text:
Don't Lose Your Cruiseby Paul Motter | 1.22.13
Seven different reasons cruise lines might refuse your boarding with no compensation - and how to avoid it
Any indication that you may be sick is enough for a cruise line to refuse your cruise.
I just received an email with a true story from a man who, along with his daughter, were refused boarding on a cruise out of Puerto Rico just last week. Ironically, they have cruised with this cruise line 10 times before, but this time they were left on the pier and given no compensation for the cruise they were refused. They ended up staying in San Juan, Puerto Rico, for six days, spending $3000 for hotels and expenses to replace the vacation they had already paid for on the cruise ship that refused to board them.
What happened? The 15-year-old girl had a slight cough, and had told the truth about it on the health questionaire form every passenger is presented during the boarding process. They were shown to a doctor who took the girl's temperature and found it to be slightly elevated. An hour later it was normal. But they were told the girl would not be allowed on the ship, and so naturally the father did not leave without her. A truly sad story for anyone looking forward to an extraordinary cruise.
But the truth is that it may happen more often than you think. People arrive with their luggage at a port of embarkation, ready for the "cruise of a lifetime" vacation they have been planning for a year -- only to be told at the very last minute that their right to board the ship is being denied.
Could it possibly be any worse? Yes, in most cases the cruise line also refuses all financial responsibility for this action, costing the non-passenger just as much, or more, that if she had enjoyed every sea-wheeling moment.
How can this happen? Many different ways. Cruise ship rules of passage state very clearly, in brochures, on the cruise tickets and cruise line web sites, that under a variety of specific conditions the line can deny your cruise with no refund of any kind. You end up, stuck and dumb-struck, on the pier needing to make panicked alternative arrangements. You need to get back home or find a place to stay, and you are out the money you paid for your cruise. Then you also realize you won't get any more vacation time for a year and it's too late to plan anything else.
Are you aware of this? Tell us here: Cruise Forum
Sounds pretty harsh, right? In most cases it is, even though the cruise line will sometimes offer a cruise credit or other compensation - though it certainly isn't guaranteed. Despite the appearance that the lines are getting away with highway robbery, the truth is they really do want everyone onboard, because most people spend far more money on a ship than they can eat, even in lobster.
So, under what circumstances will cruise boarding be denied? There are many different reasons, legal or financial. But before we get there, let's get this out of the way. There is no substitute for a highly qualified travel agent. If you are not sure of your travel requirements, work with a qualified cruise agent who deals with people like you (depending on your circumstances as outlined below) every day.
Here are some of the most common reasons why a person may be denied boarding a cruise ship.
Passport and Visa Problems The cruise lines make you, the passenger, responsible for having the proper documentation to take a cruise on their ship. This isn't their choice, they have to follow the laws of the nations on the itinerary. By U.S. law, all cruises require a passport or suitable alternative, but you may also need a visa for a nation the ship will be visiting. If you do not have a passport (or equivalent) and all of the necessary foreign visas, you will be refused boarding your cruise.
As far as visas are concerned, the people who need to be most vigilant are non-U.S. or Canadian citizens traveling on cruise ships which typically cater to an American clientele. For guests with U.S. or Canadian passports, the cruise lines will almost always explain all visa requirements well ahead of the cruise date. But the rules are different for people with non-U.S. or Canadian passports, and will vary depending on what country issued your passport and where the ship is headed. The cruise lines do not even attempt to explain to the people using these "foreign" passports what documentation they will need prior to booking their cruise, solely because the rules can vary so much.
Alaska cruises are a particular concern. Almost everyone knows the U.S. requires a visa to enter, but the ship also makes one stop in Canada on most Alaska cruises, and this means they also need a Canadian visa, even if they do not plan to leave the ship. Bottom line, always check the visa requirements for any itinerary.
Here are a few examples from letters I have received: A California resident flew to New York City to board a cruise to Bermuda. Although she had U.S. citizenship through marriage, her passport was from Macao (A city-state similar to Hong Kong and also governed by China). This woman was told at the pier that people with Chinese passports cannot enter Bermuda without a visa from the Bermuda State Department. She was denied boarding and ended up staying in New York City while the rest of her family took their cruise. She lost her cruise fare, had to pay for her stay in New York, bought alternative flights home and lost her non-refundable airfare she had previously arranged.
In this case, it was a Bermuda customs official working at the New York City pier who instructed the cruise line to refuse her passage on the ship. Sadly, it turned out the customs official was wrong. Bermuda does not require a visa for Macao residents, but she had no way to prove that at the moment. This timing issue is very common. Just when you find out you need a visa (or simple clarification of the rules), it is Saturday and all the embassy offices are closed.
Where foreign visas are concerned, the question always comes up, "what if I agree to stay on the ship?" There are places where that is allowed, but they are few. Russia is one of them. If you do not have a visa or an arranged tour with a certified Russian tour operator you should be allowed to stay on the ship in Russia, and you should not be denied boarding the ship in the first place. However, this can still be subject to cruise line policy, so you should always check rather than take anything for granted.
Most destinations are not that way, however. You do not have the option of staying on the ship. You cannot be on a ship sailing into the port of that nation if you are without a visa, and so the cruise line must deny you boarding the cruise at all.
Are you aware of this? Tell us here: Cruise Forum
Passport Requirements Right now, the deadline for the requirement for every cruiser to have a passport within the Western Hemisphere is June 2009. If cruising outside of Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean you need a passport now and will not be allowed onto a cruise ship without one. There is one exception to this rule, however, called the "closed loop" exception: if your cruise begins and ends in the same city and only visits WHTI (Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative) compliants ports of call, then you are allowed to cruise without a passport, but you must have proof of US citizenship (a certified birth certificate and driver's license, for example).
Go here for more specific details on the WHTI qualifications now and after June 2009.
The other qualified documents for arrival by sea include a Passport Card or an Enhanced Driver's License, both cheaper than a passport, but each is only for land and sea entrances, not air. Only a true passport is good for all kinds of entries to the United States. So, no matter what, we at CruiseMates always recommend that you get the passport, because you never know if an emergency will require you to return to the United States by air. Without a passport you will have a very long delay getting back in.
Most airlines and some cruise lines will deny you boarding if your passport is set to expire less from six months from your travel date. The reason being you may be gone longer than you expected. Always renew your passport at least six months before it expires.
Canadians living in the United States need to carry their green card with them if using a Canadian passport to enter the United States. Without it, you can be denied boarding on a cruise ship.
All this being said, my best advice is to find out for yourself what is required to enter every country on your cruise. In addition to the visa, also get copies of the best official documentation from every visa-required country that explains the rules for entry. Our experience shows the cruise lines and some border officials sometimes do not really know what any given country may require if you have a "foreign" passport, and when they don't know the rules, they tend to deny boarding.
In fact, in the case of the woman from Macao above, the official was wrong! She did not need a visa and should have been allowed on the ship. However, she had left her copy of the official Bermuda document that backed her claim at home. Had she had it with her, she might have been able to change the official's mind.
Cruise Line Policies -- Age Restrictions There are other reasons to deny boarding other than visas and passports. Cruise lines have their own policies and once again, it is up to you to know their policies before you book your cruise. If you do not comply with the cruise line policies you will be denied boarding and you will not get a refund or other compensation.
An example; Carnival Cruise Line has a rule that anyone under the age of 21 must be accompanied by someone at least 25 years of age in the same stateroom. Otherwise the younger person will be denied boarding. But there are exceptions:
A guest's age will be verified at embarkation. Guests not conforming to this policy will be denied boarding and assessed a 100% cancellation penalty. NO exceptions will be made at embarkation.
If you are under 21 and part of a group an exception may be made. Group policy is slightly different because of stricter group terms and conditions including mandatory chaperones, damage deposits and other considerations. But you should verify what is allowed before you go.
Minor Children Traveling with a Legal Guardian Adults who are not the parent or legal guardian of any minor child traveling with them are required to present the child's valid passport and visa (if required) and an original notarized letter signed by at least one of the child's parents. The notarized letter from the child's parent must authorize the traveling adult to take the child on the specific cruise and must authorize the traveling adult to supervise the child and permit any medical treatment that might be administered to the child. If a non-parent adult is a Legal Guardian, the adult must present a certified certificate of Guardianship with respect to the child.
Take note that if the child has two legal parents and one is not going on the cruise, even in cases of divorce where only one parent has legal custody, it is a very good idea to get notarized permission from the parent who is not going on the cruise. Immigration officials have been known to deny a parent taking a child out of the country without the absent parent's notarized permission slip.
Health Reasons - Pregnancy Many cruise lines have a policy that denies pregnant women from cruising. In fact, Carnival just changed the rule from denying women who are more than 26 weeks along to denying those who are beyond 24 weeks along.
This rule was changed recently, and there was a case of a woman who checked originally when she made her deposit, but did not check again before she made her final payment. Meanwhile, the cruise line changed the rule and when she arrived at the ship at 26 weeks pregnant she was denied boarding. In this case, the cruise line did refund her cruise fare.
Other Health Reasons At the time of boarding, you are given a form to fill in asking if you have experienced diarrhea or vomiting in the last 48 hours. The reason is they are on the lookout for Norovirus. If they believe you have the virus they may deny you boarding. Having the symptoms alone is not the issue. If you have food poisoning or a non-infectious cold that is not a concern. But if they determine the cause is Norovirus you will be denied.
An important caveat here! Since we wrote this original article we have received a number of complaint letters from readers who say they checked the affirmative boxes on these health forms and we subsequently denied. Do not do this - honesty is not the best policy. If you think you are infectious do the right thing and stay home, but if you have food poisoning do not tell them. Many people have been denied their cruise merely for checking "yes" to experiencing these symptoms regradless of the reason why.
Health issues are also sometimes a reason to put a passenger off a ship in the middle of a cruise. If a ship's medical officer determines a passenger is exhibiting health issue that the ship's facility cannot treat, the passenger may be put off in the next portof call. They may elect to do this even if there are few medical facilities onshore, but there is an airport. The reasoning is sound, a medical emergency that cannot be treated onboard can be fatal. Alternatively, people who present an infectious virus during a cruise are likely to be quarantined in their cabins until the doctor says they are no longer infectious.
The concern here is that a passenger may be put off the ship even if they do not have a passport. In that case, the person cannot fly back to the United States without going to the U.S. embassy and getting an emergency passport first. The cruise line will not take any financial responsibility for the fact that you do not have a passport, even if one is not required for you to be on the cruise ship. If they need to put you off, getting a passport is your own responsibility.
Physical Disability Lawsuits have determined that a person who is disabled, even blind, and traveling alone must be allowed to board as long as they are capable of taking care of themselves and can show they normally do. However, it should be understood by the guest that while most large cruise lines do their best to be ADA compliant, they are not legally required to be, and some ships simply were not built that way. Furthermore, while most U.S. destinations require facilities for the disabled, many nations the ship might visit do not have facilities to aid the physically challenged. This is not a reason to deny you boarding, but it is something for the physically challenged traveler to keep in mind.
Summing Up Cruise Lines can legally set policies to deny you boarding and invoke them at any time. Furthermore, it is your responsibility to know the cruise line policy and if you do not or cannot comply, do not expect a refund or other compensation.
Now, cruise lines do not want to deny you passage. They want their ships to sail as full as possible since much of their revenue is made onboard. But they will deny you passage if they believe your situation will be detrimental to the progress of the cruise by slowing them down with local officials or raising a health issue they cannot control.
Cruise line policies change, so be sure to check frequently before your sail date. If a rule does change and you discover it before your cruise date, you may be able to fix the problem or make alternative arrangements with the cruise line. Buying travel insurance is also a good idea, but read the policy carefully. Many of them do not cover you if you are not in compliance with the "rules."
In truth, the cruise lines will often compensate a passenger who misses a cruise by giving them a voucher for a make-up cruise. Getting your money back is much harder to achieve. Cruise contracts are very specific and unfortunately hard to beat in court. Most of them specify that you must file, even small claims, in the state where the cruise line is headquartered.
This is yet another reason for having an experienced travel agent on your side. CruiseMates has been making all of their group cruise arrangements through the same travel agent for many years now because she always gets the best price and she really knows her stuff. Naturally, she has awards from most of the cruise lines as a top-selling agent. There is no substitute for experience when it comes to needing to know what you may not know.
Are you aware of this? Tell us here: Cruise Forum


text:
Let's have prayer together as we begin our study tonight. Father, we thank You for fellowship that You have provided in Christ. We thank You for how rich and rewarding, how satisfying and energizing, how thrilling and hopeful it is to know You and to fellowship in Your body. We thank You for the testimony that You love us and are coming to take us to be with You. We know that all of that is based upon one great thing, and that is that we really do know You. We really are redeemed, we really are new creations, we really are saved, born again, and regenerated. We really believe that we have truly acknowledged Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. We pray that as we examine the reality of our faith and the reality of true righteousness, that You would help us to understand clearly what it is that You are saying to us. Bless our fellowship around Your Word, in Christ's name, Amen.
We are going to be studying Matthew 5:17-20 again tonight, but to begin, I want us to look at Luke 18:9-14. This passage will serve as a fitting beginning for our study of Matthew 5. This is part four of studying Christ and the law from Matthew 5:17-20, but our thoughts can be set by examining Luke 18. Notice the parable that our Lord gives.
"And He spoke this parable unto certain who trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, and despised others." Now, we have to stop here for a moment. Here are some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous; self-righteousness, the religion of human achievement. So to those people, Jesus told this story.
"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men -- extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.'"
Now, there is an exercise in futility by a self-righteous man. As a Pharisee, he was considered to be the most religious person in his society. In his own mind, he was convinced that that was true. He was thanking God that he wasn't like other people, that he went beyond the behavior of other people and fasted twice in the week. By the way, the Old Testament required one fast a year, so to fast twice a week would be about 103 times more than you needed to.
On the other hand, the tax collector stands far off (verse 13), "And would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but beat upon his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner.'"
There is the contrast. The least esteemed man in Jewish society was a tax collector because he was a Jew who worked for Rome. He exacted taxes from his own people. He was hired by Rome; he was the ultimate kind of traitor, and despised by his society. He had opted out for money; he had forsaken his loyalty and nationalism, even his religion, if you will, for money. This one is in a corner, beating on his breast, saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."
In verse 14, Jesus gave the point of the story. "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other. For whoever exalts himself shall be abased, and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted." That's the story about the bad man that went to Heaven and the good man that went to Hell. It serves as a fitting beginning to what we are going to look at in Matthew 5, because in this passage, we have a very similar situation.
The average person who reads the account of Luke 18 wouldn't quite understand it, because most people think that good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell. The man crouching in the corner, beating on his breast, and saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner," is admitting that he really is classed for Hell. On the other hand, someone who doesn't extort, or commit adultery, and who fasts twice a week, and gives tithes of all that he possesses, and is a super-religious person is certainly a person on his way to Heaven. Most people in human society believe that if you're good enough, you'll get there, and if you're bad, you won't. But Jesus told a story in Luke 18 that said the very opposite. Then He went further in Matthew 5; look at verse 17.
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
And here is our verse for tonight. "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." What Jesus is saying here is that if you're going to get into Heaven, you have to be better than the scribes and Pharisees.
I've asked a lot of people in my life, "How do you get to Heaven?" and they say, "By being good." I said to one person one time, "How good do you have to be?" He said, "Very good." I said, "How good is very good?" He said, "It's very, very good." But the best of all the people in the society of Israel, the very best, will by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven based on their goodness. And the worst in Israel's society, a tax collector, a traitor, went home justified, which raises the question, "How good do you have to be to get to Heaven? What is the criteria?" That is precisely what Jesus is attempting to teach here. This marvelous text is so rich and so informative, and we've only begun to scratch the surface.
Let me remind you of the thrust of verses 17-20 so that you'll understand the meaning of verse 20 in its context. Jesus came along and was teaching, and His teaching was extremely paradoxical. His teaching was radical, and very different from that of the teachers of that day - the rabbis, the leaders, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes - it was very different. They were always dealing with the external, He was always talking about the internal.
He was so very different that the people felt that He must be just another revolutionary - just another incendiary that comes down through history and brings some new revelation, just another wandering preacher, a would-be Messiah like so many others. His message sounded rather like a perversion of the Old Testament. Because this was somewhat the popular concept, Jesus felt it very necessary to clarify His relation to the Old Testament, the law of Moses, the Scripture.
In this passage, He begins to articulate the manifesto of His Kingdom. Having established that He is King in the first four chapters, He launches into this sermon. In this sermon, He wants them to know that His message is not something new, not a dramatic change, He is not rejecting the Old Testament or giving them something that obviates, or nullifies, or abrogates the Old Testament, but rather, He clarifies that He has a total commitment to the Old Testament revelation.
By saying, in verse 20, that true righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, He is simply saying, "The scribes and Pharisees have not lived up to the Old Testament standard. It isn't a new standard; they haven't even lived up to the old one." So, in these marvelous verses, Jesus assures us that He is totally committed to the Old Testament, totally committed to it correctly interpreted, totally committed to it down to the very letters (verse 18). He is totally committed to it so that obeying it is blessing and disobeying it is cursing, according to verse 19.
So He is not in any way inconsistent with the Old Testament, He is not violating the Old Testament, He is fulfilling it. In these four verses, He gives four great truths about the Old Testament. In verse 17, the preeminence of the law. I told you some weeks ago that what He meant by that was that it is still the preeminent thing; there is nothing like it. It was authored by God, affirmed by the prophets, and accomplished by Him. It is the highest source of revelation in existence; it is the only one. It is preeminent above all other books that have ever been written. So He established in verse 17 the preeminence of the law; He had not come to destroy it in any sense, but to fulfill it.
Secondly, verse 18 presents the permanence of the law. He came to show that the law would not pass away; no one could come and do away with it. It had to be fulfilled in every sense, and He, in fact, was the one in the process of fulfilling it. Remember that when Christ came the first time, He began to fulfill the law. He is still fulfilling it and will fulfill it even in His Second Coming. So we talked about the preeminence of the law. It is the highest and the best. We talked about the permanence of the law; it will be fulfilled, and until it is fulfilled, not one jot or tittle will be removed from it. That, by the way, is Christ's view of the Scripture. It is all, down to the very letters, the authoritative Word of God and will not be set aside, but rather, shall be fulfilled. He is the one who will fulfill it.
Thirdly, in our last study, we talked about the pertinence of the law; we discussed its preeminence, its permanence, and its pertinence. In verse 19, He says that this preeminent and permanent law is binding on the hearts of men. So, in verse 19, He says, "Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and teach men to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
It is so preeminent, it is so permanent, that incumbent upon us is obedience to it in even its least parts. Christ says that anyone who dulls the sharp edge of God's law, of God's holy Word, and teaches others a watered-down sense of obedience, or a watered-down set of principles, will be called least in the Kingdom. But whoever takes it at face-value and obeys it will be the greatest.
The preeminence and permanence and pertinence of Scripture lead finally, in verse 20, to the purpose. Why did God give the Scripture? Why a preeminent, permanent, pertinent law? Why does God give us this incredible statement of truth? Why does He give us all of these standards? What is the purpose? Verse 20 gives it to us by not saying it, but by implying it. "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."
The purpose of God's law was to show you that you had to have more righteousness than you could come up with on your own; that's the point of it, the purpose. Galatians 3:24 articulates it with this statement: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." The law was the schoolmaster, or the disciplinarian, to bring us to Christ. The law was the perfect standard which would show us our sin; that was its purpose. The law was to show us that we couldn't do it on our own, that even the best - the scribes and the Pharisees, with all of their religiosity, trappings, ceremony, and ritual - could not gain the righteousness required to enter the Kingdom. In other words, if you want it simply, the law was given with the purpose of frustrating us, showing us our inadequacy. The law wasn't to tell us how good we are, but to show us how rotten we are.
That's why the man in the corner in Luke 18, beating on his breast and saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner," went home justified, because he responded to what God's law intended to show him: that he was a sinner. Whereas, the other man, who was so self-righteous, did not see at all the meaning of God's law, for he never responded to it in the way that God had intended.
So this is really the theme of His whole sermon in Matthew 5-7, it's true righteousness. The Old Testament is the source of true righteousness. The Old Testament gives the absolute standard. So this great sermon, from the Beatitudes to the final illustration in chapter 7 of the houses built on sand and rock, is a masterful sermon on the righteous truths that govern a man's relationship with God. Because there was a phony system in existence at the time, and Jesus wanted it known from the very beginning that the standard of righteousness that He required, that God required, was not available to them under the present system.
You heard people being baptized tonight saying that, for years and years of their lives, they were a part of a system. They had gone to church, and some of them were sharing how faithfully they had done that. They had gone to church week after week, involved in all the ritual and ceremony and trappings, but never knowing the reality. That's true, and that can happen to you in any church, where you substitute the form for the substance.
So the law came with the purpose of showing us that the very best men among us couldn't make it into God's Kingdom. The very best people that there were couldn't cut it. The kindest and the best, the noblest, the most religious, if they were depending upon their goodness, would be excluded from the Kingdom. Except your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you can't come into the Kingdom, you can't even be a part. This is the standard of true righteousness.
Back up for a minute to Matthew 5:3 and let's remind ourselves of where it all began. "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Of course, the religious system of the time was not poor in spirit but proud, boastful, arrogant, feeling that they had arrived spiritually, and this is the very antithesis of that. "Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted." These people weren't mourning; they were blowing the horn of their own self-sufficiency. They were patting themselves on the back; instead of mourning in the corner like the man in Luke 18, they were parading before God and announcing to Him their greatness. "Blessed are the meek," says verse 5, and they were anything but meek; they were boastful.
Verse 6 says, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness." They didn't hunger and thirst for righteousness, they thought they had their fill of it already. "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." These people were not in the habit of showing mercy to anyone, they were merciless. "Blessed are the pure in heart." They were not pure in heart, they were white on the outside and filthy, vile, and wretched on the inside. "Blessed are the peacemakers." They didn't make peace, they took away peace. They set themselves up above everyone else and created division among the people. So it went.
In verses 13-16, they were neither the salt of the earth nor the light of the world. Jesus, you see, is running right smack into the system of His day, right into the Pharisaical legalism of the hour that said, "A man gets to Heaven, gets to the Kingdom, on the basis of his own goodness." Jesus comes in and says, "No! It is on the recognition of his own wretchedness. The law is not established for you to show how good you are; it is established to prove to you how bad you are because of your inability to keep it."
They figured they were so good, there must be something wrong with the law, so they changed the law. They came up with a whole bunch of rabbinical traditions that they could live by. So figuring from the basic theological concept that, "We are good," they had accommodated the standard to them. Whereas the sinner in the corner, beating on his breast, accepted a divine standard and saw that he didn't match up.
Jesus says, "I am a King, and I have a manifesto, and it's no different than the Old Testament; it is the Old Testament standard, it is the law of God down to the very smallest letter, none of it has been abrogated, and it demands a righteousness out of you that you on your own could never attain."
I want to answer some questions as we look at verse 20, and we'll get the picture very clearly. Question number one: who were the scribes and Pharisees? If we have to have a righteousness that exceeds them, we ought to know who they were. Scribes, grammateon, from which we get the word 'grammar, grammatical,' were simply those who dealt with the letter of the law, the interpretation of the law, the recording of the law. They wrote down the law, studied the law, were authorities on the law, scholars of the law. They were those who struggled with the fine points of the law.
By the way, there were scribes among the Sadducees (who were theological liberals), and there were scribes among the Pharisees (who were theological conservatives). The scribes' job was simply to copy the law, to study the law, to get the basic text of the law, to interpret the law, and so forth. These scribes later became known as rabbis, they really were the forerunners, or precursors, to the rabbis. The term 'scribe' refers to an office; they were official scribes.
By the way, in Israel, there were two kinds of scribes. There were civil scribes, and then there were ceremonial scribes. Civil scribes wrote down the affairs of government. The were like notaries, and they would take care of the civil duties. Ezra 4:8 discusses one of them by the name of Shimshai. In addition, there were the ceremonial, or ecclesiastical, scribes, and they were always involved in studying the Scripture and expounding it, and determining what it said, and meant, and so forth. They were the interpreters of the law of Moses and originally came from the tribe of Levi. They literally gave their entire lives to studying the Old Testament and amazingly enough, they came up with the wrong conclusions.
People will say today, "All these people who are in all these other systems of religion that claim to be Christians - liberals, cults, all these others - they study the Bible." Well, so did the scribes, and they came up with the wrong answers. So did the Sadducees, so did the Pharisees. They all came up with the wrong answers, so don't be shocked if it happens today. Unless your heart is right, and you're truly redeemed, and you're being taught by the Spirit of God, you'll come up with a human conclusion even though you're using a divine Word.
The scribes did spend their entire lives in the text of the Old Testament; they were the official scholars. What about the Pharisees? The Pharisees was not an office, it was a sect. Within Judaism, there were several sects. There was the zealot sect, and the zealots were basically the political radicals. There were the Essenes, and they were kind of the drop outs, the hippies of the time of Christ. They lived down in the Qumran community, on the edge of the Dead Sea, in a bunch of caves. They were the spaced-out, antisocial types.
So on the one hand, there were the political radicals who were trying to overthrow Rome and going around stabbing Romans, and doing all kinds of things in a sort of underground. Then there were the Essenes, a mystical, almost monastic order, who were stuck out on the edge of the Dead Sea, near nobody. Then in the mainstream, there were two other groups: the Sadducees and Pharisees.
'Pharisee' comes from a root word which means 'to separate.' They were the separatists, the super-duper fundamental legalists of their day. They separated themselves from everything. They separated themselves from all Gentiles - they wouldn't get near one, they didn't want to be defiled. They separated themselves from any Jew who lived with less concern than they had for the law. So the Pharisees kind of lifted themselves out of Jewish society as a super-elite group who alone knew what it was to really walk with God. They convinced themselves that they were the real spiritual hot-shots.
The Pharisees differed from the scribes inasmuch as they didn't particularly study the law as a scholar would; they simply developed out of the law a system of ritual, they developed a sect. So the scribes could be, for all intents and purposes, Sadducees or Pharisees. They didn't necessarily have to identify with either. The Pharisees took the Word of God and developed a rigid, ceremonial, ritualistic system, not so much based on the law of Moses as it was on tradition. The problem was, they really couldn't keep the law of Moses.
So, as I said earlier, if you believe you're righteous and you can't keep the standard, then you change the standard to accommodate your righteousness. That's what everyone in the world who doesn't know God does. If they have any concept of the afterlife, or any concept of Heaven and Hell, they figure out a system they can keep and then figure they're good enough to get to Heaven.
One woman was giving her testimony tonight, and she said, "I decided that I could do anything I wanted in the area of sin if I just did it in moderation. Then God would understand, and I would go to Heaven." You see, that's what people do. They can't live up to the biblical standard, so they drag the standard down to where they can make it, and then convince themselves, and work on their minds, to try to prove to themselves that they're alright. The fact of the matter is, if you believe the standard of the Word of God is absolutely true, and you know you don't live up to it, you'll drive yourself crazy with guilt. So you have to lower the standard, and that's exactly what the Pharisees did.
The Pharisees developed a codification of rules that they themselves could at least attempt to keep, did the best they could with that, and convinced themselves that God didn't have anyone better than them in the world; so if anyone would be in Heaven, it would be them. In fact, the Jews used to have a saying, "If only two people go to Heaven, one will be a scribe, and the other will be a Pharisee."
I mean, you couldn't get any better than them. The average guy on the street in this time in history would say, "I can't be as good as a Pharisee! I can't be like a scribe. I mean, those guys study the Old Testament day and night, day and night. They have every hair split and every fine point memorized and they know that stuff cold." In fact, most scribes could probably recite verbatim the entire text of the Old Testament from copying it so many times. The average citizen would say, "I have no chance. I can't do that." Then he would look at a Pharisee and say, "I can't live like that; I can't keep all those rules. I'll never make it to Heaven. Those people are so holy! Their whole life is given to the religious, moral, spiritual pursuit." But our Lord says they aren't going to make it.
You can imagine the shock of verse 20, because Jesus doesn't talk in generalities. Today it would be like saying this: "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of this or that organization," and literally naming systems. It was a shock, because these people have looked up to them. But that was the standard.
Let's ask the second question. What was the nature of their righteousness? What was the nature of the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees? If we're going to find out what true righteousness is and it has to be more than theirs, what was theirs? The question could be this: what were they depending on for their salvation? You know the answer. What was a scribe or Pharisee depending on? He was depending upon the external, the system of human achievement, "Look what I've done! I don't do that, I do this, I fast twice a week, give tithes of all I possess," and so forth. "We're holy on the outside; we've developed a whole system."
Let me give you several thoughts. First, their righteousness was external. In fact, it was external only, an outward observance of the law. The didn't get involved in adultery, theft, murder, idolatry, but they had a lot of impure and rotten thoughts, and they coveted like mad, and they hated with a fury, and they were cold in their hearts toward God. The inside was all fouled up, but the outside, they were able to maintain.
That's why, as the Lord goes on, He illustrates the phoniness of their external religion by saying in verse 21, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder,' but I say to you that whoever is angry shall be in danger of the judgment." Verse 27. "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Verse 33. "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all."
In other words, "You've been living a system of external observance, but I'm telling you that what God wants is to see what's on the inside." That's what we'll be studying in the weeks to come. They were never concerned with the internal, they were always preoccupied with the external.
Look at Matthew 23:25. We'll be going back to Matthew 23 later, because so much of this is paralleled there. This gives us a good picture of the external character of their religion. It says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and excess." In other words, "You're great on the outside, but you don't do anything with the inside."
"Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." That's pretty straight stuff, wouldn't you say? "You are rotten on the inside, although you've cleaned it up on the outside." Exacting observance of ceremonies was the big issue, and their whole system was superficial.
People, examine your own heart in this regard, because it is very easy to get wrapped up in a superficial kind of religion. It is very easy to go through the motions of prayer, reading the Bible, attending church, going to a Bible study, but there's nothing going on on the inside. Life can be superficial. These people had it all on the outside, but not on the inside, and that's why when they said to Him, "What is the greatest commandment?" He didn't give them some external thing, He said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength. This is the first and greatest commandment." In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul said, "If you just keep that one commandment, you'll be able to keep all of them, because it's internal."
Look back in Matthew 23:1. "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.'" They did have a seat of authority; they were the ones who dispensed the law of Moses. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do." In other words, "When they sit in Moses' seat, and preach to you Moses' law, do it." It was like saying that even if a jackass speaks the truth, respond to it. But on the other hand, if an angel from Heaven tells you something that isn't true, don't listen (Galatians 1).
In other words, "If you hear the law of Moses from them, obey it. Listen to what they say." But the end of verse 3 says, "But do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men." In other words, "When they speak the law of Moses, do it, but don't pattern your life after them. They say and don't do."
By the way, Jesus began His sermon with eight Beatitudes directed primarily at the Pharisees, and He closed His message to them in Matthew 23 with eight woes to fall upon them, one woe for every Beatitude they didn't respond to. So the scribes and Pharisees are working hard, shining up the outside and doing nothing at all with the inside. That's why our Lord confronts them as self-righteous hypocrites.
In Luke 16:15, the Scripture says similarly, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God." In other words, "You have a great religious reputation, but God knows your heart. What men highly esteem about you is an abomination to God, because it's all external hypocrisy."
So these people were trying, as so many have done, to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but it can't be done. In Galatians 2:16, it says, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law," and at the end of the verse, "Not by the works of the law," and again, "For by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." You cannot be justified by the law or the flesh; it's impossible. So all of their externals were fruitless and useless.
Secondly, in understanding the nature of their righteousness, it was not only external but partial. Matthew 23:23 says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin," that's herbs, some kind of plant, and seeds, little tiny things. "You tithe your little tiny things, you're right down to the nub on those externals, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." In other words, "You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." In those days, when they wanted to drink something, they had a little strainer to get gnats out of it. They were picking the little gnats out of things but swallowing a whole camel.
The point that He's making here is this: they were really big on the little things, the external things, and ignored justice, mercy and faith. Imagine! It was partial; they only accommodated themselves to what they could handle, nothing more. It was a ritual religion, made to fit their capability. They had their own little traditions. In fact, they substituted them for the law of God. By keeping the traditions that they themselves had invented, they decided they were serving God.
In Mark 7:7, Jesus said, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, such as the washing of pots and cups, and many other things that you do. You full well reject the commandment of God that you might keep your own tradition." Imagine! They abandoned the law of God that they couldn't live up to, invented their own, and then convinced themselves that they were spiritual.
Their righteousness was external, partial, and thirdly, it was redefined. I'll just make a brief statement on this. As I said earlier, they made up their own rules, and what they wound up doing was redefining everything. "Yes, that's what God said, but what He meant was this," and so they gave it a new meaning. Just redefining it in terms of their own comprehension, taking an internal thing and making it external. They redefined it and made it a system they could maintain. Of course, way back even in Leviticus 11:44, Scripture says, "For I am the LORD your God. You shall be holy; for I am holy." Peter picked it up in I Peter 1:15, and said, "Be holy as I am holy." Yet what did they say? "I thank You that I am not as other men," and go on to recite their own holiness.
The standard of holiness was God! Look at Matthew 5:48, "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." The Scripture was saying to them, "You are to be as holy as God, as perfect as God." They knew they couldn't be that if they took the Bible at its face value, so they redefined it to accommodate their own unholiness, lowering the standard.
Fourth, not only was their righteousness external, partial, redefined, but it was self-centered. They gained their own righteousness by themselves; they did it on their own. They manifested a lack of dissatisfaction, they weren't dissatisfied, and true holiness always comes out of dissatisfaction. When you are dissatisfied with your life, mourn over your sin, cower in a corner as a beggar, hunger and thirst for a righteousness that you know you can't earn, then that's true righteousness. But they knew they were righteous, they had worked out their own righteousness, all of themselves, so we know it was self-centered. They didn't need God to make them righteous because they were righteous already. It is to this issue that Paul spoke when he said, "For by grace are you saved through faith, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." They boasted because they had their own righteousness.
Here they were, scribes and Pharisees, with righteousness that was external, partial, redefined, and self-centered. Now we come to a third question: what is the nature of the righteousness that Christ requires? I already told you the answer; He requires absolute holiness, absolute perfection, internal and external righteousness.
In Psalm 45:13, there is an interesting illustration. "The king's daughter," it says, "Is all glorious within and her clothing is of wrought gold." God wants you all glorious on the inside, and pure gold on the outside. It's just like He said about the Pharisees, "You do what they do, that's alright, just don't be on the inside what they are. Keep the law of God on the outside, but be glorious on the inside." The standard of righteousness that Christ sets is absolute righteousness.
Listen, beloved, man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. I Samuel 16:7 says that true righteousness is inside, and has to meet the standard. You say, "How good must I be to get to Heaven?" You have to be as good as God. "How perfect do I have to be to enter His Kingdom?" As perfect as He is. "How holy do I have to be to get into the Kingdom?" Just as holy as God is holy, that's how holy. You say, "Wow. No matter how religious I am, I can't do that on my own. I can't be as holy, as righteous, as perfect as God."
That leads us to a fourth question: how is that kind of righteousness obtained, where do you get that? I can't do it on my own. I can't be that righteous on my own, and that's what Jesus meant when He said, "Except that it exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees." You say, "I can't be more righteous than a scribe or Pharisee on my own; how am I going to get that righteousness?"
I have a wonderful story to tell you. Let's go back to Galatians 2:16, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." How then are we justified? By faith in Christ. How then are we made righteous? By faith in Christ. That, beloved, is the message of the Apostle Paul.
Romans 3:21 says, "But now the righteousness of God is apart from the law." You cannot attain the righteousness of God by trying, in your own flesh, to keep the law. It is in the next verse that he says, "The righteousness of God is by faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe." Isn't that great? You say, "Where do I get that kind of righteousness?" By faith in Jesus Christ.
In Romans 4:3, he says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." How righteous did Abraham have to be? Just as righteous, just as holy as God. You say, "Well, Abraham isn't going to make it, because he committed a lot of sin!" You're right, so how could he ever attain that righteous character? It says right in Romans, "He believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." What a fantastic thing. In Romans 5:17, he says it again. "For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." The gift of righteousness - isn't that great? You can't earn it, it's a gift. If you're trying to gain your own righteousness, you'll become lost forever. If you want to reach out and take the free gift by faith in Jesus Christ, His righteousness is offered to you.
What a tremendous thought. Romans 5:21 says, "As sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Listen, the only way that you can ever be righteous enough to get into Heaven is by the Lord Jesus Christ imputing to you His own righteousness. It is a gift from Him that you could never earn. Romans 8:4 says, "Through Christ, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us." It is a tremendous concept. If you're complacent about hearing this, then you're being complacent about the greatest truth in all the Bible, as far as we're concerned, that God has set a standard we could never attain, and then given us the fulfillment of that standard as a gift by simply putting our faith in Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, the Jews, according to Romans 10:3, are ignorant of God's righteousness, ignorant of the standard, and they go about establishing their own righteousness and have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. What is it? Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. If you want to know what Romans chapters 3-10 are about, they're all about how to gain a righteousness that's unattainable by receiving it as a gift through believing in Jesus Christ. That's how you obtain the required righteousness.
I Corinthians 1:30 says, "But of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness." When God looks at John MacArthur, he sees me just as righteous as He is. When He looks at me, He sees me just as holy as He is. When He looks at me, He sees me just as perfect as He is. Why? Because Jesus Christ, when I put my faith in Him, imputed to me His own righteousness, and I stand as pure as Christ, as undefiled as Christ. That's my standing before God.
How good does a man have to be to get to Heaven? He has to be as good as God, and how do you get to be as good as God? Only by one way: God giving you His goodness. How does God give you His goodness? When you accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, the Bible says the righteousness of Christ is imputed to you. What a fabulous thought!
So we ask the question, who were the scribes and Pharisees? What is the nature of their righteousness? What is the nature of the righteousness that Christ requires? How does that righteousness become ours? Then, the final question, what is the result to those who do not obtain this righteousness? What happens to people who don't ever take this righteous gift, who will very religiously work like mad to get in? They pass out their information from door to door.
I always think of that when I see the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and all these cults. Man, they are working themselves to a frazzle to get in the Kingdom, and are striving with all their might to obtain their own righteousness. They have said that Jesus Christ is not God, and thus they have not only denigrated His personhood, but they have removed, abrogated, and nullified His work on the Cross and in the open tomb. Without Christ as God, without a substitutionary death on the part of the God-man, and without a literal, bodily resurrection of the God-man, there is no attainable righteousness for men. So these people are working themselves right into the deepest Hell imaginable, and that's precisely what's happening.
Our Lord says in Matthew 5 very simply, "Unless your righteousness exceeds one that is external, partial, redefined, and self-centered, you will in no case enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It doesn't matter how religious you are, how good you are, you will be excluded from God's Kingdom." I think that is exactly what He is saying in this sermon. "Here is the standard of righteousness. You reach the standard by faith in Me, and you'll enter My Kingdom. If you try to do it on your own, and be as religious as you want, you'll never get there." The Kingdom of Heaven is the sphere of God's blessing now and forever, and you'll never enter that sphere apart from faith in Christ.
Later on, in Matthew 7:13, He points out these two possibilities. He says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it." Did you know there are many people who think they are on the road to Heaven? They think that the broad way here is not the road Hell, it is the road to Heaven. They think that the broad road is on the way to Heaven, that they're on that road. They are all religious, it says, "There are many who go in that way," and the 'many' who go in are defined in verse 21.
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven." They're going to say, "Lord, Lord, here we all come! We're the religious!" There are many, according to verse 22. It's the same 'many' in verse 13. "Lord, Lord, we prophesied, and cast out demons, and did wonderful works." Jesus says, "I will profess unto them, 'I never knew you. Depart from me you workers of iniquity.'" Then He goes on to illustrate how the fact is that they had built a religious house, but built it on the sand. When the waters of judgment come, their religious house will crumble, and they will be doomed to Hell forever.
On the other hand, He says in verse 14, "Enter the narrow gate; for narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." You know what He is saying? He is saying, "There are lots of religious people. There are few regenerated people." That's what He's saying. Examine your life. Are you really righteous, or is it just a ritual? Do you really know Jesus Christ or are you counting on your own goodness?
Jesus said, "No, I am not setting God's law aside. I will uphold God's law, purge it from the barnacles of man-made corruption, reestablish its preeminence, its permanence, its pertinence, and reiterate that its purpose is to show you that you're a sinner. When you turn that standard into one you can attain to yourself, you have lowered it to the point where it will exclude you forever from the Kingdom."
They had developed a religion of human achievement that was going to do nothing but damn them. Listen, you can't make your own standard. When I taught the book of Galatians, I told you an illustration. Imagine going to a football game, and tickets are $5. You arrive at the gate and object furiously, and say, "I know both these teams well, and neither one of them is worth $5. I'll only pay $2, no more." The guy is going to say, "Get out of line, buddy. Let someone else come up here. The tickets are $5."
No matter how much you hold the point of view that they are lousy teams, no matter how much you impose upon the gatekeeper, he is not interested in all your arguments. You either pay the $5 and go in, or go home and forget it. Why? You're not in the business of fixing prices, you're just in the business of responding to the standard. God has set the standard, and God doesn't want people coming up to negotiate. The standard is faith in Jesus Christ; it's God's Heaven, He lays down the terms, and all you can do is respond. You enter on His terms or you stay out.
Once, there was a Pharisee who tried the Pharisees' system. Man, this guy was super-Pharisee. Listen to him in Philippians 3:4; Paul is his name. "Though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I have more." He says, "If you want to talk about self-centered religion, about how good a man is in his own flesh, I was the best." He says, "I was circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." You say, "Man, you're OK, kid. What credentials! You're a shoo-in."
Verse 7, "But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss [literally, 'manure'] for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord." Verse 9, "I will be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith." Paul says, "I am a living illustration, a Pharisee who had all the credentials, but I count it manure in order that I may gain Christ and have His righteousness."
Beloved, that's what salvation is all about. Is that what you believe? Or are you among those who are spending their lifetimes trying to accumulate the right to enter Heaven? One of the great hymns says it this way, "Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to the Cross I cling. Naked, come to Thee for dress, helpless, look to Thee for grace. Foul I to the fountain I fly; wash me, Savior, or I die. Rock of Ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee." Let's pray.
I know most of you here tonight are Christians; you love the Lord Jesus Christ. Some of you, perhaps, have never given your life to Him. You are standing in your own righteousness, but it's fruitless. I promise you that if you will pray that simple prayer, "Rock of Ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee. Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to the Cross I cling. Naked, come to Thee for dress, helpless, look to Thee for grace. Foul I to the fountain I fly; wash me, Savior, or I die." If you pray that prayer, God will wash you, cleanse you, give you a righteousness you could never attain, a righteousness for now and forever.
Father, we pray right now that all of us would examine our hearts, and those of us who find there the confirmation that we truly have Your righteousness, we offer our thanks. Lord, for those who may have doubts or questions of whether or not theirs is the righteousness of Christ, whether they have truly received that gift of righteousness which is given to those who believe, Lord, we pray tonight that they might reach out with an empty hand to take the gift, bringing nothing of their own, seeking no personal aggrandizement, offering not the deeds of the flesh, but as beggars, reaching out an empty had to receive a gift of righteousness. May they receive the abundance that You give.
God, may no one leave this place tonight who has not received the righteousness of Christ that makes our standing before You as holy as Your very self. What a gift! How grateful we are. For the glory of Christ we pray, Amen.
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The squad for 2016/7 has been announced by the cub. There are a lot of familiar names there. Some of whom one might have expected to have moved on. For example, I'm surprised to still see Topsy Ojo. He is slowing almost visibly and by the end of the season was being caught with ease by players to who he would have shown a clean pair of heels in his youth.
On the other hand there are clearly other players who are welcome additions. James Marshall, is one.
Backs: Alex Lewington, Aseli Tikoirotuma, Brendan McKibbin, Ciaran Hearn, Conor Murphy, Darren Allinson, Fergus Mulchrone, Greig Tonks, James Marshall (Hurricanes), Joe Cockanasiga, Johnny Williams, Matt Williams, Rory Brand, Ross Neal, Scott Steele, Shane Geraghty, Theo Brophy Clews, Tommy Bell (Leicester Tigers), Tom Fowlie, Tom Parton, Topsy Ojo
Forwards: Ben Franks, Blair Cowan, Conor Gilsenan, Danny Hobbs-Awoyemi (Northampton Saints), David Paice, Dave Porecki (Saracens), George Robson (Oyonnax), Gerard Ellis, Harry Elrington, Isaac Curtis Harris, Jebb Sinclair, Jerry Sexton (Exeter Chiefs), Joe Trayfoot, Luke Narraway, Matt Kouris, Ofisa Treviranus, Ollie Hoskins (Western Force), Max Northcote-Green (Bath Rugby), Mike Coman (Edinburgh Rugby), Richard Palframan, Sebastian De Chaves (Leicester Tigers), Tom Court, Tom Smallbone, Will Lloyd


text:
After assessing some of the Atlanta Falcons' upcoming needs on the offensive side of the ball yesterday, let's turn our attention to what directions the team might be heading into in 2016 on defense. As stated previously, this is a mere glimpse into the team's immediate future as the Falcons look to improve a roster that despite an impressive 6-3 record currently in 2015, has shown itself to be far from a finished product by it's play over the past month or so.
Let's break things down position by position.
Defensive Line
Nine games into the 2015 season the Falcons currently rank 31st in sack production with a mere 10 sacks. While sack numbers can misrepresent the productivity of an individual player, it rarely does so when applied to entire teams.
Therefore it's clear that the Falcons will need to upgrade their pass rush in the upcoming season to maximize head coach Dan Quinn's defense. Given that the scheme calls for minimal blitzing, it's pertinent that the team can get pressure with just four players. Right now the Falcons aren't doing that effectively, making it a priority that they try to achieve that goal in 2016.
Things will start on the outside where Vic Beasley and O'Brien Schofield are the team's two primary edge-rushers. While Beasley still has tremendous upside as a pass-rusher, he'll certainly need more help than Schofield is providing. Schofield has spent the bulk of his career as a situational pass-rusher and reserve, roles he'll likely return to in 2016 should he be re-signed as an unrestricted free agent. Schofield's familiarity with the scheme coupled with solid production in run support makes it a likelihood that he'll be brought back, but again the Falcons would like to add another piece to the puzzle that can push him towards the bench.
Ideally the team could find a "Michael Bennett type" of end that can play on the outside in the team's base defense, but slide inside to tackle in their nickel sub-package which would allow Schofield to still contribute at end in those situations. But such players aren't exactly easy to come by and the team may settle for any competent edge-rusher that can be considered an upgrade over Schofield either in the draft or free agency.
Also at defensive end the team has Kroy Biermann, Tyson Jackson and Malliciah Goodman. Biermann is a free agent that might return on a modest one-year deal since he does add decent depth and run-stopping abilities to their rotation. But if the team is successful in upgrading the starting spot and thus relegate Schofield to the bench, then Biermann becomes increasingly expendable.
The Falcons will have to decide whether Jackson's $6.35 million cap hit in 2016 is too high for such a one-dimensional player. Jackson has performed admirably in the team's base package so far this year, but that's a hefty price to pay for a soon-to-be 30-year old end that is currently ranked eighth among the defensive line rotation in playing time. Presumably the Falcons should find an option at that position that can be nearly as capable against the run but also provide much more as a pass-rusher.
That player could potentially be Goodman, but based off his limited playing time in 2015 that doesn't appear likely. Goodman will have seven more games to prove his merit, but unless he can earn significantly more time, he'll likely only be seen as a rotational piece that might be on the roster bubble entering the summer.
Another potential in-house option to replace Jackson could be Ra'Shede Hageman, who has comparable strength and power to Jackson but with better quickness to pressure quarterbacks more consistently. Hageman currently plays inside at defensive tackle in the team's base package, but could potentially be kicked outside to end given his similar playing style to ex-Seattle Seahawks and Quinn protege Red Bryant, who made a similar move back in 2010 to great success.
The decision to move Hageman to end would be made easier if the team finds another option at defensive tackle in their base package. Two possibilities already exist on the roster in Jonathan Babineaux and Grady Jarrett. Babineaux currently mans a spot in the team's nickel sub-package on the inside and could see a change in roles next year thanks in part to Jarrett's emergence. Babineaux is blessed with the ability to be both effective as a pass-rusher and run-stopper, making him a versatile asset to have along the defensive front even considering his lofty age of 34. Babineaux's cap hit next year is a modest $2.67 million, which is low enough to believe that he'll be kept for another year. It's likely that only retirement will prompt his exit from the team in 2016.
Should that occur, the team already has his potential replacement on the roster in Jarrett. Jarrett has seen an increasing amount of reps as 2015 has progressed, suggesting that he'll be in line for a bigger role in 2016. That could come as the team's primary interior rusher in their sub-package, but he's also been surprisingly effective as a run-defender so far in 2015 as well. Thus like Babineaux he could also become an effective rotational option in their base package as well. Having both Jarrett and Babineaux next year should give the Falcons much needed flexibility on the interior should they need to shuffle things around.
Another defensive tackle that the team will have to make a decision on after the season will be veteran nose tackle Paul Soliai.Soliai will be 32 next year and carries a cap hit of $6.9 million, which could prompt his release. As it is with Jackson, despite a good year stuffing the run, that cap hit will be a tough pill to swallow for a player that is only getting reps in roughly 40 percent of defensive snaps. There is no obvious in-house candidate to replace him on the roster besides practice squadder Joey Mbu, who would be making an unrealistic jump from the practice squad to becoming a key part of the team's rotation.
Given the lack of obvious in-house options behind him, Soliai might have higher odds of returning to Atlanta next year than Jackson. But the Falcons could potentially find a better option on the open market in free agency. Notable names include Brandon Mebane and Haloti Ngata, although one wonders if the Falcons would prefer a younger, cheaper option to build around long-term.
The Falcons will also be compelled to make a decision on whether to re-sign defensive tackle Adrian Clayborn in free agency as well. Clayborn has provided a nice boost to what little pass rush the team generates and has had a mild renaissance as an interior rusher rather than playing the end spot he manned for four years in Tampa Bay. However Clayborn is somewhat one-dimensional since he's shown to be significantly less effective when trying to rush from the edge and has never been a reliable run-defender throughout his career. Essentially Clayborn's role is somewhat restricted to be a situational player in sub-packages. While the one-year, $3 million deal he signed this past offseason is fairly cheap given his role and value, he'll likely be seeking a much more lucrative long-term deal in the spring. It remains to be seen if he's quite earned that given some of his limitations, but that won't truly be determined until the entire 2015 season plays out.
Given the importance of this position group, it's probable that the Falcons could address holes both via free agency and the draft. One thing that is promising is that the Falcons already have several pieces to work with and it's only going to be about supplementing things to transform into an extraordinary unit in the years to come.
This position saw a significant free-agent overhaul this past offseason, which is unlikely to occur two years in a row. The Falcons did not draft a linebacker last year, instead opting to bolster this position with veterans like Justin Durant, Brooks Reed, Philip Wheeler and Allen Bradford. It's unlikely the team will go down that same path again in 2016, thus leading them to turn to the draft to try and upgrade this group.
An upgrade is certainly needed as the limitations of this position group have too often been exposed in 2015. Durant is the best of the group, but turns 31 at the outset of the 2016 season and has dealt with durability concerns throughout his career. His $3.42 million cap hit in 2016 should keep his roster spot relatively safe but things could become a lot more tenuous come 2017.
Adding an athletic, young linebacker that can be mentored by Durant for a year would be a great decision by the Falcons. Should the team do so, it's likely he could be plugged in immediately at middle linebacker where he could push Paul Worrilow for a starting spot.
Worrilow at times has been a functional starter in the middle, but has done little over the past year and a half to indicate that he's a long-term option there. He will be a restricted free agent after 2015 and thus is a near certainty to return to the team in some capacity next year. The only question is whether that is as a starter or reserve? Should the Falcons make a major addition in the draft, Worrilow at the very least gives them a nice fallback option should said rookie prove unready for the NFL limelight. He also has the versatility to play backup to Durant as well and ultimately might prove to be a more effective player at weak-side linebacker rather than in the middle. After all when Worrilow first started turning heads as an undrafted rookie in 2013, it came when he was filling in for an injured Sean Weatherspoon on the weak side, not the middle.
Reed's job should be relatively safe given the fact that his 2016 base salary of $2.5 million is already guaranteed for injury and will become fully guaranteed if he's on the roster in mid-March. While the Falcons could stand to upgrade over Reed at the strong-side linebacker spot in free agency or the draft, there is little incentive to do so given that it's the least important of the three starting spots and doesn't require a significant investment. Not to mention that the presence of Nate Stupar behind Reed gives the team a potential in-house candidate to replace Reed in 2017 when it's likely the veteran could get released. Like Worrilow, Stupar is a restricted free agent after this year which should mean that he's poised to return in 2016 where he can hope to continue to show the versatility to back up all three spots, especially the strong side where he filled in admirably for an injured Reed early in 2015.
Wheeler and Joplo Bartu's futures have yet to be decided. Wheeler flashed potential in the team's loss to the San Francisco 49ers last week and has at various times been a productive stopgap starter for several teams since entering the NFL in 2008. If he's re-signed as a free agent, it'll depend on how the rest of 2015 plays out for him. He could give the team another solid backup behind Durant and potentially compete for a starting spot should his play continue to impress.
Bartu is a restricted free agent and it doesn't really hurt the Falcons to bring back the athletic linebacker to see if he shows improvement in 2016. At the very least he gives the team another adequate body to compete for a reserve role in camp.
Between Durant, Worrilow and Reed, none of the Falcons current starters are guaranteed to be on the roster beyond 2016. Thus it makes a ton of sense for the Falcons to start building towards the future by making a significant addition via the draft. A player like UCLA's Myles Jack, who has a history with Falcons linebackers coach Jeff Ulbrich makes a ton of sense for the team to target early, but he won't be the only option that the Falcons could seek next spring. In the end, the Falcons' goal will be to find their version of Bobby Wagner that can become the anchor of the unit for years to come.
The selection of Jalen Collins in the second round of last year's draft was a major move for the team's future and thus likely means that cornerback won't be a significant priority for the team this upcoming offseason. Collins will be entering his second year in 2016 and there are hopes that he'll make a significant leap forward after a less-than-promising first summer in the NFL. He'll likely be penciled into the nickel cornerback spot that he's currently occupying barring a major setback over the next two months.
Desmond Trufant and Robert Alford are poised to remain the team's starters in 2016, although there's a chance the latter could be pushed if there is significant growth by Collins through the remainder of 2015. But both starters are locked into their current contracts through the 2016 season, meaning that the Falcons won't be prompted to make a long-term decision at the position until 2017.
Given the large sums of money that cornerbacks often receive on the open market, it appears unlikely that the Falcons can keep both Trufant and Alford when that time comes. Should also Collins be closer to solidifying a starting spot by then, it should essentially make one starter expendable. Between the pair, that would almost certainly point in Alford's direction given that Trufant is already among the league's best corners in his third year.
Again those type of decisions really won't have to be made until 2017 and are not in the purview of a 2016 breakdown. However that doesn't mean the Falcons won't be looking to supplement their depth at cornerback next year. Should the team lose one of their top three corners in 2017, it would be ideal to have someone already on the roster ready to slide into the vacated spot.
That could be Akeem King should he show significant growth between now and the end of 2016, but based off his preseason performance that day appears to be a long way off for the 2015 rookie. Phillip Adams could be another option, although he'll be a free agent after 2015. Adams has been at times a competent journeyman reserve in the NFL, but his play in 2015 makes him better fit as a fourth corner than a potential nickel replacement for Alford in two years.
The Seahawks organization made it a regular habit to draft corners in the latter rounds every year and it's possible Quinn could bring the same tradition to Atlanta. If not, the team could potentially target free agents like ex-Seahawks Walter Thurmond and Jeremy Lane among others to supplement and upgrade their depth next year.
In the Falcons secondary, the safety position probably requires more immediate attention rather than corner. Ricardo Allen will be an exclusive rights free agent after this season, indicating that he should have at least two more years to play in Atlanta before the Falcons are compelled to make a decision about his long-term future. While Allen has been impressive considering that he's in his first year at a brand new position, he's yet to show enough to really solidified a role as a long-term starter. Instead it's likely that the Falcons won't pass on the opportunity to upgrade the free safety position in the offseason should it arise. That could come with an early draft selection or if the right free agent comes along.
The other safety spot however might be a more pressing concern depending on how the remainder of 2015 plays out. William Moore will turn 31 next May and also carries a $6.65 million cap hit in 2016. The team will have to make a decision on whether the oft-injured veteran is worth that price tag. If yes, then it buys the team only one more year before they will have to find his replacement. If no, then adding a starting strong safety becomes an immediate offseason priority.
Kemal Ishmael and Robenson Therezie are two competent young reserves, but it would appear to be a large leap to go from where they are currently midway through 2015 to being penciled in as starters heading in 2016. Instead, Moore's release would likely prompt the team to seek an immediate replacement in free agency with also an eye towards the draft if the right prospect comes along.
Charles Godfrey is set to hit free agency and probably won't be re-signed barring a major uptick in production over the second half of 2015.
Like the defensive line and linebacker, it's very likely that the Falcons will make at least one significant addition to their safety corps this upcoming spring. The unanswered question is whether not the team is looking for an immediate starter or a developmental option to stash for later down the road.
Special Teams
The Falcons are good at punter since Matt Bosher received a five-year extension a year ago that should keep him in Atlanta through 2019. However there are growing concerns about the long-term future of kicker Matt Bryant. His contract runs through the end of 2017, yet he will turn 41 next offseason. Bryant has missed a few more kicks than usual this year and the old adage is that Father Time remains undefeated. Eventually Bryant will lose his stuff, but whether that will come in the calendar year of 2015 has yet to be determined. If that does happen to be the case, then expect the Falcons to start from scratch in 2016 with a group of young kickers rather than targeting a proven option in free agency.
As noted in discussion of the wide receiver position, the team's return duties remain less than definitive given the tenuous hold that Devin Hester has on a roster spot beyond this season. If Hester is released in the offseason, then it's likely that Nick Williams, Eric Weems and Justin Hardy will get the first cracks at replacing him. But one can surely bet that the Falcons will try to add more competition into the mix via the draft or undrafted free agency. If Hester is kept, then the Falcons should be good to go for 2016 in the return game, but that season also marks the final year of Hester's contract. So it makes sense to try and find his eventual replacement in 2017 at some point in the draft or undrafted free agency.
Like Bosher, long snapper Josh Harris also received a contract extension last season, keeping him on the roster through 2018 and making that spot of no concern.
As far as this unit goes, the Falcons may wind up making minimal changes based off how things play out in 2015. But if they do address it, it'll likely come in the form of going younger in the hopes of securing some long-term options.
What are you thoughts on how the offseason could potentially play out for the Falcons in 2016 on the defensive side of the ball? Please leave a comment giving your take…


text:
Creamed brussels sprouts with bacon
Brussels sprouts rarely get much love — and they get plenty of hate. This is a dish that will change any Brussels sprout basher. It's a gateway dish into a new world of recipes. Plus, it has bacon in it, so you know it can't be that bad. This is good as leftovers for breakfast spooned over toast. Makes: 8 servings 2 bunches (or stalks) Brussels sprouts (about 40), cut in half length-wise 8 ounces bacon, cut into 1/4-inch-by-1-inch slices 1/3 cup rendered bacon fat (saved from cooking the bacon) 1/3 cup flour 1/8 teaspoon nutmeg 1 quart milk 2 teaspoons salt 1/8 teaspoon fresh ground black pepper In a large pan over medium heat add the bacon and cook until crisp. Remove the bacon from the rendered oil with a slotted spoon, reserve 1/3 cup of the bacon fat and discard the rest. In the same pan over medium heat, place the sprouts cut side down and cook until the bottoms brown (approximately 5 minutes) and turn off heat. Heat the milk (to almost a boil) in the microwave or in a small pot on the stove. In a saucepan over medium heat, mix the bacon fat and the flour. Cook together for about a minute and then slowly whisk in the hot milk, a half-cup at a time, until it is watery and combined. Bring the milk mixture to a boil. The sauce will tighten up and should be taken off of the heat. If it is too thick, thin it out with more milk or water. Pour the sauce onto the sprouts and stir in the nutmeg, salt and pepper. Serve sprinkled with bacon bits. Tip: To make this dish lighter without the cream sauce, cook the bacon and brussels sprouts as the recipe directs, but don't save the fat, and when the sprouts are a little brown on the bottom, place the pan (oven-safe) into a 375-degree oven for 10 minutes. Add the bacon back into the pan and serve.
John Houser III, Baltimore Sun
Copyright © 2019, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad


text:
Senior Vice President, Business Leader
Image Guided Therapy Systems, Philips
Terimleri ara
Senior Vice President, Business Leader
Image Guided Therapy Systems, Philips
Have you ever pulled on a door handle that is marked "push"? Or turned a device off when you meant to turn it on? If you have experienced these things in your everyday life, you know how important it is to get design right. When it comes to using medical equipment during surgery, pushing the right button at the right moment could even be a matter of life and death.
Usability is one of the top three requirements that come up when I talk to hospital administrators and clinical staff about what they require in their imaging equipment.
In orthopedic surgery, as the volume of patients increases and orthopedic professionals adopt new open and minimally invasive techniques, good usability will become even more critical. It's something we are very aware of at Philips in the design of our mobile and fixed C-arms. This medical imaging equipment is used by a variety of individual users and teams during orthopedic procedures.
For our mobile C-arms, for example, two people are often using the system, each standing in a different position, and they may have to reposition the C-arm dozens of times during a spinal fixation procedure. That is why usability can make a critical difference.
Our Veradius Unity mobile C-arm is a good example of great usability in action. It incorporates tablet simplicity and highly guided positioning to re-define teamwork during orthopedic surgical imaging. In an independent usability study3 that was performed, Veradius Unity scored very high on the following points:
One story we heard recently about the selection process for a new mobile C-arm was at the Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Friedrichsheim (OUF) in Frankfurt, Germany. "Time is money, especially in the OR," says OUF orthopedic surgeon, Dr. med. Christoph Theis. He appreciates the ease of use of the Veradius Unity for his busy department. "Everything is intuitive and well organized on the system," he says. "All of our employees, the OR assistants and operators, are able to work with the system very fast. In a large hospital like ours, ease-of-use and reliability are critical."
Another recent example is our Azurion fixed C-arm system. During its development, we partnered with NAMSA to carry out a comprehensive study to evaluate the enhanced usability and workflow of the Azurion at one of the first hospitals to install the new system, St. Antonius Hospital in Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Standardization is also key to good usability for hospitals that have many different clinical users and imaging systems in one department. It reduces the need for training for different users and enables them to be more adept in using the systems. Our pursuit will always be to incorporate standardization as a significant
I recently read an article about the incoming ISO 13485:2016 standard for medical devices, which underscores that this topic is even more relevant than ever. It emphasizes the need for usability engineering as a mandatory design input. That's why I believe that new approaches to improving usability are one of the key trends to watch in 2018 for orthopedic surgery.
Subscribe to our Surgery Pulse hub to read about more insights and experiences in surgical imaging for the surgical community.
1Sources available in
3 Results obtained during user tests performed in November 2013 by Use-Lab GmbH, an independent company. The tests involved 30 USA based clinicians (15 physicians teamed up with 15 nurses or X-ray technicians), who performed simulated procedures in a simulated OR environment. None of them had worked with a Philips C-arm or with each other before.
Ürünü görüntüle
Ürünü görüntüle
Ürünü görüntüle
Ürünü görüntüle
Ürünü görüntüle
By clicking on the link, you will be leaving the official Royal Philips Healthcare ("Philips") website. Any links to third-party websites that may appear on this site are provided only for your convenience and in no way represent any affiliation or endorsement of the information provided on those linked websites. Philips makes no representations or warranties of any kind with regard to any third-party websites or the information contained therein.I understand


text:
My apologies if this has been posted before, but I ran into a page with the 100 Things About Your Your PC Background. It's essentially a streamlined version of those surveys that people used to always forward around to their friends via email and encourage results to be sent back. As they note on the page, you really don't need to get an answer to everything, but it is interesting to read through the list of questions for your character and see if any of them spark an interesting answer in your head.
Brings back memories of writing pages of backstory for my 1st level characters in D&D when I was a kid, only to have them get killed off in the first few rounds of combat...
100 questions to ask about your character
Discuss anything vaguely M&M related here, such as comics, movies, and action figures.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Cosmic Entity
- Posts: 9719
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:15 am
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA
- Contact:
1 post • Page 1 of 1


text:
New loader options
Two new series of loaders are available for the Fendt Vario 400 and 700 tractors.
The 3S models are factory-installed loaders with heavy-duty cast-iron mountings that attach to the tractor's frame. Model 3S-63 is for the 400 series tractors, and 3S-70 is for the 700 series tractors. Each model has a hydraulic line/hose safety feature that instantly locks the loader if a line or hose breaks and a lowering control valve that provides a constant lowering speed independent of the load weight.
The second series is for Fendt tractor owners who wish to add a loader to their existing machine. The dealer-installed 450 HSL and 750 HSL (hydraulic self-leveling) models fit the 400 series and 700 series tractors, respectively. The new loaders have a high-tensile-strength boom frame and a pedestal mount design. The 450 HSL can lift 3,600 lbs. up to 11½ ft., and the 750 HSL can lift 5,000 lbs. up to 13 ft. Adjusting a pin on the loader can increase the lift height. The 450 HSL can reach a maximum height of about 12¾ ft., and the 750HSL can reach 14¼ ft. by using the two-position lift height feature, which trades a portion of the lift capacity for lift height.
Price: $5,760 to $7,205. Contact AGCO Corp., Dept. FIN, 4205 River Green Pkwy., Duluth, GA 30096, 770/813-9200, www.fendt.agcocorp.com.
Control the flow
Grain loss during combine unloading can be minimized with the new Flow Control Kit from Calmar Industries. The kit serves as an extension to a combine auger for more concentrated unloading of grain to all areas of a truck or grain cart. The kit fits any 10- to 14-in. top or bottom swing auger. It swivels if contacted to avoid damage and has a built-in pressure release. Price: $169 to $329. Contact Calmar Industries, Dept. FIN, 602B 51st St. E., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 7K3, 800/561-7867, www.calmarindustries.com.
Crop cutter option
Improve the feed efficiency of your bales and eliminate the need for long mixing times in your TMR mixer or hay grinder with New Holland's CropCutter system, now available as an option on big square baler models BB940 and BB960. Up to 23 knives cut the crop as it is being delivered to the baler so that the bale will break apart more easily and will be easier for livestock to eat and digest. A slide-away drawer lets you add or remove knives according to the crop.
The balers also are available with optional steerable tandem axles to allow them to ride smoother over rough ground and reduce ground tear-ups at the ends of fields. The suggested list price for a baler with CropCutter option starts at $79,000. Contact New Holland at 888/290-7377, visit www.newholland.com/na.