Daily Writing

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.

Sunday, 20 July 2025

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” Matthew 12:2

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 the Pharisees, having seen, they said to Him, ‘You behold! Your disciples, they do what it permits not to do in Sabbath’” (CG).

In the previous verse, Jesus went through the grainfields with His disciples on a Sabbath day. While doing so, the disciples began to pluck heads of grain and eat. Having done this, Matthew next notes, “And the Pharisees.”

These folks show up constantly in the narrative, looking to find fault in Jesus and His ministry. It isn’t known if they were walking with Him also, or if they were spying on Him stealthily, but this is a recurrent theme in the gospels. To be spied on by legalists is something that would plague even the church later –

“And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), ⁵ to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” Galatians 2:4, 5

In whatever way the Pharisees happened to be present with Jesus and the disciples, they were certainly there to spy on them and find fault. As such, the narrative continues with, “having seen, they said to Him, ‘You behold! Your disciples, they do what it permits not to do in Sabbath.’”

A new word, exesti, impersonally or it is right, is introduced. It is derived from ek, out of, and eimi, to exist. It is generally translated as lawful, permitted, or may (as in “May I say a word…”). The Topical Lexicon notes that this word “exposes human motives, clarifies God’s purposes, and delineates the boundary between true righteousness and mere legality.”

The Pharisees are making a claim that what Jesus’ disciples were doing, and thus implying He bore guilt because of them, was outside of the boundaries of what God had allowed for Sabbath day observances. The law, as noted in the previous commentary, said –

“When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes at your pleasure, but you shall not put any in your container. ²⁵ When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor’s standing grain.” Deuteronomy 23:24, 25

The Pharisees are either claiming that what is lawful on other days, which is to pluck and eat, is not allowed on the Sabbath, or that plucking and eating equate to work. The plucking is equated to harvesting while rubbing off the husks is equal to threshing grain. Alfred Edersheim in Life and Times of Jesus quotes the Talmud, saying –

“In case a woman rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is considered as sifting; if she rubs the heads of wheat, it is regarded as threshing; if she cleans off the side-adherencies, it is sifting out fruit; if she bruises the ears, it is grinding; if she throws them up in her hand, it is winnowing.”

This sort of niggling over minutiae is common with the rabbis of the Jews where, as Jesus elsewhere says, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. ²⁴ Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” Matthew 23:23, 24

They became so myopic in their pursuit of law observance that they were unable to discern between what is morally right and wrong. They had turned the Sabbath, which was to be a blessing for the people, into a day of misery where one could be stoned for doing something interpreted by others to be a violation of a law that may not have even addressed such a matter.

Life application: Think of the things you have encountered in churches that are contrary to, not in line with, or out of the bounds of biblical precepts. Taking a single example to understand, that of KJV Onlyism. It is claimed that no other Bible should be read than the King James Version.

This is contrary to Scripture because the KJV is a translation from other sources.
This is not in line with Scripture because we are told to read and teach the word from the writings of Paul (e.g., 2 Timothy 2:15 & 2 Timothy 4:2), which predate the KJV by about 1600 years.
This is out of the bounds of biblical precepts because there is nothing in Scripture that says this or even hints at it.

One can use this logic with any precept that is incorrectly taught. All three of these points may not apply to every situation, but if any of the three do not, it is to be understood that what is taught is incorrect.

Further, one must evaluate the precept based on proper context. Using a precept from the Law of Moses to make a claim about appropriateness is inappropriate. Jesus fulfilled and brought the Law of Moses to an end.

Some things merely describe a situation but do not prescribe anything. In such cases, they are not to be used for doctrine unless they form a normative precept. But even then, what is normative (such as baptism) must be understood from a thorough study and right application of what the Bible reveals.

The only way to do these things is to READ AND KNOW THE BIBLE. Please be sure to spend time, lots and lots of time, in this wonderful and precious word.

Glorious God, help our minds to logically process Your word, making right conclusions about what You are saying to us based on a contextually proper evaluation of it. May we carefully and rightly consider Your word at all times. Amen.

Saturday, 19 July 2025

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. Matthew 12:1

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 time, Jesus, He went – the Sabbaths – through the grainfields, and His disciples, they hungered, and they began to pluck kernels and eat” (CG).

In the previous verse, Chapter 11 finished with Jesus’ words concerning His yoke being handy and His burden being light. Chapter 12 now begins with, “In that time.”

It is a particular time, noted by the word kairos (a particular time or season) rather than chronos (time as it marches on). In other words, Matthew is highlighting the season in which they are walking. Of this phrase, Barnes notes –

“Luke 6:1 fixes the time more particularly. He says that it was ‘the second Sabbath after the first.’ To understand this, it is proper to remark that the ‘Passover’ was observed during the month ‘Abib,’ or Nisan, answering to the latter part of March and the first of April. The feast was held seven days, commencing on the fourteenth day of the month Exodus 12:1-28; Exodus 23:15, on the “second” day of the paschal week. The law required that a sheaf of ‘barley’ should be offered up as the first-fruits of the harvest, Leviticus 23:10-11. From this day was reckoned seven weeks to the feast of ‘Pentecost’ Leviticus 23:15-16, called also the feast of weeks Deuteronomy 16:10, and the feast of the harvest, Exodus 23:16. This second day in the feast of the Passover, or of unleavened bread, was the beginning, therefore, from which they reckoned toward the Pentecost. The Sabbath in the week following would be the ‘second Sabbath’ after this first one in the reckoning, and this was doubtless the time mentioned when Christ went through the fields.”

Understanding the time of year, Matthew next records, “Jesus, He went – the Sabbaths – through the grainfields.”

There are two new words. The first is sabbaton, the Sabbath. It is the seventh day of the week corresponding to the day of rest from the labors of creation noted in Genesis 2. It became a mandatory requirement for the Hebrew people, being first introduced as such in Exodus 16. It was to be a day of rest, including no secular work of any type.

The word is often in the plural, indicating the weekly nature of the appointment. This is like someone in English saying, “My Sundays are always set for church time.”

The second new word is sporimos, a word coming from sporos, scattering (and thus, sown). As such, it refers to a planted field. While on a Sabbath, Jesus is walking through the fields, which would have included both barley and wheat at this time of year. It was also ready for harvesting. However, He is not alone, as indicated by the words, “and His disciples.”

It is a group of Jesus and His disciples walking through the grainfields. As they did, it says that “they hungered.” This helps to explain the use of the word kairos rather than chronos. One can walk through the grainfields in September, and there won’t be anything to harvest. However, at this time of year, there would be stalks all around coming to full maturity. As such, Matthew notes, “and they began to pluck kernels and eat.”

There is another new word here, tilló, to pluck or pick in order to pull off. The word will only be seen here, in Mark 2:23, and Luke 6:1. All three uses refer to the same incident. As for the words, they seem innocuous enough. Here is a group of people walking through the grainfield. As they walk, they are hungry. Because they are hungry, they take the time to pick some grains and eat them.

From our modern thinking, one might think, “What are they doing, they have no right to eat someone else’s grain.” That would be incorrect. In the law, it says –

“When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes at your pleasure, but you shall not put any in your container. ²⁵ When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor’s standing grain.” Deuteronomy 23:24, 25

Thus, they are doing nothing wrong in eating in this regard as they go through the fields. Their actions are in accordance with the law concerning that particular aspect of the matter.

Life application: Jesus came to fulfill the law. The gospels are a record of His life and actions in relation to the law. This is one of the main purposes for which they are recorded, and it is the reason why there are three separate but similar gospels known as the synoptics.

They provide a witness and testimony to the conduct of the Messiah as He lived under the law. In Leviticus 18:5, it says –

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

From the time of the giving of the law until the time of Jesus, the record of Israel, including every person of Israel, was a record of failure. The law promised life to the one who would do the things of the law. And yet, they all died, generation after generation. Elijah was taken directly to heaven for a particular purpose. If he had remained, he would have died too.

Jesus came. He was born under the law. The gospels record His life under the law, demonstrating that He was without sin. It is the reason why Jesus is alive to this day. He prevailed over the law, even in His death, because His death was in fulfillment of the law. Because of this, He rose again. It is the sure proof that He was without sin and that He is God because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Only God incarnate was born and lived without sin. Therefore, when we see an account about Jesus’ life, even if we think there is wrongdoing, such as His disciples picking and eating someone else’s grain, we can be certain that what occurs is acceptable according to Scripture. Be sure to think about why the law records things as it does. In it, we will find Jesus’ perfection highlighted for us.

Lord God, it is marvelous to think about what You have done, coming under the law that You gave to Israel, living it out perfectly in the Person of Jesus, and then granting us the life that You possess while redeeming us from sin and death. Thank You, O God, for Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.