1 Samuel 19:1-14 (He Set His Soul in His Palm, Part I)

1 Samuel 19:1-14
He Set His Soul in His Palm, Part I

(Typed 14 December 2025) It is so easy to fly off the handle, losing control when we get upset. Sleep gets robbed from us, and we lie in bed stewing over whatever thing offended us, real or imagined.

If we encounter the person about our perceived wrong, the matter is likely to end in bad words, even if the person actually did nothing wrong! We make up something in our own minds that has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

Then, as the long night hours drone on, we fabricate an even greater web of “wrongdoing” and how we are going to deal with it, usually with bad intentions toward the person with whom we are upset.

Saul seemed to do this chronically toward David. It wasn’t David’s fault that the women sang about him slaying myriads in contrast to Saul’s thousand. But Saul let that thought go to his head. That led him to conjuring up all kinds of perverse thoughts about David.

David had no idea that Saul was so miffed at him. He was a loyal subject and a brave warrior for Saul. But Saul couldn’t accept that such a capable person as David didn’t have thoughts of running the kingdom, assuming it at Saul’s expense.

Text Verse: “The God, the ‘giving avengement’ to me,
And he caused to arrange the peoples under me.
48Escaping me from my hatings,
Yea, from ‘arisings me,’ You will raise me,
From man violence, You will cause to deliver me.” Psalm 18:47, 48 (CG)

The opening of Psalm 18 says, “To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David the servant of the Lord, who spoke to the Lord the words of this song on the day that the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul.”

David eventually understood that whatever he did, Saul would relentlessly pursue him to kill him. At some point in David’s life, that ended, and as he often did, he wrote a psalm about it. It is probable that he never really understood how the animosity from Saul came about.

Throughout his life, David forgave people who intended him harm. At times, he would acknowledge that the one harming him was probably doing it because the Lord instructed him to do so, even if that wasn’t the case.

Because this was his attitude, Saul’s contempt must have been bewildering. But it existed, and he had to deal with it. David never did so in an attack against Saul. In fact, he made every attempt to prove to Saul that he bore him no ill.

It would be good if we, too, have David’s attitude. Instead of stewing over perceived wrongs all night long, we would sleep peacefully. May it be so for each of us. Letting go of offenses is a sound precept found in God’s superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again, and… May God speak to us through His word today, and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. In the Hideaway (verses 1-8)

The verses that ended Chapter 18 said –

“And he saw, Saul, and he knew for Yehovah with David, and that Michal, ‘daughter, Saul’, she cherished him. 29And he caused to add, Saul, to fear from ‘faces, David’ yet. And he was, Saul, hating David all the days. 30And they went, ‘commanders, Philistines’. And it was, from ‘sufficiency, their going’, he deliberated, David, from all ‘servants, Saul’. And he enweighed his name vehemently.” 1 Samuel 18:28-30 (CG)

Saul sees that David is in his ascendancy in all ways. Thus, his paranoia concerning this increases to a feverish pitch. Therefore…

Now Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they should kill David;

Rather: vaydaber shaul el Yonathan beno veel kal avadav lehamith eth David – “And he spoke, Saul, unto Jonathan his son and unto all his servants, to cause to kill David.” The causative verb is applied to Saul, not Jonathan and his servants. In other words, Saul has not given an order to kill David. Rather, he is talking about killing David.

For all we know, he may have said, “David has become a problem, and he needs to be eliminated. I can no longer allow him to undermine my authority.” Something like that is on his mind.

Saul means Asked. But the spelling of his name is identical to Sheol, the pit, meaning the repository for the dead. One can think of the pit calling out for the souls of men.

Jonathan means Yah Has Given.

1 (con’t) but Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted greatly in David.

vihonathan ben shaul khaphets bedavid meod – “And Jonathan, son Saul, he inclined in David vehemently.” Despite Saul’s murderous intentions, we are reminded of the love Jonathan felt toward David. This sets up the narrative for what follows…

So Jonathan told David,

vayaged yehonathan ledavid – “And he caused to declare, Jehonathan, to David.” The spelling of Jonathan’s name changes here. He will be mentioned eight times in Chapter 19. In verse 1, it was spelled Jonathan. The next seven times it will say Jehonathan, adding in the letter hey (h), the fifth letter of the Hebrew aleph-beth, which means look, reveal, and breath.

יוֹנָתָ֗ן
יְהוֹנָתָ֜ן

Adding the letter hey indicates the presence of the Spirit. The numerical value, five, refers to grace.

2 (con’t) saying, “My father Saul seeks to kill you.

lemor mevaqesh shaul avi lahamithekha – “to say, ‘Seeking, Saul, my father, to cause to kill you.” The NKJV’s rendering of verse 1 was wrong. Saul wasn’t ordering Jonathan and his men to have David killed. Rather, he was speaking of killing David. Even if someone argues he was implying they should do it, no order to do so was given.

Because of Saul’s intentions, as well as his feelings for David, Jonathan goes around Saul to advise David of his peril…

2 (con’t) Therefore please be on your guard until morning,

Again, the NKJV, based on the faulty KJV, gives an incorrect rendering: veatah hishamer na vaboqer – “And now, you must cause to guard, I pray, in the morning.” Jonathan understood that Saul had designs to kill David, but there was no imminent threat (until). Instead, Saul may have gone to bed when Jonathan came to David, telling him to be on guard “in the morning.”

Sticking with a shoddy translation is like reading a paraphrase. You will get the overall sense of what is being said, but without the proper nuances, there is no way to rightly understand what God is conveying as it points to Christ, His work, and how it pertains to His people.

The morning generally signifies the time when a change takes place. It could thus be identified as new beginnings, but that has to be taken in the sense of change in what is, not necessarily something entirely new.

In other words, the day starts at evening. It is the same day in the morning, but the change from dark to light is complete. Jonathan’s words to David continue…

2 (con’t) and stay in a secret place and hide.

veyashavta vasether venakhbetha – “And you sat in the hideaway, and you were secreted.” Jonathan gave advice for David to be on guard in the morning. He doesn’t tell him where to hide, and yet, the next verse indicates that he already knows where David will do so. David will write about his hideaway several times in the psalms, such as –

“You – Hideaway [sether] to me,
From distress You will guard me,
Cheers deliverance – You will surround me! Selah”
Psalm 32:7 (CG)

Wherever David hid, the physical spot was within his greater spiritual Hideaway in whom he trusted with every fiber of his being. As for the place indicated by Jonathan…

And I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where you are, 

Jonathan’s words are emphatic: vaani etse veamadti leyad avi basadeh asher atah sham – “And I, I will go out, and I stood to ‘hand, my father’ in the field where ‘you, there.’” At no time in the preceding chapters has there been any mention of a field or a hideaway for David. And yet, Jonathan speaks as if it were plainly understood by both.

It may be a place Saul frequented, of which both were aware, or it may be that Jonathan conveyed more to David than is recorded, such as, “I will take Dad for a walk to talk to him.” However, that is totally speculative.

In the Bible, the field represents the world. This is understood from Jesus’ words of Matthew 13:38, where He says, “The field is the world.” Of this place, Jonathan says…

3 (con’t) and I will speak with my father about you.

The emphatic nature of his words continues: vaani adaber bekha el avi – “And I, I will speak in you unto my father.” Jonathan intends to convey good words (in you) to Saul, to convince him that his machinations from the previous night were out of line and short-sighted concerning David.

This clause tells us that it wasn’t Jonathan’s intent for Saul to hear their conversation, but to be able to quickly convey the words to David. If David were off in some other location, Jonathan would have to travel there. Thus, it could arouse Saul’s suspicions concerning a scheme existing between him and David.

3 (con’t) Then what I observe, I will tell you.”

veraiti mah vehigadti lakh – “and I saw what, and I caused to declare to you.” Whatever Jonathan gleans from the matter, that is what he will pass on to David. Therefore, in the morning…

Thus Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father,

vaydaber yehonathan bedavid tov el shaul aviv – “And he spoke, Jehonathan, in David, good unto Saul his father.” As he promised, Jonathan conveyed good concerning David (in David) to Saul, hoping to elicit a favorable response from him. Specifically…

4 (con’t) and said to him, “Let not the king sin against his servant, against David, because he has not sinned against you,

vayomer elav al yekheta ha’melekh beavdo vedavid ki lo khata lakh – “And he said unto him, ‘Not you will sin, the king, in his servant, in David. For not he sinned to you.” Jonathan understands that the king is sinning through his intent to kill David. As the king, he has the right to judge, sentence, and impose whatever penalty he deems appropriate on his subjects, but his judgments are to be just and based on what is true.

However, Jonathan’s logic is that David has not sinned against Saul. As such, Saul’s actions would, in fact, be sin because they would be unjust. Further…

4 (con’t) and because his works have been very good toward you.

vekhi maasav tov lekha meod – “And for his works – good to you, vehemently.’” The word “toward” signifies motion focused directionally. The NKJV gives an updated amendment to the KJV, which says, “his works have been to theeward very good.” There is no such locative aspect in the Hebrew. Such faulty renderings confuse what is being said.

Jonathan is conveying that David’s deeds have been beneficial to Saul. It is not that they were directed to Saul, but that whatever David did was helpful to Saul, his kingship, and by extension, his kingdom. That is specifically noted next…

For he took his life in his hands and killed the Philistine,

The words are similar to what Jephthah said concerning himself in Judges 12:3: vayasem eth naphsho bekhapo vayakh eth ha’pelishti – “And he put his soul in his palm, and he caused to strike the Philistine.” Not a single translation or scholar properly rendered this clause. A palm, kaph, is not a hand, yad. They have different meanings, both in the text and metaphorically.

The, kaph, palm (and sole) signifies possession and/or the state of something. David took his soul, meaning his being, and set it in his possession. One can think of something precious and brittle being set in the palm. Without care, it could tumble out and crash to the floor, shattering it.

In other words, Goliath’s challenge was accepted by David. The winner of the challenge would possess the very being of the other. If the text said hand, it would signify power and authority. The two thoughts, though similar in intent, have completely different ultimate signification.

Jonathan is reminding Saul of the great thing David did and the outcome of it. At the cost of his very being, he killed Goliath.

Philistine signifies Weakener.

5 (con’t) and the Lord brought about a great deliverance for all Israel.

vayaas Yehovah teshuah gedolah lekhal Yisrael – “And he made, Yehovah, ‘salvation, whopping’ to all Israel.” Jonathan’s words are carefully stated. Despite David placing his soul in his palm, it was the Lord, working through him, who brought salvation to Israel. As this is so, it would be an act tantamount to shunning the Lord to kill David when he had done nothing wrong. Even Saul knew this at one time…

5 (con’t) You saw it and rejoiced.

raitha vatismakh – “You saw, and you brightened.” Saul faced the enemy for forty days. Neither he nor any man of Israel was willing to even try to face the Philistine. And yet, when David appeared to tend to his brothers, he immediately said he would accept the challenge. Saul agreed, David prevailed, and Saul rejoiced in the victory over the Philistines.

Jonathan is reminding his father of what took place, hoping it will convince him that his thoughts are awry concerning David…

5 (con’t) Why then will you sin against innocent blood, to kill David without a cause?”

velamah tekheta bedam naqi lekhamith eth David khinam – “And to why you will sin in ‘blood, innocent’ to cause to kill David gratuitously?” Jonathan restates his earlier thought so that Saul understands the gravity of killing David. It is tantamount to cold-blooded murder of an innocent man. And that, for no reason at all.

So Saul heeded the voice of Jonathan,

vayishma shaul beqol yehonathan – “And he heard, Saul, in ‘voice, Jehonathan’.” To hear signifies more than audible listening. It indicates that he heard Jonathan and then determined not to go forward with his decision. And more…

6 (con’t) and Saul swore, “As the Lord lives, he shall not be killed.”

vayishava shaul khai Yehovah im yumath – “and he was sevened, Saul, ‘Alive, Yehovah, if he will be caused to die.’” Saul sevened himself. It is as if he swore seven times over the matter. That is seen in what he said. He made an adjuration on the name of Yehovah that he would not take the life of David.

There is no reason to assume that Saul was being dishonest. David will again be in the presence of Saul. Only when David increases in his victories will Saul return to his evil intentions…

Then Jonathan called David, and Jonathan told him all these things.

vayiqra yehonathan ledavid vayaged lo yehonathan eth kal ha’devarim ha’eleh – “And he called, Jehonathan, to David. And he caused to declare to him, Jehonathan, all the words, the these.” The narrative leaves a lot unstated, and we have to guess at some of the events. Saul was with Jonathan and then wasn’t.

For whatever reason, Saul departed. After that, Jonathan called out for David, who was also in the field, but hiding somewhere. Once together, Jonathan told David the substance of what was said between him and his father.

7 (con’t) So Jonathan brought David to Saul,

vayave yehonathan eth David el shaul – “And he caused to bring, Jehonathan, David unto Saul.” Jonathan’s care for David continues to be seen. Saul gives assurance that he will not harm David, and so Jonathan personally brings him into Saul’s presence. It would be a reminder of the oath as Jonathan stood there. Therefore…

7 (con’t) and he was in his presence as in times past.

vayhi lephanav keethmol shilshom – “And he was to his faces according to time, trebly.” It is a Hebrew idiom seen elsewhere. It indicates that David was before Saul today and three days past, rightly paraphrased as “in times past.” Everything was back to the way it was. However, things will again go south when Saul’s jealousy of David returns…

And there was war again;

vatoseph ha’milkhamah lihyoth – “And it caused to add, the battle, to be.” The words are given for the purpose of directing the past narrative into the next one. It is, therefore, an anticipatory thought concerning why things will return to the way they were. That continues to develop with the next words…

8 (con’t) and David went out and fought with the Philistines, and struck them with a mighty blow, and they fled from him.

vayetse David vayilakhem bapelishtim vayakh bahem makah gedolah vayanusu mipanav – “And he went out, David, and he was fought in the Philistines. And he caused to strike in them ‘wound, whopping’. And they fled from his faces.” This would have been in a campaign with the thousand men he had charge over, as noted in verse 18:13. There may have been others, but David was charged with this size of force as a part of the greater army.

He is credited with a punishing victory over those he faced. One can see the runners rushing back to Saul about the battle, reporting that David thoroughly stomped on the enemy. However, all of the superlative language heaped upon David’s efforts would have had exactly the opposite effect on Saul…

Alive Yehovah! I will do as I say
I will not do wrong, as I planned to do
For sure, it will be this way
Alive Yehovah! My word is true

And yet, I failed, doing wrong again
Sin just keeps creeping up in me
I am no better than any other men
The law is a burden to carry, so I need to be free
Who will free me from this body of sin and death?
I want to do right, but it keeps escaping me

I have failed from my first breath
O God, send someone to rescue me!

II. And He Bolted (verses 9-14)

Now the distressing spirit from the Lord came upon Saul

There is no definite article: vatehi ruakh Yehovah raah el shaul – “And it was, ‘breath, Yehovah’, evilness unto Saul.” The words are the same as 1 Samuel 16:14. So far, the words have mostly said either “breath, evil” or “breath, God.” Now, however, it returns to being more personal, using the divine name to indicate the source.

To understand why I chose to say “breath” rather than “spirit,” refer to the 1 Samuel 16:14-23 sermon. However, to build upon that and show the same pattern in Genesis, look at the account in Genesis 1 –

“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:27

“And the Lord [Yehovah] God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7

The narrative begins general and moves to the specific. The same pattern occurs here, but the reason is that Saul made an oath in the name of Yehovah. Therefore, the name of God is also defined as the source of the breath. When this breath comes, Saul is unable to control his inner rage…

9 (con’t) as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand. And David was playing music with his hand.

vehu beveitho yoshev vakhanito beyado vedavid menagen beyad – “And he in his house sitting, and his spear in his hand. And David thrumming in hand.” This is similar to verse 18:10. Saul was having an attack, and David was called to thrum to calm Saul down while Saul sat with his spear in his hand.

Imagine Saul mentally turning over what he had heard about the greatness of David’s victory, mulling and stewing over it. Unable to control himself, the rage welling up in him, it next says…

10 Then Saul sought to pin David to the wall with the spear,

vayvaqesh shaul lehakaoth bakhanit bedavid uvaqir – “And he sought, Saul, to cause to strike in the spear in David, and in the wall.” As noted previously, the khanith, spear, is identical to the feminine form of the word grace. Also, the qir, wall, signifies a revelation of character.

Saul intended to pin David to the wall with his spear. Interesting typology can be derived from what is being conveyed. As in Chapter 18, it says…

10 (con’t) but he slipped away from Saul’s presence;

vayiphtar mipene shaul – “And he cleaved from ‘faces, Saul’.” A new and rare word, patar, to cleave or burst through, is seen. One use is in the proverbs as a general lesson on restraint. But the other three are notably set in the Bible when an important moment in redemptive history takes place or is referred to.

David cleaves from Saul’s presence, sparing the messianic line. Jehoiada did not cleave the divisions of the priests on the Sabbath when the six-year-old Joash was anointed king to regain the throne from Athalia, thus restoring the messianic line. Also, it is seen in the 22nd Psalm, a prophecy concerning Christ’s cross –

“All seeing Me, they will cause to deride,
To Me, they will cause to cleave [patar] in lip,
They will cause to waver head.” Psalm 22:7 (CG)

If nothing else, the word is placed here to indirectly point to the coming of Christ’s ministry.

10 (con’t) and he drove the spear into the wall. So David fled and escaped that night.

vayakh eth ha’khanith baqir vedavid nas vayimalet balaylah hu – “And he caused to strike the spear in the wall. And David, he fled, and he was eluded in the night, it.” Saul missed, but David realized the danger he was in. He was told by Jonathan about when Saul sevened himself, but that moment had passed. Therefore, it was best to get away while he could…

11 Saul also sent messengers to David’s house to watch him and to kill him in the morning

vayishlakh shaul malakhim el beith David leshamero velahamitho baboqer – “And he sent, Saul, messengers unto ‘house, David’ to guard him, and to cause to kill him in the morning.” Psalm 59 was written in response to these events taking place in David’s life. The intro to the psalm says –

“To the Chief Musician. Set to “Do Not Destroy.” A Michtam of David when Saul sent men, and they watched the house in order to kill him.”

This time, Saul has gone beyond personal intent to kill David. Instead, he has sent out a strike force to do so. Not only has he broken his oath with which he sevened himself, but he has the full intention of committing murder through the power of his kingship.

Saul’s rule failed because he failed to honor the Lord, the law under which he existed, and the common morality by which humans are expected to interact with one another.

The reason David was guarded until the morning instead of being killed immediately may be seen in the next words…

11 (con’t) And Michal, David’s wife,

vataged ledavid mikhal ishto – “And she caused to declare to David, Michal his wife.” It could be that Saul didn’t want harm to come to Michal, either physically or mentally. If he sent in the assassins to kill David, she could be harmed in the fray. At the same time, she would know Saul ordered his execution.

However, if David was killed when one or the other was gone, Saul could make an excuse. That possibility seems weak, though. David would have told Michal his side of things. That seems evident from the next clause.

Another possibility is that people in other houses in the area could become aware of the situation and defend David. But that could occur in the day or at night. Therefore, it seems likely that Michal is the main reason for waiting out the night.

Michal means Who Is Like God.

11 (con’t) told him, saying, “If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed.”

lemor im enekha memalet eth naphshekha halaylah makhar atah mumath – “to say, ‘If you not ‘elude your soul’ the night, tomorrow you ‘being caused to die’.’” Michal would not be persuaded by Saul, even if he were trying to hide the situation from her. She already knows the truth of the matter from David, and probably from her own understanding of Saul’s mental condition.

Her words are a sound warning to David based on the circumstances. Therefore, David takes her advice…

12 So Michal let David down through a window.

vatored mikhal eth David bead ha’khalon – “And she caused to descend, Michal, David through the window.” A window in the Bible, based on its various uses, is probably best described as “anticipation of a result.”

In this instance, the account of the spies at Rahab’s house, and Paul’s escape in Damascus, the anticipation of a result is deliverance and salvation.

Michal’s house may have been on a wall of the city. If so, it would make the escape far easier than into a city street. Also, city gates were usually shut at night. This would complicate any later attempt to leave the city.

Simply for the sake of a scenic view, it would make sense that David and the king’s daughter would have a home along the wall. Regardless, the wall was high enough that David needed something tied off to allow him to go down its side. Michal could easily pull that back up and hide the fact that he escaped that way.

12 (con’t) And he went and fled and escaped.

vayelekh vayivrakh vaymimalet – “and he went, and he bolted, and he was eluded.” It is unlikely they would live outside of a city. Their home being on a city wall is the most likely explanation. It would also explain why guards didn’t see him departing the house. Otherwise, one would think they would have guarded all entrances and windows.

No matter what, he was able to get away, eluding Saul and his men in the process.

13 And Michal took an image and laid it in the bed,

vatiqakh mikhal eth ha’teraphim vatasem el hamitah – “And she took, Michal, the teraphim, and she put unto the bed.” Despite the words being clear, it is unknown what teraphim are.

It is a plural word here. In fact, the singular is never used. They were first seen in Genesis 31:19, where Rachel stole her father’s teraphim. In verse 31:30, Laban specifically calls them his gods. In 1 Samuel 15, the word is used in a negative sense –

“So Samuel said:
‘Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry [teraphim].
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.’” 1 Samuel 15:22, 23

There are fifteen uses of teraphim in the Old Testament, but none of them clearly define what they are. Whatever they are, they include something large enough to be used as a decoy for David. In this case, it could be that it is not anything cultic at all, but that it merely is intended to represent a living being. This fact alone may make it a teraphim.

It is ironic, however, that something that has no breath in it is used in the actions of saving David, the Lord’s anointed. Once she had the teraphim in the bed, it says…

13 (con’t) put a cover of goats’ hair for his head, and covered it with clothes.

veeth kevir ha’izim samah meraashothav vatekhas ba’baged – “And ‘quilt, the goats’ she put – his headpieces, and she plumped in the garment.” A new word, kabir, something of intertwined materials, is seen. It is derived from kabar, to plait together.

The word is only seen here and in verse 16. Translations and scholarly opinions vary on what it is. As it is something plaited, my guess of “quilt” is as good as any.

Further, to support this, the word ha’izim, the goats, is used. In other words, goats’ hair was used to fashion the kabir. It is likely that this is a quilt that was plaited from goats’ hair. It was then rolled up into the area where his head would be, like a pillow.

This word, meraashoth, is from rosh, head, first, headship, etc. Strong’s believes the plural signifies it is to be used adverbially. Thus, “headpieces” would mean at his headrest or at his pillow.

As a point of reference, the word, izim, goats, is the term used for the sin offering, including the one mandated on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:5.

With all that in place, the last thing she did was plump it up, meaning to cover it. Michal is dealing covertly against Saul by covering her teraphim and plumping it up to make it look like a body. These items will look like a human in the bed. The covering is what provides the “plumping” over all the convolutions.

*14 So when Saul sent messengers to take David, she said, “He is sick.”

vayishlakh shaul malakhim laqakhath eth David vatomer kholeh hu – “And he sent, Saul, messengers to take David. And she said, ‘Rubbed, he.’” The verses today end on a lying word from Michal. She bought time for David’s escape by saying he was sick. As for the word khalah, rubbed, it is used in various contexts.

It can signify being sick, petitioning someone, being grieved, etc. When something is rubbed, it can show favor, like rubbing someone’s face. It can show sickness, like being worn down in health. It can also apply in a spiritual sense, like being worn down in spirit, grieved, etc.

Michal did what any wife would do if she loved her husband. She cannot be charged with an offense when it is to serve a higher moral intent.

This is a good spot to stop and pick up the narrative next week. We will hopefully be able to determine why God placed this story in the word. There are a ton of details to sort through and more in the final eleven verses.

If nothing else, we will understand various events that allowed the plan of redemption, already prophesied in highly detailed passages, to continue until the coming of Jesus. It is through David, not Saul, that the messianic line is established.

Therefore, knowing these stories and thinking on them allows us to have a greater surety that God is fully in control of conducting the events within time to get the world to the time of the Messiah’s arrival. If that is so, we should not fret that He has a clear plan for those of us who are His now that the Messiah has come.

There should be no fear or dread concerning the events that surround us. David, having gone through this ordeal, didn’t break down and fret his life away. Instead, he wrote a psalm about it. Wouldn’t it be great if we had that same attitude each time we faced great trials?

We can remember his example, and other heroes of faith recorded in the Bible, and we can confidently claim that our lives are on the good and proper path, even when things may seem to be falling apart. That is, if we truly belong to Jesus. To be sure you have that confidence, let me take a minute to explain how you can be sure of the eternal hope found in Him…

Closing Verse: “Deliver me from my enemies, O my God;
Defend me from those who rise up against me.
Deliver me from the workers of iniquity,
And save me from bloodthirsty men.” Psalm 59:1, 2

Next Week: 1 Samuel 19:15-24 Despite the ordeal, he remained calm, it is true… (He Set His Soul in His Palm, Part II) (42nd 1Samuel Sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. He is the One who abases the haughty and exalts the humble. He regards the lowly, and the proud, He knows from afar. So yield yourself to Him, trust Him, and believe His word. In this, He will do great things for you and through you.

1 Samuel 19:1-14 (CG)

1 And he spoke, Saul, unto Jonathan his son and unto all his servants, to cause to kill David. And Jonathan, son Saul, he inclined in David vehemently. 2And he caused to declare, Jehonathan, to David, to say, “Seeking, Saul, my father, to cause to kill you. And now, you must cause to guard, I pray, in the morning. And you sat in the hideaway, and you were secreted. 3And I, I will go out, and I stood to ‘hand, my father’ in the field where ‘you, there’. And I, I will speak in you unto my father, and I saw what, and I caused to declare to you.”

4And he spoke, Jehonathan in David, good unto Saul his father. And he said unto him, “Not you will sin, the king, in his servant, in David. For not he sinned to you. And for his works – good to you, vehemently. 5And he put his soul in his palm, and he caused to strike the Philistine. And he made, Yehovah, ‘salvation, whopping’ to all Israel. You saw, and you brightened. And to why you will sin in ‘blood, innocent’ to cause to kill David gratuitously?”

6And he heard, Saul, in ‘voice, Jehonathan’, and he was sevened, Saul, “Alive, Yehovah, if he will be caused to die.” 7And he called, Jehonathan, to David. And he caused to declare to him, Jehonathan, all the words, the these. And he caused to bring, Jehonathan, David unto Saul. And he was to his faces according to time, trebly.

8And it caused to add, the battle, to be. And he went out, David, and he was fought in the Philistines. And he caused to strike in them, ‘wound, whopping’. And they fled from his faces.

9And it was, ‘breath, Yehovah’, evilness unto Saul. And he in his house sitting, and his spear in his hand. And David thrumming in hand. 10And he sought, Saul, to cause to strike in the spear in David, and in the wall. And he cleaved from ‘faces, Saul’. And he caused to strike the spear in the wall. And David, he fled, and he was eluded in the night, it.

11And he sent, Saul, messengers unto ‘house, David’ to guard him, and to cause to kill him in the morning. And she caused to declare to David, Michal, his wife, to say, “If you not ‘elude your soul’ the night, tomorrow you ‘being caused to die’.” 12And she caused to descend, Michal, David through the window, and he went, and he bolted, and he was eluded. 13And she took, Michal, the teraphim, and she put unto the bed. And ‘quilt, the goats’ she put – his headpieces, and she plumped in the garment. 14And he sent, Saul, messengers to take David. And she said, “Rubbed, he.”

 

1 Samuel 19:1-14 (NKJV)

Now Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they should kill David; but Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted greatly in David. So Jonathan told David, saying, “My father Saul seeks to kill you. Therefore please be on your guard until morning, and stay in a secret place and hide. And I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where you are, and I will speak with my father about you. Then what I observe, I will tell you.”

Thus Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father, and said to him, “Let not the king sin against his servant, against David, because he has not sinned against you, and because his works have been very good toward you. For he took his life in his hands and killed the Philistine, and the Lord brought about a great deliverance for all Israel. You saw it and rejoiced. Why then will you sin against innocent blood, to kill David without a cause?”

So Saul heeded the voice of Jonathan, and Saul swore, “As the Lord lives, he shall not be killed.” Then Jonathan called David, and Jonathan told him all these things. So Jonathan brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence as in times past.

And there was war again; and David went out and fought with the Philistines, and struck them with a mighty blow, and they fled from him.

Now the distressing spirit from the Lord came upon Saul as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand. And David was playing music with his hand. 10 Then Saul sought to pin David to the wall with the spear, but he slipped away from Saul’s presence; and he drove the spear into the wall. So David fled and escaped that night.

11 Saul also sent messengers to David’s house to watch him and to kill him in the morning. And Michal, David’s wife, told him, saying, “If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed.” 12 So Michal let David down through a window. And he went and fled and escaped. 13 And Michal took an image and laid it in the bed, put a cover of goats’ hair for his head, and covered it with clothes. 14 So when Saul sent messengers to take David, she said, “He is sick.”

Matthew 19:8

Sunday, 26 April 2026

He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matthew 19:8

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“He says to them, ‘Because Moses, toward the hardheartedness of you, he allowed you to dismiss your wives. But from the commencement, not it has been thus.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus was asked about Moses’ provision in the law concerning the issuing of a certificate of divorce. In response to that, Matthew records, “He says to them, ‘Because Moses, toward the hardheartedness of you.’”

A new word, not found outside biblical references, is seen here, sklérokardia. It is derived from two words, the first being skléros, dry, but indicating hard or tough, like a dry scab. Figuratively, it refers to stubborn people who won’t budge, bend, or submit. The second word is kardias, the heart. By analogy, it refers to the thoughts or feelings of a person. It is the seat of moral preference.

By placing the two words together, one can see the result: a heart that is hardened and morally obdurate. Of the words of Jesus, He ascribes this state as being the reason for Moses’ grant for divorce. This does not negate the doctrine of inspiration. What Moses said was under the inspiration and divine approval of God.

However, the book of Deuteronomy is written from Moses’ perspective. When the Lord is mentioned, it is generally in the third person, such as, “Yehovah our God, He made with us – covenant, in Horeb” (Deuteronomy 5:2).

As such, Jesus refers to the words as being those of Moses. But it is the Lord who truly looks upon the hardheartedness of the people. Moses, on the other hand, saw the result of it being worked out in the lives of the people. It is in this state of understanding the state of the people that Moses directed his words pros, toward, their hardheartedness.

The fact is that divorce was and remains a part of the human condition. Israel was taken out of the body of humanity. Their inclinations would be no different than those of anyone else. The law, however, would magnify the people’s guilt in such matters. In seeing this state in them, Jesus says, “he allowed you to dismiss your wives.”

Moses’ words were not a command to dismiss. Rather, they were an accommodation to do so because of the hard state of human hearts, among whom Israel is included. In other words, Moses had to decide the matter, considering what would have been the result if this allowance were not provided.

The answer is that things would have been worse in various ways, not better. Otherwise, the allowance would not have been given. Despite this allowance, however, Jesus next says, “But from the commencement, not it has been thus.”

The verse in Jesus’ words is a perfect participle. Depending on the translation, such as the NKJV, someone may deduce that it was not so in the beginning, but because of accommodation through Moses, that then changed. This is incorrect. The use of the perfect participle tells us that it was not that way in the beginning, it was not that way at the time of Moses’ allowance, and it continued not to be the case even up to the present.

This accommodation does not change the original intent of marriage at all. Rather, Jesus will continue to explain the matter in the verses ahead.

Life application: As an example of mixing doctrines, consider the words of the Pulpit Commentary –

“From the beginning. The original institution of marriage contained no idea of divorce; it was no mere civil contract, made by man and dissoluble by man, but a union of God’s own formation, with which no human power could interfere. However novel this view might seem, it was God’s own design from the first. The first instance of polygamy occurs in Genesis 4:19, and is connected with murder and revenge. Matthew 19:8.”

The substance of the Pulpit Commentary on the matter of divorce is fine. But one must stop and ask, “What does the last sentence of the commentary have to do with divorce?” The answer is, “Nothing.” Further, the conclusion they gave concerning polygamy is entirely amiss.

The fact that murder is mentioned by Lamech has nothing to do with his being married to two wives. Second, murder had already been seen, in the same chapter, when connected in a similar offhand manner to a non-polygamous marriage.

Cain killed Abel. They were sons of Adam and Eve. The fact that murder took place has nothing to do with that fact, just as the fact that Lamech had two wives, from a biblical standpoint, has nothing to do with Lamech’s killing of another person.

Be careful when reading commentaries not to get misdirected into irrelevant side issues. This is quite common in commentaries, but incorrect conclusions can become the highlight of a matter because of such things. When that happens, all kinds of false teachings can quickly arise.

If someone wants to deviate from a thought being presented, there needs to be a reason for it, such as a “life application” that is understood to be extra to the main content.

Likewise, be sure to stick to relevant facts yourself in your own discussions about theology and doctrine. In doing so, you will build a stronger case without fallacious conclusions that misdirect from the matter at hand.

Lord God, help us to be faithful husbands and wives, living out our lives in adherence with what You have set forth for marriages in Your word. May we be patient, caring, and forgiving as we interact with the spouse You have blessed us with all the days of our lives. Amen.

Matthew 19:7

Saturday, 25 April 2026

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Matthew 19:7

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“They say to Him, ‘Therefore, why he did enjoin, Moses, to give a divorce scroll to dismiss her?’” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus, having cited Scripture to justify His conclusion, said that what God has joined, man should not separate. With that stated, an obvious question arose. Matthew records, “They say to Him, ‘Therefore, why he did enjoin, Moses, to give a divorce scroll to dismiss her?’”

The reason this is obvious is that it is found in the Pentateuch or Torah, the same five books in which Genesis is recorded. There is nothing wrong with the question, and such confusion should be expected. If a truth is evidently being taught in one part of the Torah and elsewhere something seems contradictory to that, then how can those thoughts be reconciled?

Such confusion will often cause one to take the laxer stand in the debate unless there is a compelling reason why they shouldn’t. In other words, “This appears to say something in Genesis, but it isn’t explicit. Our teacher has noted that Deuteronomy says something different, which is stated explicitly. Therefore, we must go with Deuteronomy.”

That is why there were different schools of thought, such as Shammai and Hillel. One may have deduced that the precept implied in Genesis had limitations. The other held firmly to Deuteronomy due to its explicitly stated nature. As Moses didn’t give any further qualifications, then the laxer approach must be acceptable.

However, there is one more consideration at this time in Israel’s history. In Malachi 2:16, the prophet declared to the people –

“And this is the second thing you do:
You cover the altar of the Lord with tears,
With weeping and crying;
So He does not regard the offering anymore,
Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.
14 Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’
Because the Lord has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.
15 But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
16 For the Lord God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one’s garment with violence,
Says the Lord of hosts.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.” Malachi 2:13-16

Because of this, Israel should have carefully considered the words of Moses and taken a second look at their actions and attitudes concerning divorce.

Life application: Theology is not always black and white and clearly set on the pages of Scripture. Many things have to be carefully considered from a much wider angle than a single precept on a page.

It is true that Moses gave an allowance for divorce. But what was the reason for it? Jesus will give a clear and exacting response to the question. When thought through, it should make sense to those who hear it. But Jesus’ response will elicit more concerns in the minds of His disciples.

But this is how the Bible presents things. There are things to be inferred. Directives come along that may seem confusing. Other things are stated later that are hard to reconcile with what has already been said, etc.

Eventually, however, as the years pass, the greater plan of redemption becomes clearer and clearer. Little steps are taken to give lessons. From there, things will take their place. When that occurs, people may still not understand what is happening because they have failed to see the progression of what God is doing.

Those who continue to hold to the law are in such a category. They failed to see that the law was a steppingstone to lead Israel to Jesus. In failing to see that, they rejected the new direction. Along with their rejection, they teach others who were never under the law that they need to go back to the part of the plan where those teaching law observance still are.

All of this is because of a failure to see the greater picture of what God is doing.  That is why God has made the gospel so hugely simple. If people can’t understand the basic gospel, and the world is full of people who don’t, imagine if it were any more complicated!

God is looking to get people saved through Christ. Once that is done, it is important to grow in Christ, lest someone come along and pull you back into a part of what God has already set aside. Keep reading the Bible! Keep looking at what God has done from the bigger and more complete plan of redemption. This is how you will be firm and secure in what is a big and complicated book.

Glorious Lord God, thank You for the simple gospel. By it we are saved. Once that is out of the way, help us to continue to grow in our walk with You. May we be responsible stewards of the time You have given us. Help us in this, O God. Amen.

 

Matthew 19:6

Friday, 24 April 2026

So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:6

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“So too, they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God, He conjoined, not let him separate, man.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus cited the Genesis narrative where a man is said to leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, becoming one flesh. Based on that early Genesis record, Jesus now states that a precedent took place that pertains to all people at all times. He begins that thought, saying, “So too, they are no longer two.”

A new word is seen, ouketi. It is derived from ou, a negative particle, such as “not,” and eti, yet, still, longer, etc. Together, they form the thought “no longer.”

There is now a bond between the two which has united them as “one flesh” in God’s eyes. Though they are still two people, they have formed a single, indissoluble whole. They are not two independent units. Rather, they are two entities united into a single unit.

A comparable thought is a yoke of oxen, which form a single whole. They are two oxen, but they form one yoke fulfilling a single purpose. That is actually explicitly seen in Jesus’ conclusion, “Therefore, what God, He conjoined, not let him separate, man.”

Two new words are seen here. The first is suzeugnumi. It is derived from sun, with, and zeugos, a couple (as in yoked). Together, they signify “to yoke together” and thus, figuratively, to conjoin as in marriage. This word is found only here and in the comparable passage of Mark 10:9.

The next new word is chórizó, to place room between. It is derived from chóra, a room or a space of territory. Figuratively, chórizó thus means to put asunder, separate, etc. One could think of a couple deciding to have two separate rooms instead of one. Eventually, they decide they like it and permanently separate, divorcing and permanently breaking the bonds of marriage.

Jesus says that this should not be. God joined them as one. Therefore, what He has done is not to be undone by man.

Life application: In Ephesians, Paul confirms that Jesus’ words are not only directed to Israel during the time of the law, but at all times. He then explains that this bond of marriage anticipates something greater –

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” Ephesians 5:22-33

If God has united man and woman in marriage and says it is a permanent bond in His eyes, how do you think He considers the bond of a person who has united with Christ? The doctrine of eternal salvation is clearly and unambiguously upheld.

We look to our own broken relationships and impute our own failings to God. “My father was a loser and a drunkard. Fathers cannot be trusted, and God, who is the ‘Father’ sure can’t be trusted!” “My husband left me for another woman. He ruined my life and his own children’s lives. Jesus will be just as unfaithful as he was. And even if He is a good Husband, I will fail Him, and He will cast me away.”

This is how we view things, from our own failed perspective. But this is why God gave us the Bible and the example of Israel. Despite their constant failure to be a suitable people for Him, He faithfully has endured their troublesome ways, covenanting with them and working to ensure that they will come into the New Covenant someday.

Let us remember that God does not fail. He will perfectly fulfill every promise He has made to His people.

Lord God, thank You that we have the absolute assurance that You will bring us to Yourself in Your heavenly kingdom. You will never leave us, never forsake us, and because of Jesus, You have and will continue to forgive us of our innumerable failings. Thank You for Your infinite faithfulness, O God. Amen.

Matthew 19:5

Thursday, 23 April 2026

and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? Matthew 19:5

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And He said, ‘For this, he will leave, a man, the father and the mother, and he will be glued to his wife, and they will become, the two, into one flesh.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus noted that from the commencement, God created humans male and female. Having said that, the narrative continues, “And He said, ‘For this, he will leave, a man, the father and the mother.’” Jesus cites Genesis 2:24 –

“Upon thus, he will leave, man, his father and his mother, and he impinged in his wife. And they were to flesh – one.” (CG)

The unstated force behind the thought is that a child is derived from a man and a woman. There is no other way for it to occur, something already seen in the Genesis 1 account, where everything breeds after its own kind. In the case of humans, the offspring are the issue of a union between a man and a woman.

Also, within that thought is the idea that a properly functioning home is where there is a father and a mother who are together as the child grows. These are logical deductions that can be made from thinking about these early words of Genesis, which are repeated by Jesus. Understanding these things, Jesus continues, saying, “and he will be glued to his wife.”

A new word is seen here. In some texts, it is rendered as kollaó, to glue. In other texts, it is similar but with more force, proskollaó, to glue to. The word proskollaó will be used in the comparable passage found in Mark 10:7, and also in Paul’s citation of this Genesis account in Ephesians 5:31.

The model in many parts of the world, and that which is being pressed upon many “nuclear family” nations today, is that it is ok for children to be raised by one parent, usually the mother, who gets pregnant by whoever comes around. From there, the child is brought up in an environment lacking both parents.

Rather, there is to be an indissoluble union between the man and the woman who produce a child. That continues, and is confirmed, in the words, “and they will become, the two, into one flesh.”

The Hebrew word translated as “one” is ekhad. It can signify a plurality within a unity. For example, a cluster of grapes is one, and yet it has many grapes. The Godhead is one, and yet there are three Persons within it. These two humans have become one in flesh. From them issues a child. The bond of unity remains after the child is born.

There is nothing stated elsewhere in Scripture until the Law of Moses that qualifies this. Jesus will explain in a few verses why a provision ending such a union was set forth in the law. The explanation, however, will be seen to merely accommodate the people. However, accommodation does not necessarily equate to what is actually proper.

Life application: In the Western world, where the standard has been that a man marries a woman, has children, and remains with his wife throughout their lives, it was the bulwark upon which the society was established. Everything in the family, the community, and the society at large extended from that basic unit.

In order to undermine Western society, this concept has been under constant and increasing attack by those with left-leaning ideologies. The increasing attack is not merely in the number of voices, but in what the voices proclaim. First, the idea of divorce was brought into societal thinking.

Once that became acceptable, an increase in deviation was seen. It soon became acceptable for a woman to have a child without ever getting married. From there, other sexual perversions have entered what is considered a “family,” such as two men raising a child or two women raising a child.

After that, the idea of multiple partners all living together and raising a child was introduced. During all of this time, the idea of abortion has been introduced and pushed as a way of alleviating the burdens of these dysfunctional scenarios. With each next step of mental perversion being worked out in people’s lives, increasing harm has come upon once well-established societies.

The force behind this is not “love,” as if that is the driving motivator. Rather, the force behind it is hate. There is a hate of God, a hate of accountability to God, a hate of moral discipline, etc. In order to push God out of the society, it first begins by pushing God out of the family.

The more families that take this step, leads to more districts accepting the premise. The more districts that accept it, leads to states or provinces accepting it. Soon, it becomes a national force. What is intolerable to God is what is praised. Those who refuse this “tolerant” lifestyle are, ironically, no longer considered tolerable. They must be dealt with accordingly.

Anyone who cannot see this logical progression going on in the world simply does not want to see it. After the rapture of the church, this mental degradation will rise to such an extent that the world will, literally, destroy itself. Religions, ethnicities, and nations will have no basis for moral governance.

The idea of “tolerance” is the death knell of a society. What is intolerable to God should not be tolerated. When it is, God – and what He expects – becomes what is intolerable.

Lord God, help us to faithfully endure this world of ever-increasing immorality, never waffling on our stand that Your word is right and that it is to be always upheld, in its proper context. May we be people morally grounded in Your word. Amen.