BIBLE IN TEN

Matthew 19:18

Wednesday, 6 May 2026
 
He said to Him, “Which ones?”Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ Matthew 19:18
 
“He says to Him, ‘Which-such?’ And Jesus, He said, ‘Not you will murder, not you will commit adultery, not you will steal, not you will false-witness.’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus noted that One is good, God. After that, He answered the ruler’s question concerning what to do to obtain perpetual life, saying that if he wanted to have perpetual life, he was to keep the commandments. Hearing this, and knowing there were a lot of commandments mentioned in the Law of Moses, “He says to Him, ‘Which-such?’”
 
A new word is seen, poios. It is derived from pou, where, and hois, what sort of or such. The pou is turned into an individualizing interrogative (of character) to indicate “what sort of.” Hence, the entire thought gives the sense of “which ones,” or “what ones,” or something similar, based on the context.
 
However, the idea is that he is looking for quality of command rather than a cumulative list. In other words, “keeping what sort of commands are necessary for me to live.”
 
One would think Jesus would look at the man and say, “Well, you need to observe the entire law perfectly.” However, He doesn’t. He sticks with the qualitative for His response, citing a somewhat surprising list of the sort that will lead to life. At the same time, He excludes some that the people found extremely important, like the Sabbath. To begin, Matthew records, “And Jesus, He said, ‘Not you will murder.’”
 
It is the sixth commandment. It is a rather easy thing to keep from doing. Your neighbor is alive. Despite how much you like or dislike him, just don’t intentionally kill him, and you can check that one off the list. Next, Jesus says, “not you will commit adultery.”
 
This is the seventh commandment. It seems easy enough. The people were told not to do this thing. Therefore, if Jesus has set that as a standard, and a person can refrain from doing it, then he is a step closer to eternal life. Jesus next goes to the eighth commandment, saying, “not you will steal.”
 
Again, stealing is something one can refrain from doing if he is trying to earn his way to heaven. The need or the temptation might be there, but all he has to do is just not do it. Things are looking good for this guy if he has paid heed to Moses. Jesus next says, “not you will ‘false-witness’.”
 
This is another new word, pseudomartureó. It is derived from pseudomartur, a false witness. That, in turn, comes from pseudés, false, and martus, a spurious witness. Jesus is referring to the ninth commandment concerning lying. This is another command that seems easy enough. Just tell the truth, and things will be fine.
 
Jesus has added nothing new to the requirement, something maybe the ruler was expecting. Instead, He cited laws from the second half of the Ten Commandments, those pertaining to responsibilities toward others. He has not finished, but so far, it seems as if this guy might be a shoo-in for perpetual life, depending on his past conduct.
 
Life application: Jesus’ words to this man refrain from the responsibilities directed toward God found in the first half of the Ten Commandments. This is purposeful because if one cannot meet his obligations toward his fellow man that he can see, it is certain he will not meet his obligations toward God, whom he cannot see.
 
Therefore, Jesus will get to the heart of the matter with this man and his desire to be granted perpetual life. One step at a time, Israel is being schooled on what is necessary to please God. They are also being shown why no one since the time of Moses has lived and continued to live without dying.
 
In seeing this, they will then have all the information they need to choose a Messiah who can deliver them from their body of death, something Paul speaks about in Romans 7. Unfortunately, the enticement of self-aggrandizement is so strong in most people that they cannot let go and trust God alone for salvation.
 
Instead, we as humans have an innate desire to put ourselves into the salvation equation, looking for a pat on the back from God when we stand before Him. But God has accepted the work of Jesus. This alone is where our righteousness can stem from. Therefore, no compliments will be given to those who look to themselves for justification.
 
“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
 
Lord God, thank You for the simplicity of the gospel. Help us to not to trip over it in our search for eternal life. Rather, may we carefully pay heed to what You have done through Jesus and be willing to accept that alone for our reconciliation with You. Amen.

Matthew 19:17

Tuesday, 5 May 2026
 
So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:17
 
“And He said to him, ‘Why, to Me, you say, “Good?” None ‘good’, if not One – the God! And if you desire to enter ‘the life’, you guard the commandments!’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus was asked by one who came to Him concerning what he needed to do to have perpetual life. The response is now given, saying, “And He said to him, ‘Why, to Me, you say, “Good.”?’”
 
This is in response to the man’s words to Jesus, “Good Teacher...” The word “good” is not in all texts, and people debate over whether it belongs there or not. This is probably because elsewhere people are called “good.” For example, Jesus uses the term in Matthew 12:35, where He says that a good man, out of the treasure of his heart, brings forth good things.
 
It may be that to avoid a supposed contradiction, this word was taken out. Such instances do not demonstrate any contradiction. Jesus is, at the time, being asked about how to have perpetual life. As seen in the previous commentary, that was most certainly based on Leviticus 18:5. As such, it is a matter of law. Jesus has come. The law was a tutor to point people to Christ.
 
In other words, though the promise of attaining life through the law was given, it was obvious by the time Christ came that nobody could do it. Therefore, there was a need for the Messiah – God incarnate – to come and do what no fallen person could do.
 
It is for this reason that Jesus asked why He was called “Good Teacher.” It is the reason He continues that thought, saying, “None ‘good’, if not One – the God!”
 
The law was given by God. It is His standard. If someone could do the things of the law, it would mean he was God. This is because original sin already infects humanity. We are fallen and, as Paul explains, we are incapable of perfectly performing under the law. Rather, “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 3:20).
 
Jesus is indicating this to the man, and to all who will heed. In order to continue that line of thought, He next says, “And if you desire to enter ‘the life’, you guard the commandments!”
 
A new word is seen here, téreó, to guard, such as from loss or injury. This is done by keeping an eye on what is being guarded, as a guard in a watchtower or other station would do.
 
The meaning is, if he does just what it says in Leviticus 18:5, he will enter ‘the life’. As it says, “And you guard my enactments and my verdicts, which he will do them, a man, and he lived in them. I, Yehovah” Leviticus 18:5 (CG). This is what will bring life.
 
Life application: If you want to enter the life that is eternal, Jesus says you must guard the commandments, just as it says in Leviticus 18:5. As is seen from Israel’s history, this means perfectly, without one error or slip-up. Nobody else was able to do it. Do you think you can? But, as Jesus has shown, it is the only way to enter eternal life.
 
Oh no! This is a problem. Israel still doesn’t get it thousands of years later. And so, what are we to do? The answer is, “Trust in Jesus.” He did the things of the law perfectly. Being God, He was capable of doing so. Now, through trust in Him, life can be obtained.
 
His work and perfect righteousness are imputed to those who will trust, by faith, that what He has done is sufficient to accomplish what God expects. In other words, God DOES NOT expect YOU to fulfill the law. It was given as a tutor to lead humanity to Christ. God expects you to TRUST JESUS’ FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW.
 
So... do it today. Give up on yourself and commit your hopes to the merits of Jesus Christ. He will not let you down.
 
Lord God, thank You that we don’t have to earn what has been so graciously granted to us by You through the giving of Jesus. May we never disgrace the cross of Jesus Christ by attempting to merit Your favor through our own pitiful attempts at attaining righteousness. Instead, we will trust JESUS! Amen.

Matthew 19:16

Monday, 4 May 2026
 
Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” Matthew 19:16
 
“And you behold! One having approached Him, he said, ‘Good Teacher, what ‘good’ I should do that I may have ‘life perpetual’?’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus laid His hands on the little children and then departed. Next, it says, “And you behold! One having approached Him.”
 
Luke 18:18 identifies this person as a ruler. Whether this means the rule of a city, a synagogue, or someone in a position like the Sanhedrin isn’t stated. But he is in some position of authority. This man approached Jesus and “he said, ‘Good Teacher, what ‘good’ I should do that I may have ‘life perpetual’?’”
 
This seems to be an obvious question as the law itself offers it to the people –
 
“And you guard my enactments and my verdicts, which he will do them, a man, and he lived in them. I, Yehovah.” Leviticus 18:5 (CG)
 
The meaning is that a man would live by doing what the Lord says. That is a promise right from the law. But this man sees an obvious problem with this seemingly simple promise. Nobody in his history was alive except those born in his general generation.
 
Everybody since Moses had been born, lived, and died. One generation after the next, the people continued to die. As such, this man is curious to find out what the Lord was referring to. Thus, this man is not unlike Joseph of Arimathea, who came to Jesus to ask deep theological questions of Him despite the fact that he was a ruler of the Jews.
 
Their own theology had failed them. They strove under the Law of Moses, looking for the secret to living under the law, and they kept on punching their proverbial tickets. He is trying to get past this seemingly impassable wall.
 
Life application: It may be that this person came to Jesus to seek the key to being resurrected and then live forever at that time. If so, this would be someone from the Pharisee side of the theological aisle. However, he does not ask about the resurrection specifically. Instead, he asked about life perpetual apart from any other distinction.
 
Therefore, it is likely the man is looking to the promise in the law and wondering how he can get around dying in the first place. If this is true, he could be either a Pharisee or a Sadducee.
 
Sadducees didn’t believe in a resurrection, but there is no reason to assume they didn’t believe they could merit life through their deeds as promised in Leviticus. For the most part, unless someone has a misfiring brain, nobody wants to die.
 
People have been trying to cheat death all along. Today, there are companies and individuals striving to lengthen life or even cheat death altogether. As for the Jews at Jesus’ time, if the Law of Moses gave a way for man to live, why wasn’t it working?
 
For the next few verses, Jesus will deal with this issue. He will get to the heart of the matter concerning how to obtain perpetual life. Regardless of the outcome of this story in Matthew, if you would like the answer as to how to “cheat death,” which isn’t really cheating at all, John’s gospel explains the matter clearly and without any ambiguity –
 
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” John 3:14-17
 
If you want what the world has sought after since man first trod on the earth, come to Jesus. He alone has defeated death. If you believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, you too will live forever.
 
Lord God Almighty, we who have believed thank You for the absolute assurance we possess concerning the hope of eternal life. We know that we possess it, and we know it because Jesus has led the way. Death is defeated in Him, and we place our trust solely in Him. Thank You for Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Matthew 19:15

Sunday, 3 May 2026
 
And He laid His hands on them and departed from there. Matthew 19:15
 
“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.
 

Matthew 19:14

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
 
“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.
 

Matthew 19:13

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
 
“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.

Matthew 19:12

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.

Matthew 19:11

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
 
 “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.

Matthew 19:10

Tuesday, 28 April 2026
 
His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry. Matthew 19:10
 
“They say to Him, His disciples, ‘If it is this, the case of the man with the wife, it conduces not to marry.’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus pronounced His authoritative decree concerning divorce. So strong were His words taken in a society that openly tolerated it, we next read, “They say to Him, His disciples.”
 
In verse 3, it was the Pharisees who brought up the matter of divorce. Jesus made His statement, and it is not they, but Jesus’ disciples who respond. The Pharisees could agree or disagree with Jesus because they saw His words as an interpretation.
 
In Mark’s account, this response by the disciples is recorded as being later, in the house. Despite this, it is evident that they see Jesus’ words for what they are, a fixed and authoritative proclamation. As such, they say, “If it is this, the case of the man with the wife, it conduces not to marry.”
 
The disciples seem incredulous at the matter. What a burden it must have seemed! A man and a woman vowed before God to be faithful to one another in whatever wording a culture chose for such rites.
 
For example, it is generally stated in the US that the couple will stick it out through health and sickness, poverty or wealth, good times and bad times, etc. Other cultures may have their own choice of words to unite a couple, but it is generally accepted by normal functioning societies that the bond is expected to last... at least on paper.
 
The disciples’ response, however, shows that they understood this wasn’t always the case, maybe not even normally the case. Jesus’ response to their incredulity will be a stern warning to those who flippantly excuse divorce as an acceptable avenue in a “failed” marriage. To God, a marriage that follows His rules, despite the happiness of the union, is a successful marriage.
 
Life application: No wonder the Christian message is dying out around the world. When people realize God expects them to act morally in societies where morals are pretty much laughed at, it means the Bible, too, will be laughed at.
 
From there, society sees the mocking attitude of those who go from one marriage to another and, in turn, follow suit. What was once considered wholly unacceptable and a reason for being shunned in society suddenly becomes the standard.
 
And yet, the vows of marriage remain pretty much unchanged. “I promise these things before God...” When the marriage ends, there is no concern about the vows that were made. There is no dread of being held accountable for their actions.
 
This is true in churches as well as in society in general. Pastors have extramarital relationships, get divorced and remarried, and people continue to go to the churches they preach at. This means that what the Bible says has no value to them. If it did, they would not tolerate such things.
 
How willing are you to uphold the words of Scripture, even if you are miserable? Our happiness is not the main focus of Scripture. Rather, glorifying God with our lives is more important than what we want from moment to moment in our fleeting existence.
 
Let us attempt to honor God, being responsible for the words we utter in vows to those we have united with in marriage.
 
Lord God, may we be faithful concerning the words we speak and the vows we make. Help us to be people who are willing to put You above all else, knowing that these lives are temporary and will someday be behind us. We have an eternity in Your presence to look forward to. So, Lord, help us to have this eternal perspective even now. Amen.

Matthew 19:9

Monday, 27 April 2026
 
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9
 
 “And I say to you that whoever, if he should dismiss his wife not upon harlotry, and he shall marry another, he commits adultery. And the ‘having been dismissed,’ having married, she commits adultery.” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus explained that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. However, from the beginning it was not so. Jesus continues, saying, “And I say to you.”
 
His words are not an explanation but a declaration. There is nothing subjectively interpretive in them. In other words, He doesn’t say, “Well, Moses says, but this point can be inferred from the Genesis account.” Instead, Jesus is speaking with His own authority to define a matter, which is “that whoever, if he should dismiss his wife not upon harlotry, and he shall marry another, he commits adultery.”
 
This is clear and unambiguous. If a person has a wife and she is faithful to him, he has no biblical right to divorce her. If she does engage with another man, she is obviously an adulteress and has broken the marriage covenant. In such a case, he has the right to divorce her.
 
However, if the man’s wife was faithful, and he divorces her and later marries another, he is now guilty of adultery. He has violated the marriage covenant. The precept set forth in Genesis 2 concerning the two being one flesh is, according to Jesus, a binding precept. Likewise, He continues, saying, “And the ‘having been dismissed,’ having married, she commits adultery.”
 
It has already been established that if a woman commits adultery during marriage, she has violated the marriage covenant. So, Jesus’ words here mean that if a man divorces his wife who has been faithful and she remarries, she is still considered an adulteress. She remained bound to her husband despite the piece of paper he issued to be rid of her.
 
In other words, to avoid being labeled an adulteress, she would have to remain single, even after divorce, or until he died, at which time, her vows to him were annulled.
 
Life application: The words of Jesus in this verse are intensely debated over. Some manuscripts have dropped the final clause, “And the ‘having been dismissed,’ having married, she commits adultery.” By doing this, it relieves the tension for some, but when thought through, it isn’t relieved at all.
 
The point of Jesus’ words relies on the original nature of the Genesis account. It does not rely on what the man or woman wants or does. In other words, once a marriage has taken place, the two have become one. Violations of that precept must be considered from that perspective.If a woman is dismissed by her husband, she is still bound to the original precept of her marriage, meaning identifying with the husband she married, regardless of their active status as a couple.
 
With that having been said, there is a truth that must be considered. In Christ, all sin is forgiven. One law cannot be held above all the others as being apart from Christ’s atonement, as if He has forgiven everything but adultery.
Therefore, though this is a binding precept, it is not a matter of loss of salvation if violated. Rather, if a believer goes through a divorce and is identified as an adulterer according to Jesus’ words, that disobedience will be judged for rewards and losses according to 1 Corinthians 3 and 2 Corinthians 5.
 
Those in Christ are not under law, but grace. However, it should never be the case that grace be thought of as an excuse for license to sin. Such an idea is perverse and should not be considered. God looks at our marriage covenant in the same light He looks at His covenant with us. They are to be considered indissoluble by those who enter them. It is the reason Israel still exists as a nation today.
 
God will fulfill every promise He has made to the people He has covenanted with.
 
Lord God, help us to live honorably in Your presence, living our lives according to Your will and in accord with the precepts set forth by You. May we never consider it ok to tread upon the grace You have bestowed upon us. Help us in this, O God. Amen.

Matthew 19:8

Sunday, 26 April 2026
 
He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matthew 19:8
 
“He says to them, ‘Because Moses, toward the hardheartedness of you, he allowed you to dismiss your wives. But from the commencement, not it has been thus.’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus was asked about Moses’ provision in the law concerning the issuing of a certificate of divorce. In response to that, Matthew records, “He says to them, ‘Because Moses, toward the hardheartedness of you.’”
 
A new word, not found outside biblical references, is seen here, sklérokardia. It is derived from two words, the first being skléros, dry, but indicating hard or tough, like a dry scab. Figuratively, it refers to stubborn people who won’t budge, bend, or submit. The second word is kardias, the heart. By analogy, it refers to the thoughts or feelings of a person. It is the seat of moral preference.
 
By placing the two words together, one can see the result: a heart that is hardened and morally obdurate. Of the words of Jesus, He ascribes this state as being the reason for Moses’ grant for divorce. This does not negate the doctrine of inspiration. What Moses said was under the inspiration and divine approval of God.
 
However, the book of Deuteronomy is written from Moses’ perspective. When the Lord is mentioned, it is generally in the third person, such as, “Yehovah our God, He made with us – covenant, in Horeb” (Deuteronomy 5:2).
 
As such, Jesus refers to the words as being those of Moses. But it is the Lord who truly looks upon the hardheartedness of the people. Moses, on the other hand, saw the result of it being worked out in the lives of the people. It is in this state of understanding the state of the people that Moses directed his words pros, toward, their hardheartedness.
 
The fact is that divorce was and remains a part of the human condition. Israel was taken out of the body of humanity. Their inclinations would be no different than those of anyone else. The law, however, would magnify the people’s guilt in such matters. In seeing this state in them, Jesus says, “he allowed you to dismiss your wives.”
 
Moses’ words were not a command to dismiss. Rather, they were an accommodation to do so because of the hard state of human hearts, among whom Israel is included. In other words, Moses had to decide the matter, considering what would have been the result if this allowance were not provided.
 
The answer is that things would have been worse in various ways, not better. Otherwise, the allowance would not have been given. Despite this allowance, however, Jesus next says, “But from the commencement, not it has been thus.”
 
The verse in Jesus’ words is a perfect participle. Depending on the translation, such as the NKJV, someone may deduce that it was not so in the beginning, but because of accommodation through Moses, that then changed. This is incorrect. The use of the perfect participle tells us that it was not that way in the beginning, it was not that way at the time of Moses’ allowance, and it continued not to be the case even up to the present.
 
This accommodation does not change the original intent of marriage at all. Rather, Jesus will continue to explain the matter in the verses ahead.
 
Life application: As an example of mixing doctrines, consider the words of the Pulpit Commentary –
 
“From the beginning. The original institution of marriage contained no idea of divorce; it was no mere civil contract, made by man and dissoluble by man, but a union of God's own formation, with which no human power could interfere. However novel this view might seem, it was God's own design from the first. The first instance of polygamy occurs in Genesis 4:19, and is connected with murder and revenge. Matthew 19:8.”
 
The substance of the Pulpit Commentary on the matter of divorce is fine. But one must stop and ask, “What does the last sentence of the commentary have to do with divorce?” The answer is, “Nothing.” Further, the conclusion they gave concerning polygamy is entirely amiss.
 
The fact that murder is mentioned by Lamech has nothing to do with his being married to two wives. Second, murder had already been seen, in the same chapter, when connected in a similar offhand manner to a non-polygamous marriage.
 
Cain killed Abel. They were sons of Adam and Eve. The fact that murder took place has nothing to do with that fact, just as the fact that Lamech had two wives, from a biblical standpoint, has nothing to do with Lamech’s killing of another person.
 
Be careful when reading commentaries not to get misdirected into irrelevant side issues. This is quite common in commentaries, but incorrect conclusions can become the highlight of a matter because of such things. When that happens, all kinds of false teachings can quickly arise.
 
If someone wants to deviate from a thought being presented, there needs to be a reason for it, such as a “life application” that is understood to be extra to the main content.
 
Likewise, be sure to stick to relevant facts yourself in your own discussions about theology and doctrine. In doing so, you will build a stronger case without fallacious conclusions that misdirect from the matter at hand.
 
Lord God, help us to be faithful husbands and wives, living out our lives in adherence with what You have set forth for marriages in Your word. May we be patient, caring, and forgiving as we interact with the spouse You have blessed us with all the days of our lives. Amen.

Matthew 19:7

Saturday, 25 April 2026
 
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Matthew 19:7
 
“They say to Him, ‘Therefore, why he did enjoin, Moses, to give a divorce scroll to dismiss her?’” (CG)
 
In the previous verse, Jesus, having cited Scripture to justify His conclusion, said that what God has joined, man should not separate. With that stated, an obvious question arose. Matthew records, “They say to Him, ‘Therefore, why he did enjoin, Moses, to give a divorce scroll to dismiss her?’”
 
The reason this is obvious is that it is found in the Pentateuch or Torah, the same five books in which Genesis is recorded. There is nothing wrong with the question, and such confusion should be expected. If a truth is evidently being taught in one part of the Torah and elsewhere something seems contradictory to that, then how can those thoughts be reconciled?
 
Such confusion will often cause one to take the laxer stand in the debate unless there is a compelling reason why they shouldn’t. In other words, “This appears to say something in Genesis, but it isn’t explicit. Our teacher has noted that Deuteronomy says something different, which is stated explicitly. Therefore, we must go with Deuteronomy.”
 
That is why there were different schools of thought, such as Shammai and Hillel. One may have deduced that the precept implied in Genesis had limitations. The other held firmly to Deuteronomy due to its explicitly stated nature. As Moses didn’t give any further qualifications, then the laxer approach must be acceptable.
 
However, there is one more consideration at this time in Israel’s history. In Malachi 2:16, the prophet declared to the people –
 
“And this is the second thing you do:You cover the altar of the Lord with tears,With weeping and crying;So He does not regard the offering anymore,Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.14 Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’Because the Lord has been witnessBetween you and the wife of your youth,With whom you have dealt treacherously;Yet she is your companionAnd your wife by covenant.15 But did He not make them one,Having a remnant of the Spirit?And why one?He seeks godly offspring.Therefore take heed to your spirit,And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.16 For the Lord God of Israel saysThat He hates divorce,For it covers one’s garment with violence,Says the Lord of hosts.Therefore take heed to your spirit,That you do not deal treacherously.” Malachi 2:13-16
 
Because of this, Israel should have carefully considered the words of Moses and taken a second look at their actions and attitudes concerning divorce.
 
Life application: Theology is not always black and white and clearly set on the pages of Scripture. Many things have to be carefully considered from a much wider angle than a single precept on a page.
 
It is true that Moses gave an allowance for divorce. But what was the reason for it? Jesus will give a clear and exacting response to the question. When thought through, it should make sense to those who hear it. But Jesus’ response will elicit more concerns in the minds of His disciples.
 
But this is how the Bible presents things. There are things to be inferred. Directives come along that may seem confusing. Other things are stated later that are hard to reconcile with what has already been said, etc.
 
Eventually, however, as the years pass, the greater plan of redemption becomes clearer and clearer. Little steps are taken to give lessons. From there, things will take their place. When that occurs, people may still not understand what is happening because they have failed to see the progression of what God is doing.
 
Those who continue to hold to the law are in such a category. They failed to see that the law was a steppingstone to lead Israel to Jesus. In failing to see that, they rejected the new direction. Along with their rejection, they teach others who were never under the law that they need to go back to the part of the plan where those teaching law observance still are.
 
All of this is because of a failure to see the greater picture of what God is doing.  That is why God has made the gospel so hugely simple. If people can’t understand the basic gospel, and the world is full of people who don’t, imagine if it were any more complicated!
 
God is looking to get people saved through Christ. Once that is done, it is important to grow in Christ, lest someone come along and pull you back into a part of what God has already set aside. Keep reading the Bible! Keep looking at what God has done from the bigger and more complete plan of redemption. This is how you will be firm and secure in what is a big and complicated book.
 
Glorious Lord God, thank You for the simple gospel. By it we are saved. Once that is out of the way, help us to continue to grow in our walk with You. May we be responsible stewards of the time You have given us. Help us in this, O God. Amen.