Daily Writing

Monday, 7 September 2026

Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Matthew 22:29

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).

“Answering, also, the ‘Jesus’, He said to them, ‘You roam, not having known the Scriptures nor the ‘power, the God’.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, the Sadducees asked Jesus which of the seven the woman would be united to in the resurrection. In response, Matthew records, “Answering, also, the ‘Jesus’, He said to them, ‘You roam.’”

It is a word already seen a few times in Matthew 18, planaó. It signifies to roam, as if going astray or deviating from the proper path. The word is where our word planet is derived from. This is because planets, unlike stars which appear fixed, roam among the sky. They will even seem to roam off course at times, going into retrograde.

These men’s thoughts, and thus their doctrine, had deviated from the sound path. The reason for this is next stated by Jesus, saying, “not having known the Scriptures.”

It is the same thing that plagues the world today. Jews, no matter how diligently they study Scripture, roam because they are looking at it from the wrong paradigm. They think the word is about them. It is true, Israel is included in the word in a significant way, but the word is not about them. It is about Jesus.

Christians fail to properly evaluate Scripture, inserting presuppositions, biases, agendas, etc., into their reading and teaching of the word. The prosperity gospel, for example, is not found in a proper handling of the word, and yet it permeates churches from the US to Africa to South Korea.

Jesus’ point concerning this is that the Scriptures never teach what they have proposed. Therefore, their “either/or” approach to the matter is invalid. They have assumed that marriage in this life extends beyond this current existence or that there is no such thing as a resurrection.

Because of a presupposition about the matter, they could not consider any other option. The Sadducees failed to know, meaning rightly understand, the Scriptures. But more, Jesus says, “nor the ‘power, the God’.”

Along with their improper handling of Scripture, they put limitations on what God can do. Man was created from the dust of the earth, as recorded in Genesis 2. That means that a particular lump of dust was formed into a man, after which life was breathed into it. It was at this time that man became a living being.

Man is set to die. Some people are burned in the fire, some (like Jezebel) are eaten by animals, while the worm consumes others. Some die in the field, and their bodies fertilize the field, from which comes plant life which is eaten for food.

The Sadducees may have thought, “It is impossible to regather that same lump which formed our good old friend Schlimey. Therefore, Schlimey is gone forever.” This is putting a limitation on God that does not exist. Nothing in Scripture says man is limited to a single lump of clay.

Even if the resurrection was dependent on a lump of clay, we are not the same lump of clay from day to day. We eat things from the ground, and our bodies are transformed by what we eat. Eventually, almost all the cells of a body are different than a few years earlier.

If God has formed the body to renew itself in this manner, He can obviously do more than we can even imagine concerning a resurrection from the dead.

Life application: Of this verse, Albert Barnes correctly states, “The way in which the enemies of the truth often attempt to make a doctrine of the Bible ridiculous is by adding to it, and then calling it absurd.”

Unfortunately, even people who support a particular doctrine may unwittingly or unwisely do this. A good example of this is the doctrine of the rapture. It is clearly taught in Scripture. This is not the same event as is being debated by the Sadducees at this point.

A literal resurrection is promised, for example, in Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 26:19. Those are not rapture verses. They are a promise to the saints of old that the words of the prophets will be fulfilled in a literal resurrection. Israel will lead the nations at that time. As for the rapture, books are written about it. The Left Behind series contains fiction books based on that event and what transpires afterward.

In them are countless things not stated in Scripture about the rapture. For example, it says there will be clothes left behind with no people in them. It also says that there will be babies being born around the world that will suddenly disappear, even during the process of giving birth, etc. Nothing is said about these things in the Bible.

But more, these things cannot be correct. Our physical bodies are corruptible. Paul explicitly says that this corruption cannot inherit incorruption. Paul says that the dead will be raised. Some of the dead have been that way for two thousand years. There is nothing left of their physical body. Thus, it cannot be speaking about that.

Paul also says that those who are alive at that time will be changed, using the word allassó, to make different, as in exchange. In Galatians 4, Paul speaks of changing his voice, meaning the tone of his words. He has one voice and exchanges it for another. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon says, “to cause one thing to cease and another to take its place.”

There is no reason to assume innumerable Christian bodies will suddenly disappear. It is contrary to Scripture concerning our corruptible bodies, and it is contrary to what happens to the dead who precede the living. But by inserting this idea into the narrative, confusion of thinking in both Christians and non-Christians has arisen.

People who have heard of this poor doctrine and who also dismiss the rapture may see dead bodies all over and think, “This is something other than what they said would happen to Christians.” The great delusion will be a lot easier to explain with dead bodies than missing bodies with piles of clothes. Whatever is going to happen, it will not include the taking of what is corruptible.

The point is that we need to know Scripture. We need to not insert presuppositions or biases into our doctrine, lest we become just like the Sadducees. In doing this, we will do well.

Lord God, help us to carefully evaluate Your word without coming to erroneous conclusions based on ideas that we presuppose must be the case. That can only harm our walk with You, and it will certainly harm those whom we then teach incorrectly. Help us in this, O God. Amen.

Sunday, 6 September 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, 5 September 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, 4 September 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It came to pass at that time that Judah departed from his brothers, and visited a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah. ² And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and went in to her. ³ So she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. ⁴ She conceived again and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. ⁵ And she conceived yet again and bore a son, and called his name Shelah. He was at Chezib when she bore him.
⁶ Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. ⁷ But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him. ⁸ And Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.’ ⁹ But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. ¹⁰ And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also.
¹¹ Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, ‘Remain a widow in your father’s house till my son Shelah is grown.’ For he said, ‘Lest he also die like his brothers.’ And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house.” Genesis 38:1-11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, 3 September 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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