Daily Writing

Friday, 25 July 2025

But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. Matthew 12:7

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 if you had known what it is, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ not you condemned the guiltless” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus noted that a greater than the temple was there. Based on that, He next says to the Pharisees, “And if you had known what it is.”

The Pharisees had spoken a word of implied condemnation toward Jesus because His disciples were eating. They brought in the precept of Sabbath observance to support their view. Jesus returned words from the same law, showing that there was a valid precedent both for the allowance for food, even if it was otherwise inappropriate to procure, and the allowance for some to profane the Sabbath and not be held guilty.

Having stated these things, He prepares to now demonstrate that not only had they missed these points in their interpretation of the situation, but that they had overlooked the basis for such allowances in relation to what His disciples were doing. He does this with the words, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”

Here, He cites Hosea 6:6, “For mercy I inclined, and not sacrifice” (CG). In using the word khaphets, to incline, it is as if the Lord leans in favor of something, as if He is inclining in that direction. As such, it signifies He desires that in favor of something else.

Therefore, the Lord looks more favorably upon mercy than mere rote sacrifice. Even if the law demanded a sacrifice to be made, the action spoke nothing concerning the state of the heart. A person could go to the temple, perform the mandatory sacrifice, and walk away completely uncaring about the sin which the sacrifice was intended to cover. It is exactly this attitude that brought the Lord to say to the people –

“Hear the word of the Lord,
You rulers of Sodom;
Give ear to the law of our God,
You people of Gomorrah:
¹¹ ‘To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?’
Says the Lord.
‘I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fed cattle.
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
Or of lambs or goats.
¹² “When you come to appear before Me,
Who has required this from your hand,
To trample My courts?
¹³ Bring no more futile sacrifices;
Incense is an abomination to Me.
The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—
I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting.
¹⁴ Your New Moons and your appointed feasts
My soul hates;
They are a trouble to Me,
I am weary of bearing them.
¹⁵ When you spread out your hands,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Even though you make many prayers,
I will not hear.
Your hands are full of blood.”’” Isaiah 1:10-15

The people came to the Lord, doing the things required by the law, but they had no heart for the Lord or for doing what was morally right. It is this same attitude that these Pharisees were presenting toward Jesus and His disciples. Jesus, however, says that if they understood the words of the Lord through Hosea, then “not you condemned the guiltless.”

In verse 12:5, the word anaitios, guiltless, was introduced. This is now the second and last use of it in Scripture. It signifies one who is not causing guilt. The reason for this is that even if the law set forth a particular command, it had to be considered in the greater scope of the intent of the law.

In Isaiah, the people of Israel performed the things of the law in their sacrifices, offerings, and observances, but they failed to have a heart for what those things signified. Therefore, they were not at all in compliance with the law. Jesus and His disciples had needs. They met those needs in accordance with the implied allowances of the law. The Pharisees had not done so.

Life application: The problem with people who still demand law observance is the exact problem that Jesus addresses in this verse. They are sticklers about external conduct while not caring about the Lord who came and fulfilled the law for them. This is obviously so because they continue to demand that people do things that are no longer required.

In Israel, the people demanded that external observances be conducted, but they never took the time to consider why those things were to be conducted in the first place. With each passing funeral, they never stopped to consider the words of the law that say –

“You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 18:5

They might stand around the grave and say, “We will miss Schlimy. He was truly a righteous man.” But this would be untrue. If Schlimy were truly righteous before the law, he would not be plopped into the grave. He would still be alive. The people never considered why Schlimy was dead.

They saw him making sacrifices and doing all the supposedly pious things that the law demanded. And yet, here they were at his graveside complimenting him for his righteously lived life, which was insufficient to keep him from dying.

When Jesus came, He did fulfill the things of the law. He was crucified for the sins of others, and He rose again in a demonstration that He was, in fact, righteous before the law. And yet, the people of Israel collectively rejected this and continued down the same path they had followed since their first national transgression at the foot of Mount Sinai.

Every person, Jew or Gentile, who demands that precepts of the law be fulfilled by us today is following in that same unrighteous path. They are placing shadow over substance while rejecting the work of Jesus, which culminated in the resurrection, the very proof that He is righteous because He is God.

Pay heed. Don’t be like Schlimy and others who trust in deeds of the law to make God happy. Instead, trust in the merits of Jesus Christ. Only what He has done can deliver you safely into the wonderful promise of total restoration with God. Through Jesus, we have peace with Him once again.

Lord God, thank You for Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have total restoration with You. Great are You, O God. Amen.

Thursday, 24 July 2025

Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. Matthew 12:6

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 I say to you that the temple – greater, it is here” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus provided the Pharisees with an example from the law concerning the priests profaning the Sabbath. Despite this, they were considered blameless. Now, based on His two examples of David and the priests, He says, “And I say to you that the temple – greater, it is here.

The adjective is neuter. Because of this, it is debated if Christ is speaking of His body as being greater than the temple in Jerusalem or the labors of His disciples as being more important than the labors of the priests at the temple. He referred to His body as a temple in John 2 –

“So the Jews answered and said to Him, ‘What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?’
¹⁹ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’
²⁰ Then the Jews said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’
²¹ But He was speaking of the temple of His body. ²² Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.” John 2:18-22

The same neuter adjective is used in verses 41 & 42 in comparison to Jonah (based on his proclamation) and Solomon (based on his wisdom).

As for the truth Jesus conveys, in His first example to the Pharisees, David’s needs were greater than the rules for the temple. In the second example, the requirement to serve the Lord on the Sabbath was greater than the mandate to observe the Sabbath.

Jesus, claiming that His body is greater than the temple, thus allows the disciples to serve Him on the Sabbath. Further, in serving Him, their needs, like the priests at the temple, also need to be met.

Therefore, if His claim is true, then there has been no infraction. The precedent for the lesser has already been set in Scripture itself. Therefore, the allowance for the greater must be granted.

Life application: In the case of the temple, the superiority of Jesus’ body then determines the superiority of the disciples’ rights. In the case of Jonah, the superiority of who Jesus is determines that His proclamation is greater. In the case of Solomon, the superiority of Jesus’ person determines that His wisdom is greater.

The greatness of Jesus means that what He does and says is greater than each of those things done or said by those He is contrasted with. The temple is the place for serving the Lord. Jonah’s proclamation is a transmission of the word of the Lord. Solomon’s wisdom was bestowed by the Lord (1 Kings 3:12).

Claiming to be greater than these things is thus an implicit claim to being the Lord. This is an undeniable point. There is no intermediate point between the Lord and any of these things. Therefore, it must be that Jesus is proclaiming He is the Lord from whom those things issue.

There are sects and cults that deny that Jesus is God. A proper evaluation of what Jesus claims and what is stated about Him, however, demonstrates that this view is not in accord with Scripture. In fact, Jesus’ words concerning Himself would be the epitome of blasphemy if He were not the Lord.

Even if we don’t fully grasp the deity of Jesus, we should accept that it is what the Bible proclaims. Be on the lookout for those who deny it. Jesus’ dual nature is the key point upon which Scripture rests. God Himself united with human flesh. If this is not the case, there is no hope for humanity. Trust this fundamental point, believing that it is so.

O God, help us in our times of weakness or misunderstanding concerning the doctrines set forth in Scripture. May we be careful to accept them, even if we do not fully understand them. In time and through study, we can solidify our thinking in them. Until that happens, help us to trust, by faith, the things the Bible clearly proclaims. Amen.

Wednesday, 23 July 2025

Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? Matthew 12:5

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).

“Or not you read in the law that, the Sabbaths, the priests in the temple the Sabbath profane, and they are guiltless?” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus referred to the showbread being given to David though it was intended only for the priests. He now continues with the same general idea as He refutes the claims of the Pharisees, saying, “Or not you read.”

This contains a new word, anaginóskó, to read. It signifies “to know again.” In other words, when one reads, he is reminded of something that he may have forgotten. Thus, in reading, one refreshes his mind concerning what is written down.

In this case, it is something read, “in the law.” The Pharisees claimed Jesus did something unlawful in regard to eating on the Sabbath. He first addressed David’s need to eat and how it had a priority that even transcended the intent of the law concerning the showbread.

He now returns to the law to specifically address the Pharisees’ main issue with what the disciples (and thus by extension, He as well) were doing. In order to make His case complete, He continues, saying, “that, the Sabbaths.”

The plural is used to refer to the repetitive nature of the appointment, coming each week on the seventh day. On any and all Sabbaths, this point will hold true. His point is that “the priests in the temple the Sabbath profane.”

The profaning of the Sabbath by the priests is found on several occasions in the law. For example, sacrifices were to be presented every day of the week, one of several examples says –

“And on the Sabbath day two lambs in their first year, without blemish, and two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with oil, with its drink offering— ¹⁰ this is the burnt offering for every Sabbath, besides the regular burnt offering with its drink offering.” Numbers 28:9, 10

The consecration of Aaron and his sons was held over at least one Sabbath as well –

“Thus you shall do to Aaron and his sons, according to all that I have commanded you. Seven days you shall consecrate them.” Exodus 29:35

Despite these things, Jesus says, “and they are guiltless?”

This is a second new word, anaitios. It is derived from the negative particle a (not) and aitios, an adjective signifying “causative.” As such, it signifies one who is not causing guilt. What can be inferred is that if a priest were not on duty, he would be required to observe the Sabbath, but if he was on duty, he would not be so required.

Further, if called to duty on the Sabbath, they would be held guiltless. This is seen in the record of the ill-fated end of the wicked queen Athaliah –

“‘This is what you shall do: One-third of you entering on the Sabbath, of the priests and the Levites, shall be keeping watch over the doors; ⁵ one-third shall be at the king’s house; and one-third at the Gate of the Foundation. All the people shall be in the courts of the house of the Lord. ⁶ But let no one come into the house of the Lord except the priests and those of the Levites who serve. They may go in, for they are holy; but all the people shall keep the watch of the Lord. ⁷ And the Levites shall surround the king on all sides, every man with his weapons in his hand; and whoever comes into the house, let him be put to death. You are to be with the king when he comes in and when he goes out.’
⁸ So the Levites and all Judah did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded. And each man took his men who were to be on duty on the Sabbath, with those who were going off duty on the Sabbath; for Jehoiada the priest had not dismissed the divisions.” 2 Chronicles 23:4-8

The law says, “Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 31:15). Despite this, profaning of the Sabbath by the priests in the course of their duties does not apply. As this is true, like the account with David and the bread, there is a greater standard that takes precedence over mandates of the law.

Life application: The word anaginóskó signifies “to know again.” Why do you suppose the Greek language uses such a word to describe the process of reading? The main reason is obvious. When we see, hear, or experience something, even when reading about it, we will eventually have the matter fade from our minds.

It may be that what we read will get confused with other things we have read, thus incorrect cross connections will result. Considering that the Bible is comprised of sixty-six books that are formed out of one thousand one hundred and eighty-nine chapters, it is a given that we will not be able to remember everything we have read.

But even if one is a savant who could somehow remember everything he read, there is no way he could make all of the necessary connections within the book that exist when attempting to understand how things fit together.

With our fading memories and with our inability to make all the connections we should on the first, fifth, tenth, or fiftieth time through, it becomes obvious why we need to constantly read the Bible. If we want to more fully understand what God is telling us and why, we must read and reread His word.

And because almost nobody is a savant who can remember everything he has ever read, it is a given that our memories will quickly fade concerning the content of the word. By the time we reach Revelation, we have jumbled up or forgotten the vast majority of what the previous sixty-five books have said.

If you want to have a right knowledge and clear remembrance of the word, you must continue to read it, all the days of your life. Please do this.

O God, help us to be responsible as we read Your word, reminding ourselves daily of what it records as we pick it up and read it. If we don’t do this, the memory of its contents will fade, and our close connection to You will also begin to fade. May this never be so! May our hearts be constantly geared towards You as we enter into the pages of Your precious word. Amen.

Tuesday, 22 July 2025

how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Matthew 12:4

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).

“How he entered into the house of God and the bread ‘the before-setting’ they ate, which not it is being permitted him to eat, nor those with him, if not the priests only?” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus questioned the Pharisees as to whether they remembered what Scripture said in regard to David. He continues with that now with the words, “How he entered into the house of God.”

This account was cited in the previous verse commentary. The tabernacle was located at Nob, where Ahimelek the priest was. David went into an area designated for the priests only. Also, the words of Jesus continue with, “and the bread ‘the before-setting’ they ate.”

The word prothesis, before-setting, is introduced. It is used at this time when referring to the consecrated bread set before the Lord in the tabernacle (and later the temple). However, the word is not limited to this. It is a word that can speak of a set purpose, such as that used in Romans 8:28 –

“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose [prothesis].”

In Matthew, the “before-setting” refers to the showbread set before the Lord. The Hebrew literally reads “bread, faces,” which signifies the bread of the Presence first mentioned in Exodus 25:30. Of this bread, Jesus continues with, “which not it is being permitted him to eat.”

This is stated explicitly in Leviticus 24 –

“Take the finest flour and bake twelve loaves of bread, using two-tenths of an ephah for each loaf. ⁶ Arrange them in two stacks, six in each stack, on the table of pure gold before the Lord. ⁷ By each stack put some pure incense as a memorial portion to represent the bread and to be a food offering presented to the Lord. ⁸ This bread is to be set out before the Lord regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of the Israelites, as a lasting covenant. ⁹ It belongs to Aaron and his sons, who are to eat it in the sanctuary area, because it is a most holy part of their perpetual share of the food offerings presented to the Lord.” Leviticus 24:5-9

The law says that the bread belonged to Aaron and his sons. It further defines where it could be eaten. There is no legal provision to allow the priest to give this bread to David, “nor those with him, if not the priests only?”

Understanding this, the Pharisees, who had used a precept from the law, had an account from Israel’s history presented to them which refers to violations of the law. And yet, the Bible remains silent on the event other than noting that it occurred.

In other words, there is a positive command in the ceremonial laws for the priests to eat the bread in the sanctuary, just as there is a positive command concerning the Pharisees’ accusation concerning the Sabbath. Despite these, there is an underlying allowance on display in the account of David when the needs of man must be met.

To condemn Jesus means that these men would have to, in turn, condemn David, the hero of God and a man after the Lord’s own heart. But how could they? The word concerning David contained no word of condemnation.

The two accounts, that of what David and his men did, and the example of Jesus with his disciples, are on a one-to-one footing. The Pharisees, therefore, no longer have a valid accusation to raise against Jesus.

Life application: There are times when things in our stream of existence will come into conflict with what is written. An example may be the establishment of a church in an area previously unevangelized. Suppose there are two people in the area who could be chosen to lead the church.

The first is a lady who heard the good news while away. She not only heard the gospel, but she also was there long enough to obtain sound biblical doctrine. She then returned to tell the people in her village about Jesus.

The second is a man who just learns about Jesus but who is willing to lead the people in their newly accepted faith. Wouldn’t the woman be a better candidate? Scripture provides thoughts on both –

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. ¹² And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:11-13

“A bishop then must be … not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. ⁷ Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” 1 Timothy 3:2 & 6, 7

Which would be the appropriate person to lead the church? It is a conundrum that must be thought through as both are technically biblically excluded from the role. However, if one must be chosen, the substance behind the matter and the intent behind the precepts need to be considered.

There is a need for the people to have proper leadership. At times, there will be instances, like this example, where decisions must be made that have to consider the spirit and intent of the word, even if there is a conflict with a precept stated in the word.

Glorious God, help us to always carefully consider Your word. May we be cautious to uphold it for what it is and then apply it to our walk before You. You have set forth guidelines for us to consider. May we carefully and cautiously do so at all times. Amen.

Monday, 21 July 2025

But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: Matthew 12:3

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 you read what he did, David, when he hungered, he and those with him?’” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus’ disciples, and thus implicitly He also, were accused of doing what was not lawful on the Sabbath. In response, Matthew records, “And He said to them, ‘Not you read what he did, David, when he hungered, he and those with him?’”

The Pharisees’ accusation was of doing something in violation of the law that is not even recorded in the law. Only by a huge stretch of the imagination could what His disciples did even be inferred as wrongdoing. Rather than address the nonsensical legalism of the accusation, Jesus turned to Scripture, citing an account from the life of David.

The account is recorded in 1 Samuel –

Now David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech was afraid when he met David, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one is with you?”
² So David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has ordered me on some business, and said to me, ‘Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you, or what I have commanded you.’ And I have directed my young men to such and such a place. ³ Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or whatever can be found.”
⁴ And the priest answered David and said, “There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread, if the young men have at least kept themselves from women.”
⁵ Then David answered the priest, and said to him, “Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in effect common, even though it was consecrated in the vessel this day.”
⁶ So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread which had been taken from before the Lord, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away. 1 Samuel 21:1-6

Jesus has given an example from the historical writings of Israel about a matter that arose. This matter could also be inferred as a violation of the law. This will be further explained in His continued words.

Life application: In a society, there has to be a basis for legal matters. In the US, for example, there is the prime basis for the workings of the government, the Constitution. This sets the basis for what is legal and what is not.

From there, the Constitution authorizes certain bodies to run the government, make laws, regulations, etc. There is a judicial system set forth to interpret the constitutionality of new laws, determine if violations of the law have been made, etc.

Lower governments likewise have the authority to make and enforce laws. The Bible is the governing authority for spiritual matters in the Christian faith. At times, from that springboard, many denominations and churches add books of rules for the governance of the body that they oversee.

These usually start out closely aligned with the Bible, at least someone’s interpretation of it. However, such books of common order, discipline, and governance can be amended. As amendments take place, there is often a deviation from Scripture.

As an example, a church that once would not allow homosexuality in the congregation because it is contrary to the Bible may eventually change its written guidance to allow homosexuals to be members of the congregation. Later, the book is amended again to allow them to be deacons. From there, amendments are made to allow them to be ordained.

When a book of governance deviates from the Bible, the Bible is relegated more and more to a showpiece without any true authority. The best policy is to keep away from such books that can be amended and keep to Scripture alone as the basis for the faith.

Scripture cannot be amended by man. It is also not an organic document where its meaning changes over time. Rather, it is the fixed and unchangeable word of God. Within the Bible, there are dispensations which reflect the way in which God is working with man at various times in human history, but this is not something that changes set doctrine for a given dispensation.

Rather, it is what reveals doctrine for each outcropping of dispensations as God’s word has unfolded in the course of redemptive history. Understanding this, keeping the interpretation of God’s word in the proper context is the appropriate way of interpreting the Bible. Let us be sure to do this.

The word is precious, and it must be treated as such. Hold fast to it and let it be your guide for daily living and a right walk before the Lord at all times.

Glorious God, may our time in Your word be guided by You as You reveal to us what You intend for our lives. Help us to properly consider what it says and how it applies as we progress through it. May You help us to keep from faulty logic and faulty interpretation concerning it. Be with us as we engage with You through this precious word. Amen.