Daily Writing

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.

Wednesday, 2 September 2026

saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. Matthew 22:24

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).

“…saying, ‘Teacher, Moses, he said if anyone, he should die not having children, he will affinitize the ‘brother, his, the wife, his’, and he will raise seed – the ‘brother, his’.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus to query Him, “saying, ‘Teacher, Moses, he said if anyone, he should die not having children, he will affinitize the ‘brother, his, the wife, his’.’”

A new word is seen here, epigambreuó, to affinity with. It is from epi, upon, and gamos, a marriage or wedding. This is its only use in the New Testament. Of this word, Vincent’s Word Studies says –

“From γαμβρός [gambros], a word used in classical Greek to denote any one connected by marriage’ a brother-in-law, father-in-law, even a bridegroom. The word is appropriate here because it refers to marriage between marriage-relatives.”

The matter brought by the Sadducees refers especially to a levirate type of marriage. That is described in Deuteronomy 25 –

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. ⁶ And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. ⁷ But if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’ ⁸ Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’ ⁹ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’ ¹⁰ And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal removed.’” Deuteronomy 25:5-10

An example of such a marriage is found in the account of Tamar and the sons of Judah in Genesis 38. Of the Sadducees’ question, they continue their words to Jesus, saying, “and he will raise seed – the ‘brother, his’.” This is just what was described by Moses in Deuteronomy 25.

Based on this mandate, the Sadducees will propose a question to Jesus.

Life application: The Unwilling Brother. Why was this ancient rite included in the Law of Moses? As noted, the precept predates the law. A brother was to step in and perform the duty of the brother-in-law. The account in Deuteronomy provides a short review of the inability of the law to bring forth children.

Man, once connected to God, is the dead husband, typified by Adam. The woman represents humanity. A son, in this scenario, would indicate a spiritual reconnection to God. Adam, the man who was once spiritually alive, died and left her no such children.

The purpose of Genesis 38 was to set that idea as a precedent. The story there is one that anticipates the restoration of this spiritual connection to God. To understand that passage, refer to the Genesis 38 sermons from the Superior Word. A full typological explanation is provided there.

Life under the Law of Moses is typologically given as the brother. It is, ostensibly, available to give children to the woman as a brother-in-law. As it says in Leviticus 18 –

“And you will guard My enactments and My verdicts, which he will do them, the man, and he will live in them. I, Yehovah.” Leviticus 18:5 (CG)

However, “being under law” does not delight in the woman, and is – in fact – in a state that is at enmity with her. Paul states that explicitly in Ephesians 2 –

“For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, ¹⁵ having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.” Ephesians 2:14, 15

In typology, life under the law will not perform the duty to give the woman a son. Hence, she performs the rite of disgracing him and stripping him of any authority to ever have any right to her again. However, Christ is of the woman, meaning humanity. And of Him, it says in the law itself –

“Then I said, ‘Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
⁸ I delight [khapets] to do Your will, O my God,
And Your law is within my heart.’” Psalm 40:7, 8

Because life under the law would not perform the duty, as is evidenced in the 1400+ years of it bringing no one to restoration with God, Christ came to do it. He delighted to do the will of God, and He performs what life under the law was unwilling to perform.

In this, He – as a member of humanity – took away the authority of the law and brought it to its end. Thus, life under the law is “The house of him who had his sandal removed.”

This is indicated in Paul’s words to those at Corinth, saying, “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45). God in Christ is the nearer brother who could, and who did, give a Son, His Firstborn, to the barren woman. From there, life is restored to any who come to Him.

The lesson: There are no born-again children in humanity through life under the law, not before, nor will there ever be. Only in Christ is there a delight in bringing children to God through humanity. In this Son comes a new family, among whom Christ Jesus is the Firstborn.

Deuteronomy 25 is a beautiful passage, found in the law, that conveys to us the truth that life under law is insufficient to save anyone. Only in Christ’s fulfillment of the law is there any hope for fallen man. That thought is perfectly expressed by Paul in Romans 3 –

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, ²² even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.” Romans 3:21, 22

The law itself witnesses to what God was going to do in Christ. Righteousness is imputed to those who simply reach out to God through Him, by faith, and accept what He has done.

If you have friends or family stuck in some law-observant church, keep pecking away at them. Their time is short, and they have an infinitely high hill to climb going that route. They won’t make it. Trust in Christ, rest in Christ, and put away your futile attempts at pleasing God through any other avenue than Jesus Christ.

He is the answer to the problem that separates us from God. And surprisingly, the law itself testifies to that fact. Thank God for Jesus Christ.

We are so grateful to You, O God, for sending Jesus to be our Kinsman Redeemer, bringing us back to Yourself through Him. We thank You for the eternal life that is granted to us through what Jesus has done. Thank You for ever and ever. Amen.

Tuesday, 1 September 2026

The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, Matthew 22:23

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 that, the ‘day’, they approached Him, Sadducees (saying not is ‘resurrection’), and they queried Him.” (CG)

In the previous verse, the Pharisees and Herodians marveled at Jesus’ words and departed. Maybe having seen or heard about this, another group comes forward, ready to test Him. Matthew records, “In that, the ‘day’, they approached Him, Sadducees.”

This sect was first seen, along with the Pharisees, in Matthew 3:7. This was at the time John the Baptist was baptizing in the Jordan. They were noted again, several times in Matthew 16.

Their specific interaction at that time was with Jesus as they, along with the Pharisees, asked for a sign from heaven. Of this group of religious leaders, Matthew specifically notes a point of doctrine that they held to, which is “(saying not is ‘resurrection’).”

Surprisingly, this is a new word in Scripture, anastasis, a standing up again. It is from the word an anistémi, to stand up. That is prefixed with the word ana, up, but used in various other ways in a distributive manner. In the New Testament, other than Luke 2:34, anastasis is always used in reference to a resurrection. In Luke 2:34, it says –

“Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, ‘Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising [anastasis] of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against…”

As for the reason they have come to Jesus, Matthew records, “and they queried Him.” The word used to describe their query is one of deliberate asking. Thus, their query is specifically designed to glean an answer or response from Jesus about a matter.

Life application: In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul writes the following –

“Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³ But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. ¹⁴ And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. ¹⁵ Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. ¹⁶ For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. ¹⁷ And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! ¹⁸ Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹ If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.” 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

The key point of Christian faith is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The cross of Christ is the key focus of our faith, and the point on which every Christian’s boast should be directed (see Galatians 6:14), but a crucifixion without a subsequent resurrection is a pointless place to direct one’s hope.

Many people have been crucified in human history. They died, and they remain dead. But Jesus was resurrected from the tomb. This event then solidifies the meaning of the cross. Someone can say, “I will give up my life to save another.” And, in fact, many have done that throughout human history.

But that type of saving is only to prolong the temporary life we live. A soldier could jump on a grenade to save his fellow soldier, but the saved soldier could be shot dead thirty seconds later. Both are dead and both will remain dead.

However, no human can die for another’s sin when they have already inherited Adam’s fallen nature. The sin is there in us from the moment we are conceived. Various pagan religions sacrificed babies, young virgins, etc., all hoping for some type of atonement, but such a sacrifice is ineffectual because of original sin.

Jesus, however, was born without Adam’s fallen nature. His father is God. Thus, with a human mother, He is the God/Man. He was born without sin, He lived under the law without sinning, and He died in fulfilment of the law, taking away sin committed under law for those who trust in Him.

The resurrection proves that our sin is atoned for. It also proves that we are eternally saved (because we are no longer under law, and it is by law that sin is imputed). The resurrection also proves that Jesus is God. As all humans who descend from Adam have sin through their father, and because Jesus resurrected, it proves that Jesus’ Father is God.

As all beings reproduce after their own kind, the resurrection provides irrefutable proof that Jesus Christ is the God/Man. Hope? Hope? We have the greatest hope of all when we put our trust in Jesus Christ. Nothing can ever separate us from God again when we come to Him through Jesus Christ.

Let us remember this as we pass through this world of toil, trouble, trial, and times of temptation or turmoil. These things are bound to come, but Christ has overcome the world. For those who are in Him, they too have overcome the world.

Praise God for Jesus Christ our Lord!

We praise and exalt You for what You have done for us, O God. The majesty of what You have done is more wonderful than all else. Thank You for the giving of Jesus Christ our Lord, in whom, we now have the hope of the resurrection to eternal life. Amen.