1 Samuel 9:1-18 (Saul – Select and Good, Part I)

Artwork by Douglas Kallerson

1 Samuel 9:1-18
Saul – Select and Good, Part I

(Typed 14 July 2025) While sermon typing, I find it fun to compare translations to see how they vary and how they have been copied or diverged from over time.

As is often the case, there are several anomalies found in the Hebrew of the verses today. When they arise, translators should do their best to make a translation that makes sense while, hopefully, reflecting the original as much as possible.

Translations often lean heavily on the work of previous translations. That can be seen when looking at a line of translations that spans many years. Four translations that I will often check were published in this order:

Coverdale Bible of 1535
Bishop’s Bible of 1568
Geneva Bible of 1587
King James Version of 1611

The Coverdale surely referred to previous Bibles that I don’t have access to. However, it is evident that the three others referred to the Coverdale in their translations, each making changes as they went.

From time to time, the earlier version will be correct, and for some inexplicable reason, a later translation will diverge from that. In the case of the Coverdale Bible, this happened several times just in these verses.

Text Verse: “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 3:14,15

Translations generally get the feel for the overall content, even if they occasionally divert from a proper rendering of the original. I am currently reading a paraphrase, the Living Bible, given to me one day after my 15th birthday. And yet, it’s the first time I have read it.

That may be a good thing because a paraphrase is not a translation. Who knows how I would have developed if I had started reading the Bible with it? But despite being a paraphrase, it is fun to read, and it certainly gets across the sense of what is being conveyed.

However, to know exactly what the Lord is telling us, a paraphrase is not sufficient. Quite often, people will argue over a point of theology or doctrine from a particular translation, demanding that their view is correct, but the translation itself is completely rong.

This is why I love doing sermons directly from the Hebrew. My analysis may be wrong, but the translation is word-for-word from the original and it will thus have a much better chance of being correct.

As for the Coverdale Bible, there are at least two times in this passage that they were spot on in their translation, but later translations diverged from it. In one case, the Bishop’s and the Geneva followed the Coverdale, but the KJV sadly departed from it.

In one case, nobody followed the Coverdale even though it is exactly translated. The reason I mention this is to pique your interest in the word. Study it, compare translations, and think about what you discover. Let the word fill you with its wonder as you seek to be closer and closer to understanding exactly what God is telling us in this marvelous gift.

So much excitement is 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. The Jennies (verses 1-9)

There was a man of Benjamin

vayhi ish mibin yamin – “And it was, man from son right.” The written Hebrew is different than the oral tradition. It reads, “And it was, man from son right.” The words ben and yamin are separated. The oral reads, “And it was man from Benjamin.”

Based on the final clause of this verse, the written is to be preferred. The name Benjamin will, at times, be presented differently in the narrative. When it is, I will translate it as the Hebrew reads.

Benjamin means Son of the Right (hand). It can also mean Son of the South because the right in Scripture corresponds to the south, aligning with the direction in which the tabernacle/temple was situated in relation to the land.

1 (con’t) whose name was Kish the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah,

ushemo qish ben aviel ben tseror ben bekorath ben aphiah – “And his name Kish, son Abiel, son Zeror, son Bechorath, son Aphiah.” The listing here is not the same as the one found in Chronicles. For example, it says in this verse that Kish is the son of Abiel. In 1 Chronicles 8 & 9, it says that Kish is the son of Ner.

Such variances in genealogies are not uncommon, and they often reflect the intent of the chronicler as much as anything else. Names within genealogies may be left out for some reason. If so, then it could be that Saul is the son of Kish, the son of Ner, the son of Abiel.

It could be that Kish’s father had two names, Ner and Abiel. It could also be that Kish died and Ner, his brother, raised Saul after that. Such differences do not necessarily imply any contradiction or error in the text.

Kish could have several meanings. It could be Snaring, Ensnared, or Bird Catcher, coming from qush, to lay a snare. It may also mean Bow, coming from qesheth, a bow.

Abiel means Father of Strength, God is Father, or El (God) is My Father. Zeror means either Besieged or Bundle, coming from tsarar, to besiege or bind up, or Pebble (like Peter), coming from tsarar, to be sharp as in a flint rock. Bechorath means First Birth or First Born.

Aphiah is only found here in the Bible. It is derived from puakh, to blow with the breath or air. The word is not common and is usually used in connection with uttering lies or deceit, breathing out contempt or exasperation, etc. It thus means Exhale, Blowing, Utterer, etc.

Returning to Kish for the narrative, it again says…

1 (con’t) a Benjamite, a mighty man of power.

Rather: ben ish yemini gibor khayil – “son man right – powerful valor.” By placing the word “man” between “son” and “right,” it demands a translation of “son man right,” not Benjamin. He is described with the word khayil, which can mean wealth, strength, etc. Valor is a good catchall translation. Of Kish, it says…

And he had a choice and handsome son whose name was Saul.

velo hayah ven ushemo shaul bakhur vatov – “And to him, it was son, and his name Saul – select and good.” As is the usual custom in such listings, this person is the focus of the narrative. The same type of focus was seen in 1 Samuel 1:1, where Elkanah was introduced, his genealogy was given, and then the point of naming him was identified in verse 2 by naming Hannah and Peninnah.

Saul means Asked, as in Asked of or Asked for, coming from shaal, to ask. As with the name Horeb, the mountain where the law was received, and which is spelled the same as kherev, sword, Saul’s name is identical to Sheol, the pit or place of the dead. That should be remembered when evaluating the surrounding narrative.

The name Saul, Asked, is generally associated with a firstborn who was “asked” for. The thought is similar to the name of Samuel sh*mu*el (Asked from God) where the word shaal became a part of his name –

“And it will be to revolvings the days, and she will conceive, Hannah, and she will bear son, and she will call his name Samuel. ‘For from Yehovah I asked [shaal] him.’” 1 Samuel 1:20

The name Saul is the same as the name of Saul, who is Paul in the New Testament. Both are from the tribe of Benjamin. Selecting someone named Saul is certainly purposeful, forming a pun. In Chapter 8, it said –

“And he said, Samuel, all words Yehovah unto the people, the ‘askers [shaal] from him a king.’” 1 Samuel 8:10

The people asked for a king, and they are being given what they “asked” for. Of Saul…

2 (con’t)There was not a more handsome person than he among the children of Israel.

veein ish mibene Yisrael tov mimenu – “And not man from sons Israel good from him.” These words explain the “select and good” of the previous clause. Saul wasn’t just select and good. Rather, he was select and the goodest of the good, being gooder than the rest. So goodly, he was the best. And why?…

2 (con’t) From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people.

mishikhmo vamalah geboah mikal ha’am – “From his shoulders and upward higher from all the people.” The people asked for a king. The Lord is giving them what they asked for, and He is doing it in a manner that they would expect. An externally prime specimen will be designated to lead Israel’s armies.

Concerning his selection, background information is provided to help understand the man, the situation, and the time in which Israel exists…

Now the donkeys of Kish, Saul’s father, were lost.

vatovadnah ha’athonoth leqish avi shaul – “And they wandered, the jennies to Kish, father Saul.” The donkeys are specifically athon, female donkeys. In English, the word jenny is used to describe a female donkey. The word athon comes from the same root as ethan, perennial, ever-flowing, or permanent. The sense is that of the ever-patient nature of the animal, being docile.

3 (con’t) And Kish said to his son Saul, “Please take one of the servants with you, and arise, go and look for the donkeys.”

vayomer qish el shaul beno qakh na itekha eth akhad mehanearim vequm lekh baqesh eth ha’athonoth – “And he said, Kish unto Saul his son, ‘You must take, I pray, with you one from the servants, and you must arise, and you must walk, and you must seek the jennies.’” The JFB Commentary notes that this is not unusual, as donkeys were left to roam in the grazing season. If they roamed out of sight, someone would head out to find them.

That Kish had donkeys and servants speaks to some amount of wealth. Donkeys were not lowly animals at this time. They served many uses, and even princes and kings rode them. In Numbers 22, Balaam rode on one of these jennies. Because the donkeys are out of view, using imperative verbs signifies that to lose them permanently would mean a loss of valuable property. So the directive is given…

So he passed through the mountains of Ephraim and through the land of Shalisha, but they did not find them.

vayaavor behar ephrayim vayaavor beerets shalishah velo matsau – “And he traversed in Mount Ephraim, and he traversed in land Shalisha, and not they found.” Gibeah in Benjamin is where Saul started. Mount Ephraim extended that far to the south.

Saul heads somewhat northerly into the land of Shalisha. This is the only time it is mentioned in Scripture. It is derived from shalosh, three, or shalash, to do the third time. As such, it signifies Threeland, Three, Third, Triangular, etc. Therefore, it is likely a place where three valleys joined or three wadis met, or something similar.

Ephraim means Twice Fruitful and Ashes. In Scripture, a har, mountain, is a lot of something gathered. In typology, it is synonymous with a large but centralized group of people.

4 (con’t) Then they passed through the land of Shaalim, and they were not there.

vayaavru beerets shaalim vaayin – “And they traversed in land Shaalim, and naught.” Shaalim is also found only here in Scripture. It is derived from shual, a fox. It signifies Foxes or Place of Foxes.

The word shual comes from shoal, hollow hand, or handful, and the meaning extends to this. The connection is that foxes dig out a hollow to live in. In the gospels, Jesus said, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head” (Matthew 8:20). In Luke, it says –

“On that very day some Pharisees came, saying to Him, ‘Get out and depart from here, for Herod wants to kill You.’
32 And He said to them, ‘Go, tell that fox, “Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.”’ 33 Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.” Luke 13:31-33

The significance of a fox is that of a hole digger, and thus, one who is there to trip others up.

4 (con’t) Then he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they did not find them.

Rather: vayaavor beererts yemini velo matsau – “And he traversed in land Right, and not they found.” Whether this means Benjamin or not, it is not what is stated. Only the word yemini, right, is given. The Brenton Septuagint says Jamin, Smith’s says, “the Jaminite,” several ancient versions from the 1500s, Coverdale’s, the Bishop’s, and the Geneva, rightly transliterate as Iemini.

With the introduction of the KJV, the incorrect “Benjamite” was introduced, which has been repeated in all other modern translations except the New Heart English Bible, which says Jaminites. However, the word is singular, not plural.

When they had come to the land of Zuph,

The words are emphatic: hemah bau beerets tsuph – “They, they came in land Zuph.” This is probably the same land as the name of the man, Zuph, noted in 1 Samuel 1:1 –

“And was, man one, from the Ramathaim Zophim, from Mount Ephraim. And his name Elkanah, son Jeroham, son Elihu, son Tohu, son Zuph – Ephrathite.” 1 Samuel 1:1

In other words, the land is being identified with this man, from whom Samuel descended. Zuph comes from tsuph, dripping, and signifying the honeycomb. That comes from tsuph, to overflow. Thus, it means Honeycomb or Overflow.

5 (con’t) Saul said to his servant who was with him, “Come, let us return, lest my father cease caring about the donkeys and become worried about us.”

veshaul amar lenaaro asher imo lekha venashuvah pen yekhdal avi min haathonoth vedaag lanu – “and Saul, he said to his servant who with him ‘You must walk-ward, and let us return, lest he will cease, my father, from the jennies and he dreaded to us.’” Saul and his servant had been rambling the countryside long enough that he was concerned that his father might dread some calamity had befallen them.

Therefore, he says they should head toward home. A new word, daag, to be afraid, is introduced. All of its seven uses cumulatively give the notion of a sense of dread that one frets over.

And he said to him, “Look now, there is in this city a man of God,

vayomer lo hineh na ish elohim baiyr hazoth – “And he said to him, ‘Behold, I pray, man God in the city, the this.” They are in the land of Zuph, thus the unnamed city would be Ramah, Samuel’s residence as noted in 1 Samuel 7:17. Rather than identifying Samuel as Israel’s judge, the servant calls him a man of God…

6 (con’t) and he is an honorable man; all that he says surely comes to pass.

vehaish nikhbad kol asher yedaber bo yavo – “And the man being weighty: all that he will speak, coming, it will come.” The servant is the one who knows about Samuel and his abilities. Saul seemed to be completely unaware of him. As such, this reveals that in choosing him to be the leader of the nation, a complete novice concerning the political and spiritual state will be selected.

As the servant is aware of Samuel and his capabilities, he provides a reasonable suggestion…

6 (con’t) So let us go there; perhaps he can show us the way that we should go.”

atah nelakhah sham ulay yagid lanu eth darkenu asher halakhnu aleha – “Now, let us walk there. If not, he will cause to declare to us our way which we walked upon-ward.” He is making a logical assessment of the situation. If all that the man speaks comes to pass, then he may be able to direct them concerning the way they should go.

Then Saul said to his servant, “But look, if we go,

The NKJV, following the KJV, is incorrect. Saul agrees: vayomer shaul lenaaro vehineh nelekh – “And he said, Saul, to his servant, ‘And behold! We will walk.” Their going is not an if. It is decided. However, Saul is concerned about a matter of propriety when they get there…

7 (con’t) what shall we bring the man?

u-mah navi laish – “And what we will cause to bring to the man?” The man is a man of God. As such, he represents God concerning their request. Therefore, there is the implied necessity to follow through with the command of Exodus 34:20, which says, “And none shall appear before Me empty-handed.

7 (con’t) For the bread in our vessels is all gone, and there is no present to bring to the man of God. What do we have?”

ki halekhem azal mikelenu uteshurah ein lehavi leish ha’elohim mah itanu – “For the bread, it is vanished from our vessels, and presentation naught to cause to bring to man the God. What with us?” Saul introduces the word teshurah, a noun found only here. It is derived from shur, to travel about (i.e. as a harlot or a merchant).

Therefore, the idea is a welcoming or arrival gift. For a single word, “presentation” is close. Saul does not want to come before the man of God empty-handed, but they have eaten all their bread. He had nothing else of value to offer, so he asked the servant…

And the servant answered Saul again and said, “Look, I have here at hand one-fourth of a shekel of silver. I will give that to the man of God, to tell us our way.”

vayoseph hanaar laanoth eth shaul vayomer hineh nimtsa veyadi reva seqel kaseph venathati leish ha’elohim vehigid lanu eth darkenu – “And he caused to add, the servant, to answer Saul. And he said, ‘Behold! Being found in my hand fourth shekel silver. And I gave to man the God, and he will cause to declare to us our way.’”

The servant excitedly reveals what he has, calling Samuel “man the God.” Using the article is expressive. It refers to the one true God in relation to man. It is used to reveal those who are in a right relationship with Him, or to contrast those who are not in a right relationship with Him.

It is debated how one would determine a fourth of a shekel. Some think the piece of silver was divided into four corners by a cross. If it needed to be subdivided, it would be cut along the cross. Others think it was merely a set weight of silver.

As for the number, if there is a fourth, there is a whole comprised of four parts. Four is the number of creation and material completeness. Thus, it is the world number, and the “city” number. Silver signifies redemption.

Next, a parenthetical statement is presented…

(Formerly in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he spoke thus: “Come, let us go to the seer”; for he who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer.)

lephanim beYisrael koh amar ha’ish belekhto lidrosh elohim lekhu venelekha ad ha’roeh ki lanavi hayom yiqare lephanim ha’roeh – (“To faces, in Israel, thus he spoke, the man in his walking to inquire God, ‘You must walk, and let us walk until the seer.’ For to the prophet, the day, he will be called to faces ‘the seer.’”) The word ro’eh, seer, is introduced. It is derived from ra’ah, to see. Thus, it signifies a seer.

Despite that, it is surprisingly first used in a statement referring to the past, noting the word had fallen out of use. It will only be seen in this sense five times in this chapter. It will be seen only one more time after that when referring to a vision in Isaiah 28.

Almost all scholars say the words of this verse are a gloss. But that seems unnecessary. Rather, it is a statement of fact. Samuel was called a navi, a prophet, in 1 Samuel 3 –

“And it will know, all Israel, from Dan and until Beer-Sheba, for being faithful, Samuel, to prophet to Yehovah.” 1 Samuel 3:20

The word prophet will be used to describe him and others as the narrative continues. And more, it is found in almost all books of the Old Testament, from Genesis on. Because of the rarity of the word ro’eh, seer, this parenthetical thought is given to explain why the word seer is used in this chapter regarding Samuel.

Understanding this parenthetical statement, the narrative will resume in a moment…

Looking for jennies without success

But finding much more as we go

Is the Lord with us? We don’t need to guess

Because we are His, it certainly is so

Vainly searching, they remain out of sight

Those jennies just can’t be found

But the Lord knows everything’s alright

As your feet plod along the ground

When you feel it’s time to head back

Because the goal is still out of sight

You find the Lord has had you on track

In the end, everything turns out alright

II. A Man of Benjamin

10 Then Saul said to his servant, “Well said; come, let us go.”

vayomer shaul lenaaro tov devarekha lekha nelekhah – “And he said, Saul, to his servant, ‘Good, your word! You must walk-ward! Let us walk!’” Saul’s excited demeanor is clearly seen in his three abrupt statements. He was worried about his father, but he was also worried about going home to his father without the jennies. Therefore, this seemed like a perfect resolution to the dilemma they were facing…

10 (con’t) So they went to the city where the man of God was.

vayelekhu el ha’iyr asher sham ish ha’elohim – “And they walked unto the city which there man the God.” The name of the city remains unstated. However, it is most likely Ramah, the home of Samuel. This can be deduced from the fact that the servant knew he would be in the city. More logical reasons lie ahead…

11 As they went up the hill to the city,

hemah olim bemaaleh ha’iyr – “They, ascending in ascent the city.” The city is elevated, making Ramah, Lofty or High Place, a suitable candidate for the location. While ascending…

11(con’t) they met some young women going out to draw water, and said to them, “Is the seer here?”

The words bear emphasis: vehemah matseu nearoth yotseoth lishov mayim vayomeru lahen hayesh bazeh ha’roeh – “and they, they found damsels coming out to draw waters. And they said to them, ‘Being in this the seer?’” As they ascended, they passed girls going down to a well or spring to get water.

Probably not wanting to climb the entire ascent for nothing, they stopped to ask if the seer was there. It is another indication that this is Ramah. The question would be pointless otherwise. They are asking for “the seer,” not “a seer.” The one they seek is identified with the location…

12 And they answered them and said, “Yes, there he is, just ahead of you.

vataanenah otham vatomarnah yesh hineh lephanekha – “And they answered them, and they said, ‘Being! Behold! To your faces.’” The meaning is that their faces were pointed in the right direction so they should continue. Samuel was before them, and they were not wasting their effort continuing the ascent. In fact, they need to get moving…

12 (con’t) Hurry now; for today he came to this city,

It doesn’t say “this city,” as if it were a city he was visiting. Rather: maher atah ki hayom ba la’iyr – “You must hurry now, for the day he came to the city.” It is a city he has returned to. This means that he either just returned from his annual circuit where he judged (1 Samuel 7:16, 17), or for whatever reason, he went to some other place and has now just returned. The reason for his return begins to be seen in the next words…

12 (con’t) because there is a sacrifice of the people today on the high place.

ki zevakh hayom laam babamah – “For sacrifice, the day, to the people in the height.” No reason for the sacrifice is stated. Some say it was a festival day, others the monthly New Moon. What seems likely, based on what will be said later, is that the sacrifice has been specifically called for the arrival of Saul.

The sacrifice would be made babamah, in the height. The city was on a high place, but there was a place even higher where sacrifices were made. This gives additional credence to it being Ramah, also called Ramathaim, Double Height, in 1 Samuel 1:1.

13 As soon as you come into the city, you will surely find him before he goes up to the high place to eat.

The words contain a paragoge: kevoakhem ha’iyr ken timtseun otho beterem yaaleh habamathah leekhol – “According to your coming the city, thus you will (surely) find him in ‘before he ascends to height-ward to eat.’” The paragoge, coming from the young ladies, probably sounded like, “For sure, you will find him…”

The words suggest that the girls knew Saul was coming, as if Samuel had told the city a guest would arrive and there would be a sacrifice upon his arrival. Samuel is waiting until he arrives. Once he did, Samuel would escort him to the height…

13 (con’t) For the people will not eat until he comes, because he must bless the sacrifice;

ki lo yokhal ha’am ad boo ki hu yevarekh ha’zevakh – “For not it will eat, the people, until he comes. For he will bless the sacrifice.” The sense that Samuel is waiting for Saul before he blesses the sacrifice continues. Otherwise, one would think he would have simply gone up when everyone else did.

13 (con’t) afterward those who are invited will eat.

akhare ken yokhelu haqeruim – “After thus they will eat, the called.” Only after Samuel ascends will those called eat. There is an order of propriety that has been set forth based on the sacrifice and Samuel’s required presence at it.

13 (con’t) Now therefore, go up, for about this time you will find him.”

The girls give an imperative and again use a paragoge: veatah alu ki otho khehayom timtseun otho – “And now, you must ascend. For it, according to the day, you will (surely) find him.” Everything about the girls’ words is urgent and demands that Saul and his servant rush…

14 So they went up to the city. As they were coming into the city, there was Samuel, coming out toward them on his way up to the high place.

Rather and emphatically: vayaalu ha’iyr hemah baim betokh ha’iyr vehineh shemuel yotse liqratham laaloth habamah – “And they ascended the city. They – coming in midst the city, and behold! Samuel coming out to encounter them to ascend to the height.” They ascended to the height of the city and entered it. As they came into its midst, meaning inside the gate, Samuel came out to meet them.

Everything about the encounter is based on the anticipation of Saul’s arrival. Samuel has been waiting for them. Only now would he, along with them, make the ascent to the height. Samuel means Asked from God.

15 Now the Lord had told Samuel in his ear the day before Saul came, saying,

The words of verses 15 and 16 are parenthetical: veYehovah galah eth ozen shemuel yom ekhad liphne vo shaul lemor – “(And Yehovah, he denuded ear Samuel, day one to faces coming Saul, to say…” The abrupt and precise nature of everything that has been described concerning Saul’s trek up the hill and into the city has been intentionally laid out based on these words.

Samuel was not at the city. The day before, the Lord told him that Saul would be coming to the city. It explains why he returned. It explains why a sacrifice was planned and people were waiting for him. It explains why the girls were aware of the situation and spoke to Saul and his servant with paragoges and an imperative. It also explains why it says Saul and his servant came to the city and entered its midst (meaning coming inside the gate).

The Lord uncovered the ear of Samuel, revealing to him who was coming, when he would arrive, and what to do…

16 “Tomorrow about this time I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him commander over My people Israel,

kaeth makhar eshlakh elekha ish meerets Binyamin umeshakhto lenagid al ami Yisrael – “According to the time, tomorrow, I will send unto you man from land Benjamin. And you anointed him to commander upon My people, Israel.” One day earlier, Samuel was told that Saul would arrive at the city at that same time the following day.

The person would be a Benjamite (Son of the Right Hand). It is this person, known to Samuel in advance of his arrival, that he was to anoint as the nagid, commander, over Israel. Though he will be the king, the principal task of his kingship is to be a military figure.

This is the first use of the word in Scripture. It is derived from nagad, to declare. Therefore, it signifies that which is in front, as in a commander, a prince of the people, a noble, etc. It is a word used to describe the coming Messiah in Daniel 9:25 and the antichrist in Daniel 9:26.

16 (con’t) that he may save My people from the hand of the Philistines; for I have looked upon My people, because their cry has come to Me.”

vehoshia eth ami miyad pelishtim ki raithi eth ami ki baah tsaaqato elay – “And he caused to save My people from hand Philistines. For I saw My people. For it came, his shriek, unto Me.)” The Philistines, the Weakeners, are those who have afflicted Israel. Because of this, the people cried out to the Lord, desiring a king to lead them and break the chains of their enemies.

The Lord responded by selecting Saul, a nobody from the smallest tribe in Israel, to lead them. With the parenthesis ended, the narrative continues…

17 So when Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said to him, “There he is, the man of whom I spoke to you.

u-shemuel raah eth shaul veYehovah anahu hineh ha’ish asher amarti elekha – “And Samuel, he saw Saul. And Yehovah, He answered him, ‘Behold! The man whom I spoke unto you.” Removing the parenthetical verses, the harmony of the narrative can be seen –

14 And they ascended the city. They – coming in midst the city, and behold! Samuel coming out to encounter them to ascend to the height. … 17 And Samuel, he saw Saul. And Yehovah, He answered him, “Behold! The man whom I spoke unto you. This – he will enclose in My people.” 18 And he approached, Saul, Samuel in midst the gate. And he said, “You must cause to declare-ward, I pray, to me, where this – house the seer?”

The Lord spoke, and Samuel heard. This type of communication can only be guessed at, but it is clear that it happens immediately and without any preparation. It is also as clear as if it were spoken by someone standing next to him, even if only he heard it. The Lord directed Samuel to Saul, confirming his selection…

17 (con’t) This one shall reign over My people.”

Rather: zeh yatsor beami – “This – he will enclose in My people.’” The word atsar signifies to enclose. If there is a plague, the Lord can enclose the people, protecting them from it. If you want someone to stay for a meal instead of leaving, you will enclose them, keeping them around.

Saul is the one to enclose Israel, keeping the people safe from their enemies as he fights outward against them. Samuel is made aware of this as the Lord speaks in His ear. At the same time…

*18 (fin) Then Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and said, “Please tell me, where is the seer’s house?”

vayigash shaul eth shemuel betokh hashaar vayomer hagidah na li ey zeh beith ha’roeh – “And he approached, Saul, Samuel in midst the gate. And he said, ‘You must cause to declare-ward, I pray, to me, where this – house the seer?’” Samuel walked up to the gate where Saul and his servant entered. The meaning is that the timing was perfectly arranged so that as Saul entered the city, Samuel entered the gated area at the exact same time.

Saul, showing his complete naivete at the appearance of Samuel, whose hair had never been cut due to the vow Hannah made years earlier, asked him where the seer’s house was. He had no idea who Samuel was or what his function was. He is set, however, to find out.

This is where we will stop for the day. Hopefully, we’ll finish the chapter next week and have a suitable explanation for the given detail.

It is apparent from the verses we looked over that the Lord directed everything to come out as it did. The donkeys got lost, Saul and his servant looked in various places without finding them, they were out of bread and needed to get home, and yet, the servant who came with him knew about the seer and had enough to give him a presentation.

The Lord knew these things would take place. Meanwhile, Samuel was getting back to the city, ready for the meeting, and setting everything up for when it occurred. Saul had free will to do the things he did, and yet, God was able to have things turn out exactly as He determined.

This is also the case with each one of us. He looked into our hearts, knew the decision we would make for Him, and directed our lives to the point where we would do so. All the while before and since then, we have made our own choices, some of which were or continue to be beneficial or detrimental to us.

The best thing we can do as we walk in this life is keep the Lord on our minds, talk to Him frequently, and study His word diligently. In doing this, we will continue down the right path that He set before us. When we don’t, He will be there at the end to clean us up.

We will never be abandoned by Him, but we can stray from Him. Saul is being called to lead Israel. Eventually, he will stray, and a new direction under David will come about. But as we enter into Saul’s life, I feel confident that the Lord never abandoned him.

Let us learn the lessons of Saul’s life, good and bad, so that we can avoid the pitfalls and rejoice in the victories as we apply what we know about him to our own lives. More on Saul to come. Pay attention as we go!

Closing Verse: “The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord,
And He delights in his way.” Psalm 37:23

Next Week: 1 Samuel 9:19-27 He is set to be king, that is understood, yes, it’s true… (Saul, Select and Good, Part II) (17th 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 9:1-18 (CG)

9 And it was, man from son right. And his name Kish, son Abiel, son Zeror, son Bechorath, son Aphiah: son man right – powerful valor. 2 And to him, it was son, and his name Saul – select and good. And not man from sons Israel good from him. From his shoulders and upward higher from all the people.

3 And they wandered, the jennies to Kish, father Saul. And he said, Kish unto Saul his son, “You must take, I pray, with you one from the servants, and you must arise, and you must walk, and you must seek the jennies.” 4 And he traversed in Mount Ephraim, and he traversed in land Shalisha, and not they found. And they traversed in land Shaalim, and naught. And he traversed in land Right, and not they found.

5 They, they came in land Zuph, and Saul, he said to his servant who with him “You must walk-ward, and let us return, lest he will cease, my father, from the jennies and he dreaded to us.”

6 And he said to him, “Behold, I pray, man God in the city, the this. And the man being weighty: all that he will speak, coming, it will come. Now, let us walk there. If not, he will cause to declare to us our way which we walked upon-ward.”

7 And he said, Saul, to his servant, “And behold! We will walk. And what we will cause to bring to the man? For the bread, it is vanished from our vessels, and presentation naught to cause to bring to man the God. What with us?”

8 And he caused to add, the servant, to answer Saul. And he said, “Behold! Being found in my hand fourth shekel silver. And I gave to man the God, and he will cause to declare to us our way.”

9 (To faces, in Israel, thus he spoke, the man in his walking to inquire God, “You must walk, and let us walk until the seer.” For to the prophet, the day, he will be called to faces ‘the seer.’)

10 And he said, Saul, to his servant, “Good, your word! You must walk-ward! Let us walk!” And they walked unto the city which there man the God.

11 They, ascending in ascent the city, and they, they found damsels coming out to draw waters. And they said to them, “Being in this the seer?”

12 And they answered them, and they said, “Being! Behold! To your faces. You must hurry now, for the day he came to the city. For sacrifice, the day, to the people in the height. 13 According to your coming the city, thus you will (surely) find him in ‘before he ascends to height-ward to eat’. For not it will eat, the people, until he comes. For he will bless the sacrifice. After thus they will eat, the called. And now, you must ascend. For it, according to the day, you will (surely) find him.” 14 And they ascended the city. They – coming in midst the city, and behold! Samuel coming out to encounter them to ascend to the height.

15 (And Yehovah, he denuded ear Samuel, day one to faces coming Saul, to say, 16 “According to the time, tomorrow, I will send unto you man from land Benjamin. And you anointed him to commander upon My people, Israel. And he caused to save My people from hand Philistines. For I saw My people. For it came, his shriek, unto Me.”)

17 And Samuel, he saw Saul. And Yehovah, He answered him, “Behold! The man whom I spoke unto you. This – he will enclose in My people.” 18 And he approached, Saul, Samuel in midst the gate. And he said, “You must cause to declare-ward, I pray, to me, where this – house the seer?”

 

1 Samuel 9 (NKJV)

There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of power. And he had a choice and handsome son whose name was Saul. There was not a more handsome person than he among the children of Israel. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people.

Now the donkeys of Kish, Saul’s father, were lost. And Kish said to his son Saul, “Please take one of the servants with you, and arise, go and look for the donkeys.” So he passed through the mountains of Ephraim and through the land of Shalisha, but they did not find them. Then they passed through the land of Shaalim, and they were not there. Then he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they did not find them.

When they had come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his servant who was with him, “Come, let us return, lest my father cease caring about the donkeys and become worried about us.”

And he said to him, “Look now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honorable man; all that he says surely comes to pass. So let us go there; perhaps he can show us the way that we should go.”

Then Saul said to his servant, “But look, if we go, what shall we bring the man? For the bread in our vessels is all gone, and there is no present to bring to the man of God. What do we have?”

And the servant answered Saul again and said, “Look, I have here at hand one-fourth of a shekel of silver. I will give that to the man of God, to tell us our way.” (Formerly in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he spoke thus: “Come, let us go to the seer”; for he who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer.)

10 Then Saul said to his servant, “Well said; come, let us go.” So they went to the city where the man of God was.

11 As they went up the hill to the city, they met some young women going out to draw water, and said to them, “Is the seer here?”

12 And they answered them and said, “Yes, there he is, just ahead of you. Hurry now; for today he came to this city, because there is a sacrifice of the people today on the high place. 13 As soon as you come into the city, you will surely find him before he goes up to the high place to eat. For the people will not eat until he comes, because he must bless the sacrifice; afterward those who are invited will eat. Now therefore, go up, for about this time you will find him.” 14 So they went up to the city. As they were coming into the city, there was Samuel, coming out toward them on his way up to the high place.

15 Now the Lord had told Samuel in his ear the day before Saul came, saying, 16 “Tomorrow about this time I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him commander over My people Israel, that he may save My people from the hand of the Philistines; for I have looked upon My people, because their cry has come to Me.”

17 So when Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said to him, “There he is, the man of whom I spoke to you. This one shall reign over My people.” 18 Then Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and said, “Please tell me, where is the seer’s house?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew 13:36

Sunday, 12 October 2025

Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” Matthew 13:36

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).

“Then Jesus, having dismissed the crowds, He went into the house. And His disciples, they came to Him, saying, ‘Expound to us the parable of the fields’ darnel’” (CG).

In the previous verse, Matthew quoted the words of Asaph to explain why Jesus spoke in parables. Next, he returns to the ongoing narrative with the words, “Then Jesus, having dismissed the crowds.”

After speaking out His parables, a dismissal of the crowds took place, once that was attended to, “He went into the house.”

The article before house means it is a particular house. Going back to Matthew 1, it says, “And in that day, Jesus, having departed from the house, He sat by the sea.” It is this house, explained during that verse, that is being referred to. Once in the house, it says, “And His disciples, they came to Him.”

Houses at the time were not big McMansions that many live in today. There would be no need to go looking for Him in the house. Therefore, it is probable that as soon as Jesus went into the house, those following asked this as they were coming in, highlighting their desire to hear an explanation of His words. In their words to Him, they were “saying, ‘Expound to us the parable of the fields’ darnel.’”

The word phrazó is introduced here. It is only found in some texts here. Most use the word diasapheó, a word also first found here. This word, phrazó, is found only elsewhere in Matthew 15:15. It means to indicate by word or act or to interpret. Thus, it signifies to expound. They are looking for an indication of what He was talking about in the parable, meaning its underlying meaning.

The other word used in other texts, diasapheó, comes from two words signifying “through” and “clear.” Thus, it is a thorough clearing of something. Thus, it figuratively means to declare.

The parable of the darnel in the field was recorded in verses 24-30. The parable was deeper than the subsequent two, those of the mustard seed and the leaven in the bread. As such, the disciples wanted a clear understanding of what Jesus was conveying in it.

Life application: As seen in the parable of the leaven, which Jesus did not explain, there is disagreement in its meaning. The majority of commentators state that the leaven was used as a good thing, it being the one exception to the normal use of leaven in Scripture, which is in a negative sense.

However, that seems inappropriate, and a suitable explanation that follows the normal Scriptural meaning of leaven was provided. If there is disagreement on such a short parable, being only one sentence long, it is good that the disciples asked for an explanation of this longer and more complicated parable.

Not everything Jesus said during His ministry is carefully explained. This lack has led to innumerable interpretations of various things He set before the disciples. The majority of these divisions in interpretation could be resolved by remembering the main rule of biblical interpretation: What is the context?

Jesus’ ministry was to Israel under the law. His words deal with that context. Jesus never spoke of things like the rapture. The reason He didn’t do this was because that event belongs to the church age. The doctrine of the rapture is only explained by Paul because Paul is the apostle to the Gentile led church.

Remembering the context of Jesus’ words will normally help clarify what He is saying. It is true that kingdom terminology can overlap in meaning. Therefore, it can be difficult to come down adamantly on some things He says. The more conservative our interpretation of Scripture is, though, the less we will devolve into inappropriate lines of thought.

Therefore, unless there is a specific reason for including the church in His words, which can be fully explained, it is best to assume He is not addressing the church, but Israel alone.

The main thing for us to do is to keep reading His word. No matter how many times we have done so, we will always learn something new. After a person has a stroke, his brain must rewire around the damaged parts of the brain.

In a similar way, the more we read the word, the more we are able to rewire our thoughts and lives around those things that inappropriately affect our understanding of who God is and what He is saying in His word. Keep in the word! It will never bring you harm. Rather, right thinking will continue to develop in you.

Lord God, time in Your word is like a healing balm to our souls. We are molded more and more to Your mind as we learn it and apply it to our lives. Give us the time and the sense to pick it up, read it, and contemplate it all the days of our lives. Amen.

 

Matthew 13:35

Saturday, 11 October 2025

that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
“I will open My mouth in parables;
I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.” Matthew 13:35

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

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

“So it should be fulfilled, the ‘having been spoken through the prophet,’ saying,
‘I will open My mouth in parables. I will blurt things having been concealed from foundation – world’” (CG).

In the previous verse, Matthew noted that it was Jesus’ habit to speak to the multitude in parables, and when doing so, not speaking to them any other way. He now explains why by citing Scripture. That is introduced with the words, “So it should be fulfilled.”

In other words, and as has been seen before, Matthew is stating that some portion of Scripture is fulfilled by Jesus’ actions. In this case, it refers to His conduct in relation to addressing the crowds. What is fulfilled is “the ‘having been spoken through the prophet.’”

Matthew explicitly notes that words spoken by a prophet are fulfilled by what Jesus is doing. Saying “the prophet” indicates that it was a recognized prophet of Israel whose words are recorded in Scripture. The prophet being referred to in this instance is Asaph, whose words are recorded in Psalm 78 –

“I will open my mouth in a parable;
I will utter dark sayings of old,
Which we have heard and known,
And our fathers have told us.” Psalm 78:2, 3

Knowing where the thought came from, Matthew continues, “saying, ‘I will open My mouth in parables.’”

The Hebrew reads, “in parable.” The Greek converts that to the plural, which is then used by Matthew. This sets the tone for how Jesus dealt with the people. As for what that is, Matthew next says, “I will blurt things having been concealed from foundation – world.”

Two new words are seen here. The first is ereugomai, to belch. It is found only here. It is used figuratively to indicate speaking out. A word that ties the sense of both thoughts together is blurt. It is a sudden, abrupt, and poignant mode of speech.

The second new word is katabolé, a deposition. Thus, when referring to the beginning of the earth, it speaks of its foundation.

There are several ways of taking Matthew’s thought so that it aligns with the intent of the psalm because the words are not a direct citation. Thus, rather than a quote, a thought is being presented. The likely meaning is derived from the change of speaking “in parable” to “in parables.”

In other words, Asaph spoke in a parable concerning the history of Israel. The psalm is a long recounting of events that occurred. However, the words are then to be considered in a parabolic fashion, having an underlying meaning in addition to the historical references.

The Greek converted the singular to plural. Matthew saw this as an inspired change, pointing to the teaching style of the Messiah. In just the manner that Asaph recorded Israel’s history, so Jesus taught the people, reflecting the same type of literary teaching device.

When He opened His mouth, it would be in parables. And in His use of parables, He would blurt out things that had never been heard before, having been concealed in the wisdom of God from eternity past.

Life application: There are times when people get anxious about saying, “Well, Peter said,” or “John says in His epistle.” The thought is, “If this is the word of God, we should say something like, ‘the Lord said,’ or ‘the Lord through John said.’”

This is unnecessary. There are abundant times in the New Testament where the words of Scripture are attributed to individuals rather than God. For example, Jesus refers to Moses having commanded something. This is followed in the words of the apostles. The same is true with other names like David and Isaiah.

The reason why this is acceptable is that these people really said or wrote those things, doing so in harmony with the will of the Lord. If a musician like Eddie Van Halen played a tune from Bach, we might say that was an amazing piece Eddie played. At the same time, we could say, I heard a song by Bach today, and it was incredible.

There is a harmonious synergy between the author and the player. This is how Scripture works. When we read Jeremiah, we can see his personal style, choice of words, etc. And yet, we can also know that the hand of divine inspiration was upon him in prophetic utterances, determined proclamations, etc.

There is nothing wrong and everything right about saying it either way, meaning “The Lord said,” or “Jeremiah said.” When we believe in the process of inspiration, we are upholding the value of the word by stating things in this way. Notice how Jesus holds carefully to this process as He explains it to the leaders of Israel –

“Jesus answered them, ‘Has it not been written in your Law: “I said, you are gods’?” 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified), 36 are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” John 10:34-36 (NASB)

Lord God, help us in our understanding of Your word. Open our eyes so that when we read it, we can comprehend it in ways we may not have previously considered. There is so much depth and richness to it, and we want to understand and experience it all. So help us in this, O God. Amen.

 

Matthew 13:34

Friday, 10 October 2025

All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, Matthew 13:34

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).

“All these, He spoke, Jesus, in parables to the crowds, and besides parable, not He spoke to them” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus told the Parable of the Leaven. Matthew next says, “All these.”

The words indicate the parables just given by Matthew. A set of them has been recorded, but no explanation for them is provided to the people. Understanding this, Matthew continues, saying, “He spoke, Jesus, in parables to the crowds.”

Matthew confirms that these words were spoken by Jesus, as noted before, it isn’t certain if these were all said at this one time or recorded categorically. The words now seem to tend to the former. However, having explained the parable of the sower between the other parables gives a strong hint that it is actually just the opposite.

Either way, the way that Matthew states this verse needs careful attention. In this clause, the verb is in the aorist tense. Jesus spoke to the crowds about these particular parables. He next says, “and besides parable, not He spoke to them.”

A new word, chóris, without, is stated. It is derived from chora, a space of territory which, in turn, gives the sense of room. Therefore, chóris means “at a space.” As the word is accompanied by the word “not,” it means that He wasn’t speaking to them any other way.

However, the verb is imperfect. Meyer’s NT Commentary further rightly defines it as a relative imperfect. As such, the words do not necessarily mean that Jesus only spoke to the crowds in Israel with parables. But when He was speaking these parables, it was the only way He spoke, meaning that He didn’t speak plainly by explaining the meaning of the parable.

The understanding of that is seen in the explanation found in Mark 4 –

“And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.” Mark 4:33, 34

By looking side-by-side at the two clauses with their precise wording, the sense becomes more evident –

*All these (the parables just recorded), He spoke (aorist), Jesus, in parables (plural) to the crowds.
*And besides parable (singular), not He spoke (imperfect) to them

He spoke these parables, but He was not explaining any parable that he spoke. Only when He was alone with the disciples would he then explain the parables.

It is common for scholars to insist that these words are intended to mean that Jesus spoke only in parables at all times when speaking to the crowds. But Meyer’s challenges that notion, stating –

“The absolute sense in which the words are understood by Baumgarten-Crusius and Hilgenfeld is inconsistent with historical facts; nor could Matthew, or Mark 4:34, have intended the words to be so taken without being guilty of the grossest absurdity.”

Life application: The discussion above highlights particular nuances of the text that are debated over. Not understanding the precise intent doesn’t mean that someone now has the wrong doctrine. Rather, they may have a misunderstanding of the nuances of what is written. This is evident by reading various translations of the verse.

Despite not having the exact sense of what is being said, anyone reading the text can get the major points. There is the understanding that the use of parables when speaking to the crowd was important. Through His words, prophecy was being fulfilled. That is the major point to be understood.

As one grows in knowledge and understanding of the nuances, a clearer grasp of the overall intent is realized. This is why some people are plumbers who read the Bible from time to time, and then there are scholars who read and study its every nuance.

Unfortunately, some scholars come to the text wanting to tear it apart, find contradictions, demonstrate that they are smarter than the text as given by God, etc. From there, people read their analyses, believe them because these scholars are more understanding of the text than the average Joe, and they believe what they hear.

This leads to weak believers who cannot trust the word of God. The deeper you get into the details, the more you should study many scholars and contemplate what you read. Don’t take anything at face value, even if the argument seems convincing at first.

Be assured, there is nothing wrong with God’s word. If you come to it with this understanding, you will be in the sweet spot, even if you never find a resolution to the question you are looking for. Someday, the perfection of God’s word will be fully comprehended by us all.

Lord God, help us to carefully treat Your word, never diminishing it or trying to find fault with it. If it is Your word, it is just what You intended for us. As You are without fault, we know that what You say will be as well. Help us to carry with us the understanding that Your word is sacred and should be treated as such. Amen.

 

Matthew 13:33

Thursday, 9 October 2025

Another parable He spoke to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.” Matthew 13:33

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).

“Another parable He presented them, ‘The kingdom of the heavens, it is like leaven which a woman, having taken, she concealed in flour – three measures – until it all, it leavened’” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus finished the parable of the mustard seed. With it complete, Matthew records, “Another parable He presented them.”

As noted previously. It is unknown if these parables were all stated at the same time or if Matthew is recording them in a categorical fashion. Either way, however, Jesus begins the Parable, saying, “The kingdom of the heavens, it is like leaven.”

Here is a new word, zumé, ferment, as in boiling up. Thus, it refers to leaven, which causes a change, usually through rising (as in bread) or some other type of reaction, such as in the process of making beer.

The meaning of the parable is highly debated. However, yeast is consistently given as a type of spreading evil, and thus sin. This is true in both testaments, either typologically or figuratively –

“Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” 1 Corinthians 5:6-8

Many commentators feel that this parable must be an exception to that. If so, it would be an extremely unusual outlier. As for Jesus’ words, He continues, saying, “which a woman, having taken, she concealed in flour.”

Here is another new word, egkruptó, to conceal. The idea is concealing through incorporation. The woman takes the leaven and incorporates it into the dough. When looking at it, no one would even know that it was leavened. Only when the effects are realized after the reaction would it be known that it was in there.

Putting yeast into flour will inevitably result in the dough being affected. Yeast was never to be presented to the Lord in the sacrifices and offerings of Israel, with but two exceptions (Leviticus 7:13 & Leviticus 23:17).

Those exceptions were specifically given in typology, indicating that because of Jesus, the redeemed are considered acceptable to God even though they are sinful people. As for the leavened dough, Jesus continues, saying, “three measures – until it all, it leavened.”

In Scripture, the number three “…stands for that which is solid, real, substantial, complete, and entire” (Bullinger). It is the number of divine perfection. Thus, there is the notion of divine perfection in what Jesus is stating concerning this picture of the kingdom of the heavens.

Concerning the parable, as noted above, the meaning continues to be debated. Most commentators agree that the words are the only exception to the spiritual meaning of leaven. Rather than it being a negative thing, it is taken as a positive thing, as if the leaven itself is an instrument for good.

But this seems contrary. Leaven consistently signifies sin throughout the Old Testament, including the two times it is presented to the Lord. It is then used in this manner by Jesus in the gospels, such as Matthew 16:6. It is later used this way by Paul in 1 Corinthians and Galatians.

Despite this, commentators waffle on the meaning here because of the association that is made with the kingdom of the heavens. “How could the influence of sin be seen in the kingdom of the heavens?” But for the sake of consistency and evaluating it from that perspective, meaning taking it as a picture of sin, what is going on that could allow this?

What seems a suitable explanation is that the woman is a picture of the wisdom of God, something particularly highlighted in Proverbs 1. Jesus uses that idea of the feminine wisdom in Luke 7 –

“For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 But wisdom is justified by all her children.” Luke 7:33-35

Jesus came to save sinners. He specifically notes them in these words as those He associated with. The three measures indicate the entire course of the kingdom of the heavens, where everything is substantial, complete, entire, etc. There is the notion of divine perfection having been attained.

How is sin realized? Through law. Without law, there is no imputation of sin. Even if sin is worked through the entire body of Christ, something that is an undeniable fact, it has been dealt with. Therefore, the picture Christ is painting is that of a body of believers, all stained with sin, and yet acceptable to God, as is clearly represented in Leviticus 23:17.

To understand that typology, one should refer to the Superior Word sermon on that passage. The wisdom of God is that even among the sinful people of the world, where sin is fully worked into those who are a part of Christ’s offering to Him, Christ’s atonement, His covering, is sufficient to make them acceptable to God once again.

This is the substance of the gospel where Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). The explicit meaning is that we are sinners, have acknowledged that fact, and are asking for forgiveness through what Jesus has done. The others in the world are just as sinful, but they lack the suitable atonement to be acceptable to God. Therefore, they cannot be presented to Him as acceptable.

Only in Christ is sin dealt with. This is the wisdom of God –

“To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.” Ephesians 3:8-12

Life application: Consistency in typology is an important part of understanding what is going on in the pages of Scripture. It is best not to divert from what is typologically set without a supportable purpose that can be clearly defined and explained.

It is true that one thing can have more than one meaning, such as the significance of water, but the symbolism is given by God in His word, not conjured up by us and then inserted into it.

Be careful not to manipulate what is presented in Scripture. Your time in the word will be much more fruitful and aligned with God’s intent when typology is used consistently after care and thought have been taken to ensure it aligns with the rest of Scripture.

Lord God, help us to understand Your word. It is big and at times extremely complicated. May we not force things into it that don’t belong there. Instead, open our minds to draw out from it what is present by You and then to consistently evaluate it from that point on. To Your glory, we pray. Amen.