Daily Writing

Sunday, 3 May 2026

And He laid His hands on them and departed from there. Matthew 19:15

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 laid the hands on them, He went thence.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus told the disciples they should not prohibit the little children from coming to Him because it is those like them to whom belong the kingdom of the heavens. Matthew next records, “And having laid the hands on them, He went thence.”

Mark, as before, gives a fuller rendering of the event, saying, “And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands on them, and blessed them.” The fact that Jesus laid His hands on the children means that He blessed them. It wasn’t just that He rubbed their heads and told them they were cute.

What Matthew says is fully sufficient to convey implicitly that which Mark makes explicit. The reason for the difference is that a Jewish audience would know very well what the laying on of hands signified, whereas a Gentile audience may need a fuller explanation.

In verse 19:13, it said the children were brought so that Jesus might put His hands on them and pray. Because of this, scholars struggle to connect those words with what Jesus does here. For example, Bengel says, “Our Lord is not said to have prayed, as He had been asked to do in Matthew 19:13, by those forsooth who were not fully aware of His oneness with the Father.”

Bengel is saying that Jesus didn’t need to pray because He is One with the Father. That is faulty logic. Elsewhere, Jesus prays to the Father. The Pulpit Commentary follows suit with Bengel’s logic, saying, “Doubtless there was meaning in this omission. In conferring blessing he was acting in his Divine nature, and had no need of prayer.”

That assumes too much. The people did not know Jesus was God incarnate. The disciples struggled with this until it became explicit after the resurrection. Rather, the act of blessing is to be taken as an act of prayer. This would be true with any person who blesses another. The very act of blessing in this context implies that the words are a petition to God for the blessing to be realized.

Life application: Of this verse, Charles Ellicott says –

“The words and the act have rightly been regarded, as in the Baptismal Office of the Church of England, as the true warrant for infant baptism. More than doubtful passages in the Acts and Epistles; more than the authority, real or supposed, of primitive antiquity; more than the legal fiction that they fulfil the condition of baptism by their sponsors—they justify the Church of Christ at large in commending infants, as such, to the blessing of their Father. The blessing and the prayer of Christ cannot be regarded as a mere sympathising compliance with the fond wishes of the parents, and if infants were capable of spiritual blessings then, why, it may well be asked, should they be thought incapable now?”

Ellicott and others see Jesus’ act in these verses as justification for infant baptism. And yet, to him, the steady stream of baptisms which follow belief for every person in the book of Acts, along with the prescriptive words found in the epistles, are “doubtful” in justifying immersion after belief? How can that be?

Jesus explicitly said to make disciples and baptize them, implying belief followed by baptism. His words are after the resurrection and are to be taken as a prescriptive command.

Further, Jesus did not baptize the children in this passage. He took them in His arms, and He blessed them. Blessing is not baptism. At best, an infant can be prayed over and dedicated to God. This is appropriate, and it is an act for the parents to openly make a commitment to raise their children in a godly, Christian manner. There is nothing wrong and everything right about that.

But to somehow try to justify infant baptism, while also denying the need for believers’ baptism based on the Bible, is an impossible task because such a doctrine cannot be inferred, much less be found in Scripture.

Just because tradition is introduced into a church or denomination, it cannot be held as acceptable, no matter how long it has been practiced, if it does not conform to what the Bible says. If you have never been scripturally baptized after putting your faith in Jesus, it is time to do so. The Lord commanded it, the book of Acts makes it a normative event, and the epistles confirm that it is the proper practice to follow for all who believe.

O God, thank You that Jesus died, was interred, and rose again! In honor of that wonderfully good news, help us to be obedient to follow Him in believers’ baptism, just as He instructed us to do. Praises to You, O God, for what You have done in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

Saturday, 2 May 2026

But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 19:14

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 Jesus, He said, ‘You permit the children, and not you estop them to come to Me, for such, it is, the kingdom of  the heavens.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, little children were brought to Jesus that He might put His hands on them and pray. However, the disciples rebuked them. Because of this, it next says, “And Jesus, He said, ‘You permit the children.’”

As before, Mark gives additional information, saying, “But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them…” Jesus will use this event to make an object lesson for those who will pay heed. The disciples, through their roughness, were excluding the very type of person God is seeking. Therefore, He continues, saying, “and not you estop them to come to Me.”

There is a new word here, kóluó. James Strong defines it as estop. It is an archaic word that goes beyond stopping something to stopping up or plugging, akin to sealing a hole. The word continues to be used in legal matters. Beyond that, it is hardly seen.

There was an actual right of these children to be brought before Jesus, being of Israel. To preclude them from coming to the Messiah would be unthinkable. However, not only was this a right of such, but Jesus will also use this right to form an object lesson for the disciples, and by extension for all, to learn from. And so, He continues, saying, “for such, it is, the kingdom of the heavens.”

Jesus is doing the same thing as He did in the previous Chapter –

“At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’
² Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, ³ and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. ⁴ Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. ⁵ Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.’” Matthew 18:1-5

As was seen in that object lesson, it was not directly little children that are greatest in the kingdom of the heavens, but those who are like little children. The same is true here. These little children had a right (and an obligation) as children of Israel to participate in all cultural matters. They were circumcised, observed the Sabbath, observed the Passover, etc. As such, they had every right to come to Jesus, who is the fulfillment of those types and shadows.

However, it is not these children who, by default, were entitled to the kingdom of the heavens, something assumed by scholars, preachers, and teachers of the word the world over, as if little children are automatically granted the rights of entry into God’s kingdom, something the Bible never teaches. Rather, it is those who become like them, meaning accepting God’s gospel by simple, childlike faith, who fit the words, γὰρ τοιούτων [gar toioutōn] “for such.”

Jesus is making an analogy between the little children of Israel, who were obligated to and had the right to the cultural benefits of Israel, and the people of the world who (if they are to participate in the kingdom of the heavens) are obligated to the same standard of entry as anyone else and who are entitled to every benefit derived from that entry.

Life application: The faulty teaching that all children are entitled to entry into the kingdom of the heavens, unfortunately, permeates the world of both believers and non-believers. Believers read the words and fail to see the object lesson Jesus is making. The teaching dismisses the doctrine of inherited sin, and it fails to understand the distinction between Israel and the nations.

Israel of the past is a template for salvation in Christ. There is a single entity entitled to receive the benefits, that entity is marked by certain traits, and the covenant between the two stands in God’s eyes, even if the other party fails to meet the expectations. Israel’s unfaithfulness in no way negates God’s faithfulness. The same is true with acceptance of the gospel and entry into the New Covenant for believers today.

Outside of the faith, those who want to trap Christians into perverse ideology will cite the Bible even when they don’t believe it, and who are as far from Christ as the devil Himself, by using passages such as this one to promote whatever agenda they desire.

For example, they may have a liberal run charity ostensibly intended to help children. By using verses out of their context, they will shame Christians for not participating in their misdirected approach, as if Christians are bad Christians if they don’t approve of their charity (with all of its liberal baggage attached to it) because the Christians aren’t willing to “help the children.”

Understanding the context of what Jesus is saying is paramount to ensure one doesn’t fall into such inane traps. The children brought before Jesus are emblematic of other things. What Jesus says about them only applied to the children in the Israeli context at that time. But His words were equated to those who will enter the kingdom of the heavens at this time, something Israel only has a right to if they come to Jesus Christ by faith.

Faith in Him alone is how one enters into the kingdom being referred to.

Lord God, may we carefully evaluate everything presented in Your word, looking for the deeper underlying meaning of things that, on the surface, seem to present something that is not the ultimate intent for what is laid forth. Help us in this so that we will be mature believers, ready to instruct others in Your word as well. Amen.

Friday, 1 May 2026

Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. Matthew 19:13

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 they brought to Him children that He might upon-set the hands on them, and He might pray. And the disciples, they admonished them.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus finished His words about eunuchs. They were the exception to those expected to marry. With His words concerning that complete, it next says, “And they brought to Him children.”

So, the progression in this chapter has thus far been the subject of divorce (with the implied sanctity of marriage), those who will not marry, and now it leads to children, the anticipated product of human marriage. These children were brought to him “that He might upon-set the hands on them.”

The word translated as child, paidion, indicates a small child, quite often in infancy, but beyond that, one that is no more than half-grown. It is also used figuratively when referring to infants or trainable people within the congregation (e.g., see 1 Corinthians 14:20).

The idea is that of blessing. They are not merely bringing children before Jesus to talk about their school grades, to question Him about the details of Noah’s flood, or to have Him sign an autograph. Rather, these parents obviously understand Jesus’ power and authority.

If He has the power to heal others and direct spiritual conduct, they have logically deduced that He has the power and authority to bless their children in anticipation of them having sound, faithful lives. That continues to be noted in the words, “and He might pray.”

When a person is having a bad day, he will call a friend or his pastor and ask for prayer. When a president is facing a national crisis, he will call a spiritual leader and ask for prayer. When a child is born, the parents will often ask for the pastor or the whole congregation to pray for their child.

These and countless other incidents occur because people believe others, especially those who are faithful followers of the Lord (the guy who calls his friend wouldn’t call Drinking Dan for prayer. Instead, he would call Righteous Ron), have a positive spiritual connection with God that allows them to have their prayers answered by God.

This was the case with Jesus. Having heard His teachings and seen the fruit of His ministry, they were fully convinced of His ability to bring a blessing upon their children. One would think this would be universally understood to be a good thing. However, it next says, “And the disciples, they admonished them.”

This is more definitely stated in Mark 10:13, “…the disciples rebuked those who brought them.” The disciples saw this as an annoyance to Jesus’ ministry, not wanting Him to be bothered with such trivial pursuits as this.

Life application: It is questioned where the power in prayer is. If God already knows everything, then why pray? The answer is that God already knows whether we will pray or not. If we don’t pray, then there will be no response to the prayer, because it wasn’t made.

Because of this, it is questioned where the power in prayer is. How can prayers have effective power in soliciting God if He knows whether we will pray or not? This is incorrect thinking. In all four gospels, it is recorded that Jesus told Peter he would betray Him three times before the rooster crowed.

Because Jesus said it was so, it was certainly so. The future had been written already. And yet, Peter had to live it out. The power of his denial was because he denied Jesus, not because God knew he would deny Jesus. Until it happened, it had not happened. Known outcome does not change the need for the process to take place.

We can have certainty that something will occur, but until it occurs, there is no actual cause and effect that takes place. The power of the response to pray is based on the prayer actually occurring. Think of a bear trap. We know of a bear that travels the same path every night. So, we put out a trap for the bear. We know the bear will go that way, and we know he will be trapped, but until it happens, there has been no cause and effect. Rather, the trap sits there without being snapped.

This may be hard to understand, but whether we consider prayer, salvation, or many other theological matters, without us exercising our free will to initiate the process, the event will not take place. If you want results from God, initiate the process. He is there to bring about the results if it is His will for those results to occur. If you don’t pray, nothing to initiate the process means no results will be forthcoming.

Lord God, we may not understand all the things that pertain to You, but when Your word tells us something is a certain way, we should faithfully accept that it is so. Help us to have such an attitude toward Your precious word. Amen.

Thursday, 30 April 2026

For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:12

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).

“For they are eunuchs who from ‘mother’s womb’ were born thus, and they are eunuchs who, they were eunuchized by men, and they are eunuchs who, they eunuchized themselves through the ‘kingdom, the heavens’. The ‘being able to contain’ he contains.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus told the disciples about those who could accept the premise concerning whether to marry or not. He next explains who those exceptions would be, beginning, “For they are eunuchs who, from ‘mother’s womb’ were born thus.”

A new word is seen here, the noun eunouchos, a eunuch. Strong’s definition says, “a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man; by implication, a chamberlain (state-officer) — eunuch.” The word is derived from eune, a bed, and echo, to have or hold. As such, the idea of “alone in bed” is understood.

Jesus’ words of this first clause extend the idea of being a eunuch to a person born incapable of sex. Such a person is the first exception to the thought presented in the previous verse. Jesus continues, saying, “and they are eunuchs who, they were eunuchized by men.”

Another new word is seen, the verb eunouchizó, to eunuchize. It signifies making someone unable to procreate through mutilation or removal of the genitals (castration). The practice was once common. Today, it is much less common, but it has not died out. Religious cults and isolated subcultures still engage in the practice.

Further, sexual criminals are still castrated either through surgery or chemical castration. These are the second exception. The third category is noted as Jesus continues, “and they are eunuchs who, they eunuchized themselves through the ‘kingdom, the heavens’.”

This is the second and last use of the verb eunouchizó. As noted, the word extends beyond the standard idea of castration. It will figuratively be applied to those who don’t engage in sexual activity for other reasons, including impotency or abstinence.

Some people are disciplined enough not to engage in sexual activity. They have placed something else above that aspect of life. In the case of acceptable self-denial, Jesus notes that there are those who have purposefully decided to pursue the kingdom of the heavens above marriage.

Paul was in this category. He refers to it in 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Corinthians 9. He placed kingdom priorities above taking a wife. These are the three exceptions that are noted. The intent of Jesus’ words is that, apart from these categories, marriage is the normally expected avenue for humanity. This is reflected in Jesus’ final words on the matter, “The ‘being able to contain’ he contains.”

In other words, if you fall into one of these categories, then your state is an acceptable exception to the original intent for humanity, which is to marry and remain married to your spouse.

Life application: In 1 Timothy 4, Paul says –

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, ² speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, ³ forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. ⁴ For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; ⁵ for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” 1 Timothy 4:1-5

There are problems with forcing abstinence on others. First, it is contrary to the intent set forth for humanity as given in the first pages of Scripture. Second, it generally leads to other, more deviant side problems.

Paul’s words in these verses are like an indictment on Roman Catholicism, penned in advance of the rise of that ideology. In order to serve the Lord as a “priest” or a “nun,” there must be a vow of abstinence, something not found in Scripture. It forces people to go against what is natural. That has led to sexual deviancy within their orders that is almost unmatched in any religion in history.

Homosexuality, molesting of children, violation of the “vows” between priests and lay people, or priests and the nunnery have filled Roman Catholicism since its inception. The RCC also commands that adherents abstain from certain foods at certain times, such as on certain days of the week.

These completely unbiblical practices set it off as the world’s largest aberrant cult. Deviation from the Bible, either through allowing what it does not allow or commanding what it does not forbid, is wholly unacceptable. Be sure to stick with the Bible. Reject any teaching in any denomination or local church that does not comply with what the Bible presents.

Lord God, help us to know and apply Your precious word to our lives. May we not deviate from it. If we have had something contrary to what it teaches trained into us, help us to identify that precept and cut it out of our lives. May it be so to Your glory. Amen.

Wednesday, 29 April 2026

But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: Matthew 19:11

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 said to them, ‘Not all, they contain this word, but whom it has been given.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, the disciples responded to Jesus’ words about marriage and divorce, saying that because of what He said, it is better not to marry. Having heard that, Matthew records, “And He said to them, ‘Not all, they contain this word.’”

The question arises: Is Jesus referring to His own words concerning marriage, or is He referencing the response by the disciples? His continued words through the next verse will show that it is in response to what the disciples said –

Disciples: “If it is this, the case of the man with the wife, it conduces not to marry.”
Jesus: “Not all, they contain this word.”

Of this, the Pulpit Commentary rightly states that Jesus “endorses these words in a different signification from theirs. Their objection to marrying arose from the impossibility of putting away a wife for any cause. Christ passes over these ignoble scruples and enunciates the only principle which should lead a man to abstain from marriage.”

In other words, Jesus is going to explain that there is a certain condition where not getting married is to be expected. Beyond that, marriage is the standard which is set for human existence. Despite all of its baggage and many setbacks, it is the normal, anticipated, and expected path for humans to follow. Understanding this, the following words introduce the matter concerning who is anticipated not to get married, saying, “but whom it has been given.”

Said differently, “Marriage is God’s plan for humanity, but it must be adhered to according to God’s expectation for marriage. It is a difficult but proper path to follow. However, there is an exception to this expectation for a particular category, they are…” From this point, Jesus will explain those who are the exception.

Life application: The point of this interaction between Jesus and the disciples, and the substance behind it, is that marriage is the proper avenue for humanity. In Genesis 1, the six days of creation are detailed. At the end of day 6, it said –

“And He saw, God, all which He made. And behold! Good, vehemently. And it was, evening, and it was, morning – Day, the sixth.” Genesis 1:31

Everything was good at the end of the sixth day of creation. From there, Genesis 2:4-25 is given as an insert to the portion of the sixth day concerning the creation of man. The Lord created the man, he was then placed in the garden, and he was given a command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Right after that, it said, “And He said, Yehovah God, ‘Not good, being the human to his separation. I will make to him ‘helper, according to counterpart’.’” Genesis 2:18 (CG). During the sixth day of creation, there was something not good, a lack, which needed to be rectified.

To reveal this, the animals and birds were brought forward to be named by Adam. With that accomplished, it said, “And to Adam, not he found ‘helper, according to counterpart’.” Genesis 2:20 (CG). Adam could see there were male and female creatures, but he was alone in his kind.

With that understanding, the Lord put the man into a deep sleep, fashioned the woman from his side, and she was presented to him. At that time, Adam made his proclamation concerning the woman. Genesis 2 says –

“‘And he said, the man –
“This the beat:
Bone, from my bones,
And flesh, from my flesh.
To this, it will be called ‘Woman.’
For from man, she was taken – this.”’
²⁴Upon thus, he will relinquish, man, his father and his mother, and he impinged* in his wife. And they were to flesh – one.” Genesis 2:23, 24 (CG).

With this completed, the words of Genesis 1:31 are properly understood, “And He saw, God, all which He made. And behold! Good, vehemently.” Only after the creation of woman for man and the acknowledgement that they were fashioned for one another was the sixth day considered good. It is the expected norm for humanity since that time for humans to marry and continue the species accordingly. To not do so is considered the exception.

A logical question for those who insist on long-term creation arises from this thought. “If man is created, not having evolved, and if everything was good at the end of the sixth day, but it was not good during the sixth day, then how can that be reconciled with a long-term creation?” It cannot.

Either the record of man’s creation in one day is true, following the pattern from the other single days of creation, or 1) the account of man’s creation is false, or 2) the record of the Genesis 1 account (regardless of how long it actually was) is false, or 3) the entire Genesis creation account is false. Everything hinges on six literal days of creation, with man having been created in one day on the sixth day.

One cannot have things both ways. Either God’s word stands and is true and reliable, or it is not. If Genesis 1 and 2 are merely allegorical, then Jesus’ words about marriage hold no significance. If this is true, then the Christian message concerning moral issues has no validity at all.

Think things through! Don’t be so foolish as to think you can outsmart God. We all must stand before Him and give an account of our lives and doctrine. Accept the word as it is written. It is truth.

Lord God, thank You for the rite of marriage that has existed since the first man on earth. Thank You that even though we fail one another at times, this is the beautiful course of life You have set forth for us. Help us to be faithfully faithful to one another as we live in Your presence. Amen.