again, and a third time, Give unto the Lord. This intimates that the mighty men are backward to this duty and are with difficulty persuaded to it, but that it is of great consequence to the interests of God’s kingdom among men that princes should heartily espouse them. Jerusalem flourishes when the kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into it, Rev 21 24 … What they are called to do—to give unto the Lord, not as if he needed any thing, or could be benefited by any gifts of ours, nor as if we had any thing to give him that is not his own already (Who hath first given to him?), but the recognition of his glory, and of his dominion over us, he is pleased to interpret as a gift to him: “Give unto the Lord your own selves, in the first place, and then your services. Give unto the Lord glory and strength; acknowledge his glory and strength, and give praise to him as a God of infinite majesty and irresistible power; and whatever glory or strength he has by his providence entrusted you with offer it to him, to be used for his honour, in his service. Give him your crowns; let them be laid at his feet; give him your sceptres, your swords, your keys, put all into his hand, that you, in the use of them, may be to him for a name and a praise.” Princes value themselves by their glory and strength; these they must ascribe to God, owning him to be infinitely more glorious and powerful than they. This demand of homage from the mighty must be looked upon as directed either to the grandees of David’s own kingdom, the peers of the realm, the princes of the tribes (and it is to excite them to a more diligent and constant attendance at God’s altars, in which he had observed them very remiss), or to the neighbouring kings whom he by his sword had made tributaries to Israel and now would persuade to become tributaries to the God of Israel.

Henry explains the importance of worshipping the Lord:

Crowned heads must bow before the King of kings. What is here said to the mighty is said to all: Worship God; it is the sum and substance of the everlasting gospel, Rev 14 6, 7. Now we have here, (1.) The nature of religious worship; it is giving to the Lord the glory due to his name, v. 2. God’s name is that whereby he has made himself known. There is a glory due to his name. It is impossible that we should give him all the glory due to his name; when we have said and done our best for the honour of God’s name, still we come infinitely short of the merit of the subject; but when we answer that revelation which he has made of himself, with suitable affections and adorations, then we give him some of that glory which is due to his name. If we would, in hearing and praying, and other acts of devotion, receive grace from God, we must make it our business to give glory to God. (2.) The rule of the performance of religious exercises; Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness, which denotes, [1.] The object of our worship; the glorious majesty of God is called the beauty of holiness, 2 Chron 20 21. In the worship of God we must have an eye to his beauty, and adore him, not only as infinitely awful [awe-inspiring] and therefore to be feared above all, but as infinitely amiable and therefore to be loved and delighted in above all; especially we must have an eye to the beauty of his holiness; this the angels fasten upon in their praises, Rev 4 8. Or, [2.] The place of worship. The sanctuary then was the beauty of holiness, Ps 48 1, 2; Jer 17 12. The beauty of the sanctuary was the exact agreement of the worship there performed with the divine appointment—the pattern in the mount. Now, under the gospel, solemn assemblies of Christians (which purity is the beauty of) are the places where God is to be worshipped. Or, [3.] The manner of worship. We must be holy in all our religious performances, devoted to God, and to his will and glory. There is a beauty in holiness, and it is that which puts an acceptable beauty upon all the acts of worship.

Gill adds:

… worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness; the Lord is only to be worshipped, and not any creature, angels or men; not Jehovah the Father only, who is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth; but the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost also, being of the same nature, and possessed of the same perfections; and that with both internal and external worship; and in true holiness, in which there is a real beauty: holiness is the beauty of God himself, he is glorious in it; it is the beauty of angels, it makes them so glorious as they are; and it is the beauty of saints, it is what makes them like unto Christ, and by which they are partakers of the divine nature; and in the exercise of holy graces, and in the discharge of holy duties, should they worship the Lord …

David then ponders God in nature in the next eight verses.

He says that the voice of the Lord is over the waters; the God of glory thunders, the LORD, over mighty waters (verse 3).

Henry gives us other similar references from the Old Testament:

It is the God of glory that thunders (thunders is the noise of his voice, Job 37 2), and it declares him a God of glory, so awful is the sound of the thunder, and so bright the flash of its companion, the lightning; to the hearing and to the sight nothing is more affecting than these, as if by those two learning senses God would have such proofs of his glory to the minds of men as should leave the most stupid inexcusable. Some observe that there were then some particular reasons why thunder should be called the voice of the Lord, not only because it comes from above, is not under the direction or foresight of any man, speaks aloud, and reaches far, but because God often spoke in thunder, particularly at Mount Sinai, and by thunder discomfited the enemies of Israel. To speak it the voice of the God of glory, it is here said to be upon the water, upon many waters (v. 3); it reaches over the vast ocean, the waters under the firmament; it rattles among the thick clouds, the waters above the firmament. Every one that hears the thunder (his ear being made to tingle with it) will own that the voice of the Lord is full of majesty (Ps 29 4), enough to make the highest humble (for none can thunder with a voice like him) and the proudest tremble—for, if his voice be so terrible, what is his arm? Every time we hear it thunder, let our hearts be thereby filled with great, and high, and honourable thoughts of God, in the holy adorings and admirings of whom the power of godliness does so much consist. O Lord our God! thou art very great.

Gill gives us more references from the Old Testament before moving onto the New Testament:

… thunder … the voice of the Lord; see Psalm 18:13; and which is commonly attended with large showers of rain, Jeremiah 10:13; and is very terrible upon the waters, and has its effect there, Psalm 104:7; and this is the rather mentioned, because that there is a God above, who is higher than the mighty, who are called upon to give glory to him, and because that thunder has been terrible to kings and great men of the earth; or this may be figuratively interpreted of the voice of Christ in the Gospel, which reaches to many nations and people, compared to waters, Revelation 17:15. The disciples had a commission to preach it to all nations, and the sound of their words went into all the world, Romans 10:18;

the God of glory thundereth; this shows that thunder may be meant by the voice of the Lord, who is glorious in himself, and in all his works; and may be applied to the Gospel of Christ, who is the Lord of glory, and whose ministers, at least some of them, are sons of thunder; see 1 Corinthians 2:8;

David says that the voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty (verse 4).

Henry says:

The voice of the Lord is powerful, as appears by the effects of it; for it works wonders. Those that write natural histories relate the prodigious effects of thunder and lightning, even out of the ordinary course of natural causes, which must be resolved into the omnipotence of the God of nature.

Gill relates the verse to the Gospel:

The voice of the Lord [is] powerful,…. Or “with power” {a}; as thunder, in the effect of it, shows; and so is the Gospel, when it comes, not in word only, but is attended with the power of God to the conversion and salvation of souls; it is then quick and powerful, Hebrews 4:12; and the word of Christ personal, when here on earth, was with power, Luke 4:32;

the voice of the Lord [is] full of majesty; Christ, in his state of humiliation, spake and taught as one having authority; and now, in the ministration of his Gospel by his servants, he goes forth with glory and majesty, Psalm 45:3.

The voice of the LORD breaks the cedars; the LORD breaks the cedars of Lebanon (verse 5).

Henry tells us:

Trees have been rent and split by thunderbolts … The voice of the Lord, in the thunder, often broke the cedars, even those of Lebanon, the strongest, the stateliest. Some understand it of the violent winds which shook the cedars, and sometimes tore off their aspiring tops. 

Gill has details about the topography of the area referred to and adds a spiritual observation:

… yea, the Lord breaketh the cedars of Lebanon; a mountain in the north part of the land of Judea, so called from its whiteness, both by reason of the snow with which some part of it is covered in summer, as Tacitus observes {b}; and partly from the colour of the earth that has no snow on it, which looks as white as if it was covered with white tiles, as Maundrell {c} says; and where the goodliest cedars grow; and to which may be compared proud, haughty, lofty, and stouthearted sinners, who are broken, brought down, and laid low, by the voice of Christ in his Gospel, his power attending it. The Targum renders it, “the Word of the Lord.”

David says that the Lord — via thunder — makes Lebanon skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox (verse 6).

Henry gives us literal and figurative interpretations:

Earthquakes also shook the ground itself on which the trees grew, and made Lebanon and Sirion to dance … The learned Dr. Hammond understands it of the consternations and conquest of neighbouring kingdoms that warred with Israel and opposed David … The terror of thunder makes the hinds [female deer] to calve sooner, and some think more easily, than otherwise they would. The hind is a timourous creature, and much affected with the noise of thunder; and no marvel, when sometimes proud and stout men have been made to tremble at it. The emperor Caligula would hide himself under his bed when it thundered. Horace, the poet, owns that he was reclaimed from atheism by the terror of thunder and lightning, which he describes somewhat like this of David, lib. 1, ode 34. The thunder is said here to discover the forest, that is, it so terrifies the wild beasts of the forest that they quit the dens and thickets in which they hid themselves are so are discovered. Or it throws down the trees, and so discovers the ground that was shaded by them. 

Gill says:

He maketh them also to skip like a calf,…. That is, the cedars, the branches being broken off, or they torn up by the roots, and tossed about by the wind; which motion is compared to that of a calf that leaps and skips about;

Lebanon and Sirion, like a young unicorn; that is, these mountains move and skip about through the force of thunder, and the violence of an earthquake attending it; so historians report that mountains have moved from place to place, and they have met and dashed against one another {d}. Sirion was a mountain in Judea near to Lebanon, and is the same with Hermon; which was called by the Sidonians Sirion, and by the Amorites Shenir, Deuteronomy 3:9. This may regard the inward motions of the mind, produced by the Gospel of Christ under a divine influence; see Isaiah 35:6.

Bible Hub has more information about Sirion, which we know as Mount Hermon (bold in the original):

Definition and Etymology:
Sirion is a name used in the Bible to refer to Mount Hermon, a prominent mountain in the Anti-Lebanon mountain range. The name “Sirion” is of Sidonian origin, as noted in the Scriptures, and it reflects the cultural and geographical interactions between the Israelites and their neighboring peoples.

Biblical References:

Sirion is mentioned in several passages within the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 3:9, the text states, “the Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir.” This verse highlights the different names used by various cultures for the same geographical landmark, indicating the mountain’s significance across different regions and peoples.

Psalm 29:6 also references Sirion in the context of God’s majestic power: “He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox.” Here, Sirion is poetically depicted as part of the natural world that responds to the voice of the Lord, emphasizing the mountain’s grandeur and the divine authority over creation.

Geographical Significance:

Mount Hermon, or Sirion, is the highest peak in the Anti-Lebanon range, reaching an elevation of approximately 9,232 feet (2,814 meters). It is located at the intersection of modern-day Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. The mountain’s snow-capped peaks are visible from great distances, making it a significant landmark in the region.

Cultural and Historical Context:

The use of different names for Mount Hermon, such as Sirion and Senir, reflects the diverse cultural influences in the ancient Near East. The Sidonians, a Phoenician people, referred to the mountain as Sirion, while the Amorites, another ancient group, called it Senir. This diversity in nomenclature underscores the mountain’s importance as a boundary marker and a site of cultural exchange.

In biblical history, Mount Hermon is associated with the northern boundary of the land promised to the Israelites. Its strategic location and imposing presence made it a significant feature in the territorial descriptions found in the Scriptures.

Theological Implications:

In the biblical narrative, Sirion serves as a symbol of God’s creation and power. The references to Sirion in the Psalms and other poetic texts often highlight the majesty and strength of the Lord, who commands the natural world. The mountain’s enduring presence in the biblical landscape serves as a reminder of the Creator’s sovereignty over all the earth.

Conclusion:

While Sirion is not a central theme in the biblical narrative, its mention in Scripture provides insight into the geographical, cultural, and theological context of the ancient Near East. As a part of God’s creation, Sirion stands as a testament to His power and the interconnectedness of the peoples and lands described in the Bible.

The voice of the Lord — thunder and lightning — flashes forth flames of fire (verse 7).

The KJV reads:

7 The voice of the Lord divideth the flames of fire.  

Henry says:

Fires have been kindled by lightnings and houses and churches thereby consumed; hence we read of hot thunderbolts (Ps 78 48) …

Gill provides the following literal and spiritual interpretations:

The voice of the Lord divideth the flames of fire. Or “cutteth with flames of fire” {e}; that is, the thunder breaks through the clouds with flames of fire, or lightning, as that is sometimes called, Psalm 105:32; and with which it cleaves asunder trees and masts of ships, cuts and hews them down, and divides them into a thousand shivers. Some refer this, in the figurative and mystical sense, to the giving of the law on Mount Sinai {f}, on which the Lord descended in fire, and from his right hand went a fiery law; but rather this may be applied to the cloven or divided tongues of fire which sat upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost, as an emblem of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit bestowed on them; though it seems best of all, as before, to understand this of the voice of Christ in the Gospel, which cuts and hews down all the goodliness of men, and lays them to the ground, Hosea 6:5; and is of a dividing nature, and lays open all the secrets of the heart, Hebrews 4:12; and, through the corruption or human nature, is the occasion of dividing one friend from another, Luke 12:51; and like flames of fire it has both light and heat in it; it is the means of enlightening men’s eyes to see their sad estate, and their need of Christ, and salvation by him; and of warming their souls with its refreshing truths and promises, and of inflaming their love to God and Christ, and of setting their affections on things above, and of causing their hearts to burn within them.

The voice of the LORD shakes the wilderness; the LORD shakes the wilderness of Kadesh (verse 8).

Henry says this can be taken literally and apply equally to Israel’s enemies:

the wilderness of Kadesh also was in like manner shaken (v. 8), the trees by winds, the ground by earthquakes, and both by thunders … the Moabites and Ammonites … lay about the wilderness of Kadesh.

Gill tells us:

… the Lord shaketh the wilderness of Kadesh; which was the terrible wilderness that the children of Israel passed through to Canaan’s land; the same with the wilderness of Zin, Numbers 33:36; and was called Kadesh from the city of that name, on the borders of Edom, Numbers 20:1;

He also gives us a Messianic interpretation:

The voice of the Lord shaketh the wilderness … and may mystically signify the preaching of the Gospel among the Gentiles, and the consequence of it. The Gentile world may be compared to a wilderness, and is called the wilderness of the people, Ezekiel 20:35; the inhabitants of it being ignorant, barren, and unfruitful; and the conversion of them is expressed by turning a wilderness into a fruitful land, Isaiah 35:1; and the Gospel being sent thither has been the means of shaking the minds of many with strong and saving convictions; which made them tremble and cry out, what shall we do to be saved?

The voice of the Lord causes the oaks to whirl, and strips the forest bare; and in his temple all say, “Glory!” (verse 9).

The KJV renders it:

9 The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve, and discovereth the forests: and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory.

Note that the KJV verse mentions the hinds calving, versus the NIV’s verse 6.

Henry speaks of the importance of public worship:

In the kingdom of grace. Here his glory shines most brightly, [1.] In the adorations he receives from the subjects of that kingdom (v. 9). In his temple, where people attend his discoveries of himself and his mind and attend him with their praises, every one speaks of his glory. In the world every man sees it, or at least may behold it afar off (Job 36 25); but it is only in the temple, in the church, that it is spoken of to his honour. All his works do praise him (that is, they minister matter for praise), but his saints only do bless him, and speak of his glory of his works, Ps 145 10.

Gill says similarly and discusses the effect of the Gospel:

… this may be applied to the Gospel, which is the means of bringing forth souls to Christ by his churches and ministers; who may very fitly be compared to hinds for their love and loveliness, their swiftness and readiness to do the will of Christ, and their eager desires after communion with him, Proverbs 5:19;

and discovereth the forests; or “maketh bare” {h}: by beating off the leaves and branches of trees, and them to the ground; or by causing the wild beasts that frequent them to retire to their holes and dens; which effects are produced by thunder; and this aptly agrees with the Gospel, which is a revelation of secrets, of the thickets and deep things of God; of his counsel, covenant, mind, and will; and of the mysteries of his grace to the sons of men, and generally to babes, or men of their capacities; and of its stripping them of all their own righteousness, and dependence on it;

David proclaims that the LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD sits enthroned as king forever (verse 10).

Henry says:

He sits King for ever; no period can, or shall, be put to his government. The administration of his kingdom is consonant to his counsels from eternity and pursuant to his designs for eternity.

Gill points out that the first half of the verse refers to Noah’s flood:

The Lord sitteth upon the flood,…. Noah’s flood; which is always designed by the word here used, the Lord sat and judged the old world for its wickedness, and brought a flood upon them, and destroyed them; and then he abated it, sent a wind to assuage the waters, stopped up the windows of heaven, and the fountains of the great deep, and restrained rain from heaven; and he now sits upon the confidence of waters in the heavens, at the time of a thunder storm, which threatens with an overflowing flood; and he remembers his covenant, and restrains them from destroying the earth any more: and he sits upon the floods of ungodly men, and stops their rage and fury, and suffers them not to proceed to overwhelm his people and interest; and so the floods of afflictions of every kind, and the floods of Satan’s temptations, and of errors and heresies, are at his control, and he permits them to go so far, and no farther;

yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever: he is King of the whole world, over angels and men, and even the kings of the earth; and he is also King of saints, in whose hearts he reigns by his Spirit and grace; and the Gospel dispensation is more eminently his kingdom, in which his spiritual government is most visible; and this will more appear in the latter day glory, when the Lord shall be King over all the earth; and after which the Lord Christ will reign with his saints here a thousand years, and then with them to all eternity, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

David concludes with a hearty and heartfelt benediction (verse 11): ‘May the LORD give strength to his people! May the LORD bless his people with peace!’

Henry explains these blessings:

First, He will qualify them for his service: He will give strength to his people, to fortify them against every evil work and to furnish them for every good work; out of weakness they shall be made strong; nay, he will perfect strength in weakness. Secondly, He will encourage them in his service: He will bless his people with peace. Peace is a blessing of inestimable value, which God designs for all his people. The work of righteousness is peace (great peace have those that love thy law); but much more the crown of righteousness: the end of righteousness is peace; it is endless peace. When the thunder of God’s wrath shall make sinners tremble the saints shall lift up their heads with joy.

Gill looks to Christ:

The Lord will give strength unto his people,…. His special people, his covenant people, whom he has chosen for himself; these are encompassed with infirmities, and are weak in themselves; but there is strength for them in Christ: the Lord promises it unto them, and bestows it on them, and which is a pure gift of his grace unto them; this may more especially regard that strength, power, and dominion, which will be given to the people of the most High in the latter day; since it follows, upon the account of the everlasting kingdom of Christ;

the Lord will bless his people with peace: with internal peace, which is peculiar to them, and to which wicked men are strangers; and which arises from a comfortable apprehension of justification by the righteousness of Christ, of pardon by his blood, and atonement by his sacrifice; and is enjoyed in a way of believing; and with external peace in the latter day, when there shall be no more war with them, nor persecution of them; but there shall be abundance of peace, and that without end; and at last with eternal peace, which is the end of the perfect and upright man; and the whole is a great blessing.

Henry asks us to heed God’s other, gentler voice, that of the Gospel:

Whenever it thunders let us think of this psalm; and, whenever we sing this psalm, let us think of the dreadful thunder-claps we have sometimes heard, and thus bring God’s words and his works together, that by both we may be directed and quickened to give unto him the glory due unto his name; and let us bless him that there is another voice of his besides this dreadful one, by which God now speaks to us, even the still small voice of his gospel, the terror of which shall not make us afraid.

May all reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday.

UK’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill — fifth Committee reading: ‘We are very short of time’

January 9, 2026 in history | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 comments

Britain’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill remains in the House of Lords.

Its fifth Committee reading took place on Friday, January 9, 2026.

I watched the final three hours of the debate and was not surprised at what I heard. Unless something dramatic happens, this legislation will be rushed through. The fact that it is a Private Member’s Bill originating in the House of Commons via Kim Leadbeater MP (the late Jo Cox’s sister) and a fortuitous (for some) Speaker’s lottery draw placing it first guarantees it will not have the desired scrutiny to protect vulnerable members of the public from legislated death.

Lord (Charles) Falconer is the Lords’ sponsor of the legislation. Those of us who are long enough in the tooth will recall that Charlie was not only a former flatmate of Tony Blair in their younger years but also the only known person to have served as Solicitor General as a peer. My late nearest and dearest was suspicious of Blair and all his cabinet because a number of them, Falconer included, were Scots: ‘They’re out to destroy our constitution through legislation’. And, lo, nearly 30 years later, so it would seem. There is no way we can easily undo what New Labour did, particularly to England. Charlie Falconer played a big part in that.

Supporters of this euthanasia bill, as I call it, fear that it will be filibustered in the Lords and not make it into legislation before the current parliamentary session ends.

January 8: Lord Falconer’s motion

To this end, on Thursday, January 9, Lord Falconer put forward a motion in the Lords requesting that everyone get a move on. Excerpts from Hansard follow (emphases mine):

Over 1,000 amendments in Committee have been tabled, arranged into approximately 84 groups. So far, we have spent in total some 32 hours in this House scrutinising the Bill, and we have another 50 hours scheduled. However, in four days of Committee—about 17 hours—we have considered only 10 groups. If we continue at the rate we are going, this House will fail to complete the process of scrutiny. We will reach no conclusions on the Bill as to how it should be amended or whether it should return to the Commons. Instead, the Bill will fail through lack of time—this despite the fact that it came to this House in June of last year after extensive scrutiny in the Commons and received in this House an unopposed Second Reading after a two-day debate with 110 speakers …

This House works best when we work together, exercise self-restraint and undertake scrutiny that reaches conclusions on legislation. For self-regulation to retain respect—and I most certainly believe it should continue—this House has to be effective in reaching conclusions.

The Government are neutral on this Bill and will, I know, remain so. As sponsor of the Bill, I am grateful for the time that has been made available so far for consideration of it. But, as I have said, if we continue at this pace, we will fail in our responsibility to scrutinise the Bill.

The purpose of my Motion today is to give the House the opportunity to express a view on whether your Lordships want this House to complete its scrutiny and, if the Bill passes Third Reading in this House, to send it back to the Commons in time for it to complete all its stages before the end of this parliamentary Session …

If the Motion passes, I would hope that all sides can be brought together through the usual channels to achieve a reasonable, informal but effective process to complete the passage of the Bill through this House—taking into account, of course, the needs of the House staff. This remains a Private Member’s Bill, and extra time should not involve any time that would otherwise be for government business.

Baroness (Angela) Smith of Basildon is the Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal. She said, in part:

… on timings, colleagues will be mindful that the House is due to sit again at 10 am tomorrow morning further to consider amendments to the Bill. Noble Lords will need to come to a decision this evening on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. In light of tomorrow’s sitting time, I hope that the House will not sit too late. If necessary, the Chief Whip or I may return to the Dispatch Box to advise colleagues if it looks as if proceedings are not coming to a timely conclusion.

She did so on Friday, more about which below.

Conservative peer Lord (Kevin) Shinkwin, who is disabled and opposed to the proposed legislation, contributed remotely because of the bad weather:

… I suggest that the Motion overlooks the reason why we have had to spend so much time to date considering amendments, for surely, as with any Bill, we can only ever work with what we have been given—in this case, by the other place. The volume of amendments and the time taken to consider them therefore reflect the quality, or lack thereof, of the Bill that was sent to us.

… We should surely be heartened by how much it is appreciated that we take our duty to scrutinise so seriously. We are simply doing our job without fear or favour as Parliament’s revising Chamber.

In conclusion, I am reminded of a wonderfully wise Scottish saying from the 16th century, which I believe this Bill shows has stood the test of time: “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”. Our procedures are being followed appropriately and reasonably. If any Bill is so poorly drafted and so unsafe, surely the question is not so much whether the Bill deserves more time, but whether yet more time could transform it.

Indeed, over 400 amendments to this bill have arisen in the Lords. Surely, something is wrong.

One peer suggested not repeating what had been said before during other debates — and rightly so.

Lord (Simon) Stevens, head of NHS England during the pandemic (take that how you will), uttered words quoted again on Friday. The Government has no intention of publishing a plan for palliative care until this legislation is passed. Surely, the timeline should be the other way around, in order to avoid unneccessary deaths:

… over the first few days of Committee, some pretty significant matters of substance have arisen. We are not going to rehearse them now, but they are around capacity, choice, vulnerable groups and eligibility. While agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the sponsor, that we need to find a way of coming to some judgments on these questions, what process does he envisage for that? The guidance that those who have put down probing amendments in Committee have got back from the Government—precisely because the Government do not want their fingerprints all over this Bill—has been, shall we say, Delphic or elliptical. The phrasing that Ministers have used time and again has been, “If you are contemplating coming back with an amendment such as that on Report, then you will need to do further work to make sure it is fully workable, effective and enforceable”, but then there is no subsequent work to bring that about. If we are going to have a substantive debate on Report, so we can get these safeguards in place, we are going to need to see that.

Finally, I would like to ask a question of the Government. For those of us who have concerns about the interaction between this legislation and the state of the health service, social care and palliative care, it would be very helpful if we could have more clarity soon from the Government on how they see those interactions happening. Yesterday, in the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee, the Minister responsible for palliative care said that the Government would not publish their detailed modern framework for palliative care until, in effect, after this Bill had supposedly already passed through Parliament, which seems to me a dangerous reversal of the timetable that we require. It would be excellent to hear from the sponsor of the Bill and from the Government how they can help the House constructively engage on Report on some of the safeguards which are, in my judgment, clearly needed.

We then saw another Blairite appear — Baroness (Margaret) Jay of Paddington — daughter of the late Prime Minister James Callaghan. She also served (just as the aforementioned Baroness Smith of Basildon) as Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (1998-2001). I am a fairly regular viewer of the Lords’ proceedings and have not seen Baroness Jay participate in recent years until now:

… I hope that this Motion will be accepted, that we will go through with our very important work, that we will send the Bill back to the Commons in time for it to be appropriately considered there and—it is very important to say—that we regain our reputation for honest, lengthy, astute scrutiny and great authority on this subject.

Hmm.

Lord (Kenneth) Baker of Dorking, former Conservative Home Secretary and Education Secretary in the Thatcher and Major years, was next to speak. He signalled that times had changed since the Lords first debated euthanasia some years ago:

I support the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because I remember debates in this House on assisted dying over 20 or 25 years ago—the noble Baroness [Jay] spoke in them, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We have always taken a great interest in it.

It is very clear that in this House there is a small group who are passionately for assisted dying and a small group who are positively against it. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is very difficult to bring them together. The speech that he made today was very similar to the speech that he made about three weeks ago, asking for common sense to prevail and that we should discuss what the amendments should be. I applaud that approach, but it appears that the people moving the amendments do not want that to happen. They do not want the Bill to pass at all. That was very clear in the early debates I remember of 25 years ago. They are just not going to accept amendments; they want the Bill to be blocked …

… people do know that we are being subjected to a filibuster in this House by a relatively small number of Members. It goes back to those early debates. The main argument against assisted dying, way back 25 years ago, was the sanctity of life. That has virtually disappeared, apart from the fact that two bishops mentioned it at Second Reading.

Then it was said, “No, palliative care is the answer to assisted dying”. No party, in its next manifesto, is going to commit to spending a huge amount of money on palliative hospitals. That would be at the expense of capital expenditure on the health service. So it is up to the House to find a way of coming to a conclusion.

Sadly, it appears as if he could be correct, although the assertion that palliative care costs more than it saves came up for debate on Friday.

Interestingly, however, Baker reminded everyone on how parliamentary debates went on until the wee hours of the morning, if not overnight — incidentally, something else that Blair put paid to, to make Parliament ‘family friendly’ as more young mothers had entered the Commons by 1997:

When I was a junior Minister in the House of Commons, a Bill was being filibustered and I sat not only to midnight but to breakfast, and to lunch the following day. Eventually, we got the Bill through. So it is in the hands of the House, even if the Front Benches are quite reluctant, because they do not like to take their sticky claws off controlling the agenda of the House. But, if they cannot find a way, there are other ways in which the debate can be reasonably finished and addressed this time.

The Conservative peer Lord (David John Maclean) Blencathra laid the blame at Charlie Falconer’s feet — and rightly so. Falconer has done nothing constructive to address the amendments against the Bill:

… tomorrow, we will be discussing major amendments on palliative care, and many of them are quite different. If the noble and learned Lord were to stand up early on and say, “I like the principles of Amendments X, Y and Z, and I promise to go away and come back on Report with a better version of them”, I suspect we would make rapid progress. So it is in the noble and learned Lord’s hands to get this done in the next 10 days, and he should not blame those who are willing to talk about amendments which he gives the impression he would never accept in a month of Sundays.

Crossbencher Baroness (Sheila) Hollins called the peers’ attention to the unusual structure of the Bill and suggested that a Royal Commission be established to work through it first:

… With the help of the House of Lords Library, I have been looking at balloted Private Members’ Bills from the House of Commons ballot that reached First Reading in this House in the 10 years from the start of the 2015 Session. It is very interesting.

In the other place [the Commons], of course, ballot Bills are introduced by title only, with the full text appearing or changing at later stages. But the full text version as brought from the Commons provides a consistent and analytically robust basis for comparison. The average length of the Bills in that 10-year period was 8.8 pages, with a mean of five clauses. In contrast, this complex Bill, heralding major social and societal changes, has 51 pages, with 59 clauses. So it is hardly surprising that it needs lengthy scrutiny.

Eight of these pages were actually added by the sponsor [Falconer] on Report, with little or no discussion. In the other place, 92% of the amendments tabled by Members other than the sponsor were not even debated, and just seven were put to MPs for decision. This data refutes the misleading impression being given in the national media, which suggests that your Lordships’ House is delaying progress by tabling and debating amendments, as in reality they are needed to improve the safety and care of patients.

I suggest that counting the number of amendments is misleading, because many are consequential on the change proposed. As my noble friend Lord Carlile suggested, there are about 10 major issues. The noble and learned Lord has not said which amendments, if any, even those recommended by the royal colleges and patient advocacy groups, he is willing to accept. Members are waiting for his active engagement and for a bit of give and take.

In the past 10 years, only 66—about a third—of all balloted Private Members’ Bills have become law. Of these successful Bills, the vast majority were government handouts or had explicit government support. Nobody can argue against scrutiny, and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord [Falconer] has recognised that a Bill of this length and complexity does not fit the usual model of a Private Member’s Bill. I have concluded that the kindest thing for the Government to do would be to seek to establish a royal commission to give this weighty issue the attention that it deserves. We cannot do it justice through the Private Members’ Bill process, but I agree that it needs time.

The Conservative peer Lord (Edward) Garnier, former Solicitor General for England and Wales, asked:

… perhaps the daft laddie question. Is he, or are the Government Front Bench, able to tell us how many days and what dates they think will be required for the Bill to get through its passage in Committee, on Report—bearing in mind that there may well be Divisions on Report—and then at Third Reading, so that proceedings here will be completed in adequate time before the end of the parliamentary Session, before it goes back to the other place?

… it would be enormously helpful if he could put some meat on the bones of “reasonable time”—the phrase he uses in his Motion. That would inform us in a very helpful way. If he cannot do it, perhaps the Government Front Bench could do so instead.

Another Conservative, Baroness (Elizabeth) Berridge, also said, as had others, that Falconer had not put forth any countering amendments to those with which he disagreed:

… I have looked at the Order Paper under Clause 43 and there are a number of amendments, but still none from the noble and learned Lord in relation to these matters, so I am now going to have to go to the Public Bill Office to get my amendments drafted not knowing what the noble and learned Lord’s position was when he gave that evidence before Christmas. That is the type of issue of process that is causing more time to be used in your Lordships’ House. I have about 15 amendments down, so I am concentrating on a handful of the issues, which I believe is the way I have behaved with any Bill before your Lordships’ House to date.

In the end, the motion passed — regardless of what peers think about the legislation. Nearly everyone wants a decision one way or the other.

The disconcerting element in all of this is Falconer says that if peers wish to discuss points of disagreement with him, they are welcome to do so. However, that would be privately. Surely, a subject of this magnitude should be debated in public so that we all have an understanding of what is happening throughout.

January 9: fifth Committee session

Incredibly, Hansard’s transcript of Friday, January 9’s proceedings was online by the end of the afternoon.

I will go through the major issues of the debate which might not enable any finalised legislation to work as billed, so to speak.

Judges, not panels: Amendment 120

Our court system is on overload. Justice Secretary David Lammy wishes to abolish trial by jury in some cases in order to work through the backlog. That is wrong, but is another subject for another day. Euthanasia legislation would see the backlog worsen.

Crossbencher Lord (Alex) Carlile of Berriew, a barrister, discussed the difference between judges and/or recorders (part-time judges) or ‘panels’ — a psychiatrist, social worker and judge — reaching a decision on the right to terminate one’s life in case of serious illness. Lord Carlile points out that judges were shifted to panels early on in the proposed legislation:

The issue of principle is whether permission for assisted suicide should be given by the court or via a panel. The promoters’ original intention was very clear: it was to be a court-based process. But by amendment they moved their choice to the panel procedure that currently appears in the Bill. I believe that they had two main reasons. First, the courts may not have enough judges to deal with the volume of applications they expect. The court in question at that stage was simply the High Court of Justice Family Division. Secondly, it might prove more difficult to obtain permission from a court than from the panel as now described.

As to the judges, Amendment 120 offers a simple and sound solution that I am surprised had not been thought of before. It would broaden the range of judiciary who would be designated to reach these momentous decisions, which involve the deliberate participation of one individual in bringing about the death of another. That a judge should be involved is, I suggest, self-evidently appropriate and what we should expect, given that third-party participation in a death would otherwise involve the offence of murder. I remind your Lordships that murder is defined as being involved in bringing about the death of another with the intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm.

Decisions about whether life support should be switched off are regularly heard by judges of the Family Division of the High Court, as are other extremely important decisions concerning family life, including matters affecting contact between parents and their children. There are, however, only 20 High Court judges in the Family Division, including the president. But, around the country, there are more than 40 designated family judges: specialist circuit judges who deal with the most difficult and important cases. By adding those 40-plus designated judges into the cohort of judges who would decide cases envisaged by this Bill—they were not envisaged as part of the process originally—there would, I suggest, be an ample supply of skilled and diverse expert judiciary, who would provide confidence-inspiring judgment in this important and difficult new area of the law.

The training of judges is very important in this context. The Judicial College provides expert training for all judges, including in specialist jurisdictions. There are those in this Chamber who have acted both as students and tutors in the work of the Judicial College. I add that there is a cohort of recorders, who are part-time judges, who could fill any listing gaps caused by this new jurisdiction …

The experience of judges, honed in practice in which, from time to time, they all encounter examples of the most egregious and devious behaviour, together with the forensic nature of the court process, promises a reasonable prospect of fair and proper decision-making …

Lord Shinkwin was concerned that, even with the addition of specialist circuit judges, the system would be even more overwhelmed than ever. He also objected to the word ‘may’ in one of the clauses, which could be used adversely:

… the word “may” in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 120, and how this could be interpreted. It currently says:

“The President of the Court may direct that the application may be heard and directions given by a judge of the Family Division or by a circuit judge who is a designated family judge”.

… “may” is an ambiguous word implying optionality, so it is always a red flag … in this context it might simply mean “This law would permit” …

I am sure I am not alone in believing that the slightest risk of assisted dying applications being nodded through over time has to be strenuously guarded against, not least given that Sir Nicholas Mostyn cautioned against the High Court’s involvement in a previous incarnation of this Bill being no more than a symbolic rubber stamp.

Defining ‘assisted suicide’ and ‘assisted dying’: Amendment 120

Baroness Hollins raised the difficulty in defining suicide and assisted dying in today’s ethics:

I am aware that many people would prefer the term “assisted dying” because of the stigma associated with the term “suicide”. The Bill rather contradicts itself by adopting the term “assisted dying” while attempting to modify these other statutory provisions that concern assisted suicide. That creates both conceptual and legal ambiguity. If Parliament is being asked to authorise assisted suicide, then it follows that such decisions fall within the proper domain of the courts. For that reason, among others, I support my noble Lord, Lord Carlile’s amendment that would replace the assisted dying review panel with a court-supervised process.

Amendment 120 appropriately moves decision-making from the medical to the legal sphere. Assisted dying is not a medical treatment; it is an act with profound societal implications, and it therefore requires, I suggest, judicial rather than clinical oversight. For that reason, I believe that it does not belong in the National Health Service. Under the proposed model, doctors would continue to provide expert medical evidence confirming diagnosis and prognosis, but the final authorisation would rest with a judge. That judicial scrutiny provides a stronger safeguard against errors, and enhances transparency and public confidence in the system by placing responsibility for these irreversible decisions in the courts, where I believe they properly belong.

Lord Garnier posited whether Lord Falconer would accommodate Lord Berriew’s proposal of adding more judges:

There are plenty of very bright and capable judges in the other divisions who, if required, could apply themselves to these sorts of cases. So, we are not going to be short of personnel; what we are short of is a decision of this House to agree with the position of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, or something like that. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will come up with a way of dealing with the gap between him and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as one of these 10 thematic discussions, so we get a workable, just and publicly respected system which, if we are to have a Bill, allows the public to feel confident that it will work properly.

Arriving at an informed choice: Amendment 26

Baroness (Ilona) Findlay of Llandaff, the first Consultant in Palliative Medicine in Wales, spoke about the importance of arriving at an informed choice for the patient:

The amendment ensures that all terminally ill persons seeking to take up assisted dying support have had their needs assessed by a multiprofessional specialist palliative care team and met to the extent necessary to enable them to decide whether such care would affect their wish to end their life.

My Lords, we move on to a group of amendments that are extremely important and, in some ways, complementary to those in the previous debate. Autonomy is the lodestar of the Bill. The amendments in this group are designed to reinforce and respect that patient autonomy; they do not block access to an assisted death but aim to ensure that people have accurate information to make informed decisions. For a decision taken, people must have three things, whatever that decision is: accurate information, the capacity to make the decision and to be making it voluntarily. Those are the fundamentals of respecting a person’s autonomy.

These amendments are to ensure that the patient has the opportunity to know what is available. They do not force a patient to be looked after by a palliative care team, and they do not stop a patient from proceeding with an assisted death. There is clear evidence from studies that underserved groups have poor access to palliative care, and there is poor understanding generally of what palliative care is and can do. General doctors often do not understand palliative care, so how can an assessing doctor give good, accurate information to a patient if they themselves have a deficit in their knowledge? It is worth noting that in a five-year medical training course it has been estimated that the average time spent on learning about palliative care is only 20 hours, and only recently has palliative care come into the finals questions. So there are thousands of doctors out there with almost no education in palliative care.

Many patients and the public do not understand palliative care either. A significant number think that assisted dying is palliative care or hospice care, while others think that palliative care simply hastens death. Sadly, misunderstandings are widespread. When patients access appropriate specialist palliative care, the desire for a hastened death is often alleviated, and they experience an improvement in quality of life that they never believed possible. But that does not apply to everybody. The role of this amendment is simply to give everyone the best opportunity to access the care that they need, whether or not they continue to pursue an assisted death and whether or not they decide to take up the opportunities that may be revealed by such an assessment. The processes relating to an assisted death can occur in parallel with, but not as an integral part of, palliative care provision.

There has been concern that palliative care teams could not cope with a sudden influx of referrals, but currently any palliative care team prioritises a patient who is in such despair that they want to die. That is basic care, a core part of the job. Palliative care will not turn its back on patients who are in despair; teams want to deliver gold standard care …

In the hospice, I used to always have the care assistants as part of our weekly multidisciplinary review of patients. They had valuable insights and much to contribute. A mandatory assessment would ensure that people knew what was available. It is up to the person to decide whether to try one route or another.

Why make this mandatory? Unfortunately, the amendment to the Health and Care Act 2022, which I pushed for very hard and was glad to see come in, and which stated that palliative care is a core service, has not resulted in commissioners adequately commissioning services, in part because they themselves are ignorant of what to commission. If assessment is mandatory, commissioners must make sure that patients seeking an assisted death have a service that can provide a proper needs assessment and give them information. The patient can choose whether to try or not try.

I know that my noble friend Lady Hollins has an amendment about this, and there is indeed a definition in an amendment that has also been tabled in relation to what specialist palliative care is. To try to summarise that very quickly, it is about having the appropriate specialist skills in every setting, with advice available at all times of the day, every day, equipment and medication available, and a point of contact so that people can go back and explore and discuss things as they think more about the complexities of their situation, and they can access the support that they need.

Equal access versus lack of specialists: Amendment 51

Labour’s Baroness (Lyn) Brown of Silvertown discussed her Amendment 51, which involves the disparity of specialists across the country:

My Lords, my Amendment 51 and others would require the providers of assisted dying services to ensure that all persons seeking such services have discussed the range of end-of-life options available to them with a palliative care specialist.

The Government and proponents of the Bill have promised that end-of-life care will not suffer in order to accommodate assisted dying. I have significant reservations about whether this would be possible, and I fear a push factor, particularly for those who are vulnerable, those who are without family and, to be absolutely frank, those who are poor and cannot fund their own care. When done right, as we know, palliative care can provide a dignified end of life and alleviate the desire to hasten one’s death. Equitable access to options for end-of-life care must be a cornerstone for this Bill, which is why I have laid these amendments. I want to ensure, as far as humanly possible, that all people have and know that they have equal access to palliative care, to treatments that may extend life and to specialist teams to manage the symptoms and pain and to provide dignity.

This Committee must accept that equal access to these services, as for many public services, is not guaranteed and is rarely delivered. I give just one example, due to time. A Liverpool resident with the terrible asbestos-related mesothelioma cancer can undergo a specialist injection that has a high chance of abolishing the pain, whereas a resident of the Midlands, who may be unfit to travel to Liverpool, simply cannot because there are so few specialists trained to take this work on. Therefore, access is obviously limited.

Clauses 5 and 12 require doctors to have discussions about disease prognosis, treatments and symptomatic alleviation with patients. Clause 5 includes an offer to refer them to a specialist. Although these are important discussions, which must be had, they have to be conducted by somebody properly trained and experienced in such matters. For conditions that are specialist care cases, such as motor neurone disease, most doctors will have minimal involvement in the management of that condition and will likely not have the skills and training to adequately fulfil the duties that the Bill places on them. A specialist referral is absolutely necessary to that ensure patients are able to reach an informed decision about their care with somebody who properly understands the disease, how that disease will progress and what can be put in place to alleviate their distress and pain.

A person seeking assisted dying will be worried about their future, losing their independence and dignity and placing a huge burden on their families. A dedicated palliative care specialist would have the expertise, skill and training to provide the highest level of information and support, tailored to the individual needs of each patient, and have specialist knowledge of the condition that the patient is experiencing.

… You can reach a clear, informed decision to end your own life only after having the advice and support to truly be able to weigh your options. That guarantee should absolutely be in the Bill.

Baroness Hollins echoed that assessment:

Before introducing assisted dying on a national scale, we must ensure equitable access to high-quality specialist palliative care across the country. As part of the multidisciplinary palliative care assessment, I propose that every individual applying for assisted dying should be considered for NHS Continuing Healthcare through the fast-track funding process. This is an existing, well-established process, although perhaps not well understood within primary care or perhaps even within your Lordships’ House.

Continuing healthcare provides fully funded health and social care support, including assistance with medication, mobility and activities of daily living, but it can be slow to arrange. However, the fast-track pathway exists precisely to ensure that people with rapidly deteriorating or terminal conditions can access this support within 48 hours of their request. It works in practice. It is already there; the architecture already exists.

This can make an enormous difference, enabling people to choose their place of care, arrange nursing support, secure equipment or home oxygen, and relieving families of both emotional and financial burdens at a critical time. Encouraging fast-track access to continuing healthcare within the Bill would ensure that individuals receive timely, holistic support and are not driven towards assisted dying by unmet care needs. Furthermore, patients approved for fast-tracked continuing healthcare funding are more likely to have an accurate prognosis of six months or less. Taken together, these amendments would place specialist palliative care where it belongs: at the centre of end-of-life decision-making, ensuring dignity, compassion and genuine informed choice.

Difficult circumstances affect decisions

Baroness O’Loan made excellent points about everyday, outside circumstances which could drive someone to choose euthanasia:

Very small matters can tip people into making a decision for death. Sometimes, people just give up living because their circumstances feel so difficult to them, and they may feel, in this situation, that they have no option but to opt for assisted death, when they do not want to burden their family and friends with excessive costs, including the cost of care homes. Some of these costs may seem trivial to those of us who do not have to count our money so carefully but, for those who are very poor, as I once was, getting to hospital or a hospice to visit someone who needs to be visited and whom you wish and need to visit can be very difficult. It can cost money that you do not have, and it can take time. People may have young children, and those children need to be looked after. There are all sorts of complications which ensue from the situation in which terminal illness occurs. People may not have a car, and things such as fares and buying coffee, lunch and a gift all cost money. For poor people, given the current cost of living, every penny counts. Money spent on hospital visits and other expenses is not available for food and heat. The terminally ill person may know this and may wish to spare their family.

Myths about pain relief

Baroness O’Loan also discussed myths about pain relief:

I once asked palliative care experts what the longest time was that it had taken them to bring what seemed to be untreatable pain under control when a patient was admitted to a hospice. They told me the longest it had taken them was 12 hours.

Baroness (Claire) Fox elaborated on the subject:

It is important for the Committee to note that research has shown that those who wish to hasten their own death often change their mind when they receive more information. Palliative care can mean that people who want to die then want to live, and that is important if we are going to talk about choice. It is possible that you might want to die, that you are determined you want to die in assisted death terms, having had your terminal diagnosis. But why is it that you want to die? That is the motivation behind the discussion in this group [of amendments].

One of the things that happens is that many people are frightened and fearful, and one of the things they are fearful of is pain and terrible symptoms, which by the way are often graphically described by supporters of the Bill, and I think that they can scare people. It is the idea that your pain and symptoms cannot be controlled. When I talk to supporters of the Bill—some of my friends, colleagues and members of the public—they are completely compassionate in talking about how the Bill will help people who are suffering intolerably and in excruciating pain. None of us wishes that on anyone—or, indeed, on ourselves. It is a frightening prospect.

That is actually often a fear and a dread that the right kind of care can mean will not be realised. Patients are understandably frightened of being in that kind of pain, so they need to know that …

We all know family and friends and so on who have died and who have had terminal illnesses. People will say that morphine is simply not enough to control the pain. That is the kind of thing that I would say, because I know nothing about medicine. So, it is a great relief to discover that palliative medicine resident doctors say that morphine is the tip of the iceberg for pain management. There are countless other options available, but to know this requires training and experience, which I have not got. When you are having a chat in the pub with mates—or indeed, when I was in hospital pumping in the morphine—it is good to know that somebody, somewhere, has got the experience. That is the palliative care specialist and every terminally ill patient should at least be offered the option to go to see one. This is a modest but meaningful addition to the Bill and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, in the spirit of listening, accommodating and compromise that we heard about last night, will make changes to the Bill accordingly.

Lord Stevens’s words about palliative care policy being delayed

Baroness Fox made reference to Lord Stevens’s aforementioned comments about a palliative care policy being delayed until this Bill passes Parliament:

In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, yesterday, it was a shocking revelation that the Minister responsible for palliative care said that the Government would not publish their modern framework until after the Bill had passed through Parliament …

I was not trying to imply some conspiratorial holding back; it is just that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said this was

“a dangerous reversal of the timetable we require”.—[Official Report, 8/1/26; col. 1416.]

‘Pressure’ missing from legislative terms in the Bill

Baronesses Berridge and Grey-Thompson (Tanni), the former Paralympian, had an exchange on the change of wording, which removed ‘pressure’ from the Bill.

Berridge observed the change then asked:

The noble Baroness used the phrase “moral pressure”. I mentioned in my speech that this is a fundamental change. If Clause 3 has gone, not by way of clause stand part, then actually, “pressure” has now gone from the test here. We now have “undue influence or coercion”, not “dishonesty, coercion and pressure”. Does she have any view—I mentioned domestic abuse victims—on whether that makes any change to the safety of the Bill for disabled people?

Grey-Thompson responded:

Oh, absolutely: I think pressure is something incredibly important that we have to assess. Certainly, from the huge number of disabled people I have spoken to, pressure comes in many different ways, and it is very difficult to detect. If we do not take that seriously, I think people will be coerced into thinking that this is their only option, rather than that they have a range of options.

The impracticality and impossibility of people — and money

Crossbencher Baroness Nuala O’Loan raised the vital questions of where the people and money would come from to make this work:

There are only 29,500 social workers in England and Wales, according to the impact assessment. There are quite simply not enough of them to care for and protect children and vulnerable adults now, so what element of the crucial and challenging work of child and vulnerable adult protection would be sacrificed to support the existence of assisted death panels? This is a very real question. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said consistently that it cannot support the Bill, and there is a major shortage of registered psychiatrists. 

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—said, the Bill requires that the legal member of the panel holds high judicial office, is a KC, etcetera. But there are currently only 107 High Court judges, 20 Family Division judges and 41 designated judges, and our KCs tend to be fairly well occupied. Nearly 104,000 children were trapped in the family court backlog during 2023. The average time for dealing with cases involving children—very important cases—is 43 weeks, and there are currently thousands of couples and nearly 20,000 children waiting for hearings. Given the delays, and despite the intervention of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I do not believe that family court judges would be available to act as legal members—yet the decisions by the panel required by the Bill must be subject to time pressure, because there is the requirement of death within six months. Even if we allowed only three hours a case, at the lowest figure of 6,000, we would need 54,000 hours of members’ professional time. If the figure was 5%, it would rise to 270,000 hours.

How is this to be funded? How are these professionals to be trained, supervised and managed? What will be the cost of the panel members and the administration of the panels? The impact assessment provides no answers to these questions. Where is the money coming from? It is not coming from savings in care, because most palliative care is actually provided by donations from the public; only 30% is funded by the state. Therefore, the system now in the Bill is simply unsafe. It provides virtually no protection for the weak and vulnerable; it is not workable.

She also said:

There is also a problem about the cost of lawyers. The current fees for the family court range from £579 to £200 per solicitor per hour. Noble Lords can calculate what this would cost a family seeking to be represented in the court. The assumption must be that this will not be publicly funded. The PAC recently published a report about access to legal aid. It states that about 24% of the population, often those most in need of legal assistance—disabled people or those living in poverty—are excluded from the remote access now provided by digital means.

These matters should have been considered in a public consultation, but there was none. There should have been an assessment of risk and cost, but there was none. If judges are to make these decisions, we need more judges. It is not enough to say that judges will deliver if we tell them to. The reality, as we know from examining and observing the operation of the courts, is that cases are delayed. There are 80,000 cases alone waiting in the criminal justice system for trial. Rape cases are being listed for hearing in 2029. How are we to care for rape victims and other litigants when we are also providing this extra urgent need to make determined applications for assisted death? I therefore ask the Minister: how do the Government propose to resource even the panels’ work? Is the intention to designate other judges who sit largely in the Crown Court? A person making an application will have six months to live, so this is going to be urgent in any situation.

Opponents cut off at the end

At 2:30, a half-hour before the expected adjournment, things got tense.

Labour’s Baroness (Margaret) Wheeler, the Labour Lords’ Deputy Chief Whip, did not wish to allow any further comments so that the House could adjourn comfortably at 3 p.m. She said:

We are very short of time.

The newish Conservative peer, Lord (Paul) Goodman, wasn’t having any of it:

I have an amendment to which I have not yet been able to speak. Surely it is right and proper that those of us who have tabled amendments should be able to speak—especially where, as is true in my case, a noble Lord was a member of the Select Committee that examined this Bill. If the Committee will allow it, I would like briefly to quote some of the evidence that we heard …

I will be extremely brief but, as I said, I have tabled an amendment and have been waiting patiently to speak to it, if I may. My Amendment 394 would require the assessing doctor to arrange, and require the person to attend, a consultation with a palliative care specialist. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who moved the lead amendment in this group, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who spoke earlier, I was on the Select Committee. I will not repeat the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, quoted, but I shall very briefly quote a little more, because the merit of having these Select Committee reports is that the House hears them … 

I could quote more, but because of the time constraint, I will come to a conclusion, as requested.

My conclusion is this. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gave evidence to our committee, he stressed at the start that the guiding principle of the Bill is autonomy, but autonomy is compromised if there is not real choice. To those who say that you cannot have real choice between assisted dying and palliative care because the palliative care is not available, my response is that that is precisely why this should have been considered by a royal commission, rather than being brought into this Bill, which has been so heavily criticised by two Select Committees of this House. However, we are where we are, this is the Bill as we have it, so I wait to hear from the sponsor of the Bill which of these amendments he is prepared to accept and, if he is not, which amendments he himself will bring forward in due course.

Supporters of the Bill shouted ‘Front Bench!’ in an effort to subdue not only Lord Goodman but also Lord (Donald) Curry of Kirkharle and Baroness Grey-Thompson.

Then, Lord (Mark) Harper, a recent Conservative Secretary of State for Transport, rose, with other peers shouting, ‘No!’

He, too, mentioned Lord Stevens:

No, I am sorry, there is no requirement in the Companion that you can speak in a debate only if you have tabled an amendment. If we want to finish at 3 o’clock, we can either go slightly past 3 o’clock or we can stop at 3 o’clock and resume this group next week. I wish to make one point that has not yet been made and which I think is pertinent to the debate, and I believe I am perfectly in order doing so.

The point is this. Two Members have raised the valuable contribution made in yesterday’s procedural debate by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham—a man who knows what he is talking about on the NHS, as he ran it for a number of years—about the timetable for the Government to publish their modern framework for palliative medicine. He said that, at the moment, that framework is likely to be published after Parliament has considered the Bill, and he felt that that was the wrong way around. The reason that matters is that the Government have published a 10-year plan for the NHS, and nothing in that plan will significantly change the provision of palliative care in England.

We know that only about half the people who require specialist palliative care are able to get it, and that the Bill’s sponsor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, believes—or believed and still believes—that good palliative care is a prerequisite for there to be assisted suicide, so I think it very important that the Minister answers the question and confirms that the Government will at least think about publishing the modern framework for palliative care before we get to Report on the Bill, so that this House can make a properly informed decision about the amendments before it on palliative care.

Then Lord Blencathra stepped in, also saying that the guidelines for Lords debates were flexible. One could terminate the day’s debate and resume it next week:

My Lords, this is a self-regulating House, and that does not mean that a Government Whip can regulate who can speak and who cannot. I echo the point made by my noble friend. If the only way one can speak in these debates is to sign amendments, I know what to do in future.

I spoke for five minutes on the Friday before Christmas and said not a peep in the debate earlier today because it was not my speciality. I have been waiting here for two hours to make a speech on palliative care, and we seem to have been refused the right to do so because the Government Whip wants us not to say anything so that we can finish at 3 o’clock. I agree that we can finish at 3 o’clock—it is a simple matter for the House to adjourn and come back to polish off this matter next Friday morning—but it would be absolutely outrageous for noble Lords who have not had a chance to speak at all on palliative care to be refused the right to do so because the Government have imposed an arbitrary timetable on us.

Baroness Wheeler retorted, seemingly contradicting herself:

My Lords, it is not an arbitrary timetable. Many people have spoken on palliative care both at Second Reading and today, and I respect that totally. I am just saying that we need to respect the rules of the House to be able to adjourn. It is better if we finish this amendment so that we can start the next session with a new debate.

Another peer reminded Blencathra of last night’s motion.

Blencathra was not moved:

I respect what the noble Baroness has said, but it is also the case that it is disrespectful to Members who have prepared speeches, wishing to say something on palliative care, and who deliberately stayed quiet in previous debates so that they could make a point on a subject in which they are interested. They are now being deprived of the opportunity to do so.

Disappointly, the Conservative spokesman, Lord (Syed) Kamall, agreed with Labour! He then did his summing up for the Conservatives.

Baroness (Alison) Levitt, who is married to Lord Carlile (formerly a Liberal Democrat), responded for the Government. Essentially:

The Government have workability concerns in relation to these amendments. First, it is unclear what the full assessment is intended to cover and what is required for it, potentially making it difficult to demonstrate compliance. Secondly, the amendments would require repeated referrals at different stages in the process. It would be resource intensive to repeat the same full assessment three times in addition to the existing assessments in the Bill. This might cause delays in the assisted dying process. The Government do not have a detailed delivery model, so we are unable to comment on the point at which the process cannot be delivered within a reasonable timescale. Finally, I note that it is unclear what happens if the individual declines any of the referrals, including if the individual has, in fact, undergone such assessments. That might result in ambiguity for those seeking an assisted death or for the assessing doctor and panels in fulfilling their duties under the Bill.

Amendment 182 and Amendments 261 to 264 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friends Lady Ritchie and Lord Hunt would require someone seeking an assisted death to have their palliative and end-of-life care needs assessed and care provided by an appropriate health or social care professional if the person requests it. These amendments would also place a duty on the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make regulations about the provision of palliative and end-of-life care. There would need to be justification for the different levels of palliative care being offered, on the one hand, to terminally ill patients seeking an assisted death and, on the other, those in comparable situations where patients are not seeking an assisted death. The Government have some concerns, as I said earlier, about creating unequal access to palliative care, with the potential effect of prioritising resource for those who wish to pursue an assisted death rather than for those with the greatest clinical need …

Other amendments were deemed unworkable.

As for Lord Stevens’s comments the day before, she said:

I can confirm that the Minister for Care said this week that we will publish an interim report in the spring and a final modern service framework by the autumn. We want to get this right, so we are not going to rush it. I remind all noble Lords that this is not a government Bill; it is a Private Member’s Bill.

Lord Falconer, being very lawyerly, gave his concluding remarks, saying that whatever peers had been discussing in proposed amendments was … already in the Bill:

… First of all, should you be properly informed? Yes, you most certainly should be properly informed of what palliative care is available to you, and the Bill should make that clear. I submit that the Bill makes that clear and does so in a reasonable way. I draw your Lordships’ attention to Clause 5 …

All the palliative care options that are available to you have to be discussed with you by the doctor in the preliminary discussion and, if you want, you can be referred to a specialist in palliative care as well. In addition to that, I refer your Lordships to Clause 12(2)(c)—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who took us through the provisions very helpfully …

Therefore, there are three occasions on which the detail of the palliative care available to you is explained to you …

The various amendments are all twists on those themes. My view is that we should make sure that they have the right information, and they should have access to a specialist who will tell them it if they want it, but I think the Bill does that.

Baroness Findlay of Llandaff withdrew her amendment, but said:

I believe that we must—not just will but must—come back to this on Report, with all those people who have shown an important investment in time to consider the needs of the individual who is in such distress that they want an assisted death. We cannot accept that some people are potentially going down that road simply because care is not available.

For those wondering when the Lords adjourned, it was at 3:13 p.m.

More to follow next Friday. Unfortunately and ultimately, Labour will get their way and approve this ill-considered ethical abomination.

Readings and reflections for Epiphany, January 6

January 6, 2026 in Catholic, Protestant | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

January 6 is the Feast of the Epiphany, remembering the visit of the Magi, the three Wise Men, to the Christ Child, Mary and Joseph.

The Magi were known in that part of the ancient world to be king makers. They were the first Gentiles to see Christ and recognise Him as a very important king. Tradition says that St Thomas the Apostle converted them to Christianity. Melchior, Caspar and Balthazar (spellings differ) were later canonised, as the Fatima Center explains (emphasis mine):

The Magi returned to the East, to Persia and later were baptized there by Saint Thomas the Apostle, in the year 40. All three of the Magi were martyred for the Catholic Faith. Their names are now, and should always be called, Saint Gaspar, Saint Melchior and Saint Balthasar. The bodies of Saint Gaspar, Saint Melchior and Saint Balthasar were first brought to Constantinople, and then to Milan, and in the twelfth century they were placed in the Cathedral of Cologne, in Germany, where they are venerated with much love by the Christians who worship there.[1]

The readings are the same for all three Lectionary years. Exegeses are included in the following posts:

Epiphany — Old Testament reading — Isaiah 60:1-6 (2017)

Epiphany — exegesis on Psalm 72 (2025)

Epiphany — Epistle — Ephesians 3:1-12 (2016)

Epiphany — Gospel — Matthew 2:1-12 (2016)

At this time, which was some months after Jesus’s incarnation — His earthly birth — the Holy Family lived in a house (Matthew 2:11):

11 On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

It was after that visit that Herod, having received no update from the Magi with regard to this new infant king, became furious and ordered that every boy under the age of two be killed. As I have mentioned in previous posts over the past week, those babies are commemorated on December 28 with the Feast of the Holy Innocents.

We heard Matthew’s account of Herod’s cruelty and the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt in the Gospel for the First Sunday after Christmas Day:

First Sunday after Christmas Day — Year A — exegesis on the Gospel, Matthew 2:13-23, parts 1, 2 and 3

It is likely that Mary and Joseph used the valuable gifts from the Magi to finance their travel to and from Egypt as well as their temporary stay there.

The following posts help to increase our knowledge of this important day in the Church calendar:

The Epiphany and the Bible

Why the Epiphany is so important — a Lutheran perspective

A Lutheran perspective on the Magi

A Lutheran pastor reflects on the Epiphany

More Lutheran reflections on the Epiphany

What to remember about Epiphany (2016)

Remembering the Epiphany in chalk

This continues to be a happy feast day for Christians around the world, some marking it with parades or a special cake:

How Spain celebrates Epiphany (Three Kings Parade)

Epiphany and king cake — a history

Some cultures consider this to be the day when presents are exchanged.

In England, centuries ago, the Epiphany signalled that a Christmas break from working in the frozen fields was coming to an end. A few final days of festivity ensued:

St Distaff’s Day — Distaff Day: January 7

The English tradition of Plough Monday (2016, the first Monday after Epiphany)

Plough Monday — the Monday after Epiphany (2017)

The next few Sundays are in the season of Epiphany. Where vestments are worn, the celebrant will wear white.

However you choose to celebrate Epiphany, whether through food or presents, I hope you have a happy day.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Leviticus 11:24-38

January 4, 2026 in Catholic, Protestant | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 1 comment

Bible openThe 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 from Matthew Henry, John Gill and Bible Hub.

Leviticus 11:24-38

24 “And by these you shall become unclean. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening, 25 and whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. 26 Every animal that parts the hoof but is not cloven-footed or does not chew the cud is unclean to you. Everyone who touches them shall be unclean. 27 And all that walk on their paws, among the animals that go on all fours, are unclean to you. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening, 28 and he who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to you.

29 “And these are unclean to you among the swarming things that swarm on the ground: the mole rat, the mouse, the great lizard of any kind, 30 the gecko, the monitor lizard, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. 31 These are unclean to you among all that swarm. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening. 32 And anything on which any of them falls when they are dead shall be unclean, whether it is an article of wood or a garment or a skin or a sack, any article that is used for any purpose. It must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; then it shall be clean. 33 And if any of them falls into any earthenware vessel, all that is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it. 34 Any food in it that could be eaten, on which water comes, shall be unclean. And all drink that could be drunk from every such vessel shall be unclean. 35 And everything on which any part of their carcass falls shall be unclean. Whether oven or stove, it shall be broken in pieces. They are unclean and shall remain unclean for you. 36 Nevertheless, a spring or a cistern holding water shall be clean, but whoever touches a carcass in them shall be unclean. 37 And if any part of their carcass falls upon any seed that is to be sown, it is clean, 38 but if water is put on the seed and any part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Last week’s post discussed God’s commands to Moses and Aaron about clean and unclean birds and insects.

The other commandments for kashrut — kosher — law are here:

Leviticus 11:1-8 – God, Moses, Aaron, kashrut law, kosher law, forbidden meats (camel, rabbit, rock badger, hare, pig)

God gives Moses and Aaron commands on clean and unclean meats. The camel, rabbit, rock badger and hare are forbidden, either because of their lesser digestion (as contrasted with that of cattle) or their daily habits (burrowing, indiscriminate eating).

———————————————

Leviticus 11:9-12 – God, Moses, Aaron, kashrut law, kosher law, forbidden seafood (e.g. shellfish, eels, lampreys)

God gives Moses and Aaron commands on clean and unclean creatures from seas and rivers. Anything without fins and scales is forbidden, e.g. shellfish but also eels and lampreys.

For all the aforementioned unclean creatures, those who touched their carcasses would be unclean until the evening (verse 24), and whoever carried any part of their carcasses would be required to wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening (verse 25).

Matthew Henry‘s commentary explains that this was a way of looking ahead to the Messiah (emphases mine):

Concerning the dead carcasses of all these unclean animals. (1.) Every one that touched them was to be unclean until the evening, v. 24-28. This law is often repeated, to possess them with a dread of every thing that was prohibited, though no particular reason for the prohibition did appear, but only the will of the Law-maker. Not that they were to be looked upon as defiling to the conscience, or that it was a sin against God to touch them, unless done in contempt of the law: in many cases, somebody must of necessity touch them, to remove them; but it was a ceremonial uncleanness they contracted, which for the time forbade them to come into the tabernacle, or to eat of any of the holy things, or so much as to converse familiarly with their neighbours. But the uncleanness continued only till the evening, to signify that all ceremonial pollutions were to come to an end by the death of Christ in the evening of the world. And we must learn, by daily renewing our repentance every night for the sins of the day, to cleanse ourselves from the pollution we contract by them, that we may not lie down in our uncleanness. Even unclean animals they might touch while they were alive without contracting any ceremonial uncleanness by it, as horses and dogs, because they were allowed to use them for service; but they might not touch them when they were dead, because they might not eat their flesh; and what must not be eaten must not be touched, Gen 3 3.

John Gill‘s commentary says similarly:

… it was necessary that he should wash himself in water; which was typical of washing and cleansing by the grace and blood of Christ, without which a man cannot be cleansed from the least sin, and pollution by it; and may signify that during the legal dispensation there was no proper cleansing from sin, until the evening of the world, when Christ came and shed his blood for the cleansing of it.

The Lord repeated His warnings of uncleanliness about the forbidden animals.

Every animal that parts the hoof but is not cloven-footed or does not chew the cud was unclean; therefore, everyone who touched them would be unclean (verse 26).

Gill reminds us of the prohibited animals and says that cleansing by water would be necessary, even though the verse does not say that expressly:

[The carcasses] of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven footed,…. As the camel:

nor cheweth the cud; though it may divide the hoof, as the swine; and on the other hand, such as may chew the cud, and yet not dividing the hoof, as the coney and hare; for the Scripture here, as Aben Ezra observes again, uses a short and concise way of speaking …

everyone that toucheth them shall be unclean; until the evening; and obliged to washing, though not expressed: this is not to be understood of touching them while alive, as some Sadducees or Karaites understand it, according to Aben Ezra; for camels, horses, mules, &c. might be, and were rode upon, and so touched; but of them when dead, or their carcases, as is rightly supplied in the beginning of the verse; and the Jewish writers {c} understand this of the flesh of the carcass only, not of the bones, horns, and hoofs, which, they say, do not defile, only the flesh: this is repeated from Leviticus 11:8.

All four-legged animals that walk on their paws were also unclean; whoever touched their carcass would be unclean until the evening (verse 27).

Gill tells us:

Whatsoever goeth upon his paws,…. Or “the palms” {d} of his hands; meaning such creatures, whose feet are not divided into two parts, but into many, like the fingers of an hand, as apes, lions, bears, wolves, foxes, dogs, cats, &c.

among all manner of beasts that go on [all] four; this is added, to distinguish them from fowl, such as are clean; who walk but on two feet, though their feet are divided into fingers or talons, and may be called hands on which they walk …

The person carrying the carcass of any of those animals would be required to wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening; they were unclean animals (verse 28).

Gill says:

… they are unclean to you; even the carcasses of the one and of the other; and to all the Israelites, men, women, and children, as Aben Ezra observes.

In the next four verses, God gives another prohibition: reptiles and amphibians.

Swarming things that swarmed on the ground were unclean, namely the mole rat, the mouse, the great lizard of any kind (verse 29), the gecko, the monitor lizard, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon (verse 30).

The KJV verses read as follows:

29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,   30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.  

Gill gives us the ancient Jewish explanation behind God’s commandments for this category of creature:

… the Misnic doctors say {d} that the blood of a creeping thing and its flesh are joined together: and Maimonides {e} observes, that this is a fundamental thing with them, that the blood of a creeping thing is like its flesh; which in Siphre (an ancient book of theirs) is gathered from what is said in Leviticus 11:29 “these shall be unclean,” &c. hence the wise men say, the blood of a creeping thing pollutes as its flesh …

We can see that not all of the creatures’ names are the same. Gill gives us the unseemly characteristics of those named in the KJV but also tells us where some of these creatures were eaten:

… the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind; the first of these, “the weasel,” a creature well known; there are two sorts of it, as Pliny {f} says, the field weasel, and the house weasel; the former are called by the Jewish writers the weasel of the bushes {g}, and the latter the weasel that dwells in the foundations of houses {h}; and of the former there was a doubt among some of them whether it was a species of the eight reptiles in Leviticus 11:29 or whether it was a species of animals {i}; and which, Maimonides says, is a species of foxes like to weasels: Bochart {k} thinks the mole is intended; but the generality of interpreters understand it of the weasel; and so Jarchi and Kimchi, and Philip Aquinas {l}, interpret it by “mustela,” the weasel: however, all agree the second is rightly interpreted “the mouse”; which has its name in Hebrew from its being a waster and destroyer of fields; an instance of which we have in 1 Samuel 6:5 See Gill on “1Sa 6:5”; so that this sort may be chiefly intended, though it includes all others, who are distinguished by their colours, the black, the red, and the white, which are all mentioned by Jonathan in his paraphrase of the text: this animal, as a learned physician {m} expresses it, eats almost everything, gnaws whatever it meets with, and, among other things, is a great lover of swine’s flesh, which was an abomination to the Jews; nor does it abstain from dung, and therefore it is no wonder it should be reckoned among impure creatures; and yet we find they were eaten by some people, see Isaiah 66:17 especially the dormouse; for which the old Romans made conveniences to keep them in, and feed them, and breed them for the table {n}: so rats in the West Indies are brought to market and sold for food, as a learned author [Sir Hans Sloane] {o} of undoubted credit assures us, who was an eyewitness of it: the last in this text, “the tortoise,” means the land tortoise; it has its name from the shell with which it is covered, this word being sometimes used for a covered wagon, Numbers 7:3 there are various kinds of them, as Pliny {p} and other writers observe, and who, as Strabo {q} and Mela {r} also, speak of a people they call Chelonophagi, or tortoise eaters: a tortoise of the land kind is esteemed a very delicate dish: Dr. Shaw {s}, speaking of the land and water tortoises in Barbary, says, the former, which hides itself during the winter months, is very palatable food, but the latter is very unwholesome: the Septuagint version renders it, the “land crocodile,” which, is approved of by Bochart {t}: and Leo Africanus says {u}, that many in Egypt eat the flesh of the crocodile, and affirm it to be of good savour; and so Benzon {w} says, its flesh is white and tender, and tastes like veal; though some among them, as Strabo {x} asserts, have a great antipathy and hatred to them; and others worship them as gods, and neither can be supposed to eat them; the land crocodiles are eaten by the Syrians, as Jerom {y} affirms, for those feeding on the sweetest flowers, as is said, their entrails are highly valued for their agreeable odour: Jarchi says, it is a creature like a frog; he means a toad; so Philip Aquinas and many render the word: Dr. Shaw takes the creature designed to be the sharp-scaled tailed lizard {z} …

And the ferret,…. Whatever creature is here meant, it has its name in Hebrew from the cry it makes; and so the ferret has but one note in its voice, which is a shrill, but small, whining cry: it is used to drive rabbits out of their holes: the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions render the word by “mygale,” the weasel mouse, or “mus areneus” of the Latins, the shrew or shrew mouse: it has something of the mouse and weasel, from whence it has its name in Greek, being of the size of the one, and the colour of the other: but Bochart {b} is of opinion, that a sort of lizard called “stellio,” an evet or newt, is meant; one sort of which, according to Pliny {c}, makes a bitter noise and screaking:

and [the] chameleon; this is a little creature like a lizard, but with a larger and longer head; it has four feet, and on each foot three claws; its tail is long; with this, as well as with its feet, it fastens itself to the branches of trees; its tail is flat, its nose long, and made in an obtuse point; its back is sharp, its skin plaited and jagged like a saw, from the neck to the last joint of the tail, and upon its head it hath something like a comb; in other respects it is made like a fish; that is to say, it has no neck {d}; what is said of its living on air, and changing colour according to what it is applied, are now reckoned vulgar mistakes: but whatever creature is here meant, it seems to have its name in Hebrew from its strength, wherefore Bochart {e} takes the “guaril” or “alwarlo” of the Arabs to be meant; which is the stoutest and strongest sort of lizard, and is superior in strength to serpents, and the land tortoise, with which it often contends:

and the lizard; so Jarchi interprets the word by a “lizard”; it has a larger letter than usual in it, that this creature might be taken notice of, and guarded against as very pernicious, and yet with some people it is eaten: Calmet says {f}, there are several sorts of lizards, which are well known: there are some in Arabia of a cubit long, but in the Indies there are some, they say, of twenty four feet in length: in America, where they are very good, they eat them: one lizard is enough to satisfy four men: and so in the West Indies, says Sir Hans Sloane {g}, I was somewhat surprised to see serpents, rats, and lizards sold for food, and that to understanding people, and of a very good and nice palate; and elsewhere {h}, he says, all nations inhabiting these parts of the world (the West Indies) do the same: “Guanes” or “lizards” are very common in Jamaica, and eaten there, and were of great use when the English first took this island, being, as I was assured, says he, commonly sold by the first planters for half a crown apiece: Dr. Shaw {i} says, that he was informed that more than 40,000 persons in Cairo, and in the neighbourhood, live upon no other food than lizards and serpents, though he thinks {k}, because the chameleon is called by the Arabs “taitah,” which differs little in name from hajl, “letaah,” here; that therefore that, which is indeed a species of the lizard, might, with more propriety, be substituted for it:

and the snail; so the word is rendered by Jarchi, on the place, and by Kimchi, and Philip Aquinas, and David de Pomis, in their lexicons; and these creatures, though forbid to the Jews, yet are not only used for medicine, but also for food by many: snails of several kinds, we are told, are eaten with much satisfaction in Italy and France: in Silesia they make places for the breeding of them at this day, where they are fed with turnip tops, &c. and carefully preserved for the market; and the Romans took care of them in the same manner {l}: Bochart {m} thinks a kind of lizard is meant, which lies in sand, called by the Arabs “chulaca,” or “luchaca,” because the word here used signifies, in the Talmudic {n} language, sandy ground:

and the mole; and so it is interpreted by Onkelos and Jarchi here, and by David de Pomis, and Philip Aquinas, in their lexicons: the same word is used for a certain sort of fowl, which we translate the “swan”; Leviticus 11:18 but here of a creeping thing: whatever is intended by it, it seems to have its name from its breath; either in a contrary signification, if understood of the mole, which either holds its breath, or breathes not while under ground; or from its breathing more freely, wherefore Bochart {o} takes it to be the “chameleon”; which, as Pliny {p} says, is always gaping with its mouth for air; and it has been a vulgar notion, though a wrong one, that it lives upon it: the Targum of Jonathan interprets it by the “salamander”; now whoever ate any of the above eight creeping things, according to the Jewish canons, was to be beaten {q}.

God said that, among creeping things that swarm, those were forbidden; whoever touched them when dead (the creatures) would be unclean until the evening (verse 31).

However, Gill describes the nuance in interpreting what exactly constituted unclean in death. Furthermore, one could touch these animals when they were alive:

… whosoever doth touch them when they are dead shall be unclean until the even; for touching them while alive did not defile, only when dead; and this the Jews interpret, while they are in the case in which they died, that is, while they are moist; for, as Ben Gersom says, if they are so dry, as that they cannot return to their moisture, they do not defile; for which reason, neither the bones, nor nails, nor nerves, nor skin of these creeping things, defile; but, they say {s}, while the back bone is whole, and the bones cleave to it, then a creeping thing is reckoned moist, and while it is so it defiles.

God then issued commands regarding objects upon which these creatures could fall.

If one of these creatures once dead fell onto an article of wood or a garment or a skin or a sack, any article that is used for any purpose, that object was unclean until it had been placed in water. Afterwards, it was unclean only until the evening, after which it would be clean once again (verse 32).

Gill gives us more detail:

Any of the above eight creeping things, that is, of their flesh, for as for their bones, nails, nerves, and skin, as before observed, being separated from them and dry, they do not defile:

whether [it be] any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack; every wooden vessel, as the Targum of Jonathan; and all sorts of clothes, of woollen, linen, or silk, and all sorts of skins, excepting skins of sea beasts; for these, according to the Jews {t}, received no pollution; and also sacks or sackcloth, made of goats’ hair, and the like:

whatsoever vessel [it be], wherein any work is done; any tool or instrument made use of by any artificer in his trade, or any vessel wrought by him:

it must be put into water; dipped into it, even into forty seahs of water, according to the Targum of Jonathan; and which is to be understood, not of any working tool, or finished vessel only, but of any vessel of wood, raiment, skin, or sack, before mentioned:

it shall be unclean until the even; even though put into water and washed:

so it shall be cleansed; in the above manner, by being put or dipped into water; or “afterwards,” as the Septuagint, when it has been dipped and the even is come, and not before.

However, not all vessels could be made clean again.

God said that if any of those creatures fell into any earthenware vessel, all that is in it became unclean, and the person to whom it belonged would have to break it (verse 33).

This is partly because earthenware is porous.

Gill points out that earthenware vessels were also cheap, therefore, easily replaceable:

if it only by falling touched the outside of it, it was not unclean; but if it fell into it, then whatever was contained in it was unclean; for, as Jarchi says, an earthen vessel does not pollute or receive pollution, but from the air of it {u}, from its inside:

and ye shall break it; other vessels might be put into water and rinsed, and so be cleansed, but earthen vessels, being of no great value, were to be broken in pieces: an emblem this, as Ainsworth suggests, of the dissolution of our bodies, which are as earthen vessels, and of the destruction of sin thereby, and of the entire removal of it by death.

God said that any food on which water comes was tainted by one of these creatures falling on it would become unclean; the same held true for drink in that vessel (verse 34).

Gill explains, saying that the Jews considered water on the food in that instance as rendering it unclean:

… [that] on which [such] water cometh shall be unclean; that is, such water as is put into an unclean vessel, become so by the fall of any unclean reptile into it; wherefore such water poured out upon any sort of food, clean and fit to eat, or that is put into such water, to be dressed, it becomes unclean and unfit to eat; for the vessel, being unclean, defiles the water, and the water defiles the food: Jarchi interprets this of water in general, which coming upon anything eatable, prepares it for uncleanness; “we learn (says he) that no food is fit and prepared to receive defilement until water comes upon it once; and after it is come upon it once, it receives defilement for ever, even though it becomes dry;” but the former seems to be the true sense:

and all drink that may be drank in every such vessel shall be unclean; whatever otherwise might be lawfully drank, yet being put into such a vessel, into which any unclean reptile was fallen, or being in it when it fell into it, became unclean and not fit to be drank; and those liquors which receive uncleanness, and make meats unclean by coming on them, according to the Misnic doctors {w}, are these seven, dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk, and honey.

Cooking implements could also become unclean if one of these creatures fell on it.

God said that, whether oven or stove, it would have to be broken in pieces; they would become unclean and shall remain unclean to the Israelites — ‘to you’ (verse 35).

Gill says:

… here of any part of them [the forbidden creatures], though ever so small, which should, through any accident, fall and light upon anything, even that would render it unclean and unfit for use:

[whether it be] oven, [or] ranges of pots; the one to bake bread in, and the other to boil flesh in, as Aben Ezra observes:

they shall be broken down; and no more made use of for baking and boiling:

[for] they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you; were made hereby unfit for use, and should not be used: the Jewish writers {x} explain the phrase, “to you,” to your necessity, that which they had need of, but now should not use nor receive advantage from; even “to you”; all men, women, and children, as Hiskuni interprets it: all this was ordered to create in them an abhorrence of these creatures, and to make them cautious of eating and touching them, and careful that they come not nigh, or touched, or fell upon anything, since it would give them so much trouble, as well as occasion loss.

Henry points out that the home was meant to be as holy as Moses’s tabernacle:

Not only the vessels of the sanctuary, but every pot in Jerusalem and Judah, must be holiness to the Lord, Zech 14 20, 21.

God then issued commandments concerning water.

The Lord said that water in a spring or cistern was clean, however, anyone who touched one of the forbidden creatures which had fallen into it would be unclean (verse 36).

The KJV reads:

36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.

Gill tells us more about this nuanced command:

… “a fountain or pit, a collection of waters,” … may explain what fountain or pit is meant, even such an one where there is a large continence of water, into which, if any carcass of a creeping thing fell, or any part of it, yet it

shall be clean: and fit for use, either because of the abundance of water in it, which could not be affected with the fall of such a creature into it as where there is but a small quantity; or rather this exception was made, because pools of water were of considerable value in these countries, and frequently in use for bathings, &c. and therefore for the good of men, and that they might not suffer so great a loss by such an accident, they are declared notwithstanding to be clean and free for use: hence you may learn, says Jarchi, that he that dips in them is pure from his uncleanness; that a man might lawfully make use of them for a bath on account of any uncleanness, notwithstanding the carcass of a creeping thing had fallen into it; as a mouse, or rat, or any such creature:

but that which toucheth their carcass shall be unclean; not the waters which touch the carcass, as Aben Ezra interprets it, for then the whole would be defiled, and unfit for use; but either the man that touched the carcass, laid hold upon it to pluck it out of the fountain or pit, or that which he made use of to get it out, or both these, were unclean in a ceremonial sense: the Targum of Jonathan is, “but he that toucheth their carcasses in the midst of these waters shall be unclean.”

God then discussed defilement of the soil.

If any part of the forbidden animals’ carcass fell upon seed to be sown, the seed would remain clean (verse 37), but if water was put on the seed and any part of their carcass fell on it, it would become unclean ‘to you’ — the Israelites (verse 38).

Gill gives us the reasoning behind this command:

… because being cast into the earth, and dying and quickening there, and then springing up again in stalk and ear, it would go through various changes before it became the food of man: the Targum of Jonathan describes it, such as is sown in its dryness, or being dry; for if it was wetted it was unfit for use, as follows.

… if [any] water be put upon the seed,…. Either accidentally or on purpose; whether on sowing seed, and with water with which they water the field, as Aben Ezra interprets it; or on seed used for food, by steeping it in water, as sometimes wheat is, and boiled; and whether it is water or the rest of the liquors, and whether they are put on the seed, or the seed falls into them, it matters not, as Jarchi says:

and [any part] of their carcass fall thereon; that is, on the seed, though Aben Ezra observes, some say upon the water: the Targum of Jonathan adds, in its moisture, or while it is wet; and so may be thought to be more susceptible of impurity from the touch of a dead reptile, or any part of it, and which would render it unfit for sowing or eating, until it was dried and cleansed; yea, Jarchi says, if it falls thereon, even after it is dried:

it [shall be] unclean unto you; unfit for use.

Although Christians do not have to obey these laws under the New Covenant, Henry tells us that we are to be circumspect about our souls and the defilements of sin:

All this was designed to exercise them to a constant care and exactness in their obedience, and to teach us, who by Christ are delivered from these burdensome observances, not to be less circumspect in the more weighty matters of the law. We ought as industriously to preserve our precious souls from the pollutions of sin, and as speedily to cleanse them when they are polluted, as they were to preserve and cleanse their bodies and household goods from those ceremonial pollutions.

Bible Hub has a homiletic on these verses, ‘Unclean, Creeping And Dead Things’, by JA Macdonald. His Christian application for these verses echoes Henry’s (bold in the original):

II. THE LAWS OF CONTAMINATION. These are ranged under two heads:

1. The polluting of persons.

(1) This is done by their touching the carcass of an unclean creature. Whatsoever is unfit for food must not be touched (see Genesis 3:3). Whom we cannot commune with we must avoid.

(2) It may be done by their touching the carcass of a creature originally clean that has died of itself. Because in this case it could not be a type of Christ, who died voluntarily, for he had no sin of his own to doom him to die. All intercourse of Christians should be in Christ, who is our life.

2. The polluting of things.

(1) Vessels of any sort are rendered unclean by contact with the carcass of an unclean thing. These represent human beings in the capacity of servants, whether to God or man (Romans 9:21; 2 Timothy 2:20, 21). Some being polluted are to be broken, to show that sin leads to destruction (Romans 9:22). Others may be purified by water, to show that sin may be removed by the sanctifying grace of the Spirit of God. There is a happy time coming (see Zechariah 14:20, 21).

(2) Clean meat may become polluted by contact with anything unclean. This law teaches that “evil communications corrupt good manners.”

(3) If an unclean thing fall into a fountain or well in which there is plenty of water, it does not render the water unclean (verse 36). The living water is an emblem of the Holy Spirit, who cannot be rendered unholy by anything that sinners may do. For a like reason, perhaps, seed that is to be sown, which is a figure of Christ, cannot be rendered impure (verse 37). But if water be put upon the seed for any other purpose, the figure is changed and the case is altered (verse 38). – J.A.M.

God concludes by repeating His laws on this subject in general, the topic of next week’s post.

Next time — Leviticus 11:39-47

Second Sunday after Christmas Day — readings and exegeses

January 3, 2026 in Catholic, Protestant | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

The Second Sunday after Christmas Day is January 4, 2026.

Readings are the same for all three Lectionary years.

My exegeses are as follows:

Christmastide today ends on Twelfth Night, which is January 5. A January 1, 2026 article in The Oldie tells us (emphases mine):

the first night of Christmas is Christmas Eve, which is why a lot of Continental children still open their presents that evening.

We enter the season of Epiphany on January 6, which is the Feast of the Magi, the visit of the three Wise Men to the Christ Child, which would have happened several months to a year after His birth.

In Britain, most Christians are careful to take down their Christmas decorations by sunset on Twelfth Night, January 5, something I learnt from my in-laws and do myself.

However, there has been a growing trend, particularly among Church of England adherents, to return to the ancient timing of Christmastide, which originally ended on Candlemas, February 2, when the 40-day-old Christ Child was presented at the Temple. As such, some Anglicans are leaving their nativity scenes intact until then.

The Oldie gives us an interesting religious and literary fact:

… from Elizabethan times until Victorian times, Twelfth Night was the climax of the festive season – with Epiphany, celebrating the revelation of God incarnate as Christ, and the visit of the Magi to Jesus … on the following day …

That Twelfth Night was a pretty big deal in Shakespeare’s day is clear from the genesis of his play. It was first performed at London’s Middle Temple on 2nd of February 1602 at Candlemas, the religious ceremony that marked the conclusion of Christmastide.

Students of Scripture will have noticed that the readings after Christmas Day do not correspond chronologically to what actually happened in the life of baby Jesus.

Last Sunday — the First Sunday after Christmas Day in Year A — we heard Matthew’s account of the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt to escape Herod’s murderous edict of baby boys under the age of two:

On that same Sunday in Year C, we hear Luke’s account of a 12-year-old Jesus teaching in the temple:

Yet, on January 6, Epiphany, we remember the visit of the Magi. The Magi visited the Holy Family before they fled to Egypt. Herod was furious that the Magi had not told him where this young, new king lived, hence the death of those babies commemorated on December 28 in the Feast of the Holy Innocents.

Furthermore, as stated, Candlemas — February 2 — marks the 40th day after Christmas Day and Mary’s return to public worship after giving birth to Jesus. The widowed prophetess Anna and the aged priest Simeon were in attendance. Simeon proclaimed that Jesus is the Messiah and that he could die in peace knowing that he had seen Him face-to-face. Simeon also told Mary of the sword that would pierce her heart as her Son grew up.

In conclusion, we do not have many facts to hand about our Lord’s earthly childhood. That said, even when not presented chronologically, we can still treasure the Gospel accounts that we do have and learn from them accordingly.

I wish everyone a blessed second — and final — Sunday in Christmastide. Next Sunday, we will be in the season of Epiphany. Celebrants wearing vestments will continue to wear white until we get closer to the Sundays before Lent.

New Year’s Day — the Circumcision, the Holy Name of Jesus — exegesis on the First Reading, Numbers 6:22-27

December 31, 2025 in Catholic, Protestant | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

All best wishes for a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year to my readers!

Circumcision of Christ stained glassNew Year’s Day was traditionally a day when Christians attended church for the Feast of the Circumcision of our Lord.

The stained glass window at the left is probably the only depiction of our Lord’s circumcision. It dates from 15th century Germany and now hangs in The Cloisters, a famous art museum in Manhattan.

This ceremony marked the first time Jesus shed His blood, foretelling the Crucifixion.

You can read more about this feast day and the window in my posts below:

January 1 – Feast of the Circumcision of Christ (2010)

New Year’s Day: the Circumcision — and Naming — of Christ Jesus

New Year’s greetings — and the Feast of the Circumcision (2017, details on circumcision stained glass window)

In the Catholic Church, this feast day has been renamed as the Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God. The Holy Day of Obligation status may be waived locally.

Readings for the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus can be found here.

Exegeses for the Epistle and the Gospel are below:

The First Reading is as follows (emphases mine):

Numbers 6:22-27

6:22 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying:

6:23 Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, Thus you shall bless the Israelites: You shall say to them,

6:24 The LORD bless you and keep you;

6:25 the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you;

6:26 the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

6:27 So they shall put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John Gill.

Most of Numbers 6 is devoted to God’s commands to Moses about the Nazirite vow: a temporary yet intense dedication of an Israelite to God. That said, three men took lifelong Nazirite vows: Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist.

Numbers 6 ends with this timeless, beautiful benediction, known in some versions of the Bible as the Aaronic blessing.

John Gill’s commentary says that it is unclear whether God issued this form of blessing after His directives for the Nazirite vow or on a separate occasion:

At the same time perhaps that the above law was given concerning the Nazarites; though why this should follow upon that, and what connection there is between the one and the other, it is not easy to say; the Nazarites were holy persons, and so were the priests; and therefore, according to Aben Ezra and others, the law of the one is joined to the law of the other …

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying (verse 22), ‘Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, “Thus you shall bless the Israelites: You shall say to them”‘ (verse 23).

Gill explains how Aaron the high priest and his sons, his successors in that post, were to deliver the blessing:

Aaron and his sons that succeeded him in all after generations, being the persons that were in a public manner to bless the people of Israel, they are particularly addressed, see Deuteronomy 10:8;

saying, on this wise [in this way] ye shall bless the children of Israel; in such manner and with such words as after expressed; standing upon an eminence [a rise of ground, a hill], lifting up their hands on high, spreading out their fingers, and raising their voices, and pronouncing the blessing in the Hebrew language, in the name of Jehovah, with their face towards the people; all which, according to the Jewish writers {d}, were to be strictly observed;

Matthew Henry’s commentary tells us that the three blessings, each with a mention of the Lord’s name, in verses 24 through 26 refer to the Holy Trinity:

That the name Jehovah is three times repeated in it, and (as the critics observe) each with a different accent in the original; the Jews themselves think there is some mystery in this, and we know what it is, the New Testament having explained it, which directs us to expect the blessing from the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of the Father, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, each of which persons is Jehovah, and yet they are “not three Lords, but one Lord,” 2 Cor 13 14.

Gill says likewise:

The Lord bless thee,…. Jehovah, Father, Son, and Spirit; the word “Jehovah” being three times used, and a different accent put to each word, denoting three distinct persons and one Jehovah, according to Deuteronomy 6:4; who are each of them concerned in the blessing of the Lord’s people, the spiritual Israel of God; Jehovah the Father blesses with all spiritual blessings, with electing, adopting, justifying, and pardoning grace, with regenerating and calling, and persevering grace, and with eternal life: Jehovah the Son blesses particularly with redeeming grace, and has a concern in all the other blessings; the saints are blessed with them in him, they are all in his hands, they are procured by him, come through him, and are the gifts of his grace: and Jehovah the Spirit blesses as a spirit of regeneration and sanctification, as the spirit of faith, as a comforter, as the spirit of adoption, and as the earnest and sealer of the saints unto the day of redemption …

The first benediction is, ‘The Lord bless you and keep you’ (verse 24).

Henry says that each person receiving the blessing must prepare his heart for it, thereby making it personal:

… the blessing is commanded upon each particular person: The Lord bless thee. They must each of them prepare themselves to receive the blessing, and then they should find enough in it to make them every man happy. Blessed shalt thou be, Deut 28 3. If we take the law to ourselves, we may take the blessing to ourselves, as if our names were inserted …

The Lord bless thee! Our blessing God is only our speaking well of him; his blessing us is doing well for us; those whom he blesses are blessed indeed.

Gill points out that this is a prayer for God’s people not to fall into Satan’s wiles:

keep thee; from, the evil of the world, from the evil one Satan, from the evil of sin, and the power, prevalence, and dominion of it, and from falling totally and finally by it, and keep in a state of grace unto everlasting salvation.

The second blessing is that ‘the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you’ (verse 25).

Henry tells us:

The Lord make his face shine upon thee, alluding to the shining of the sun upon the earth, to enlighten and comfort it, and to renew the face of it. “The Lord love thee and cause thee to know that he loves thee.” We cannot but be happy if we have God’s love; and we cannot but be easy if we know that we have it.

Gill has more, calling our attention to divine grace:

The Lord make his face to shine upon thee,…. Cause himself, the sun of righteousness, to arise and shine upon them, and give both spiritual light and heat unto them; grant his gracious presence, the manifestations of himself, communion with him, clearer discoveries of his love, of interest in him, and an increase of spiritual light and knowledge of his Gospel, and the truths of it, and of his mind and will:

and be gracious unto thee; by granting larger measures of grace out of his fulness, by leading more abundantly into it, and making fresh and frequent applications of it; grace is often wished for from Christ as well as from the Father.

The third blessing is for God to lift up His countenance among the faithful and give them peace (verse 26).

Henry likens this to approval from one’s earthly father or from a close friend:

This is to the same purport with the former, and it seems to allude to the smiles of a father upon his child, or of a man upon his friend whom he takes pleasure in. If God give us the assurances of his special favour and his acceptance of us, this will put gladness into the heart, Ps 4 7, 8. 4.

Gill has more:

And the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee,…. Show his face and favour, look cheerfully on his people, declare himself well pleased with them in Christ, and appear as smiling upon them through him, indulging them with visits of love, restoring to them the joys of his salvation, and upholding them with his free Spirit; and so causing them to walk pleasantly and comfortably in the ways of God, expecting eternal life and happiness, as God’s free gift through Christ:

and give thee peace; all outward needful prosperity, internal peace of mind, through the blood and righteousness of Christ, the peacemaker, and peace giver, and eternal peace in the world to come.

Henry summarises the three blessings as follows:

… the fruits of this favour conveyed by this blessing are protection, pardon, and peace. (1.) Protection from evil, v. 24. The Lord keep thee, for it is he that keeps Israel, and neither slumbers nor sleeps (Ps 121 4), and all believers are kept by the power of God. (2.) Pardon of sin, v. 25. The Lord be gracious, or merciful, unto thee. (3.) Peace (v. 26), including all that good which goes to make up a complete happiness.

When we are at peace with God through His Son Jesus Christ, we are also at peace with those around us as well as our personal circumstances.

God concluded His instructions for the benediction by saying that in this way — ‘so’ — ‘they’ (Aaron, his sons and, depending on interpretation, God’s people) shall put His name on the Israelites and He would bless them (verse 27).

Gill explains:

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel,…. Call them by his name, the people of the Lord; call upon the name of the Lord to bless them, and pronounce the blessing on them in the name of the Lord, in or by the name Jehovah, as Jarchi, three times used in this form of blessing:

and I will bless them; really and truly bless them bless them with blessings indeed; with all sorts of blessings temporal and spiritual; with solid and substantial ones; and such are blessed, and will remain so, their blessings are irrevocable and irreversible; and unless the Lord blesses, in vain do the priests bless, or any of his ministers pronounce a blessing; theirs lies in words and wishes, his in real facts; they can only pray and wish for the blessing, it is he only that can give it, and can ratify and confirm what they declare and pronounce, according to his revealed word. Some refer the relative “them” to the priests, as if the sense was, I will bless the priests that bless Israel, for God will bless them that bless his people; but Aben Ezra thinks it belongs both to Israel, and to the priests, that God would confirm and establish the blessing of the priests pronounced on Israel, and bless the priests also, who needed the divine blessing as well as the people, and being found in the way of their duty, might expect it: the Targum of Jonathan is, “I will bless them in my Word;” his essential Word, Christ, in whom his chosen ones are blessed with all spiritual blessings, and who is the promised seed, in whom all nations of the earth shall be blessed.

Henry concludes:

God here promises to ratify and confirm the blessing: They shall put my name upon the children of Israel, v. 27. God gives them leave to make use of his name in blessing the people, and to bless them as his people, called by his name. This included all the blessings they could pronounce upon them, to mark them for God’s peculiar, the people of his choice and love. God’s name upon them was their honour, their comfort, their safety, their plea. We are called by thy name, leave us not. It is added, and I will bless them. Note, A divine blessing goes along with divine institutions, and puts virtue and efficacy into them. What Christ says of the peace is true of the blessing, “Peace to this congregation,” if the sons of peace and heirs of blessing be there, the peace, the blessing, shall rest upon them, Luke 10 5, 6. For in every place where God records his name he will meet his people and bless them.

May all reading this enjoy a blessed year ahead of faith, hope and peace.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2026. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

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

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

Join 1,539 other subscribers

Archive

Calendar of posts

January 2026
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Blogarama.com - Blog Directory
Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.
Writing For Christ
Powered By Ringsurf
Blogging Episcopalians
Powered By Ringsurf
Free Page Rank Tool

Blog Stats

  • 1,786,463 hits
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started