Daily Writing

Wednesday, 22 July 2026

He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. Matthew 21:29

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).

“The ‘also answering’, he said, ‘Not, I will.’ Afterward, also, having regretted, he went.” (CG)

The previous verse noted that Jesus asked the leaders about a man with two sons. The man went to the first and asked him to go work in the vineyard. The son’s response is next recorded by Matthew, saying, “The ‘also answering’, he said, ‘Not, I will.’”

Without hesitation, the son refuses to go. His attitude is reflected in the abrupt, disrespectful response. There wasn’t any excuse-making or trying to work around the refusal with platitudes. He just refused outright.

Without jumping ahead, it is apparent that Jesus is making a point about a group of people who are disrespectful and unwilling to do what their “Father” has asked them to do. As seen in the previous verse, the vineyard represents the economy (a cultural expression) where God is dealing with man in order to bring about a result. Despite knowing this, who this son represents is still up in the air. Jesus will define it in the verses ahead, though. As for his negative attitude, Jesus next says, “Afterward, also, having regretted, he went.”

A new word is seen here, metamelomai. It is derived from meta, after, and meló, to be of interest to. Specifically, it means “to care afterwards.” Thus, it is translated as remorse or regret. This is not the same as metanoeó, to reconsider (or, as many translations say, repent). That signifies a change of mind. This does not necessarily signify a change of mind, but a state of regret.

A person can get caught stealing and regret his actions, but there may be no reconsideration about the path he is on. Regret can lead to reconsideration, but it does not necessarily do so. A person who refuses to wear shoes may regret stepping in an ant pile, but it doesn’t mean he will reconsider having bare feet.

This is especially so because he knows that ants will bite a person who wears shoes, often more violently than the barefooted person. because they have time to get into socks before they begin tearing into the poor hapless soul.

Life application: Words have importance in Scripture. Different words with similar meaning are used at times, and it must be considered why this is so. Vincent’s Word Studies gives a lengthy analysis of the word metamelomai –

“This is a different word from that in Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; μετανοεῖτε [metanoeite], Repent ye. Though it is fairly claimed that the word here implies all that is implied in the other word, the New Testament writers evidently recognize a distinction, since the noun which corresponds to the verb in this passage (μεταμέλεια [metameleia]) is not used at all in the New Testament, and the verb itself only five times; and, in every case except the two in this passage (see Matthew 21:32), with a meaning quite foreign to repentance in the ordinary gospel sense. Thus it is used of Judas, when he brought back the thirty pieces (Matthew 27:3); of Paul’s not regretting his letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 7:8); and of God (Hebrews 7:21). On the other hand, μετανοέω [metanoeo], repent, used by John and Jesus in their summons to repentance (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17), occurs thirty-four times, and the noun μετάνοια [metanoia], repentance (Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:11), twenty-four times, and in every case with reference to that change of heart and life wrought by the Spirit of God, to which remission of sins and salvation are promised. It is not impossible, therefore, that the word in this passage may have been intended to carry a different shade of meaning, now lost to us. Μεταμέλομαι [metamelomai], as its etymology indicates (μετά [meta], after, and μέλω [meló], to be an object of care), implies an after-care, as contrasted with the change of mind denoted by μετάνοια [metanoia]. Not sorrow for moral obliquity and sin against God, but annoyance at the consequences of an act or course of acts, and chagrin at not having known better. ‘It may be simply what our fathers were wont to call hadiwist (had-I-wist, or known better, I should have acted otherwise)’ (Trench). Μεταμέλεια [metameleia] refers chiefly to single acts; μετάνοια [metanoia] denotes the repentance which affects the whole life. Hence the latter is often found in the imperative: Repent ye (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19); the former never. Paul’s recognition of the distinction (2 Corinthians 7:10) is noteworthy. ‘Godly sorrow worketh repentance (μετάνοιαν [metanoian]) unto salvation,’ a salvation or repentance ‘which bringeth no regret on thinking of it afterwards’ (ἀμεταμέλητον [ametameleton]). There is no occasion for one ever to think better of either his repentance or the salvation in which it issued.”

It is good to evaluate such seemingly trivial changes in wording to grasp the nuances of what God is telling us. This is especially so when translations quite often fail to indicate that different words are being used. For example, the KJV says in this verse, “He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.”

How can one know that a different word is used if the translators fail to make a distinction between the two? From the analysis of Vincent’s Word Studies, it is obvious that repent incorrectly identifies what is being conveyed. Therefore, it is good that the NKJV cleaned up the translation, making it more in line with the intent of the Greek.

Pay attention to these subtleties. If you are unsure about the meaning, go to a reliable Greek lexicon, which can be found online, and do a personal study. You will surely be rewarded with valuable insights when you do.

Lord God, thank You for how intricately You have woven Your word together to give us a precise and detailed record of Your workings in human history to bring us back to Yourself. What a treat and a joy it is to study Your precious word. Amen.

Tuesday, 21 July 2026

“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ Matthew 21:28

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).

“What, also you, it seems? A man, he had ‘sons, two’, and having approached the first, he said, ‘Son, you go this day. You work in the ‘vineyard, mine’.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus responded to the leaders of Israel, telling them that He would not disclose to them the Source of His authority. Matthew next records Jesus’ words, saying, “What, also, you it seems?”

This is a way of eliciting those hearing to stop and consider what will next be said. It can be expected that what will be said will directly challenge the hearer. It may even involve the hearer in a direct or indirect way. As for what He will ask, He begins with, “A man, he had ‘sons, two’.”

This is the beginning of a short parable directed to the leaders of Israel. In the Bible, the number two is the number of division or difference. Generally, when two things are noted, there is a contrast and yet a confirmation of a whole.

For example, there are two testaments in Scripture, the Old and the New. They contrast, dealing with law vs. grace, but they confirm the whole counsel of God. Likewise, there is day, and there is night. They contrast, and yet they confirm the totality of a day. In this case, a man has two sons, “and having approached the first, he said, ‘Son, you go this day. You work in the ‘vineyard, mine’.’”

Jesus again brings in the thought of the vineyard, which was also presented in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16. In Scripture, the vineyard represents the economy (a cultural expression) where God is dealing with man in order to bring about a result. Understanding this, the rest of this short parable will certainly be seen to be in line with that thought.

Life application: The Bible deals in metaphor, typology, chiasms, parallelisms, and a seemingly unlimited number of other literary devices. These help to illuminate what is going on within its pages. God has chosen to work in this way because an incredible amount of overlapping information can be packed into the word by using these various tools.

Some of that information is intended to come out at certain times in history, before which it was secreted away by Him. This allows us to see that He was in control of the process of redemption all along. With the advent of the printing press, computers, and now AI, information is being unpacked from Scripture that never could have been seen before.

Understanding this, it must be remembered that not everything someone thinks he has found in Scripture is actually valid. People often make faulty conclusions about what God is saying. For example, someone may misunderstand a particular metaphor. In thinking it represents one thing, incorrect conclusions will result.

Because of this, we need to not just accept someone’s conclusions about a matter at face value, even if it at first seems reasonable. Everything must align with what God intends to show us as we consider what is presented.

Another matter to consider is that if something is not recorded in Scripture, it is to be considered highly suspect. Supposed Jewish traditions, for example, are often shoved into Scripture to make an unfounded point about what God is doing.

An example of that is the Galilean Wedding Ceremony. If you’re unaware of that myth, just search the internet, and innumerable sites will come up claiming that it explains what Jesus is doing and the circumstances surrounding His return for His bride.

The problem with that is that it is a made-up tradition, and it has nothing to do with what the Bible presents. But by shoving that teaching into the Bible, an entire generation of Christians has been misled by a false teaching.

Recent teachings on the Shemita, the Red Heifer, and the Year of Jubilee are faulty. They make unfounded claims about those issues, books are written about them, and people are deluded into bad theology.

This is true with the timing of Jesus’ birth, where some claim He was born in the springtime. That is based on an untruth about it being too cold in the fields for flocks in the wintertime, as if flocks are shipped to Florida to stay warm during those months.

False teachings about the handkerchief that covered Jesus’ face abound. Made-up teachings about Jewish traditions are shoved into the passage to come to erroneous conclusions. Just because you read something on the internet or see it on a YouTube video, don’t accept the teaching until you have checked it out more thoroughly.

The Bible and what it is telling us are far too important to be mishandled or misinterpreted. Be careful what you assimilate into your doctrine. There is a world full of incorrect analyses out there. So be wise and discerning as you study the word.

Lord God, help us to be responsible with our time, knowing that the more of it we spend in Your word, the less we will waste on teachings that are not in accord with it. We will be able to weed out what is suspect and not be filled with a lot of bad information. Help us in this regard, O God. Amen.

Monday, 20 July 2026

So they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.”
And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things. Matthew 21:27

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).

“And answering, the ‘Jesus’, they said, ‘Not we have known.’ He said to them, also He, ‘Nor I, I tell you in where-such authority these I do.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, the leaders of Israel, pondering among themselves, realized that if they said John’s authority was from men, the multitude might come after them. With them being stuck in a hard place concerning Jesus’ question, Matthew next records, “And answering, the ‘Jesus’, they said, ‘Not we have known.’”

The leaders of the nation were wholly incapable of making a simple proclamation concerning John as proposed by Jesus in His question to them. The answer was something that was as evident as the nose on a person’s face if John’s role was evaluated from their own Scriptures. But because they lacked any intestinal fortitude at all in relation to standing on the authority of Scripture, while at the same time standing at odds with Jesus’ ministry, they were unwilling to answer His question.

Because of that, Matthew next records Jesus’ emphatic response to these leaders, “He said to them, also He, ‘Nor I, I tell you in where-such authority these I do.’”

The leaders had a right to question Jesus. However, they did not have a right to a response from Jesus if they could not answer His question to them about John. Because John testified that Jesus was the Messiah, and because they could not validate John’s source of authority through open confession, they no longer had a right to question His authority further.

Life application: When a person is summoned to appear before Congress, he is required to show up. The Congress has this authority. Likewise, the leaders of Israel had the authority to question Jesus. However, if those in Congress asked a question about a matter they themselves could not properly answer, it would make no sense for the person being interrogated to have to answer that same question.

Jesus worked within the framework of Israel’s laws and culture, never subverting them but using them in a manner that was acceptable to anyone in the society. We possess the same rights in the nations where we live. It is true that some nations deprive their citizens of various rights. Some nations also allow rights that exist to be ignored.

There is often nothing that can be done in such circumstances. We just have to live with the unrighteous conduct that is targeted against us. This is what Jesus had to suffer. During His trial before the leaders of Israel, the rights He possessed as a citizen of Israel were denied Him. An internet search immediately pulled up the following:

Procedural and Timing Violations
Nighttime Proceedings: Capital trials were strictly forbidden from being conducted at night. Jesus underwent preliminary trials before Annas and Caiaphas, and a final condemnation before the Sanhedrin, all occurring before dawn.

Premature Scheduling: Courts were not permitted to convene before the morning sacrifice was offered. All three religious trials were concluded before this ritual took place.

Holiday Timing: No legal proceedings for capital cases were allowed on the eve of the Sabbath or during holy festivals, such as Passover. Jesus’s trials occurred during this prohibited period.

Lack of Delay: Jewish law required a night to pass between a death sentence and its execution to allow for reconsideration; Jesus was condemned and executed within hours.

Judicial and Evidentiary Infractions
Bribery: The acceptance of Judas Iscariot’s thirty pieces of silver constituted a bribe, which invalidates any subsequent legal proceedings under Mosaic Law.

Self-Incrimination: The accused was not permitted to ask self-incriminating questions. The High Priest directly asked Jesus if He was the Messiah, leading to His own statement being used as the primary evidence for conviction.

Lack of Defense: The accused was denied the right to counsel or representation. Furthermore, the court refused to allow Jesus to call witnesses in His defense.

Invalid Indictment: The Sanhedrin originated the charges itself rather than investigating accusations brought by independent witnesses.  Proper procedure required two agreeing witnesses to formulate an indictment publicly.

Sole Judge: The High Priest examined Jesus privately before the full court assembled, violating the rule that capital cases require a full panel and public examination.

Acclamation Verdict: In capital cases, judges were required to vote individually. Jesus was condemned by acclamation (unanimous shout) rather than a formal, recorded vote.

Jurisdictional Errors
Lack of Authority: The Sanhedrin lacked the jurisdiction to execute capital punishment under Roman rule; only the Roman governor had the authority to impose death sentences.

Charge Substitution: When brought before Roman authorities, the religious charge of blasphemy was replaced with political charges (treason, subverting the nation, and forbidding taxes) to secure a Roman conviction. (Brave Browser Generated Response)

Despite all of this, Jesus submitted to the ruling authorities, knowing that the tortures ahead were necessary to restore us to our heavenly Father. Today, take time to consider the love of God that would prompt Him to do what He did for us. When we face our own times of injustice, if we have the ability to appeal, we should use it.

However, it may be that we will have to endure unfair verdicts and unjust treatment as Christians. If we do, let us consider it an honor for the sake of His glorious name –

“So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.” Acts 5:41

Lord God, may we honor the glorious name of Jesus Christ our Lord in all we say and do. If we find we must bear injustice because of our faith in Him, strengthen us through the trial and give us wisdom to proceed in the manner that will most glorify You. Amen.

Sunday, 19 July 2026

But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.” Matthew 21:26

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).

“If, also, we should say, ‘From men,’ we fear the crowd, all, for, as a prophet, they have the ‘John’.” (CG)

In the previous verse, the leaders of Israel responded to Jesus’ question, saying that they didn’t want to admit John’s authority came from heaven because they knew Jesus would then ask why they didn’t believe him. They next say, “If, also, we should say, ‘From men.’”

Their next dilemma supposes that John’s authority is not at all from God, but that someone, including John himself, made up his calling out of his head. There is always that possibility. Israel’s recorded history is lined with false prophets. However, there is a problem with making such a claim. They say, “we fear the crowd, all, for, as a prophet, they have the ‘John’.”

The masses of the people accepted that John was a prophet. To openly and publicly deny his ministry was of God would cause a riot, and their very lives could be in jeopardy. This is stated explicitly in Luke 20:6, “But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

Because of their fecklessness, they were unable to give Jesus a suitable answer to His question. But this was the condition upon which Jesus promised to respond to their request.

Life application: This same line of response can be used against those who try to use the Bible as a tool to shut Christians up or to make invalid arguments concerning a matter. For example, New York currently has a mayor who is opposed to anything godly or biblical. However, we can be certain that at some point, he will cite a verse from the Bible out of its intended context. Maybe he will say, “The Bible says to love one’s neighbor” to justify supporting homosexuality.

If he does this, a valid response to him would be, “Ok, we will argue from your premise, which is citing the Bible as an authoritative reason to justify homosexuality. Because you have done so, I need to ask, ‘Do you hold Scripture as authoritative?’”

He is now stuck in a conundrum. If he says no (which he would have to do being a Muslim), then the next obvious response to him would be, “Then why are you citing Scripture?” If he says yes, then you have the right to tell him that his verse was taken out of its intended context, and a thorough evaluation of the acceptability of homosexuality can be presented.

Either way, he has opened himself up to showing he has no right to cite Scripture in the manner he did. Remember this tactic. Jesus used it to silence those who challenged Him. We, too, have the right, the responsibility, and the duty to do likewise.

Lord God, help us to be quick enough in our thinking to accurately defend Your word from those who would misquote it, abuse its precepts, and attempt to silence Your people over issues that have no basis in biblical reality. May we responsibly handle Your word at all times. Amen.

Saturday, 18 July 2026

The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?”
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ Matthew 21:25

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).

“The ‘immersion, John’, whence it was? From heaven or from men?” These, also, they deliberated with themselves, saying, ‘If we should say, “From heaven’, He will say to us, ‘Through why, therefore, not you believed him?’” (CG)

In the previous verse, it said that Jesus, while speaking to the chief priests and elders, said that He would answer their question if they would first answer His question. Continuing, He now asks that question, beginning with, “The ‘immersion, John’.”

His question deals with John the Baptist’s work, meaning his immersing people as described earlier in Matthew. As John’s main mission was to baptize people based on acknowledging wrongdoing and reconsidering their ways, the “immersion, John” encompasses his entire ministry, all of which was as a precursor, preparing the people for the coming of the Messiah. His specific question concerning that is, “whence it was?”

In other words, these leaders had just come to Jesus asking by what authority He was doing what He did. Specifically, who gave Him the authority? Jesus, taking the initiative, asks the same basic question concerning John’s call to baptize. Where did that authority come from? He continues, asking, “From heaven or from men?”

It is a logical question. These leaders want to know who gave Jesus His authority. But John openly and explicitly testified concerning Jesus, as recorded in John 1. Therefore, before they can rightly understand Jesus’ authority, they would first need to understand and confess John’s source of authority. Was it sent by God, or was it something that he or another man conjured up? Having asked that, it next says of the leaders, “These, also, they deliberated with themselves.”

One can see they are in a pickle. If they knew the answer, they would just say it directly, unless there was a reason why they didn’t want to admit it publicly. Therefore, either they don’t know the answer, which means they have no right to know where Jesus’ authority came from, or (because John testified concerning Jesus) they knew and were unwilling to state what they believed to be true.

If this were the case, they would again have no right to an answer from Jesus. In their deliberations, they were “saying, ‘If we should say, “From heaven”, He will say to us, “Through why, therefore, not you believed him?”’”

This reveals the first part of the reason for the pickle they are in. If John’s commission was from God, then they would have to admit that Jesus was the Messiah. John openly proclaimed Him as the One, testifying that He was the promised Messiah –

“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰ This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ ³¹ I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.’
³² And John bore witness, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. ³³ I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” ³⁴ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.’” John 1:29-34

Life application: As noted before, Jesus is not being disrespectful to these leaders. He is making an obvious case that in asking Him for the source of His authority, they would only entrap themselves by His answer when they gave it. He is giving them a chance to back up from whatever their plans were and to think the matter through logically.

Would it change their hearts or minds toward Jesus? Probably not. But it would allow Him to continue His ministry until the time appointed by the Father. If they thought about John’s source of authority and decided he was sent by God, maybe some of them would be determined to accept John’s words and believe in Jesus.

If they rejected John’s ministry, thus rejecting the One who sent him, then they would never accept Jesus. Instead, they would look for another way to have Him removed. That is what will come about, but before it does, there are a few days of His ministry left. A great deal of important information will be recorded concerning what He will tell the people of Israel.

He will detail what will come upon them because of their rejection of Him. Someday, the words He will speak in these final days will be evaluated by them, and they will see that He is, in fact, the Messiah they rejected so long ago. The leader’s failure to provide a response to Jesus at this time has allowed Jesus’ words to continue on as necessary for the people’s future eyes to be opened.

Lord God, Israel, and indeed the whole world, have difficult times ahead. As wickedness increases, our time is drawing short. Someday, You will call Your church home, and the world will have to decide where they stand in relation to Jesus. We pray that before that day comes, many eyes will be opened to the truth of His glory. Amen.