1 Samuel 25:32-44 (Abigail, Part III)

Artwork by Douglas Kallerson

1 Samuel 25:32-44
Abigail, Part III

(Typed 30 Mar 2026) 1 Samuel 25 is long and has some complicated Hebrew in it. Additionally, it has some really interesting tidbits tucked away in it. For example, Abigail is mentioned nine times. In those nine instances, her name is spelled four different ways. And the instances are intermittently scattered throughout their uses.

In other words, it appears these changes are random, as if the scribe had been hitting the Manischewitz a bit too much. Other such oddities are seen as well, mostly ascribed to scribal error.

Despite these oddities, we have a chapter of forty-four verses that, frankly, could have been summed up in far fewer verses. Further, despite being interesting as a story, there really isn’t any glaring reason that shouts out to us why the story is here at all.

Abigail became David’s wife. Okay. So, what! David had at least eight wives, the only other one that gets any major attention is Bathsheba, and that, for an obvious reason. Abigail is not an ancestor of Jesus, which would be a good reason to include her name somewhere.

So, despite being a fun story, the reason for including the account about Abigail seems elusive.

Text Verse: “Do you thus deal with the Lord,
O foolish [naval] and unwise people?
Is He not your Father, who bought you?
Has He not made you and established you?” Deuteronomy 32:6

God’s word is the most valuable resource we can possess. He spent millennia having it compiled for our benefit. He used the lives of real people to convey information about Himself and what He is doing in it.

And so, there would seemingly be a reason why He included this chapter about Nabal and Abigail that extends beyond the surface story. If not, it would be a truly enigmatic thing to ponder why it is there. Ellicott says –

“S. Ambrose allegorises here, as is usual in Patristic expositions, and compares the espousals of Abigail to David after Nabal’s death to the union of the Church (i.e., the Gentile world) to Christ after the cessation of its connection with heathenism.—S. Ambrose, Ep. 31 (quoted in Words worth).” Charles Ellicott

I have never read anything from Ambrose, but he obviously understood that there is a deeper reason for including these stories than just a presentation of the stories themselves. Is Ambrose right? Also, are the changes in the spelling of Abigail’s name merely scribal errors or linguist peculiarities that have no bearing on the story? Let’s find out the answer to these and so many other things.

Great things 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. Dolt Death (verses 32-44)

32 Then David said to Abigail:

Notice the abbreviated spelling of her name: vayomer David laavigal – “And he said, David, to Abigal.”  In this verse, Abigail’s name drops out the second yod (our i or y). The changes in the spelling will be detailed later.

Remembering that Abigail has just made a passioned appeal that lasted for nine verses (inclusive of her falling before David in verse 23), David’s words seem inevitable…

32 (con’t) “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet 

barukh Yehovah elohe Yisrael asher shelakhekh ha’yom ha’zeh liqrathi – “Blessed, Yehovah ‘God, Israel’, who He sent you the day, the this, to encounter me.” David was prepared to kill Nabal and every male in Nabal’s house, but through the wisdom of action and word, Abigail has set forth a strong case why David should refrain from his intentions.

David understands and acknowledges that Yehovah Himself directed the events according to His wisdom…

33 And blessed is your advice and blessed are you,

u-varukh tamekh u-verukhah at – “And blessed, your taste, and blessed, you.” The word taste is used here to indicate discretion and thus intelligence. It is as if Abigail tasted the events that transpired and acted according to that taste in a wise and propitious manner, demonstrating keen understanding and judgment…

33 (con’t) because you have kept me this day from coming to bloodshed and from avenging myself with my own hand.

asher kelitini ha’yom ha’zeh mibo vedamim vehoshea yadi li – “which you restrained me the day, the this, from coming in bloods and causing to save my hand, to me.” David was filled with enraged passion, not thinking clearly as he strapped on his sword. Abigail’s appeals restored clear thinking to his head and saved him from bloodshed.

So important is this that one of his closest men died because he was not restrained in such an instance –

“Moreover you know also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two commanders of the armies of Israel, to Abner the son of Ner and Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed. And he shed the blood of war in peacetime, and put the blood of war on his belt that was around his waist, and on his sandals that were on his feet. Therefore do according to your wisdom, and do not let his gray hair go down to the grave in peace.” 1 Kings 2:5, 6

Joab had taken the lives of his foes without a justifiable cause, such as during battle. It could not be excused, and he was executed for it. David would have likewise been guilty of bloodguilt if he had followed through with his original intent.

34 For indeed, as the Lord God of Israel lives, who has kept me back from hurting you,

veulam khai Yehovah elohe Yisrael asher menaani mehara otakh – “And however, alive, Yehovah, ‘God, Israel’ who, He debarred me from causing to spoil you.” The verb “causing to spoil” refers to negative treatment, be it something displeasing, something harmful, etc.

David had said that the men were the target of their raid. Therefore, the harm to Abigail would not have been physical, but the torment of being spared in a home where no men survived and where the plunder certainly would have been carried off as reparations for his time of protecting Nabal’s men and flocks.

As such, Abigail’s life would be destitute and miserable from that time forward, spoiled and filled with misery. David next repeats the original intent…

34 (con’t) unless you had hurried and come to meet me, surely by morning light no males would have been left to Nabal!”

The written Hebrew is difficult: ki lule mihart vatavothi liqrati ki im notar lenaval ad or ha’boqer mashtin beqir – “For if not you hurried, and I came [k.] to encounter me, that if he was left to Nabal until ‘light, the morning’ ‘whizzing, in wall.’” The written Hebrew says, “and I came.” The oral changes it to “and you came.”

If read strictly as standard Hebrew, the written seemingly makes no sense in the context provided. Hebrew scholars look at it as an error or an archaism. They assume it can’t be that a scribe would actually believe it says, “I came.” Therefore, they default to older stages of Hebrew (and cognate languages like Arabic/Aramaic), where the feminine form was closer to the sound of I rather than you.

The problem with that is that we aren’t dealing with those older or cognate forms. What is being said by David is that because Abigail came, David “encountered himself.” In other words, “If you hadn’t hurried and brought me to my senses…” Running this through AI, after a long analysis, the response was:

“9. My Personal Opinion – I actually like your explanation more than the archaic-form argument. Because: It stays within the Hebrew text. It avoids hypothetical linguistic reconstruction. It fits narrative psychology. Conclusion: That is good interpretive discipline.”

Lesson: Stick to the Superior Word for all your best Hebrew commentaries. As for the rest of David’s words, he explains to Abigail what his intent was from verse 22. All wall-whizzers would have been woefully whacked. However, because of her appeal, another outcome arose…

35 So David received from her hand what she had brought him,

veyiqakh David miyadah eth asher heviah lo – “And he took, David, from her hand what she caused to bring to him.” Having accepted Abigail’s words, David then accepts the peace offering she presented to him. Amends have been made…

35 (con’t) and said to her, “Go up in peace to your house. See, I have heeded your voice and respected your person.”

velah amar ali leshalom levetekh rei shamati veqolekh vaesa panayikh – “And to her, he said, ‘You must ascend to peace to your house. You must see, I heard in your voice, and I lifted your faces.’” The meaning is, “You are safe, travel home knowing it is so, and the reason is that I have accepted you, your words, and your offering. All my previous enmity toward Nabal’s house is appeased because of you.”

36 Now Abigail went to Nabal, and there he was, holding a feast in his house, like the feast of a king.

Rather: vatavo avigayil el naval vehineh lo mishteh beveitho kemishteh ha’melekh – “And she went, Abigail unto Nabal. And behold! To him, banquet in his house according to ‘banquet, the king’.” The word mishteh is from shathah, to imbibe. This is a banquet or a banqueting feast. As such…

36 (con’t) And Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunk;

velev naval tov alav vehu shikor ad meod – “And ‘heart, Nabal’ good upon him. And he intoxicated until vehemently.” It is the time of shearing and Nabal took full advantage of it to celebrate. It would have been no good for her to engage in a conversation about the matter at such a time…

36 (con’t) therefore she told him nothing, little or much, until morning light.

velo higidah lo davar qaton vegadol ad or ha’boqer – “And not she caused to declare to him word diminutive and great until ‘light, the morning’.” She used prudence in the matter. Knowing his character, and as drunk as he was, he could have done anything rash or violent. Therefore, she waited to say anything, but her prudence will lead to another issue arising…

37 So it was, in the morning, when the wine had gone from Nabal,

vayhi vaboqer betseth ha’yayin minaval – “And it was, in the morning in ‘going, the wine’ from Nabal.” It takes a while for someone who partied as hard as Nabal to sober up and be clear enough to talk to. However, being sober does not mean being recovered. His body would not be up to what is next presented to him…

37 (con’t) and his wife had told him these things,

The words are meticulously stated: vataged lo ishto eth ha’devarim ha’eleh – “and she caused to declare to him, his wife, the words, the these.” It could have just said, “and she caused to declare to him the words, the these.” The inclusion of “his wife” calls for us to consider what is said.

She is being emphatically highlighted, indicating that she, not the words she speaks, was the cause of what will occur. She had gone out to rescue her household from impending doom, having assumed a role for something that should never have arisen. It is because of her and what she did…

37 (con’t) that his heart died within him, and he became like a stone.

vayamath libo beqirbo vehu haya leaven – “And it died, his heart, in his inward. And he, he was to stone.” Scholars use various words to explain what happened to him, Ellicott, Cambridge, and Barnes say it was apoplexy. Lange says he had a stroke. Adam Clarke, long before AC/DC power started to be used, said he was Thunderstruck 🎵🎶 🎵🎶.

The Bible said his heart died. He had a cardiac arrest. Strokes are not known to cause hearts to die. He was so shocked at Abigail taking the initiative that it overwhelmed him. In that state, it says…

38 Then it happened, after about ten days, that the Lord struck Nabal, and he died.

Rather: vayhi kaaserth ha’yamim vayigoph Yehovah eth naval vayamoth – “And it was, according to ‘ten, the days’, and He smote, Yehovah, Nabal, and he died.” The word about is not implied. It was ten days, at which time, the Lord struck him. The number ten is the number of ordinal perfection. Bullinger says –

“Completeness of order, marking the entire round of anything, is, therefore, the ever-present signification of the number ten. It implies that nothing is wanting; that the number and order are perfect; that the whole cycle is complete.”

With the cycle of Nabal’s time all finished up…

39 So when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Blessed be the Lord, who has pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and has kept His servant from evil!

vayishma David ki met naval vayomer barukh Yehovah asher rav eth riv kherpathi miyad naval veeth avdo khasakh meraah – “And he heard, David, that he died Nabal, and he said, ‘Blessed Yehovah who, He grappled ‘grappling, my reproach’ from ‘hand, Nabal’. And His servant, He restrained from evilness.” David’s words go back to what he said in verse 33 –

“Blessed Yehovah, ‘God, Israel’, who He sent you the day, the this, to encounter me.”
“Blessed Yehovah who, He grappled ‘grappling, my reproach’ from ‘hand, Nabal’.”

David said the Lord intervened by sending Abigail. As such, the result was that through her, the Lord took up David’s cause against Nabal. This would not have been the case if he had gone through with his original intent. David looked to the events as a divinely orchestrated protection of him from himself. And more…

39 (con’t) For the Lord has returned the wickedness of Nabal on his own head.”

veeth raath naval heshiv Yehovah berosho – “And ‘evil, Nabal’, He caused to return, Yehovah, in his head.’” In taking up David’s cause, the evil that Nabal committed by not being generous was turned against him. David sees the entire process as coming directly from the hand of the Lord. And as a bonus to David because of Nabal’s death…

39 (con’t) And David sent and proposed to Abigail, to take her as his wife.

vayishlakh David vaydaber vaavigayil leqakhtah lo leishah – “And he sent, David, and he spoke ‘in Abigail’ to take her, to him, to wife.” The words “in Abigail” mean “about” her. His words are to the servants, speaking about her and giving them directions concerning what to say. The timeframe from Nabal’s death is not stated. It could have been seven days or an extended period. Regardless, after receiving their instructions…

40 When the servants of David had come to Abigail at Carmel, they spoke to her saying, “David sent us to you, to ask you to become his wife.”

vayavou avde David el avgayil hakarmelah vaydaberu eleha lemor David shelakhanu elayikh leqakhtekh lo leishah – “And they came, ‘servants, David’, unto Abigail the Carmel-ward. And they spoke unto her, to say, ‘David, he sent us unto you to take you, to him, to wife.’” As instructed, the messengers came to her in the area of Carmel to offer David’s proposal of marriage.

Carmel is from kerem, vineyard. Thus, it means Plantation, Orchard, or Fruitful Field (Plentiful Place). Clarke calls it Vineyard of God because the name is supplemented with the ending, el, God.

41 Then she arose, bowed her face to the earth, and said, “Here is your maidservant, a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.”

vataqam vatishtakhu apayim aretsah vatomer hineh amatekha leshiphekhah lirkhosh ragle avde adoni – “And she arose, and she bowed herself, nostrils earthward. And she said, ‘Behold! Your handmaid to woman-serve, to wash ‘feet, servants, my lord’.’” This is still at her home. The words are addressed to these men. Her humility in speech means, “I am here to serve David as a woman-servant to wash even your feet.” Having said that…

42 So Abigail rose in haste and rode on a donkey, attended by five of her maidens;

vatemaher vataqam avigayil vatirkav al ha’khamor vekhamesh naaroteha ha’holekhoth leraglah – “And she hurried, and she arose, Abigail. And she rode upon the jack, and ‘five, her damsels’, the ‘walking to her foot.’ The khamor, jack, is a male donkey, coming from khamer, to boil up, and thus to glow with redness. It is the redness that connects the thoughts.

While she rode, her five personal attendants walked (or rode, but poetically stated as walking) close behind her…

42 (con’t) and she followed the messengers of David, and became his wife.

vatelekh akhare malakhe David vatehi lo leishah – “And she walked after ‘messengers, David’. And she was, to him, to wife.” With David’s messengers in the lead, she and her train of damsels followed behind until she arrived to marry David. This is the last time Abigail is mentioned in the chapter.

Having gone through all instances of when her name was given, we find her mentioned nine times and four different spellings have been seen –

Verse 3 – אבגיל Abi/gayil, one yod (second half) – 1
Verse 14 – ולאביגיל “and to Abiygayil,” two yod – 2
Verse 18 – אבוגיל Abogayil, one vav, one yod – 3
Verse 23 – אביגיל Abiygayil, two yod – 2
Verse 32 – לאביגל “to Abiy/gal,” one yod (first half) – 4
Verse 36 – אביגיל Abiygayil, two yod – 2
Verse 39 – באביגיל “in Abiygayil,” two yod – 2
Verse 40 – אביגיל Abiygayil, two yod – 2
Verse 42 – אביגיל Abiygayil, two yod – 2

Nine signifies the conclusion of a matter. It is the number of finality or judgment.

43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel,

veeth akhinoam laqakh David miyizreel – “And Ahinoam, he took, David, from Jezreel.” It is generally believed that David was already married to Ahinoam. This is because she is listed first in 2 Samuel 3 and 1 Chronicles 3. However, she may have been listed first because her son was David’s firstborn.

Jezreel is not the same Jezreel mentioned many times, such as in the book of Hosea. That Jezreel was in Issachar. Rather, this one was in Judah, as recorded in Joshua 15:55.

In 1 Samuel 14, Ahinoam was seen to mean Kindred to Sweetness. Jezreel comes from zara, to scatter seed or sow, and el, God. Thus, it means God Sows. Jones’ says He Will Be Sown of God, explaining that as “i.e. have a numerous progeny.”

43 (con’t) and so both of them were his wives.

vatihyena gam shetehen lo lenashim – “And they were, also they two, to him, to wives.” Other than being listed as David’s wife and mother of his firstborn, it is Abigail who is given such prominent attention in the pages of Scripture.

*44 (fin) But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was from Gallim.

veshaul nathan eth mikhal bito esheth David lephalti ven layish asher migalim – “And Saul, he gave Michal, his daughter, ‘wife, David’, to Phalti, ‘son, Laish’, who from Gallim.” This note is given to tell us why David’s wife, Michal, is not listed with these other two women.

Saul, in his desire to cut David off completely from his life, gave Michal to another man. Saul means Asked. Michal is an abbreviated form of Michael, Who Is Like God. Phalti comes from phalat, to slip out, as in escape. Thus, his name means Yehovah Has Freed or Deliverance of the Lord.

Laish means Lion. However, that comes from lush, to knead, as in bread – which is how the word is always used. As in Judges 18, the name Kneading is possible. Gallim is from gal, something rolled, as in a heap, a wave, or a bubbling fountain. Being plural it signifies Two Heaps or just Heaps.

What will happen when the church is gone?
Will those left behind have another chance?
Will all people be finished, like the cuttings of a lawn?
Or can they still hope for a heavenly romance?

The Lord’s mercy knows no end
It is His desire that none perish, at any time
He would rather have the worst sinner become His friend
And have eternal fellowship, so sublime

God will always do what is right
In Him is no unrighteousness at all
Even when the world is in the tribulation’s plight
He wants people on Jesus to call

II. Explaining the Typology

The opening verse of Chapter 25 detailed the death of Samuel. That came right after the passage where David cut off the extremity of Saul’s garment. That pictured Christ’s authority over Sheol. Samuel, in typology, is no longer needed in the narrative when those who accepted the doctrines of Christ have victory over Sheol.

The typology of that first verse was explained. With that information provided, the narrative went directly into the narrative about Nabal, [Hebrew: naval], Dolt. Nabal is said to be in Maon, Habitation. He dwells on the earth. Beyond that no descriptor concerning his habitation is provided. However, his work is in the Carmel.

If this is after the rapture, this would signify those whose labors were not taken at that time, but who labored in what should have been their ticket to glory.

Nabal represents anyone who is a fool concerning his responsibilities to God’s word. The wealth of Nabal was described, naming the tson, flock, and izim, goats. As seen, the tson comes from a word signifying to migrate. The izim comes from a word signifying to be stout.

Together, they refer to the word through which one migrates to find the truth of God in Christ, and the surety of God’s word. The numbers of animals indicate both the perfection and completeness of the word. In the case of Nabal, it refers to his great wealth.

That is seen, for example, in the church of Laodicea –

“So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.” Revelation 3:16, 17

It is the attitude that the Laodicean church has. Thus, it is a good description when calling them dolts. They have the heritage, but they failed to adhere to what God expected. Nabal’s wife is mentioned in verse 3, Abigail.

She was noted as good intelligence and beautiful form. Her name was spelled with one yod in the second half of the name. I can only speculate on the reason for the changes to her name, but the purpose for them seems logical.

The yod is the tenth letter. Ten is the number of completeness of order. In the first instance, there is a sense of completeness to her, but it is undeveloped.

Her name means Father of Joy, she being the source of the joy. She represents the feminine entity tsedeqah, righteousness. She is married to a dolt, but she understands what is right and what to do to rectify a situation, hence her good intelligence and beautiful form.

However, her husband, Dolt, was “severe, and evil actions. And he, according to his heart.” He represents those who are unwilling to agree to the ways of God, even after the church is gone and the evidence is obvious. They continue to live according to the heart.

In verse 4, David, accepting the doctrines of Christ, hears about Nabal’s shearing and (verse 5) instructs his men to greet him. He tells them to pronounce a blessing on him and on his house in verse 6.

From there, he continues to explain his connection to Nabal, noting that he and his men were good to them and didn’t allow harm to them. This is true for those of Israel and the unsaved church today.

In verse 8, David told Nabal to check with his servants and to mention that it was a good day and then ask for provisions. After the rapture, there will be a time when it seems like a good day and that things are fine.

David’s men went to Nabal as instructed in verse 9, but they were strongly rebuked by him, “Who is David (Beloved), and who is the Son of Jesse (Yehovah Exists)? One can see the rejection of Christ in this. In verse 10, he noted those “breaking out themselves from, ‘faces, his lord’.” That reflects Jesus’ warnings, such as –

“And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.” Matthew 24:4, 5

David (having cut off Saul’s tassel) had the authority over Sheol, but this is what all of the false messiahs will claim, deceiving those they lead astray. Nabal continues to greedily reject David and his petition. That will be the same for the dolts who reject Christ.

In verse 13, David told the men to prepare for battle, saying for each man to gird on his sword. The sword pictures law. Thus, it is as if there is a state of lawlessness as everyone grabs his own sword.

Taking four hundred men signifies that they are prepared to set their own terms for grace (5), ending in revival and renewal (8), completing the actions apart from God’s determination (10). David also left two hundred with the supplies. It is the number of insufficiency.

Everything about the actions indicate that which is contrary to what is right. In verse 14, one of Abigail’s servants spoke to her. This time her name has two yods in it. She is awakened to what is right and possesses a fully developed completeness of order.

The next few verses, the lad described David’s treatment of Nabal’s men, confirming everything David had said, noting that they were a rampart upon them both day and night. The state of accepting the doctrines of Christ was always there for the foolish who refused to see them.

Knowing this was so, he urged (verse 17) for Abigail to act, knowing Nabal would not. Think of the typology. There are those both in the church at large (who didn’t go at the rapture), as well as Israel, who will realize their mistake.

They are the state of righteousness that will have to deal with those who are foolish. This appears to be why the plural term adonenu, lords, was used. It signifies a group of leaders unwilling to accept the truth. In verse 18, it said, “And she hurried, Avogail, and she took two hundred bread.” Her name is spelled this time with a vav and one yod.

Vav, being the sixth letter of the aleph-beth, speaks of fallen man. Those who now perceive their state are going to make amends for it, petitioning for mercy. The two hundred bread speaks of insufficiency (200) of a dependence on God. That was their state.

Along with that are two skins of wine. Wine symbolizes the merging together of cultural expressions into a result. There being two, signifies a difference and yet a confirmation of a whole. This signifies both Jews and Gentiles forming the whole of those seeking restoration and mercy.

The five prepared sheep had a spelling of two vavs instead of one. Five is the number of grace, but it is a petition for grace from fallen man 9 (symbolized by the additional vav). The other things, the roasted grain, the raisins, and the figs each bears its own mark of insufficiency or lack (such as dehydration).

These things are brought as an offering for mercy. They were all loaded onto a jack, a red male donkey. It is a petition for the humanity in Christ, even after the church age has ended.

In verse 19, she told the servant to go before her. It noted that she did not tell Nabal. In verse 20, it said that she rode her own jack and she descended in “secret, the mountain.” A mountain in Scripture signifies a large but centralized group of people. Being in secret is an obvious reference to those seeking the doctrines of Christ during the tribulation.

Verse 21 were David’s words stewing over Nabal’s treatment of him and his vow to cut off all those “whizzing in wall.” In other words, it symbolizes cutting off the entire family of Nabal.

In verse 23, Abigail (with two yods) fell before the fierce anger of David. Instead of making her insufficient offering of things prepared for David, she appeals to his mercy, even clasping onto his feet and telling him that the perversity was in her.She, representing those who should have been righteousness, failed to keep her house. She begs for Nabal to not be completely destroyed, noting that he is Nabal and that foolishness is with him. Killing him will not solve anything if it is done in an unrighteous manner.

In verse 25, she notes that it is the Lord who brought about her coming in order to stop him from acting. The state of accepting the doctrines of Christ has no right to act apart from the will of God. This is similar in thought to when David’s heart struck him at cutting off the extremity of Saul’s garment.

Everything has to be done in a particular order. God has a plan and it must be worked out as He has set forth. In other words, David and his actions are being used as an example of how God is dealing with those of the end times.

What we are seeing is a lesson in doctrine about that timeframe. There are teachings, for example, that say people cannot be saved in the tribulation if they rejected Christ in this dispensation. That is being shown to be false.

Abigail’s words to David confirm that in verse 26, “And now, they will be according to Nabal, your hatings, and the ‘seeking unto my lord evilness’.” God’s mercy does not end with the rapture. We can’t simply kill off the state of accepting the doctrines of Christ because of an event that brought glorification to some.

Abigail continues her words and appeal. In verse 28, she noted the enduring house being established for David. In other words, the state of accepting the doctrines of Christ will outlast the tribulation and continue through the millennium, as she says, “For ‘battles, Yehovah’, my lord, being fought. And evilness not it will be found in you from your days.”

What God is doing is perfect. Our misperceptions of it are the problem. It is why she says in verse 29 that a man had risen to pursue David but that his soul would be “cramped in ‘parcel, the livings’.” After the rapture, will Sheol prevail? The answer is no. Even after the rapture, Christ’s salvation will be effective.

Being confident of this, Abigail (verse 30) notes that David would be the commander upon Israel, and that his intentions would not be a source of grief, shedding innocent blood as he intended. In other words, what God has ordained is right and it will come about as He intends.

Again, this chapter is dealing with a matter of doctrine, just as all of them have since the completion of Chapter 17 with David’s victory over Goliath. Yes, there are hints of things like the rapture and Israel’s coming to Christ, but these passages have been dealing with the doctrine behind those things.

In verse 31, Abigail petitioned for David to remember her when the Lord dealt well with him. It is the appeal of those left behind who are seeking God’s righteousness that they be spared when the tribulation is complete.

In verse 32, a new spelling of her name came about Abiy/gal. One yod is in the first half of the name. With this spelling, her name can no longer be considered the same as the other instances. Abigail is derived from גיל, gil, to rejoice or be glad. Abiygal would be derived from גל, gal, a heap or a mound. It is something heaped up, thus it is something visible, like a witness.

It was at this time that in verses 32-34 David blessed her and explained himself and what he had planned. The unstated but implied meaning is that he would no longer carry through with his plans. She has become the Father of Witness.

Those who place their faith in Christ during this period are assured of salvation –

“And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” Revelation 20:4

Only after this did David accept her “insufficient” gifts. The grant was not based on works, but her petition for mercy based on faith. Because of this, the last four times her name is mentioned, it is with the full spelling of two yods.

As for Nabal, in verse 36, he is the dolt who is drinking away his chances at salvation, having a banquet and partying. Abigail made sure to let her words wait until the morning, at which time she told him what happened.

As I argued, it was the fact that “his wife” interceded that he blew a gasket and his heart died within him. Like Judas, he could have gone to Christ and asked for mercy. His sin was that he didn’t. Jesus knew this and that was the end of him. Long before the world had AC/DC power, Adam Clarke said he was Thunderstruck 🎵🎶 🎵🎶.

Likewise, those who reject the word of the saved in the tribulation will have hearts of stone, dying in their due time. As it says in Luke 21:26, “men’s hearts failing them from fear.” After his heart failed, he languished ten days. This signifies the completeness of order where nothing is wanting and the whole cycle is complete for them.

In verse 39, David heard of Nabal’s demise, and he praised the Lord that he had been kept from evil. Instead, Nabal’s demise came upon his own head. Likewise, the state of accepting the doctrines of Christ will be validated, even during the tribulation.

For that reason, there will be a marriage of them to Father of Joy. The meaning is that state of accepting the doctrines of Christ will be united to those who bring joy to the Father. That is confirmed by Abigail going to meet David with five of her damsels while on a jack.

The picture is that she is “riding” upon Christ’s humanity followed by grace. Once that was noted, it then said that David also took Ahinoam, Kindred to Sweetness, from Jezreel, God Sows, as wife. The verb translated as sweetness naem, was used in describing Solomon’s beloved, representing the church, in Song of Songs 7:6.

The picture is clear. Jesus has another “wife,” both through accepting the doctrines of Christ. There is what God is doing in Israel, restoring them to Himself as a nation, and there are those who were once married to the Dolt, but who will be united to Christ because of their faithful perseverance. The two wives contrast and yet the confirm a whole in who God is calling.

The church is dealt with in the final words of the chapter, “And Saul, he gave Michal, his daughter, ‘wife, David’, to Phalti, ‘son, Laish’, who from Gallim.” In Chapter 18, it was seen that Michal, Who Is Like God, reflected the true believers within the larger church (symbolized by Merab).

Sheol will give up the dead who are in Christ from the church age. The marriage to Phalti (from phalat, to slip out, as in escape), meaning Deliverance of the Lord, pictures the rapture. He is the son of Kneading (as in making bread) a picture of believers in Judges 18, from Gallim, Two Heaps. It signifies Jews and Gentiles of the church destined for glory.

The note of Samuel in the first verse, and the note of Michal in this verse, are great bookends concerning the doctrine of the rapture. The intervening verses tell us the state of those who miss the rapture. What will happen to them, what are their options, etc.

The chapter is one of doctrine, telling us what God is doing in redemptive history and how things will go at one time or another for those who are seeking the Lord. The chapter, though having some depressing elements in it, is one of great hope for those who feel they might have entirely missed God’s favor when the church is taken to glory.

It is also a chapter that is intended for us to understand proper end times doctrine now. People debate these things, but when the typology is presented, it will come down on one side of an issue or another. For three weeks of typing the contents of the chapter, I had no idea what it was picturing.

But with the picture developed, it is encouraging to know that God truly is the God of second chances. It would be best for people to get right with Him now, however. If not, troubled times will be the order of the day. Hard choices will have to be made.

So be wise and call on Jesus now, during the time of God’s favor. Today is the day of salvation. Take advantage of it by receiving God’s offer through the giving of Christ Jesus.

Closing Verse: “Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” Revelation 3:10

Next Week: 1 Samuel 26:1-16 Like getting rescued from a really bad date, but a lot more fun… (He Caused to Snatch Me from All Strait, Part I) (56th 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 25:32-44 (CG)

32And he said, David, to Abigal*, “Blessed, Yehovah, ‘God, Israel’, who He sent you the day, this this, to encounter me. 33And blessed, your taste, and blessed, you which you restrained me the day, the this, from coming in bloods and causing to save my hand, to me. 34And however, alive, Yehovah ‘God, Israel’ who, He debarred me from causing to spoil you. For if not you hurried, and I came [k.] to encounter me*, that if he was left to Nabal until ‘light, the morning’ ‘whizzing, in wall.’” 35And he took, David, from her hand what she caused to bring to him. And to her, he said, “You must ascend to peace to your house. You must see, I heard in your voice, and I lifted your faces.”

36And she went, Abigail* unto Nabal. And behold! To him, banquet in his house according to ‘banquet, the king’. And ‘heart, Nabal’, good upon him. And he, intoxicated until vehemently. And not she caused to declare to him word diminutive and great until ‘light, the morning’. 37And it was, in the morning in ‘going, the wine’ from Nabal, and she caused to declare to him, his wife, the words, the these. And it died, his heart, in his inward. And he, he was to stone. 38And it was, according to ‘ten, the days’, and He smote, Yehovah, Nabal, and he died.

39And he heard, David, that he died Nabal, and he said, “Blessed Yehovah who, He grappled, ‘grappling, my reproach’ from ‘hand, Nabal’. And His servant, He restrained from evilness. And ‘evil, Nabal’, He caused to return, Yehovah, in his head.”

And he sent, David, and he spoke ‘in Abigail’* to take her, to him, to wife. 40And they came, ‘servants, David’, unto Abigail* the Carmel-ward. And they spoke unto her, to say, “David, he sent us unto you to take you, to him, to wife.”

41And she arose, and she prostrated herself, nostrils earthward. And she said, “Behold! Your handmaid to woman-serve, to wash ‘feet, servants, my lord’.” 42And she hurried, and she arose, Abigail*. And she rode upon the jack, and ‘five, her damsels’, the ‘walking to her foot’. And she walked after ‘messenger, David’. And she was, to him, to wife. 43And Ahinoam, he took, David, from Jezreel. And they were, also they two, to him, to wives.

44And Saul, he gave Michal, his daughter, ‘wife, David’, to Phalti, ‘son, Laish’, who ‘from Gallim’.

Verse 3 & 32 – Abigail spelled with one yod.
Verse 3 – Qeri: “Calebite.”
*Verse 14, 23, 36, 39, 40 & 42 – Abigail spell with two yod.
*Verse 14, 17 – Hebrew: adonenu, our lords, a plural of rank referring to a single superior.
Verse 18 – Qeri: Abigail.
*Verse 18 – Abogayil – spelled with a vav and a yod.
Verse 18 – Ketiv and qeri differ orthographically. Both mean “made.”
Hebrew passive participle from asah, to make or do.
*Verse 23 – Signifying his intense anger.
*Verse 27 – David is the nearest antecedent.
Verse 34 – Qeri: “and she came.”
*Verse 34 – The meaning is “If you hadn’t hurried and brought me to my senses.”

*Verse 3 – אבגיל Abi/gayil, one yod (second half) – 1
*Verse 14 – ולאביגיל “and to Abiygayil,” two yod – 2
*Verse 18 – אבוגיל Abogayil, one vav, one yod – 3
*Verse 23 – אביגיל Abiygayil, two yod – 2
*Verse 32 – לאביגל “to Abiy/gal,” one yod (first half) – 4
*Verse 36 – אביגיל Abiygayil, two yod – 2
*Verse 39 – באביגיל “in Abiygayil,” two yod – 2
*Verse 40 – אביגיל Abiygayil, two yod – 2
*Verse 42 – אביגיל Abiygayil, two yod – 2

 

1 Samuel 25:32-44 (NKJV)

32 Then David said to Abigail: “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me! 33 And blessed is your advice and blessed are you, because you have kept me this day from coming to bloodshed and from avenging myself with my own hand. 34 For indeed, as the Lord God of Israel lives, who has kept me back from hurting you, unless you had hurried and come to meet me, surely by morning light no males would have been left to Nabal!” 35 So David received from her hand what she had brought him, and said to her, “Go up in peace to your house. See, I have heeded your voice and respected your person.”

36 Now Abigail went to Nabal, and there he was, holding a feast in his house, like the feast of a king. And Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunk; therefore she told him nothing, little or much, until morning light. 37 So it was, in the morning, when the wine had gone from Nabal, and his wife had told him these things, that his heart died within him, and he became like a stone. 38 Then it happened, after about ten days, that the Lord struck Nabal, and he died.

39 So when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Blessed be the Lord, who has pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and has kept His servant from evil! For the Lord has returned the wickedness of Nabal on his own head.”

And David sent and proposed to Abigail, to take her as his wife. 40 When the servants of David had come to Abigail at Carmel, they spoke to her saying, “David sent us to you, to ask you to become his wife.”

41 Then she arose, bowed her face to the earth, and said, “Here is your maidservant, a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.” 42 So Abigail rose in haste and rode on a donkey, attended by five of her maidens; and she followed the messengers of David, and became his wife. 43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel, and so both of them were his wives.

44 But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was from Gallim.

Matthew 21:40

Sunday, 2 August 2026

“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” Matthew 21:40

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).

“When, therefore, he should come, the ‘lord, the vineyard’, what he will do to the agronomists, to those?” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus said that the agronomists took the son, cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. He now questions Israel’s leaders concerning the matter, beginning with, “When, therefore, he should come, the ‘lord, the vineyard’.”

This is the time of judgment that will come upon Israel for their having crucified the Son of God. Paul explains this in 1 Thessalonians –

“For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

For Israel, there was a certain amount of sin that the Jews could expect to be dismissed by God through His grace and mercy, but there is a point at which that amount would be filled up, and beyond which only destruction could be the result. This same concept is true with any given nation, church, or person. There is a point where sin finally fills up to its measure, and then only wrath can be the inevitable result.

This is what Paul is saying concerning his people of national heritage. They had filled up the measure of their sins, and he knew, as he says, “that wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.” Understanding this, Jesus asks the question: “what he will do to the agronomists, to those?”

The answer is obvious, and Jesus is asking them this for a particular reason. In their response, they will indict themselves. As for Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians, he knew that the time had come, that Israel had r ejected Christ, and that there was no remedy left for them as a nation.

The cup was full, the wrath had been ordained, and it was only a matter of time before the wine would be poured out. This would be realized at the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the nation to the four corners of heaven, just as their response will indicate.

Life application: The words of Isaiah are calling out to the people of Israel, instructing them on exactly what Jesus conveys to them. The leaders, without considering their own Scriptures, were being presented with the fulfillment of the prophetic word –

“And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?
And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard.”

Israel was filled with bad grapes. To this day, it is that way. There was a portion of the people who believed, but they were a fraction of the whole. Today, this is true as well. The messianic believers who look to Jesus as the fulfillment of their Scriptures are taunted by the observant Jews.

But the observant Jews are observant in a system of pick-and-choose religiosity that ignores precepts of the law they are unable or unwilling to observe, while proclaiming their “holiness” by the things they do observe. They may hold fast to the Sabbath and dietary laws, but they ignore innumerable other laws found in their Scriptures.

It’s the problem with the law. It always reflects back on us. We pick and choose our “holiness” through law. But it doesn’t work. Only when Jesus is our holiness do we come to the point of having fulfilled the law. His righteousness is granted to us. In Him, we now have rest and fellowship with God. Thank God for Jesus.

Lord God, help us to remember to set aside attempts at justifying ourselves before You through our own efforts. Rather, keep us trusting in what Jesus has done. May pride in our accomplishments never cloud our understanding that we need Jesus. He alone is our righteousness. Amen.

Matthew 21:39

Saturday, 1 August 2026

So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Matthew 21:39

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 having taken him, they ejected from the vineyard, and they killed.” (CG)

In the previous verse, the agronomists saw the son and plotted to kill him and take his inheritance. Following through with their plot, it next says, “And having taken him, they ejected from the vineyard.”

As has been seen, the vineyard represents the economy (a cultural expression) where God is dealing with man in order to bring about a result. Therefore, this refers to Jesus being handed over to the Gentiles for sentencing. It was essentially an act of excommunication from them by doing this.

Barabbas was under the Gentile’s full authority. The leaders of Israel asked for him to be returned to them and for Jesus to go under their full authority to be crucified. This is what happened. Thus, Jesus’ next words, “and they killed.”

Whether they actually did the killing or not, the guilt of it was theirs –

“When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.
25 And all the people answered and said, ‘His blood be on us and on our children.’
26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.” Matthew 27:24-26

Through the parable, Jesus is already speaking of His death as a certainty. It is certain that the handing of Jesus over to the Gentiles is what is being referred to in being ejected from the vineyard because Mark reverses the two thoughts, saying they killed him and cast him out. This remains true because they did kill Jesus, and they disavowed Him as the Messiah.

As such, being cast out is not a reference to Jesus’ death outside the city walls. It is a reference to being cast out of the cultural expression where God is dealing with man. Instead, Jesus has been a part of the Gentile-led cultural expression since then. Israel has no national dealings with Him to this day.

Life application: Of this verse, Ellicott says –

“Cast him out of the vineyard.—The minor touches of a parable are not always to be pressed in our interpretation of it; but we can hardly help seeing here a latent reference to the facts (1) that our Lord was delivered over to the judgment of the Gentiles; and (2) that He was crucified outside the Holy City, (John 19:20; Hebrews 13:12), which was, in a special sense, as the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts.”

The minor touches of a parable are a part of the parable. If God is giving it to us, every touch of it has meaning. Because Ellicott misunderstood the typology of the vineyard, he incorrectly evaluated the meaning of the vineyard. Jerusalem may be the seat of power in the vineyard, but it is not the vineyard.

Jesus is building on the words of Isaiah. The vineyard is referred to in Isaiah 1:8 and 3:14. From there, Isaiah 5:1-7, a song of His Beloved “regarding His vineyard,” is given. The words of verse 7 say, “For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel.” It is the cultural expression that defines the vineyard.

Jesus’ words remain in accord with this typology. Therefore, the metaphors being used are understandable and should be consistently maintained. When they are, there is no need to worry about the “minor touches” of a parable, as if they are unimportant. They will fit seamlessly with the larger details.

Someday, Israel will again be the cultural expression in which Jesus is proclaimed. The world is being readied for that today. After the rapture, things will go into hyperdrive as the world begins to tear itself apart. However, God’s plan will unfold as the pages of Scripture detail. Israel will be saved, and Jesus will return to them at that time.

Be firm in your convictions concerning Israel. Many are turning from them today, and that is fine in regard to their unholy practices. But it is not fine if we reject what God is doing to bring them back to Himself. We don’t have to like the things they do, but we should pray for God’s will to be done in and through them. And because the pages of Scripture are written, we know it will be.

Lord God, we pray for Your plan of redemption to continue to unfold, knowing that it will because You have spoken. We pray for deliverance at the rapture, safety for Israel through the tribulation, and a great reunion of them with Jesus, whom they have for so long rejected. May these things come about according to Your word. Amen.

Matthew 21:38

Friday, 31 July 2026

But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’  Matthew 21:38

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).

“The ‘also, agronomists’, having seen the son, they said in themselves, ‘This, he is, the heir. You come, we should kill him, and we should retain the ‘inheritance, his’.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus said to the leaders, while still telling them the details of the parable, “Afterward, also, he sent to them the ‘son, his’, saying, ‘They will be in-turned of the ‘son, mine’.”

As noted, the normally recognized translation of the word entrepó in that verse is a positive state, like respect or reverence. This is something that should cause an immediate difficulty for those who know the outcome of the parable and what it is pointing to.

The word signifies an in-turning. This can be positive or negative. The housemaster would be quite naïve to assume that those who had already killed his other servants would act favorably toward his son.

Rather than respecting him, he would fully expect them to be ashamed of him and respond accordingly. Despite that, he sent him anyway. Having done so, it next says, “The ‘also, agronomists’, having seen the son, they said in themselves, ‘This, he is, the heir.’”

Almost all translations here say “But.” As if the response of the laborers is somehow a surprising new detail in the ongoing narrative. The word de is similar to the Hebrew prefix v’, and. Translations will often translate v’ as but, then, moreover, etc., based on a presupposition about what the text is saying.

Those translations may carry the correct intent, or they may not. As such, it is best to leave it as “and.” Likewise, the Greek de means also (as in continuance). Saying “but” is a presupposition that may or may not rightly translate de. In this case, depending on how the previous verse is rendered, it may be incorrect. Saying “also” or “and” gives the right sense. In this case, the housemaster knew they would not respect his son, and that is just what happened.

His appearance is recognized. He is obviously the son of the housemaster. When Jesus came, it was obvious that He was who He claimed to be. They were told explicitly who He was, and He did everything according to Scripture to prove that it was so. The evidence was overwhelming.

To this day, because of the recorded words of Scripture, that remains true. All a person needs to do is to read the Old Testament, compare what it says in the New Testament, and they will agree that the intent of the writers is that Jesus is the promised Messiah. This may not be believed, but it is undeniable that this is the intent. Understanding the parallel, it next says, “You come, we should kill him.”

Understanding the favorable position of the son in relation to the inheritance, they determine to kill him as well. The parable is given by Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate. Because this is true, it would be ridiculous for Jesus to say that the servants would receive Him favorably and then continue the parable with these words.

It would demonstrate a complete inconsistency in the words of the parable, and in the Person who is speaking the words, to make a comparison to God while knowing that the comparison is faulty.

Despite knowing that the son would be rejected, the house master sent his son. With the agronomists deciding to kill him, they next give the reason for doing so, saying, “and we should retain the ‘inheritance, his’.”

Because of the obvious difficulty presented in the previous verse, the Pulpit commentary says of these words –

“It would have been a wild and ignorant scheme of the husbandmen to consider that by murdering the heir they could obtain and hold possession of the vineyard. Here the parable bursts from the allegorical form, and becomes history and prophecy.”

Rather, the whole parable parallels the historical nature of Jesus’ words. God foreknew that when He sent His Son into the nation of Israel while under the Law of Moses, the leaders would kill Him. Despite knowing in advance that it was so, He sent Him anyway.

Life application: This parable, like the other parables given by Jesus, is given to show exacting truths about what God is doing in redemptive history. It would make no sense for Jesus to present a parable that didn’t match what would be borne out in literal history.

If Jesus’ intent in the previous verse was for the laborers to show respect, esteem, or honor to the son, there are other words in the New Testament that would reflect that sentiment.

Instead, He purposefully chose a word that carries a dual sense to reveal the fact that, despite His foreknowledge of what would occur, He still sent Jesus to accomplish the work intended for Him, including being rejected by Israel’s leaders and being crucified.

This reveals the very heart of God for the people of the world. It also reveals the determination of Jesus, who had already said several times that He would be treated shamefully and killed by those in Jerusalem. Despite all that was to come upon Him, He faithfully and resolutely went forward to do what needed to be done to restore us to God.

Lord God, thank You for what You have done for us in the sending of Jesus. The cross of Christ is truly the most precious symbol of love and reconciliation that could ever be. May we only boast in what He has done, never attempting to set aside the grace poured out on us there. Yes, may our hope rest in Jesus alone. Amen.

Matthew 21:37

Thursday, 30 July 2026

Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ Matthew 21:37

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, he sent to them the ‘son, his’, saying, ‘They will be in-turned of the ‘son, mine’.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus continued the parable, noting that the housemaster sent other servants, greater than the first, and they treated those servants the same. With that noted, He next says, “Afterward, also, he sent to them the ‘son, his’.”

The meaning of the words, at least to us, should be plain and obvious, even if the leaders don’t immediately get what Jesus is saying. A succession of servants has been sent to receive the fruit of the vineyard, and they have been treated shamefully.

These represented the messengers of God, the prophets and wise men, looking for fruit in the nation of Israel. Without success, God sent His Son into the nation, “saying, ‘They will be in-turned of the ‘son, mine’.’”

A new word is seen, entrepó. It is derived from en, a fixed position usually translated as “in”, and tropé, a noun signifying “a turning” which is only found in James 1:17. Together, they give the idea of “in a state of turning,” as in turning “one’s attention to in a riveted (‘locked in’) way” (HELPS Word Studies).

The word is used positively when turning in respect, but it is also used when feeling a state of shame. It is seen when there is no respect (as in Luke 18:2 and 18:4). In Hebrews 12:9, almost all translations say something like, “Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect [entrepó]” (NKJV). However, the verb is passive, and the word “them” is not in the text.

Having said that, because of the difficulty, most take this as a passive with a middle force. This is done to justify the reading as “respect.” However, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon notes the word in classical Greek signifies “properly, to turn about, so in passive even in Homer; τινα, properly, to turn one upon himself, i. e. to shame one.” Thus, if the passive is retained, the word would indicate a sense of personal shame, not respect.

The entire paragraph in which Hebrews 12:9 exists is based on chastisement, either by God or by our fathers. As such, there is a sense of shame for wrongdoing, which is exactly what sin is and what it causes. We are chastised, and we are ashamed because of our actions.

Without that shame because of a lack of correction, we would be unashamed and unrestrained. Something common in the world when there is no correction. Hebrews 12:9 continues, We had fathers who were instructors “… and we were in-turned, not much, also, more we will be subject to the ‘Father, the spirits’, and we will live?”

One can see the progression: 1) Earthly fathers discipline, 2) children respond, being in-turned (ashamed), 3) therefore, how much more should we be subject to God in humility? The same passive mood is found in the three synoptic gospels in regard to this parable.

Because translations reject the passive voice in Matthew 21:37, stating it is to be rendered in the middle voice, it then causes scholars a true dilemma. The Pulpit Commentary, reflective of others, says –

“God condescends to speak in human language, as hoping for a good result from this last effort for man’s salvation. He, as it were, puts aside his foreknowledge, and gives scope to man’s free will. Though the sad issue is known to him, he often acts towards men as if he had hope that they would still use the occasion profitably.”

This makes no sense. Why would the housemaster assume or even hope for those in the vineyard to act appropriately? Why would he assume they could be trusted when they have already killed his servants? Such a thought is not in line with what we would consider concerning Jesus’ portrayal of the omnipotent God in a parable.

An in-turning concerning the son is much more fitting to the surrounding context. And it is exactly what happened to Jesus. Thus, Jesus is clearly saying that they will not accept the son. Rather, they will be ashamed of him. And this is what God the Father knew, in advance, concerning His Son. This is perfectly in line with what Jesus told the disciples just a few days before –

“Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, 19 and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again.” Matthew 20:18, 19

It is a sentiment He had already stated to them twice before as well. The fact is that, despite knowing in advance, that Jesus would not be accepted, God sent His Son to Israel to offer them salvation. This demonstrates the immense love of God for those He created. It also shows the lengths God was willing to go to for those same creatures.

Life application: If the word discussed above is intended to be translated as “respect,” it would demonstrate a naivete in God that does not exist. The only way to get around that is to deal with the words in the way the Pulpit Commentary did. But parables are not merely an inexact representation of what is going on. Nor are they an accommodation for our sensibilities. Rather, they are a type of speaking intended to convey actual meaning, even if veiled.

Jesus was standing before the leaders, having just been hailed as the Messiah. If He is, then He is God’s selected choice for that position. To say, “Maybe the leaders will respect Me” or “My Father thinks the leaders might respect Me” is completely out of the context of the situation in which He is speaking. The leaders were ashamed of Jesus, and He was rejected and crucified, just as God foreknew that He would be.

This analysis fits the surrounding narrative. As such, leaving the translation as literal as possible allows for a resolution to the otherwise nonsensical idea that God would not know that His Son would not be respected.

Lord God, what a wonderful delight it is to come to Your word and consider its contents. Help us to be diligent each day to pick it up and dive into it with enthusiasm and zeal. Thank You for this beautiful treasure that tells us of JESUS! Amen.