Daily Writing

Monday, 14 September 2026

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Matthew 22:36

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).

“Teacher, which-such commandment – greatest in the law?” (CG)

In the previous verse, a jurisprudent was introduced ready to ask a question of Jesus. He now asks what is on his mind, beginning with, “Teacher, which-such commandment.”

The question is formed around an individualizing interrogative. It was introduced in Matthew 19:18. It is used in asking something like what sort of. It can be based on the words where, which, what, etc. In this case, the question is about the commandments.

There are different types of commandments in the law. His choice of wording appears to mean he wants to know which sort of them is the most important. Maybe he is curious if it is the Levitical type. But they can be divided into moral, ceremonial, civil, etc.

There are positive commandments and negative commandments. There are commandments directed to the nation as a whole and then those directed to individuals. These and other such types of commandments are probably what this jurisprudent is asking about. Of them, he asks which-such are “greatest in the law?”

The question itself is basic, but the answer to it will have to be carefully considered. This does not, however, appear to be a trap. There is no hint of an argument after Jesus gives His response. Further, the person who interacts with Jesus, as noted in Mark 12, not only agrees with His answer, but He will also give more words to support Jesus’ response.

Vincent’s Word Studies nicely evaluates the intent of this jurisprudent’s question –

“The A. V. and Rev. alike miss the point of this question, which is: which kind of command is great in the law? That is, what kind of a commandment must it be to constitute it a great one? Not, which commandment is greatest as compared with the others? The scribes declared that there were 248 affirmative precepts, as many as the members of the human body; and 365 negative precepts, as many as the days in the year; the total being 613, the number of letters in the Decalogue. Of these they called some light and some heavy. Some thought that the law about the fringes on the garments was the greatest; some that the omission of washings was as bad as homicide; some that the third commandment was the greatest. It was in view of this kind of distinction that the scribe asked the question; not as desiring a declaration as to which commandment was greatest, but as wanting to know the principle upon which a commandment was to be regarded as a great commandment.”

Life application: In April 1847, the false prophetess Ellen G. White claimed to have had a vision where she supposedly saw the Ten Commandments inside the Ark of the Covenant. She claimed that the first four commandments shone more brightly than the other six but that there was a halo of glory around the fourth commandment.

As such, the Seventh-day Adventists view the fourth commandment as a vital seal of God’s authority and a memorial of creation. They see it as a test of loyalty to God in the end times, linking the Creator’s authority directly to the obligation to rest and worship on the seventh day.

There are so many things wrong about the teachings of the Seventh-Day Adventists that going point by point over her false visions and their false teachings would take books of information. It is an exercise in futility.

Knowing what is true is really all that is necessary to form proper doctrine in this matter. Paul writes about observing days in Romans 14, Colossians 2, and elsewhere. It is clear from the book of Acts that Sunday, not Saturday, was the day when most gathered.

Hebrews 4 explains the Sabbath and what it meant for the Jewish people. A summary thought concerning the Sabbath is found in Hebrews 4:3, saying, “For we who have believed do enter that rest.”

The Sabbath was given as a type or shadow of the good things to come in Christ. Christ came. He fulfilled those types and shadows. He also fulfilled the Law of Moses. Therefore, the Sabbath is fulfilled in both type and in law.

If observing the Sabbath is a test of loyalty and an obligation, then salvation is not by grace through faith. Sabbath observance negates the principal point of the gospel. As noted, knowing what is right is all that is necessary to know what is wrong.

We don’t need to go through pages of false writings from a false prophetess to know that the overall doctrine of the SDA church is wrong. We just need to know what the Bible says and adhere to its precepts accordingly. Keep reading the Bible, but do so from the overall understanding that salvation is by grace through faith.

If something you have been taught deviates from that basic premise, you can chuck it in the garbage.

Lord God, may we not get duped into nutty doctrines that are formed in the delusional minds of people for whatever perverse agenda they may have in mind. Help us to reasonably and responsibly consider Your word at all times. To Your glory, we pray. Amen.

Sunday, 13 September 2026

Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, Matthew 22:35

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).

“And he queried, one from them – ‘jurisprudent, testing Him’, and saying…” (CG)

In the previous verse, Matthew noted that when the Pharisees had seen how Jesus muzzled the Sadducees, they gathered together. From that group, it next says, “And he queried, one from them.”

The meaning is that he is from the just-mentioned Pharisee gathering. The reason for putting him forward isn’t specified, but it could be as simple as him first raising the question that will be put forth to Jesus. From there, they may have responded that, based on his knowledge of the law, he should be the one to ask. That is seen in the next words, where Matthew notes. He came as a “‘jurisprudent, testing Him’, and saying.”

The adjective nomikos, jurisprudent, is first seen here. It is derived from nomos, law. It signifies “pertaining to the law.” This is not a lawyer as we think of one today. It refers to knowledge of the law and the ability to expound on what it says. Other translators say, “doctor of the law,” “skilled in the law,” “expert in the law,” “expounder of the law,” etc. These are attempts to describe the situation.

The Godbey New Testament says theologian. That narrows the focus too much. The word jurisprudent is an exact fit. It signifies a jurist, legal expert, or someone knowledgeable in the theory and philosophy of law. This is the only use in Matthew. Luke will use it six times, and Paul will use the word twice in Titus.

In Mark, this person will be called a scribe. Thus, we can deduce that some scribes were also considered jurisprudents. This guy may have said, “I am curious about a particular matter. Maybe this Jesus has a suitable answer. After seeing his understanding of the matter with the Sadducees, it’s possible.” From there, they may have said, “Well, you’re the jurisprudent! You go ask!”

The reason for this speculation is that in Mark, his question to Jesus, along with their interaction, seems non-confrontational. This person seems to have really wanted a suitable answer to his question and figured Jesus’ insights may prove invaluable.

Life application: If this person was a known jurisprudent and yet he didn’t have the answer to the question he would raise to Jesus, it means that he was in the dark about something very important. There was a knowledge gap that required attention.

Matthew only provides a bit of the interaction between them, but Mark shows that the answer Jesus provided allowed this man to think further on the subject he was deficient in. He obviously didn’t know Jesus is God at this point, but this gives us a basis for what we can do when we are looking for an answer to a question we are wondering about. If we really want to know something in the Bible and cannot think the matter through, where should we go? To God!

It doesn’t take any time or effort at all to say, “O God, I am not understanding this. Please help me know what this means.” God truly wants His word understood. He certainly doesn’t want a void in the understanding of His children concerning it.

As such, ask in faith that He is listening. If the question you have concerning His word has been answered, likely, you will soon hear a sermon or read a commentary that exactly answers your question. It may be that you will turn to another part of the word as you are reading it, and it will come to you what was being conveyed in the matter you had previously questioned.

It also may be that what you want to know is not yet ready to be revealed. God will illuminate an understanding of His word according to His wisdom. If you have searched, meditated, pondered, listened to sermons, and asked all the specialists you can and no suitable answer has been forthcoming, it may be that this is not ready to be revealed. In such a case, we must allow God to be God and not run ahead with wild speculation.

No matter what, if you really want to know what the word is saying, repeatedly asking God to reveal to you the truth of the matter is an important part of what you should be doing.

Lord God, open the eyes of our understanding concerning Your word. Lead us to those who can rightly instruct us. Keep us from deceivers who would manipulate our thinking. May our pursuit of Your word be rewarded. It is a treasure for us to consider. Thank You for this precious and wonderful word. Amen.

Saturday, 12 September 2026

But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Matthew 22:34

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).

“The ‘also Pharisees’, having heard that He muzzled the Sadducees, they gathered upon the same.” (CG)

In the previous verse, it was noted that when the multitudes heard Jesus’ response to the Sadducees, they were astonished at His teaching. It next says, “The ‘also Pharisees’, having heard.”

It is not said how they heard about Jesus’ response to the Sadducees. One of them may have been standing right there, interested in the conversation, or they may have heard about it because of the astonishing logic Jesus used, which caused the people to start talking about it. That could even be the reason the reaction to the crowds was just mentioned. However the word got to them, it was concerning the idea “that He muzzled the Sadducees.”

A new word is seen here, phimoó, to muzzle. It is derived from phimos, a muzzle. Ellicott says, “The primary meaning of the Greek verb is to stop a man’s power of speaking with a gag, and even in its wider use it retains the sense of putting men to a coerced and unwilling silence.”

In Mark 4:39, it is used by Jesus when He muzzled the winds that were swamping Him and the disciples while on the Sea of Galilee. It is used concerning the muzzling of a demon in Luke 4:35.

In this account in Matthew, the word is almost comically employed by referring to the Sadducees’ embarrassing reaction to Jesus’ logic. They simply had nothing left to say and departed as if muzzled like oxen. Of these Pharisees, it says, “they gathered upon the same.”

It is debated exactly what this means. Did they gather upon the same spot, meaning locally? Did they gather upon the same concept of trapping Jesus in His words? Did they gather upon Jesus, meaning the same person who had just shut down the Sadducees? The last seems likely.

Jesus had muzzled the Sadducees. Now the Pharisees have decided to reengage Him, having already been shut down by Him in verse 22. If so, the wording is as if the Pharisees have come together, surrounding Jesus, ready to pounce on Him.

Life application: Many people seem to revel in making others look foolish. Maybe it gives them a sense of superiority when they see others put to shame in whatever matter is in question. This seems to be the case with these attacks on Jesus. His words were well received by the people, and the leaders of Israel couldn’t stomach the competition.

Therefore, they intended to discredit Him to reelevate themselves to the position they were being dethroned from. In other words, instead of receiving Jesus’ words and complementing them for being insightful and worthy of consideration, they redirected their attention to tearing Him down.

It was too much for them to share their leadership position with any supposed competition. It was evident from Jesus’ words that what He said was well thought out and correct in its presentation. As such, their attempts to trap Him came from evil hearts.

This is not the same as calling out bad doctrine. There is nothing wrong with identifying what is false, speaking against it, thus bringing soundness in doctrine to the ears of others who will certainly be harmed by the incorrect teachings. Paul rightfully did this to Peter in Galatians 2.

Later, having learned his lesson from Paul, Peter wrote, “For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15). There, Peter uses the same word phimoó, to muzzle, found in Matthew 22:24.

There is a time when it is right and appropriate to speak against false teachings, calling out those who teach them. Doctrine matters. Jesus never allowed bad doctrine to continue unchecked, and He expects us to follow in that same manner. Real harm comes to people when it remains uncontested.

This does not mean the person who challenges the bad doctrine is reveling in the correction. As noted, the leaders of Israel could have accepted Jesus’ words, complementing them. Instead, they jealously guarded their own incorrect doctrines. Jesus stood to confront them. Real lives are at stake when false doctrines are allowed to continue. So be ready to defend the truth when falsities arise.

Lord God, help us to carefully weigh our words. May we be ready to challenge what is wrong, while exalting what is right. If someone has valid insights that we lack, may we be willing to complement them, demonstrating appreciation for their contemplations and efforts. Help us in such matters so that we will be good examples to others of how to conduct our affairs in Your presence. Amen.

Friday, 11 September 2026

And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching. Matthew 22:33

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).

“And having heard, the crowds, they were outstruck upon the ‘teaching, His’.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus explained to the Sadducees that God is the God of the living, not the dead. Matthew next records, “And having heard, the crowds.”

Rather than focus on the reaction of the Sadducees, Matthew notes the reaction of the crowds. The Sadducees would have little to say about Jesus’ words until they had time to process them. It is certain that they eventually rationalized away what He said because they remained in their beliefs, as indicated in Acts 23:8, where it notes that they say there is no resurrection. As for the crowds in general, “they were outstruck upon the ‘teaching, His’.”

The crowds who were willing to listen to religious teachers had their ears filled with all the legalist additions to the law cast on them by their religious leaders. The things they heard would be brought up in debates where one side would score a point in the eyes of those who agreed with them. Then, the other side would state its case, scoring its own point in the eyes of their adherents.

This is no different than what happens in such conversations today. Minds are not normally changed. Rather, there will be a doubling down by each side on what they think is correct. In evaluating a question like that proposed to Jesus by the Sadducees, such debates would end without any changes of mind because the sides are normally arguing apples and oranges.

In the case of the Pharisees and Sadducees, one side held to the books of Moses while the other side held to Moses and also the prophets and historical writings. Without debating from the same reference point, nothing could be resolved. Jesus, knowing what the Sadducees believed, went to a particular passage that appeared to have nothing to do with what was being discussed and drew a masterful conclusion from it.

But more, it was from a source that everybody would have agreed was suitable for such a debate, being directly from Moses. Thus, the debate was on an apples-and-apples level. This is more certain when considering the additional words found in Luke 20 –

“Then some of the scribes answered and said, ‘Teacher, You have spoken well.’ ⁴⁰ But after that they dared not question Him anymore.” Luke 20:39, 40

These scribes probably held to a belief in the resurrection. Having never considered the logic of what Jesus presented from Exodus 3, they felt vindicated in their stand from a source that could not be ignored.

Life application: One of a jillion areas of debate within Christianity concerns exactly what is required for salvation. It’s not a point of doctrine that should have any debate at all. Paul explains the gospel and what it means when it is believed in 1 Corinthians 15 –

“Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, ² by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
³ For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”

That is it. The gospel is defined in verses 3 & 4. It is what is received (through belief), and it is that by which a person is saved. Nothing else is necessary to be saved. And yet, there is an endless line of arguments set forth as to why certain things must accompany the good news. Why is this?

The reason can be summed up in a single word: context. Anything that is argued over concerning salvation that goes beyond the gospel is, by default, out of the context of how to be saved. Paul has stated the gospel. He has stated what the effect of believing the gospel is (meaning being saved). And yet, it is not enough for most teachers.

But there must be a reason why other verses, taken out of the salvation context, are used in such debates. What would that reason be? The answer is a lack of trust in grace. Humanity in general, and Christians in particular (when in relation to the gospel), feel that we must do something to merit our salvation.

However, the Bible says otherwise. God has done everything necessary to bring us to a state of salvation. That is what grace is. It is unmerited favor. If we have to do or stop doing something to be saved, it was never of grace through faith.

We cannot let go of ourselves. Our selfish human nature finds the thought repugnant. And so, even if we are saved, we spend the rest of our lives wondering if we may have lost our salvation over some issue or another. If we don’t wonder such things, it means we are so convinced of our own goodness that God would never think of unsaving us.

Either way, it is a trap that we allow into our lives because we cannot trust God’s grace. Don’t be like that. You never merited salvation, and you have no merit in your continued salvation. But God has accepted you because of your faith in Jesus. When you let go of yourself and trust solely in the merits of Christ, you have come to the pinnacle of a relationship with God. Don’t mar that.

Lord God, thank You that we can rest comfortably in Your salvation, knowing that we didn’t earn it and that we still don’t merit it. Rather, You have graciously accepted our faith, weak as it may be, that what Jesus did is sufficient for our reconciliation with You. Thank You for Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Thursday, 10 September 2026

‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Matthew 22:32

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).

“‘I, I am the ‘God, Abraham’, and the ‘God, Isaac’, and the ‘God, Jacob’.’ Not, He is, the God – ‘God, dead’, but living.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus continued His words to the Sadducees, bringing up the subject of the resurrection and preparing to quote Scripture to support His words. He now cites words from Exodus 3:6 and 3:15, which say –

“And He said, ‘I myself ‘God, your father’, ‘God, Abraham’, ‘God, Isaac’, and ‘God, Jacob’.’ And he caused to hide, Moses, his faces. For he feared from ‘causing to scan’ unto the God.” Exodus 3:6 (CG)

“And He said, yet, God unto Moses, ‘Thus you will say unto ‘sons, Israel’, “Yehovah, ‘God, your fathers’, ‘God, Abraham’, ‘God, Isaac’, and ‘God, Jacob’, He sent me unto you. ‘This, My name to vanishment, and this my memorial to generation, generation.’”’” Exodus 3:15 (CG)

Jesus cites the portion of these verses that He deems relevant to His line of reasoning, beginning with, “I, I am the ‘God, Abraham’, and the ‘God, Isaac’, and the ‘God, Jacob’.”

As can be seen, in the Greek, there is an article before God when connected to the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the Hebrew, that same closeness is summed up in Exodus 3:6 by calling Him “the God” at the end of the verse.

In Hebrew, the use of the article before “God” is expressive. It signifies those who are in a right relationship with Him or to contrast those who are not. There is an intimate union even at the time of Moses that existed between “the God” and Moses’ ancestors.

The emphatic “I, I” in the Greek is reflected in the Hebrew word anokhi, translated as I myself. The Lord God emphatically declared to Moses that He is the God of these men. He doesn’t say He was their God but that He is, speaking of the three of them conjointly and by omitting any verb in the Hebrew. In the Greek, Jesus cites it with a present-tense verb in the active voice. With this stated, Jesus continues, saying, “Not, He is, the God – ‘God, dead’, but living.”

Jesus’ point is that because of this intimate union, reflected in the proclamation made by God, they must still be alive to God. As Cambridge says, “God is a God of the living only, but He is the God of Abraham. Therefore, Abraham is living.”

The matter of the resurrection is not proven by this formula. However, it is to be inferred from it. If these men are alive to God, but are physically dead, there must be a place where they are alive to God. That place in the Old Testament is called Sheol. In the New Testament, it is called Hades.

If these men are there, that disproves the Sadducees’ argument that at the time of physical death, there is nothing further. As there is a state of existence after death, it implies that they are awaiting a resurrection.

Life application: It would be a sad excuse for a life if the Sadducees’ idea of living were true and yet they spent their time worrying about what God thought. If God created man with no intention of restoring him to Himself, it would be equivalent to the atheists’ belief that there is no God as far as judgment is concerned.

If there is nothing awaiting man after this life, what would be the point of being moral, saving for the future, or even considering God in one’s daily life? There would be none. And this is just the attitude that communists and atheists have. They say that religion is a trap to keep the masses under control and to subjugate them.

But this is just what atheism leading to communism does. Because they claim there is no God, there is no need to treat humanity with care. Subjugating the masses without any thought of accountability for their actions is their main idea in life.

It is an ideology that has led to hundreds of millions of human lives being exterminated. Religious wars have indeed taken place over the millennia, something communists cite to demonstrate how bad religion is for humanity, but the losses experienced in such wars are negligible in comparison to the losses experienced at the hands of communist ideology.

Further, if there is a true religious expression from God, it by default means that the other religious expressions are false. Therefore, it should be obvious that there will be strife between religions. Wars are an attempt to elevate ideologies to a place of supremacy.

Islam’s very existence is established on submission, forced or not, upon others. In this regard, it has a similar goal to atheism. Thus, a bond has developed in the US between atheist ideology and Islam. If their goal of eradicating Christianity is realized, the next step in their evolutionary model will be to turn on one another, exterminating those who refuse to submit to whichever ideology prevails.

True adherents to Christianity do not need to follow this path. If the truth of God is found in what they believe, there is no need to force it on others. The gospel itself frees humanity from such things. We do not need to elevate the true God through force and subjugation. If He is God, His outcome is assured. Our job is to share the gospel with those who so desperately need to hear it.

Lord God, help us to be shining examples of faithful service, telling others about what You have done in the giving of Jesus. It is a message that frees humanity from the bonds of sin, hopelessness, and misery. Give us hearts willing to share it with the world. Amen.