1 Samuel 28:18-25 (‘Mistress, ov’, the Witch of En Dor, Part II)

Artwork by Douglas Kallerson

1 Samuel 28:18-25
‘Mistress, ov’,
The Witch of En-dor, Part II

(Typed 4 & 5 May 2026) There is a world of diversity around us. People come in a variety of colors. Cultures have a seemingly limitless number of variations. There are jobs to fill every need, from wastewater operators, plastic surgeons, and postal workers to corporate executives and computer analysts.

Mixed into all of this variety are people who claim to be witches. Some of them work right alongside us in our jobs, bragging about their powers and enlightenment. For some, sorcery and witchcraft is their job. People come to them seeking answers they think such people have access to.

As Christians, we tend to look at people like them as the goners of society. There is no hope for them. And yet, if you Google “former witch comes to Christ,” there are innumerable articles and videos of people all around the world who have proven they aren’t goners at all.

In reading the Bible, when we see stories like the witch of En Dor, we may think, “How stupid could these people be? They are the people of the Lord, and yet they have witches? Why didn’t they pay attention to their law?”

Text Verse: “Also he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger.” 2 Chronicles 33:6

Manasseh definitely falls into the category, “That guy is a goner for sure.” His life was as mixed up in the occult as any person you could possibly imagine. Because of his deeds, he was exiled to Babylon. And yet, in the same chapter, we find that he humbled himself and was restored to the Lord and to his kingdom.

How could Israel be so stupid? How could we? They lived in a land where Scripture was available to only a select few. Everyone else only heard about the Lord by word of mouth. Travel was slow, and external influences would have come at them with every false god available.

Again, the real question is: How can we be so stupid? We, meaning the world today, including Israel. We have word, we have evidence in a thousand ways concerning its reliability, including fulfilled prophecy, and we have the means of obtaining the word right at our fingertips.

And yet, there are palm readers in every town, mystics, false prophets, and witches galore. We even have churches that claim the name of Jesus and yet allow every perversion that can be dreamt up where people gladly attend, stewing themselves in corruption.

What we need to do is carry the truth of Jesus to these people. Handing out tracts, speaking excitedly about our faith, and letting people know of God’s goodness. Jesus should exude out of us at all times.

Saul is in En Dor to seek what the law forbids. What is it that he will find? Great stories such as this are to be found in His 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. You and Your Sons – With Me (verses 18-20)

Previously, Saul explained to Samuel why he came to seek his advice, followed by Samuel’s response to his petition –

“And he said, Samuel, unto Saul, ‘To why you caused to quiver me to cause to ascend me?’
And he said, Saul, ‘It cramped to me, vehemently. And Philistines being fought in me. And God, He veered from upon me. And not He answered me again, also, in hand the prophets, also, in the dreams. And I (surely) called to you to cause me to know what I will do.’
16And he said, Samuel, ‘And to why you will ask me? And Yehovah, He veered from upon you, and He became your foe! 17And He did, Yehovah, to Him according to which He spoke in my hand. And He rent, Yehovah, the kingdom from your hand, and He gave it to your associate, to David.” 1 Samuel 28:15-17

Samuel continues speaking to Saul…

18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord

kaasher lo shamata beqol Yehovah – “According to which not you ‘heard’ in ‘voice, Yehovah.’” There are two times specifically mentioned concerning Saul’s disobedience. The first was in Chapter 13, when Saul sacrificed to petition the Lord’s favor before battling the Philistines.

In 1 Samuel 10:8, when Saul was anointed as king, a specific command was given to him to ensure that he did not do this. And yet, he failed to uphold the word of the Lord. Because of that –

“And he said, Samuel, unto Saul, ‘You were silly. Not you guarded ‘commandment, Yehovah’ your God which He enjoined you. For now – He caused to establish, Yehovah, your kingdom unto Israel until vanishment. 14And now – your kingdom, not it will rise. He sought, Yehovah, to Him man according to His heart, and He enjoined him, Yehovah, to commander upon His people, for not you guarded which He enjoined you, Yehovah.’” 1 Samuel 13:13, 14 (CG)

The second time he was disobedient to the Lord was in Chapter 15. That is next noted by Samuel…

18 (con’t) nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek,

velo asita kharon apo baamaleq – “and not you did ‘burning, His nostril’, in Amalek.” There, the Lord through Samuel said –

“Now, you must walk, and you caused to strike Amalek, and you caused to anathematize them, all which to him. And not you will commiserate upon him. And you caused to die, from man until woman, from suckling and until ‘being suckled’, from ox and until sheep, from camel and until jack.” 1 Samuel 15:3 (CG)

However, just a few verses later, it said –

“And he commiserated, Saul, and the people, upon Agag, and upon ‘best, the flock’, and the cattle, and the doubles, and upon the plumpness, and upon all the good, and not they acquiesced – caused to anathematize them. And all the deputyship – disesteemed and being wasted, it they cause to anathematize.” 1 Samuel 15:9 (CG)

Saul failed to uphold the word of the Lord…

18 (con’t) therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day.

al ken ha’davar ha’zeh asah lekha Yehovah ha’yom ha’zeh – “Upon thus, the word, the this, He did to you, Yehovah, the day, the this.” Notice Samuel’s use of the same verb to contrast Saul’s sin with the Lord’s rejection of him –

“…and not you did [asah] burning, His nostril, in Amalek.”
“Upon thus, the word, the this, He did [asah] to you, Yehovah, the day, the this.”

One is the consequence of the other. Saul failed to honor the Lord by personally sacrificing to him against the Lord’s specific command. He also failed to uphold the word of the Lord to anathematize Amalek. Therefore, the Lord has brought the Philistines against him, and the Lord refuses to give him guidance…

19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines.

veyiten Yehovah gam eth Yisrael imekha beyad pelishtim – “And He will give, Yehovah, also Israel with you in ‘hand, Philistines’.” The meaning is obvious to Saul. The battle will be lost. That could mean any range of things from subjugation under the Philistines as a vassal king paying tribute, being carried away as an exile and kept on display like Samson, even to being utterly routed and being killed in battle.

To clarify the matter, Samuel continues…

19 (con’t) And tomorrow you and your sons will be with me.

u-makhar atah u-vanekha imi – “And tomorrow, you and your sons – with me.” There is no doubt what this means. Being the word of Samuel, it would carry the weight of the word of the Lord. Thus, there could be no changing His mind.

Being “with” Samuel means they will all be killed and in Sheol with him. It is another confirmation that this is truly Samuel. The wording leaves no other choice. And more…

19 (con’t) The Lord will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.”

gam eth makhaneh Yisrael yiten Yehovah beyad pelishtim – “Also, ‘camp, Israel’ He will give, Yehovah, in hand Philistines.” Not only will the army be routed, suffering total defeat at the hand of the Philistines, but their camp will be sacked. All of their supplies will be plundered, leaving a void in the military capabilities of the nation until it could be rebuilt at some point.

The prospect of what is coming upon Saul’s kingdom would be overwhelming to him. But the matter has been decided…

20 Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground,

vaymaher shaul vayipol melo qomatho artsah – “And he hurried, Saul, and he fell ‘fulness, his height’ earthward.” In other words, he was already prostrate as noted in verse 14. Now, he completely leveled himself to the ground like a person having a seizure or who is dead.

Concerning his state, John Gill says he was 🎶thunderstruck 🎶. In that position…

20 (con’t) and was dreadfully afraid because of the words of Samuel.

vayira meod midivre shemuel – “And he feared vehemently from ‘words, Samuel’.” Every bad thing that could come upon him was coming within the next 24 hours. His kingdom would end, his nation would be delivered into the hand of the enemy, and his sons would be killed along with him.

The words were spoken, and his fate was sealed. The march to battle in the morning would be difficult as he talked with his sons, knowing it would be the last time he would ever do so…

20 (con’t) And there was no strength in him, for he had eaten no food all day or all night.

gam koakh lo hayah vo ki lo akhal lekhem kal ha’yom vekhal ha’layelah – “Also vigor not it was in him, for not he ate bread all the day, and all the night.” Saul had seen the Philistine camps readied for battle, then he sought the word of the Lord, and finally he asked his men if any knew of a medium to consult.

Finding out that there was one in En Dor, he made the journey either on foot or on an animal, but through it all, he failed to stop and eat. So, he was completely enervated from the efforts of the day and distressed by Samuel’s words.

All he could do was lie on the ground, collapsed like a bunch of broccoli, or a sack of potatoes, or maybe even like a disobedient king about to meet his Maker, with his thoughts consuming the rest of his strength.

The Lord won’t speak to me anymore
Where do I go to know what to do?
I know! I’ll head to the witch at En Dor
Surely the word will be spot on true

Bring up for me the one I ask
Bring up Samuel, so I know what to do
It will be a simple task
I know what he says will be spot on true

Sure enough, Samuel spoke to me
He knows the future, every word
If that is so, then I’m beginning to see
That… it was the word of the Lord I heard

II. And They Breached in Him (verses 21-25)

21 And the woman came to Saul and saw that he was severely troubled,

vatavo ha’ishah el shaul vatere ki nivhal meod – “And she came, the woman, unto Saul, and she saw that he was shuddered, vehemently.” Despite being a medium, the motherly instinct in the woman remained ready to assist such a helpless creature as Saul had become…

21 (con’t) and said to him, “Look, your maidservant has obeyed your voice,

vatomer elav hineh shameah shipkhatekha beqolekha – “And she said unto him, ‘Behold! She heard, your maidservant, in your voice.” She is referring to verses 12 and 13. Once she realized he was Saul, she accepted his assurances that calling up the dead would not result in her execution…

21 (con’t) and I have put my life in my hands and heeded the words which you spoke to me.

Rather: vaasim naphshi bekhapi vaeshma eth devarekha asher dibarta elay – “And I put my soul in my palm, and I heard your words which you spoke unto me.’” As seen elsewhere, 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. The woman took her soul, meaning her being, and set it in her possession. Think of something precious and fragile being set in the palm. Without care, it could tumble out and crash to the floor, shattering it.

If the text said hand, it would signify power and authority. The two thoughts, though similar in intent, have completely different ultimate signification.

22 Now therefore, please, heed also the voice of your maidservant,

Her words are emphatic: veatah shema na gam atah beqol shiphkhatekha – “And now, you must hear, pray, also you, in ‘voice, your maidservant’.” She sees the situation, has evaluated what must be done, and emphatically tells Saul what will rectify his immediate distress…

22 (con’t) and let me set a piece of bread before you; and eat, that you may have strength when you go on your way.”

veasimah lephanekha path lekhem veekhol vihi vekha koakh ki thelekh badarekh – “And let me set to your faces ‘bit, bread’, and you must eat, and may it be, in you, vigor when you will walk in the road.” Her motherly instinct is still firing away, as if she is dealing with a helpless little boy, and so she admonishes him to eat. Otherwise, he will never have the strength to get where he needs to go.

The word bread extends beyond literal bread to any meal, just as it does in English when we speak of sitting down and breaking bread. In Scripture, it refers to that which sustains a person. Despite her admonishment, Saul is stubborn…

23 But he refused and said, “I will not eat.”

vaymaen vayomer lo okhal – “And he refused, and he said, ‘Not I will eat.’” It’s not surprising that after hearing the bad news, Saul had no appetite. Because of the coming situation, the sadness of the moment would keep anyone from thinking about food. Despite his protestations…

23 (con’t) So his servants, together with the woman, urged him; and he heeded their voice.

vayiphretsu vo avadav vegam ha’ishah vayishma leqolam – “And they breached in him, his servants, and also the woman. And he heard to their voice.” The word parats, to break out (and thus to breach), carries many significations. The intent here is that Saul has put up a wall of refusal.

Their emphatic urging was able to breach through that wall, convincing him that eating was the right thing to do. With his obstinate wall breached, he agreed to their pleas…

23 (con’t) Then he arose from the ground and sat on the bed.

vayaqam mehaarets vayeshev el hamitah – “And he arose from the earth, and he sat unto the bed.” The mitah, bed, is from natah, to stretch or spread out. This could mean he sat on the edge of her bed, or maybe she had a couch or a Mideastern divan. Whatever the layout, it was a place for stretching out and relaxing. While he was…

24 Now the woman had a fatted calf in the house,

velaishah egel marbeq babayith – “And to the woman, ‘calf, stall’, in the house.” A new and rare word is seen, marbeq, stall. It is from an unused root meaning to tie up. As such, it refers to a stalled animal that is given food specifically to fatten it up. Saying “fatted” is an explanatory paraphrase.

As for the type of animal, it is an egel, calf. It is derived from agol, to revolve or circular. A young calf will dance around excitedly, often prancing in a circular manner. The four times the marbeq, stall, is seen in Scripture, it is in conjunction with this type of animal, the egel.

This is the animal that was used in the incident of the golden calf at Sinai. It is also the type of calves set up for worship in the northern kingdom of Israel. It is almost always used in a negative sense.

In Leviticus 9, the egel was used as a sin offering for the priests at their ordination, something that also carries a negative connotation. In Malachi 2, it is used to signify the sense of joy at restoration through the Messiah, where those who fear the name of the Lord will trample the wicked.

The Topical Lexicon says, “Its youth underscored the need for purity, while its vigor anticipated full-grown strength transferred to the worshiper through atonement.”

As the animal has been stalled and is ready, it’s time for its graduation…

24 (con’t) and she hastened to kill it.

vatemaher vatizbakhehu – “And she hurried, and she sacrificed it.” The word used is zavakh, to slaughter, but it is consistently used when referring to sacrifice. Only Smith’s translation renders it this way. Some say slaughter, but that doesn’t necessarily give the sense of a sacrifice. The probable meaning is that her sacrifice is for the sake of the king. Along with the calf…

24 (con’t) And she took flour and kneaded it, and baked unleavened bread from it.

vatiqakh qemah vatalash vatophehu matsoth – “And she took flour, and she kneaded, and she baked it – unleavened.” The qemakh, flour, is from a root signifying to grind. It would rightly be translated as “ground” because it is only used when referring to grains. Therefore, the word “flour” is a suitable explanation.

The matstsah, unleavened, is from matsats, to suck, as in milk. Thus, it signifies greedily devouring for sweetness. It is bread not soured or bittered with yeast. Yeast is emblematic of sin. Thus, matstsah signifies separation from sin and moral cleansing. With the meal prepared…

25 So she brought it before Saul and his servants, and they ate.

Rather: vatagesh liphne shaul veliphne avadav – “And she caused to near to ‘faces, Saul’, and to ‘faces, his servants’.” The verb nagash signifies to draw near. It is more intense than simply bringing it to them. The word is used in a variety of ways, all of which give the sense of approaching with intent and purpose where a result is anticipated.

In this case, the result is that Saul will eat the meal that was prepared. He did, along with his servants…

*25 (fin) Then they rose and went away that night.

vayokhelu vayaqumu vayelekhu valaylah ha’hu – “And they ate, and they arose, and they walked in the night, the it.” There is a sense of finality in how the chapter closes. After this, Saul will not be mentioned except in relation to David until Chapter 31, the final chapter of the book.

It’s hard to imagine what was on his mind as he headed back to Gilboa to join the army in preparation for the following day of battle.

Is there hope for the wayward soul
Who has departed from his God?
His life, it spins out of control
And to evil, he gives a favorable nod

Can things be made right for him?
Or has he lost the chance of getting it right?
If so, for him things will be gloomy and grim
Blackness ahead, like the darkest night

Rather, to those who have called on Jesus
Debt for every sin has been paid
Such a glorious thing God has done for us
In Christ, God’s wrath has been stayed

III. An Explanation of the Typology

Verses 1 and 2 continued the account of David being aligned with Achish, king of Gath. While in Gath in verse 1, the Philistines, the Weakeners, assembled to fight Israel, He Strives with God. During this time of assembling, Achish informed David that he expected him and his men to go out with his camp to fight against Israel.

In verse 2, David agreed that he would show Achish what he was capable of. Then Achish told David he would be the “guarder to my head” all of his days. That sets up the narrative coming in the next chapter.

Verse 3 gave the parenthetical note concerning Samuel’s death, which previously occurred, and that Saul had removed the necromancers and the conjurers from the land. That information was provided to set up the coming narrative.

The account then turned in verse 4 to the narrative about Saul and what prompted him to go to En Dor. This account necessarily needs to go somewhere, so this break in the flow from verse 28:2 until verse 29:1 is placed here.

In verse 4, it said the Weakeners assembled in Shunem, Two Resting Places. The Weakeners, those who weaken the faith of others, look to find their rest in both the law and grace.

At the same time, it said Saul, Asked, gathered all Israel “in the Gilboa,” The Rolling Fountain. Regardless of whether Israel is right with the Lord or not, the fountain of grace is derived from them.

Saul, whose name is identical to Sheol without the later added vowel points, has typologically pictured man destined for the pit. One can think of Sheol calling out for the souls of men.

Saul’s lack of faith was highlighted in verse 5, saying he greatly feared the sizeable force of the Philistines. Therefore, in verse 6, he asked the Lord in various ways for divine assistance in knowing what to do, but the Lord did not answer.

Therefore, in verse 7, Saul sought out a ‘mistress, ov’ a necromancer, so that he could ask her to inquire from the ov instead. As noted, Leviticus 20 specifically prohibited this –

“And the person who turns to mediums and familiar spirits, to prostitute himself with them, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from his people.” Leviticus 20:6

Still in verse 7, Saul was informed by his servants that there was a necromancer at En Dor, Spring of a Generation, where the end of the generation of Saul’s dynasty would be prophesied. In preparation for that, in verse 8, Saul looked himself over and changed his clothing to conceal his identity. He then went with two men, arriving at night.

Once there, he asked the woman to “distribute in the ov” in order to bring up the one he desired to talk to. That meant Saul would have the ability of the ov apportioned to him to identify a particular individual.

In verse 9, the woman protested, saying that Saul had cut off all the mediums and spiritists from the land. As such, she suspects the men are there to set a trap for her. Why would she admit to being such a mistress and jeopardize her life?

To console her, in verse 10, Saul swore an oath in the name of Yehovah that no harm would come to her. Therefore, in verse 11, she acquiesced and asked who she should bring up for Saul, not yet knowing it was him. Saul requested she bring up Samuel, Asked from God.

In verse 12, the woman saw Samuel and cried out in a great voice, indicating that she never expected to see him. She was a conniver who had never actually conjured a spirit. Nevertheless, she is seeing him now. In seeing him, she realized that Saul is the one who petitioned her to raise Samuel.

Because of that, she asked why he had deceived her. He had promised on oath that nothing would happen to her. Therefore, in verse 13, Saul reassured her and asked what she saw. Her answer was that she saw “gods” ascending from the earth. The verb was plural, so this was her intent.

The reason for the plural verb is that Samuel, although an individual, typologically pictures humanity asking from God for sons of grace (Jesus and His people) until Chapter 16, when he pictures humanity asking God for the Seed of grace (Jesus) to fulfill the necessary role as His Anointed.

In verse 14, Saul redirects the picture to Samuel the individual, asking with a singular verb, “What its form?” She said it was a man aged and wrapped in a robe, confirming that it was Samuel. With that, Saul hunched over and prostrated himself.

In verse 15, Samuel asked, “To why you caused to quiver me to cause to ascend me.” The implication is that Samuel was resting quietly in Sheol. That ought to be a comfort to anyone on his way there and who is right with God. It is a nice inference that can be made from this ancient and unique passage.

Still in verse 15, Saul told Samuel he was distressed because the Philistines, the Weakeners, were making war against him and because God had departed from answering him in various ways, such as dreams and prophets. As such, he had called for Samuel to reveal to him what to do.

Samuel set Saul straight in verse 16 through a question. He essentially asked, “If Yehovah has left you and become your foe, why are you asking me for advice?” Saul’s thinking at this point made as much sense as opening a store to sell sand in Saudi Arabia.

In verse 17, Saul was told that the Lord did for Himself exactly what He spoke through Samuel. He rent the kingdom from Saul’s hand and gave it to his associate, David. The kingdom of man destined for the pit is to be replaced with a new kingdom of the state of accepting the doctrines of Christ.

In verse 18, Samuel gave two reasons why the Lord had done this. The first was that Saul didn’t obey the voice of the Lord, and the second was that he failed to take out the Lord’s vengeance upon Amalek, the ancient enemy of Israel.

Those events, however, go back to when Saul typologically represented those seeking the truth, even to the point of being saved. Saul, despite his relationship with the Lord, was unwilling to align his values with the Lord’s values.

Because of that, the Lord anointed David, accepting the doctrines of Christ. The kingdom does not belong to those who are merely willing to seek the truth without acting, but it goes to those who accept and act upon the doctrines of Christ.

Because Saul had failed to do as instructed, the Lord turned from him, giving the kingdom to David. And more, in verse 19, Samuel said that the Lord would also deliver Israel into the hand of the Philistines, also noting that Saul and his sons would join him the next day.

In verse 20, the news from Samuel so distressed Saul that he fell earthward, full length, terrified at what he heard. He had no strength left because he had not eaten bread, that which sustains life, all day or all night.

He was a man who squandered his opportunities pursuing misguided priorities. To help get him on the right path, in verse 21, the woman noted that she had placed her soul in her palm and did what Saul had asked.

Therefore, in verse 22, she wanted him to hear her voice and allow her to set a bit of bread before him. This would give him vigor to walk in the road. Saul refused until both his servants and she (verse 23) broke through his wall of stubbornness, and he arose from the ground and sat “unto the bed.”

In verse 24, it said that the woman had an egel marbeq, ‘calf, stalled’, in her house. The other three times these words are used together, they give the sense of “what goes around comes around.” This even seems to be derived from the words themselves.

The egel is from agol, to revolve or circular. The marbeq signifies to be tied. As such, there is a sense of staying put while circumstances come back around. As for the calf, the woman sacrificed it, using the word that means exactly that, zavakh, to slaughter in sacrifice.

Along with that, she made unleavened bread from flour she kneaded and baked. After that, verse 25 said that she brought the meal before Saul and his servants. They then ate and departed that night.

What is going on here is that Saul has represented two separate typologies in the chapters where he is seen. The first was those seeking the truth, even to the point of being saved. The second came after David was anointed. He then represented man destined for Sheol as it called out, asking for the souls of men.

Because this story deferred back to the time when Saul failed to honor the Lord, both meanings of his name must be considered. The kingdom cannot go to those who merely seek the truth, whether saved or not. Instead, it will go to those who have accepted the doctrines of Christ.

That is why Samuel mentions David’s name here. It is the first time Saul has been specifically told that David will succeed him. However, under David’s rule, the power of Sheol is also destroyed for those who accept the doctrines of Christ.

Saul’s typological salvation was seen in an earlier 1 Samuel sermon. Because of this, the introduction of this woman, the ‘mistress, ov’, is seen. It is apparent from her reaction to Samuel rising that Sheol is a real place where people who die really go. As this is so, it validates that the Word of God concerning Sheol is true.

The question is, how do you end the two separate typologies that Saul has been used to represent while also handing the kingdom over to his successor while also ensuring his record is cleared? That is what has happened with her inclusion in the account.

She prepares unleavened bread (that which sustains a person) and an egel marbeq, ‘calf, stalled’. The “what goes around comes around” is sacrificed. Thus, it is a petition that what goes around comes around, for Saul, does not come to pass.

The bread pictures Christ, the sinless flour offering that is ground out, picturing his afflictions, which is kneaded into bread without yeast, picturing his sinless state as the Bread of Life.

In other words, even though Saul was rejected by the Lord and became His foe, and he will die in battle because of it, his salvation that was pictured before remains effective. The story, though bringing up very disturbing practices, reveals the beautiful grace of God for those He has saved.

Another thing that has come about is that since Chapter 17, when David slew Goliath, doctrinal points have been presented. These have reached through the dispensation of grace and into the tribulation period.

By reintroducing what Saul pictured earlier in his life, this account has allowed the direction of the narrative to be reset so that the battles with the Philistines that lie ahead, first for Saul and then for David, can present new typology. This chapter is a key turning point that allows this pivot to take place.

Further, something which can only be inferred but seems likely from the few verses concerning her is that the witch of En Dor realized that the Lord is God because of what transpired. Her willingness to assist the king seems to be a hopeful note of her turning onto a new path.

One can only speculate on that, but how many like her have seen the evidence that the word of God is true and then turned onto a new path? The Bible leaves any further mention of her out. But there is enough of her story given for us to anticipate someday meeting up with her. We’ll see.

The plan from eternity past was that Jesus would descend from the line of David. In order to fulfill many points of typology, which in turn provides evidence of proper doctrine and theology, Saul was anointed as the first king of Israel.

The end of his line is coming soon. This chapter has been a great way of beginning the account of that ending while at the same time providing more points of doctrine through the events that have taken place.

One key doctrinal point that can be taken away from this account is assurance for those who have saved people in their lives but who have later walked away from a right relationship with the Lord. Saul did just that, but he remained secure in the Lord.

In coming to Christ, all sin is forgiven. And once in Christ, sin is not imputed. As sin is what separates us from God, the doctrine of eternal salvation stands. It is not possible that God will renege on what He has granted when someone comes to Him through Christ.

The Spirit is given as a seal and a guarantee until the day of redemption. Thank God for His faithfulness to His people.

Closing Verse: “But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.” 2 Peter 1:5-9

Next Week: 1 Samuel 29:1-11 What will it bring? What will the story tell?… (The Spring Which Is In Jezreel) (61st 1 Samuel 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 28:18-25 (CG)

According to which not you heard in ‘voice, Yehovah’, and not you did ‘burning, His nostril’, in Amalek. Upon thus, the word, the this, He did to you, Yehovah, the day, the this. 19And He will give, Yehovah, also Israel with you, in ‘hand, Philistines’. And tomorrow, you and your sons – with me. Also, ‘camp, Israel’ He will give, Yehovah, in ‘hand, Philistines’.”

20And he hurried, Saul, and he fell ‘fullness, his height’ earthward. And he feared vehemently from ‘words, Samuel’. Also vigor, not it was in him, for not he ate bread all the day, and all the night.

21And she came, the woman, unto Saul, and she saw that he was shuddered, vehemently. And she said unto him, “Behold! She heard, your maidservant, in your voice. And I put my soul in my palm, and I heard your words which you spoke unto me. 22And now, you must hear, pray, also you, in ‘voice, your maidservant’. And let me set to your faces ‘bit, bread’, and you must eat, and may it be, in you, vigor when you will walk in the road.

23And he refused, and he said, “Not I will eat.”

And they breached in him, his servants, and also the woman. And he heard to their voice. And he arose from the earth, and he sat unto the bed. 24And to the woman, ‘calf, stall’, in the house. And she hurried, and she sacrificed it. And she took flour, and she kneaded, and she baked it – unleavened. 25And she caused to near to ‘faces, Saul’, and to ‘faces, his servants’. And they ate, and they arose, and they walked in the night, the it.

 

1 Samuel 28:18-25 (NKJV)

18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The Lord will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.”

20 Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, and was dreadfully afraid because of the words of Samuel. And there was no strength in him, for he had eaten no food all day or all night.

21 And the woman came to Saul and saw that he was severely troubled, and said to him, “Look, your maidservant has obeyed your voice, and I have put my life in my hands and heeded the words which you spoke to me. 22 Now therefore, please, heed also the voice of your maidservant, and let me set a piece of bread before you; and eat, that you may have strength when you go on your way.”

23 But he refused and said, “I will not eat.”

So his servants, together with the woman, urged him; and he heeded their voice. Then he arose from the ground and sat on the bed. 24 Now the woman had a fatted calf in the house, and she hastened to kill it. And she took flour and kneaded it, and baked unleavened bread from it. 25 So she brought it before Saul and his servants, and they ate. Then they rose and went away that night.

Matthew 22:28

Sunday, 6 September 2026

Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.” Matthew 22:28

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).

“In the resurrection, therefore, which of the seven, she will be – wife? All, for, they had her.” (CG)

In the previous verse, the Sadducees concluded their statement about the seven sons and the woman who was given to each of them to raise seed in the name of her dead husband, noting that she also died. With their statement complete, they next ask their question, beginning with, “In the resurrection, therefore…”

This lays bare their true intent for the account they have presented. Matthew preempted their statement, saying in verse 23, “In that, the ‘day’, they approached Him, Sadducees (saying not is ‘resurrection’), and they queried Him.”

Their question is intended to either trap Jesus in a matter of law concerning the resurrection or to make Him concede that because the law cannot answer their question, there must not be such a thing as a resurrection.

It is commonly stated that the Sadducees are said to have only held to the books of Moses, the Torah, as inspired. This is only found, however, in the writings of the early Church Fathers, such as Origen and Hippolytus.

Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, notes that the Sadducees rejected the oral traditions of the elders championed by the Pharisees. However, he never explicitly states that they disregarded the Prophets or the Writings.

As such, it can only be inferred that they did not hold to them. In Acts 23, it says –

“And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.” Acts 23:7, 8

As this is so, it is assumed that they could not have held to the writings after Moses because both the resurrection and angels are referred to in those writings. Whatever length they went to in such matters, they sharply disagreed with the Pharisees in points of doctrine. Understanding these things, they next ask, “which of the seven, she will be – wife?”

The answer to the exact question as stated is not given in the Torah. However, that does not mean that the question cannot be answered. If the question is invalid based on its contents, which Jesus will demonstrate is the case, then there is no need to answer the question as given. To finish, they say, “All, for, they had her.”

As stated, the question forms a supposed dilemma. If they were all united with her, how can she be the wife of only one of them in the resurrection? Their thought is that if Moses doesn’t address the matter, then either Moses’ writings are incomplete for proper theology, or there must not be a resurrection.

It is a false dilemma which calls for a resolution from only one of two possible answers. This is where the error in their thinking, and thus in their doctrine, lies.

Life application: Jesus was presented with a false dilemma by the Pharisees in verse 22:17. They presented a matter concerning paying taxes to Caesar, assuming that whichever answer Jesus gave, it would trap Him. This same avenue is taken by the Sadducees.

This is why it is good to know fallacies and then think through why they are incorrect when you are presented with them. What may seem obvious to someone because he is conditioned to think a certain way may actually be completely wrong.

When talking to a person about a medical issue, a disagreement may arise over what the doctor has prescribed. One of the people may say, “Of course it is this way. The guy is a doctor! He is the authority. You need to do what he says.” That is a fallacy known as an appeal to authority.

Just because someone is a doctor (or a Marine Corps officer, or a noted theologian), it doesn’t mean he is right, even about matters he specializes in. Truth is what corresponds to reality. If what he says is wrong, it is incorrect.

This is just one of innumerable fallacies that we run into from day to day. Refreshing yourself on types of fallacies is important. Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees, scribes, Herodians, and Sadducees. They were all supposed authorities, and yet He was able to see through their attempts to trap Him.

If you have time, get a book on critical thinking. It can help you to rethink things you may have in your mind which are not well aligned with a rational view of the world around you. This will help you in your evaluation of the Bible and how it is taught by those you may encounter. Their thinking may be just as awry as that of the Sadducees who have come to Jesus with their challenge.

Lord God, help us to carefully consider Your word, rationally evaluating it and thinking about how it is presented by You. What You do is logical and orderly. Therefore, Your word will be this way. Help us to see this and to rightly consider it. Amen.

Matthew 22:27

Saturday, 5 September 2026

Last of all the woman died also. Matthew 22:27

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).

“Afterward, also of all, she died, even the woman.” (CG)

In the previous verse, it said that the next of seven sons had his dead brother’s wife to raise up seed, and he died. This continued to the seventh son, all of them having her and then dying. Next, it says, “Afterward, also of all, she died, even the woman.”

Note: The Tischendorf and the Westcott and Hort editions leave out the word kai, translated here as even. The Pulpit Commentary says of this, “and seemingly with good reason.” If kai is original as indicated in the Byzantine and Majority texts, it is inexcusable to leave out a part of God’s word. Both doing and saying something like that epitomize the arrogance of some people in how they handle Scripture. As for the verse, the first words say, “Afterward, also, of all.”

The point of the words is that the woman was left until the end. There was a family with seven sons, and she was brought into the family, marrying the oldest son. After this, her husband died. From there, the law stated that she was to become the wife of the dead husband’s brother to raise up his name through his seed. This precept was followed, but before a child was born, he too died.

This continued through all seven sons. All seven eventually died without leaving a son in the first son’s name. Therefore, all of the players in this scene, whether true or hypothetical, were dead but her. At that point, it says, “she died.”

It is a sad note, but one which speaks of the inevitable fate of humanity. Though her life was used within the family in a manner obedient to the precept found in the law, it was not enough to keep her from the effects of law on humanity. As Paul says –

“Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:19, 20

The Sadducees were probably not concerned about these points at all. They have come to Jesus for an entirely different reason. However, these points all come into the larger point of Jesus’ ministry and how it bears on humanity. With their statement concerning her, they finish with a point of emphasis, as if they are sealing the matter once and for all, “even the woman.”

Whatever hope there could have been for raising up the dead man’s name is lost with her gone. In Ruth, a similar account is given where a father, his wife, and their two sons go to Moab. While there, the two sons marry women of Moab. Eventually, however, the father and both sons died.

Eventually, the wife of the father returned to Israel, and one of her daughters-in-law accompanied her. Through a series of events, she was accepted for marriage to a close relative, if a closer relative would not marry her. The closer relative could not accept the terms without marring his own inheritance. Therefore, it says –

“And Boaz said to the elders and all the people, ‘You are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi. 10 Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You are witnesses this day.’” Ruth 4:9, 10

In the account in Matthew, with the woman’s death, even the possibility of some broader application of the principle seen later in Ruth—where the name of the dead is preserved through a more distant kinsman—was gone.

This is not the focus of the question that the Sadducees will propose to Jesus, but it is a way of finalizing this matter in regard to the oldest son, his name within the society, and how it could be raised up.

Life application: Going to Ruth for an extended evaluation of this verse is appropriate, even in the point of law is fulfilled from Deuteronomy through the actions of the family in question. The reason for this is that extended matters can arise which affect points of law within the Bible.

Knowing the rest of Scripture allows us to consider what is going on and how those things are unfolding in the process of redemption. The final words “even the woman” provided an emphasis that the Sadducees felt was sufficient to end the matter before presenting their question.

Jesus’ evaluation of, and response to, their words will be based on other parts of Scripture they did not consider. Therefore, reading and remembering all parts of Scripture will help you properly evaluate and respond to questions that may be proposed to you. Be sure to read the Bible daily. In doing so, the word will continually stay fresh in your mind.

Lord God, help us to keep the word near as we pass through this life. There are so many times when a chance to share what it says arises. Unless we have it fresh in our minds, such opportunities may be lost. Help us to keep this as a priority always. To Your glory, we pray. Amen.

Matthew 22:26

Friday, 4 September 2026

Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. Matthew 22:26

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).

“Similarly, also, the second, and the third, until the seventh.” (CG)

In the previous verse, the Sadducees spoke of there being among them seven brothers. The first died, having no offspring. Because of that, the wife went to his brother. They continue, saying, “Similarly, also, the second, and the third, until the seventh.”

The woman was given to each subsequent brother, and yet, she had no child from any of them to raise up the name of her first husband. Of this, the Expositor’s Greek Testament says, “As Chrys. [Chrysostom] humorously remarks, after the second the brothers would shun the woman as a thing of evil omen.”

It’s not a humorous thing at all. Rather, it appears to be exactly what occurred in the account of Judah and Tamar –

“It came to pass at that time that Judah departed from his brothers, and visited a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah. And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and went in to her. So she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. She conceived again and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. And she conceived yet again and bore a son, and called his name Shelah. He was at Chezib when she bore him.
Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him. And Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.’ But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also.
11 Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, ‘Remain a widow in your father’s house till my son Shelah is grown.’ For he said, ‘Lest he also die like his brothers.’ And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house.” Genesis 38:1-11

It appears that Judah was truly concerned that Tamar was somehow the cause of the deaths of his first two sons. He wanted to avoid losing the third through another such union.

As for the seven who died, this does not mean that all seven died without an heir. The Law of Moses did not forbid polygamy. The other sons could have already had other wives. This woman was given to them to raise up a son for her first husband. What happened to the others in regard to other wives or sons is left out of this narrative.

Life application: The Sadducees have brought forward an example of the kind of mess that is possible in a matter of law. Though unlikely and possibly stated as merely an example of what could have happened, it also could actually have occurred. Either way, the point is that there is a seeming void in an original point of the law that had not been fully fleshed out.

Such a case is found in the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27. A problem concerning inheritances was brought before Moses, and a judgment was rendered. However, in Numbers 36, the issue was brought up again because the judgment of Chapter 36 raised another point that could mar inheritances. Therefore, another judgment was rendered to clarify and settle that matter.

One can see how, when law is given, contingencies can arise that were not thought through or fully fleshed out when the original law was given. It may also be that circumstances arise that necessitate further clarification of the law. The US Constitution has been amended many times because of this.

Further, judgments are rendered in courts throughout the land each day, which set new guidelines within the greater framework of the government. Sometimes, they need to be elevated to the highest court in the land for clarification.

Understanding this, there is a problem that will be presented to Jesus, which seems incompatible with the way things are, at least as they perceive things. Within the Bible, there are seemingly an infinite number of such possibilities. How can everything in it be reconciled?

The answer is that all things are reconciled in Christ. The things that seem to be impenetrable, impossible to fully define, or incomplete are not so when viewed through the lens of Christ. He embodies the Law of Moses, and in Him, all points of the law find their satisfactory resolution. Without Him, it is an impossible body of points and precepts that can never bring restoration or satisfaction.

And yet, people cling to the law as if it were a means to an end. Other than in Jesus Christ, it is not. Rather, it is a means to no end. And without an end to its demands, there can be only condemnation. Be sure to stick with Jesus. Give up on any attempt to find your righteousness before God apart from the full, final, finished, and forever work of Jesus Christ.

Lord God, Your word is simply amazing. In looking at how it is structured, we find the most amazing completion of the problem that keeps us from being restored to You. We broke Your law, and yet You have restored us through a process that spans thousands of years, and which culminated in the death of Jesus on the cross. What an amazing story. Thank You for Jesus! Amen.

Matthew 22:25

Thursday, 3 September 2026

Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. Matthew 22:25

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 were, also, among us seven brothers, and the first, having married, he died, and not having seed, he left the ‘wife, his’ to the ‘brother, his’.” (CG)

In the previous verse, the Sadducees cited the law from Moses concerning the levirate marriage. With that laid before Him, they now bring in a scenario based on that law, beginning with, “They were, also, among us seven brothers”

As the basis for their question was the levirate marriage prescription found in the law, we can already assume their question will be based on that, which necessitates an evaluation from Jesus. However, it is to be remembered that Matthew introduced the Sadducees in this section as saying there is no resurrection. That will somehow be connected to their question.

Being seven brothers, and their proposal being dependent on the prescription from Moses, the assumption is that these are seven brothers from the same father’s side of the family. The reason for this is that it is the name and inheritance that is being dealt with, something that is irrelevant to a half-brother who is from another father.

Their words continue, saying, “and the first, having married, he died.” One can already assume what the rest of this situation will be. They are speaking to Jesus about the levirate marriage. A son in the family has died. The natural assumption would thus be as is next stated, “and not having seed, he left the ‘wife, his’ to the ‘brother, his’.”

The man had no children before he died. Because of that, it is the responsibility under the law that the next son would perform the duty of raising up a son in the name of his deceased brother.

So far, there is nothing unusual about the matter at hand.

Life application: The prescription of the levirate marriage, being a part of the law, was considered mandatory. However, during the later period of the Second Temple, preserved writings note that there was a shift in thinking about it.

The obligation is that if a man married and died childless, a surviving brother was to raise up a son in his name. However, the law did allow for refusal, with a ceremony specifying what was to be done. The result, based on the prescription, was intended to shame the one who refused to fulfill his obligation.

Despite this, there came into the sages’ thinking the issue of the practice of the precept and the alternative of declining the obligation. In fulfilling the obligation, the word used to describe the matter was yabam, the act of marrying the brother’s widow. That comes from the noun yabam, the brother-in-law mentioned in Deuteronomy 25:5 and 25:7.

On the other side of the matter is halitzah, the removal, meaning the removal of the sandal noted in Deuteronomy 25:9. During the later Second Temple period, there was a historical shift in the debate about this practice. The sages debated whether performing the marriage, yabam, could be replaced with simply allowing the halitzah.

The point of approving the practice of halizah as the standard method of dealing with this was so that there was no shame attached to the matter. This would then allow the woman to marry anyone she pleased, and the name of the brother would end.

One can see the problem here. The law sets forth a requirement, and every effort imaginable is made to circumvent the unpalatable precepts. This is seen in the New Testament when Jesus debates with the religious leaders.

The matter of the obligation to help one’s aged parents is a prime example. People will openly and with a pious attitude do things that they find easy to stomach or that don’t complicate life, but those things which are more complicated, distasteful, etc., are given a workaround.

As seen in the typology explained in the previous commentary, there was to be a sense of shame for not fulfilling the law. However, in Christ’s fulfillment of it, there would then be honor. That is obliterated by those who change the intent of the law from an obligation to a general guide for right living.

It is a problem, because the law is written and it is expected to be adhered to. What is interesting, however, is that it was around the time of Jesus that the law began to go away from the original intent. As He is the fulfillment of the typology (as seen in the previous commentary), the precept is no longer needed.

It is as if the mental state of the sages could somehow get the slightest hint in their mind that the law was only a shadow of something else. Unfortunately, they never put two and two together to make the leap that the “something else” was Jesus. Because of that, they failed to come to Him. As such, every person in the nation is still bound by every single precept of a law that has already been fulfilled.

Their state of condemnation remains because of this. Only when a person steps away from the law through faith in Jesus Christ does the law’s burden come off of him. Despite this, and despite the fact that all of the world except Israel was never under the Law of Moses, people rush to place that burden upon themselves.

This is not clear thinking. Imagine giving up the glory of the cross and asking for what brought about the need for the cross in the first place to be placed on your shoulders! God is not pleased with such ridiculous thinking. Eyes on Jesus! Anything else will lead to a bad end.

Heavenly Father, we are so grateful to You for Your open hand of grace. From the smallest flower to the most beautiful sunset, You lavish us with what we do not deserve. And above it all stands the cross of Christ and freedom from the burden of sin. Thank You for Jesus. Amen.