Saturday, 12 September 2026   But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Matthew 22:34   “The ‘also Pharisees’, having heard that He muzzled the Sadducees, they gathered upon the same.” (CG)   In the previous verse, it was noted that when the multitudes heard Jesus’ response to the Sadducees, they were astonished at His teaching. It next says, “The ‘also Pharisees’, having heard.”   It is not said how they heard about Jesus’ response to the Sadducees. One of them may have been standing right there, interested in the conversation, or they may have heard about it because of the astonishing logic Jesus used, which caused the people to start talking about it. That could even be the reason the reaction to the crowds was just mentioned. However the word got to them, it was concerning the idea “that He muzzled the Sadducees.”   A new word is seen here, phimoó, to muzzle. It is derived from phimos, a muzzle. Ellicott says, “The primary meaning of the Greek verb is to stop a man’s power of speaking with a gag, and even in its wider use it retains the sense of putting men to a coerced and unwilling silence.”   In Mark 4:39, it is used by Jesus when He muzzled the winds that were swamping Him and the disciples while on the Sea of Galilee. It is used concerning the muzzling of a demon in Luke 4:35.   In this account in Matthew, the word is almost comically employed by referring to the Sadducees’ embarrassing reaction to Jesus’ logic. They simply had nothing left to say and departed as if muzzled like oxen. Of these Pharisees, it says, “they gathered upon the same.”   It is debated exactly what this means. Did they gather upon the same spot, meaning locally? Did they gather upon the same concept of trapping Jesus in His words? Did they gather upon Jesus, meaning the same person who had just shut down the Sadducees? The last seems likely.   Jesus had muzzled the Sadducees. Now the Pharisees have decided to reengage Him, having already been shut down by Him in verse 22. If so, the wording is as if the Pharisees have come together, surrounding Jesus, ready to pounce on Him.   Life application: Many people seem to revel in making others look foolish. Maybe it gives them a sense of superiority when they see others put to shame in whatever matter is in question. This seems to be the case with these attacks on Jesus. His words were well received by the people, and the leaders of Israel couldn’t stomach the competition.   Therefore, they intended to discredit Him to reelevate themselves to the position they were being dethroned from. In other words, instead of receiving Jesus’ words and complementing them for being insightful and worthy of consideration, they redirected their attention to tearing Him down.   It was too much for them to share their leadership position with any supposed competition. It was evident from Jesus’ words that what He said was well thought out and correct in its presentation. As such, their attempts to trap Him came from evil hearts.   This is not the same as calling out bad doctrine. There is nothing wrong with identifying what is false, speaking against it, thus bringing soundness in doctrine to the ears of others who will certainly be harmed by the incorrect teachings. Paul rightfully did this to Peter in Galatians 2.   Later, having learned his lesson from Paul, Peter wrote, “For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15). There, Peter uses the same word phimoó, to muzzle, found in Matthew 22:24.   There is a time when it is right and appropriate to speak against false teachings, calling out those who teach them. Doctrine matters. Jesus never allowed bad doctrine to continue unchecked, and He expects us to follow in that same manner. Real harm comes to people when it remains uncontested.   This does not mean the person who challenges the bad doctrine is reveling in the correction. As noted, the

Friday, 11 September 2026   And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching. Matthew 22:33   “And having heard, the crowds, they were outstruck upon the ‘teaching, His’.” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus explained to the Sadducees that God is the God of the living, not the dead. Matthew next records, “And having heard, the crowds.”   Rather than focus on the reaction of the Sadducees, Matthew notes the reaction of the crowds. The Sadducees would have little to say about Jesus’ words until they had time to process them. It is certain that they eventually rationalized away what He said because they remained in their beliefs, as indicated in Acts 23:8, where it notes that they say there is no resurrection. As for the crowds in general, “they were outstruck upon the ‘teaching, His’.”   The crowds who were willing to listen to religious teachers had their ears filled with all the legalist additions to the law cast on them by their religious leaders. The things they heard would be brought up in debates where one side would score a point in the eyes of those who agreed with them. Then, the other side would state its case, scoring its own point in the eyes of their adherents.   This is no different than what happens in such conversations today. Minds are not normally changed. Rather, there will be a doubling down by each side on what they think is correct. In evaluating a question like that proposed to Jesus by the Sadducees, such debates would end without any changes of mind because the sides are normally arguing apples and oranges.   In the case of the Pharisees and Sadducees, one side held to the books of Moses while the other side held to Moses and also the prophets and historical writings. Without debating from the same reference point, nothing could be resolved. Jesus, knowing what the Sadducees believed, went to a particular passage that appeared to have nothing to do with what was being discussed and drew a masterful conclusion from it.   But more, it was from a source that everybody would have agreed was suitable for such a debate, being directly from Moses. Thus, the debate was on an apples-and-apples level. This is more certain when considering the additional words found in Luke 20 –   “Then some of the scribes answered and said, ‘Teacher, You have spoken well.’ 40 But after that they dared not question Him anymore.” Luke 20:39, 40   These scribes probably held to a belief in the resurrection. Having never considered the logic of what Jesus presented from Exodus 3, they felt vindicated in their stand from a source that could not be ignored.   Life application: One of a jillion areas of debate within Christianity concerns exactly what is required for salvation. It’s not a point of doctrine that should have any debate at all. Paul explains the gospel and what it means when it is believed in 1 Corinthians 15 –   “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”   That is it. The gospel is defined in verses 3 & 4. It is what is received (through belief), and it is that by which a person is saved. Nothing else is necessary to be saved. And yet, there is an endless line of arguments set forth as to why certain things must accompany the good news. Why is this?   The reason can be summed up in a single word: context. Anything that is argued over concerning salvation that goes beyond the gospel is, by default, out of the context of how to be saved. Paul has stated the gospel. He has stated what the effect of believing the gospel is (meaning being saved). And yet, it is not enough for most teachers

Thursday, 10 September 2026   ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Matthew 22:32   “‘I, I am the ‘God, Abraham’, and the ‘God, Isaac’, and the ‘God, Jacob’.’ Not, He is, the God – ‘God, dead’, but living.” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus continued His words to the Sadducees, bringing up the subject of the resurrection and preparing to quote Scripture to support His words. He now cites words from Exodus 3:6 and 3:15, which say –   “And He said, ‘I myself ‘God, your father’, ‘God, Abraham’, ‘God, Isaac’, and ‘God, Jacob’.’ And he caused to hide, Moses, his faces. For he feared from ‘causing to scan’ unto the God.” Exodus 3:6 (CG)   “And He said, yet, God unto Moses, ‘Thus you will say unto ‘sons, Israel’, “Yehovah, ‘God, your fathers’, ‘God, Abraham’, ‘God, Isaac’, and ‘God, Jacob’, He sent me unto you. ‘This, My name to vanishment, and this my memorial to generation, generation.’”’” Exodus 3:15 (CG)   Jesus cites the portion of these verses that He deems relevant to His line of reasoning, beginning with, “I, I am the ‘God, Abraham’, and the ‘God, Isaac’, and the ‘God, Jacob’.”   As can be seen, in the Greek, there is an article before God when connected to the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the Hebrew, that same closeness is summed up in Exodus 3:6 by calling Him “the God” at the end of the verse.   In Hebrew, the use of the article before “God” is expressive. It signifies those who are in a right relationship with Him or to contrast those who are not. There is an intimate union even at the time of Moses that existed between “the God” and Moses’ ancestors.   The emphatic “I, I” in the Greek is reflected in the Hebrew word anokhi, translated as I myself. The Lord God emphatically declared to Moses that He is the God of these men. He doesn’t say He was their God but that He is, speaking of the three of them conjointly and by omitting any verb in the Hebrew. In the Greek, Jesus cites it with a present-tense verb in the active voice. With this stated, Jesus continues, saying, “Not, He is, the God – ‘God, dead’, but living.”   Jesus’ point is that because of this intimate union, reflected in the proclamation made by God, they must still be alive to God. As Cambridge says, “God is a God of the living only, but He is the God of Abraham. Therefore, Abraham is living.”   The matter of the resurrection is not proven by this formula. However, it is to be inferred from it. If these men are alive to God, but are physically dead, there must be a place where they are alive to God. That place in the Old Testament is called Sheol. In the New Testament, it is called Hades.   If these men are there, that disproves the Sadducees’ argument that at the time of physical death, there is nothing further. As there is a state of existence after death, it implies that they are awaiting a resurrection.   Life application: It would be a sad excuse for a life if the Sadducees’ idea of living were true and yet they spent their time worrying about what God thought. If God created man with no intention of restoring him to Himself, it would be equivalent to the atheists’ belief that there is no God as far as judgment is concerned.   If there is nothing awaiting man after this life, what would be the point of being moral, saving for the future, or even considering God in one’s daily life? There would be none. And this is just the attitude that communists and atheists have. They say that religion is a trap to keep the masses under control and to subjugate them.   But this is just what atheism leading to communism does. Because they claim there is no God, there is no need to treat humanity with care. Subjugating the masses without any thought of accountability for their actions is their main idea in life.   It is an ideology that has led to hundreds of millions of human lives being exterminated. Religious wars have indeed taken place over the millennia, somethi

Wednesday, 9 September 2026   But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, Matthew 22:31   “Concerning, also, the ‘resurrection, the dead’, not you read the ‘having been uttered to you by the God’, saying...” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus began the substance of His answer to the Sadducees’ question, telling them that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Rather, they are like the angels of God in heaven. Jesus next schools them on the resurrection itself, beginning with, “Concerning, also, the ‘resurrection, the dead’.”   They did not specifically ask about the resurrection, just what would happen to the woman who married the seven brothers. However, being Sadducees, He knew that they didn’t believe in a resurrection. Their question was just an attempt to demonstrate that the doctrine is confused and not based on reality.   Because of that, Jesus will provide insights into the nature of God and man’s relationship to Him to help them understand what they had previously missed. He continues, saying, “not you read the ‘having been uttered to you by the God’, saying...”   Jesus takes the word of God as an utterance of God, even if it is transmitted through human beings. That will become more evident as He continues, but it is a truth that permeates Scripture.   Life application: In Luke, the words of this account add, “But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised...” In Matthew, Jesus says, “uttered to you by the God,” but in Luke it says, “even Moses showed.”   One can see the synergistic way that Scripture is brought to us. God didn’t just send the Bible down in book form from heaven. Instead, He used human instruments to convey His word to us. In 2 Peter, it says –   “And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:19-21   God has spoken through humans, books have been recorded, and then they were compiled into a single unit. It is often questioned how we can know if the word we received is reliable, missing books, has the wrong books, etc.   If God spoke through men to give books to His people, then He is obviously capable of ensuring that the books He provided us will be properly protected to form a whole. That brings in several other issues, though.   For example, some sects or cults have books not accepted in the standard canon of Scripture. How can we know if they actually belong in the Bible or not? There is no quick and simple answer to this. But it is generally understood that the books of the Bible will properly weave together with each other to form a united whole, each book complementing the others.   It can also be expected that God’s “fingerprints” will be on the result. And this is certainly the case with the standard and accepted sixty-six books of the Bible. There are patterns that run richly through the whole, demonstrating a wisdom and intelligence behind them that spans them all, even though they were penned in various locations, by many people, and over an extended period of time.   This cohesion is lost when the apocrypha is added, as has been done by the Roman Catholic Church. Others add in the book of Enoch or the book of Mormon. Such additions do not reflect the same divine stamp which permeates what is accepted as the standard Bible.   Further, within the Bible are certain stories, the typology of which confirms the structure of the Bible, such as there being two testaments, not one or three. There is a seemingly unlimited amount of information that confirms we possess exactly what God intends for us to possess when we have the standard sixty-

Tuesday, 8 September 2026   For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. Matthew 22:30   “In, indeed, the resurrection, neither they marry, nor they are espoused, but like ‘messengers, the God, in heaven’, they are.” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus replied to the Sadducees’ question, telling them they didn’t know Scripture or the power of God. In direct response to the question, Jesus answers, saying, “In, indeed, the resurrection, neither they marry, nor they are espoused.”   A new word is seen here, gamisko, to espouse. It is the verb form of gamos, first seen in Matthew 22:2. Jesus says that this will not occur with those who are raised in the resurrection. The context needs to be maintained to understand what Jesus is referring to. Jesus is speaking to the Sadducees, people of Israel who are under the Law of Moses. He is not speaking about the church. As such, He is not speaking about the rapture of the church.   What Jesus says may apply to the church as a truth, but that is not the context. He is speaking about the resurrection of those saints who died before the completion of Christ’s work. His words, however, also include those who die during the tribulation, as recorded in Revelation 20:4-6. This is known as the first resurrection. In Daniel 12, it says –   “At that time Michael shall stand up,The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;And there shall be a time of trouble,Such as never was since there was a nation,Even to that time.And at that time your people shall be delivered,Every one who is found written in the book.2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,Some to everlasting life,Some to shame and everlasting contempt.3 Those who are wise shall shineLike the brightness of the firmament,And those who turn many to righteousnessLike the stars forever and ever.” Daniel 12:1-3   These words are spoken to Daniel, a prophet under the Mosaic Covenant. There is a time when the Old Testament saints will be raised. This is also referred to in Isaiah 26:19. This event will happen at the end of the tribulation period. As noted above, at this same resurrection, those who die in Christ in the tribulation will also be raised –   “And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” Revelation 20:4-6   Of those raised at this time, Jesus says, “but like ‘messengers, the God, in heaven’, they are.”   This is certainly speaking of angels, spirits of the heavenly realm. Jesus clearly and unambiguously states that the angels of God in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. This is logical, because spirits have no potential to do so.   This, however, does not mean that those who are resurrected will be spirit beings. It is simply a truth that those who are raised will not marry or be given in marriage. They will have overcome this fallen, corruptible body. God has something new planned for those who are to be raised.   Life application: God is working through dispensations. Each dispensation has its own inner workings. To mix what is said will occur in one dispensation with that of another dispensation will give a faulty reading of what is going on in God’s redemptive plans.   In Matthew 22, Jesus is not speaking about a resurrection of those in the church age. Paul gives the information concern

Monday, 7 September 2026   Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Matthew 22:29   “Answering, also, the ‘Jesus’, He said to them, ‘You roam, not having known the Scriptures nor the ‘power, the God’.’” (CG)   In the previous verse, the Sadducees asked Jesus which of the seven the woman would be united to in the resurrection. In response, Matthew records, “Answering, also, the ‘Jesus’, He said to them, ‘You roam.’”   It is a word already seen a few times in Matthew 18, planaó. It signifies to roam, as if going astray or deviating from the proper path. The word is where our word planet is derived from. This is because planets, unlike stars which appear fixed, roam among the sky. They will even seem to roam off course at times, going into retrograde.   These men’s thoughts, and thus their doctrine, had deviated from the sound path. The reason for this is next stated by Jesus, saying, “not having known the Scriptures.”   It is the same thing that plagues the world today. Jews, no matter how diligently they study Scripture, roam because they are looking at it from the wrong paradigm. They think the word is about them. It is true, Israel is included in the word in a significant way, but the word is not about them. It is about Jesus.   Christians fail to properly evaluate Scripture, inserting presuppositions, biases, agendas, etc., into their reading and teaching of the word. The prosperity gospel, for example, is not found in a proper handling of the word, and yet it permeates churches from the US to Africa to South Korea.   Jesus’ point concerning this is that the Scriptures never teach what they have proposed. Therefore, their “either/or” approach to the matter is invalid. They have assumed that marriage in this life extends beyond this current existence or that there is no such thing as a resurrection.   Because of a presupposition about the matter, they could not consider any other option. The Sadducees failed to know, meaning rightly understand, the Scriptures. But more, Jesus says, “nor the ‘power, the God’.”   Along with their improper handling of Scripture, they put limitations on what God can do. Man was created from the dust of the earth, as recorded in Genesis 2. That means that a particular lump of dust was formed into a man, after which life was breathed into it. It was at this time that man became a living being.   Man is set to die. Some people are burned in the fire, some (like Jezebel) are eaten by animals, while the worm consumes others. Some die in the field, and their bodies fertilize the field, from which comes plant life which is eaten for food.   The Sadducees may have thought, “It is impossible to regather that same lump which formed our good old friend Schlimey. Therefore, Schlimey is gone forever.” This is putting a limitation on God that does not exist. Nothing in Scripture says man is limited to a single lump of clay. Even if the resurrection was dependent on a lump of clay, we are not the same lump of clay from day to day. We eat things from the ground, and our bodies are transformed by what we eat. Eventually, almost all the cells of a body are different than a few years earlier.   If God has formed the body to renew itself in this manner, He can obviously do more than we can even imagine concerning a resurrection from the dead.   Life application: Of this verse, Albert Barnes correctly states, “The way in which the enemies of the truth often attempt to make a doctrine of the Bible ridiculous is by adding to it, and then calling it absurd.”   Unfortunately, even people who support a particular doctrine may unwittingly or unwisely do this. A good example of this is the doctrine of the rapture. It is clearly taught in Scripture. This is not the same event as is being debated by the Sadducees at this point.   A literal resurrection is promised, for example, in Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 26:19. Those are not rapture verses. They are a prom

Sunday, 6 September 2026   Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.” Matthew 22:28   “In the resurrection, therefore, which of the seven, she will be – wife? All, for, they had her.” (CG)   In the previous verse, the Sadducees concluded their statement about the seven sons and the woman who was given to each of them to raise seed in the name of her dead husband, noting that she also died. With their statement complete, they next ask their question, beginning with, “In the resurrection, therefore...”   This lays bare their true intent for the account they have presented. Matthew preempted their statement, saying in verse 23, “In that, the ‘day’, they approached Him, Sadducees (saying not is ‘resurrection’), and they queried Him.”   Their question is intended to either trap Jesus in a matter of law concerning the resurrection or to make Him concede that because the law cannot answer their question, there must not be such a thing as a resurrection.   It is commonly stated that the Sadducees are said to have only held to the books of Moses, the Torah, as inspired. This is only found, however, in the writings of the early Church Fathers, such as Origen and Hippolytus.   Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, notes that the Sadducees rejected the oral traditions of the elders championed by the Pharisees. However, he never explicitly states that they disregarded the Prophets or the Writings.   As such, it can only be inferred that they did not hold to them. In Acts 23, it says –   “And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. 8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.” Acts 23:7, 8   As this is so, it is assumed that they could not have held to the writings after Moses because both the resurrection and angels are referred to in those writings. Whatever length they went to in such matters, they sharply disagreed with the Pharisees in points of doctrine. Understanding these things, they next ask, “which of the seven, she will be – wife?” The answer to the exact question as stated is not given in the Torah. However, that does not mean that the question cannot be answered. If the question is invalid based on its contents, which Jesus will demonstrate is the case, then there is no need to answer the question as given. To finish, they say, “All, for, they had her.”   As stated, the question forms a supposed dilemma. If they were all united with her, how can she be the wife of only one of them in the resurrection? Their thought is that if Moses doesn’t address the matter, then either Moses’ writings are incomplete for proper theology, or there must not be a resurrection. It is a false dilemma which calls for a resolution from only one of two possible answers. This is where the error in their thinking, and thus in their doctrine, lies.   Life application: Jesus was presented with a false dilemma by the Pharisees in verse 22:17. They presented a matter concerning paying taxes to Caesar, assuming that whichever answer Jesus gave, it would trap Him. This same avenue is taken by the Sadducees.   This is why it is good to know fallacies and then think through why they are incorrect when you are presented with them. What may seem obvious to someone because he is conditioned to think a certain way may actually be completely wrong.   When talking to a person about a medical issue, a disagreement may arise over what the doctor has prescribed. One of the people may say, “Of course it is this way. The guy is a doctor! He is the authority. You need to do what he says.” That is a fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Just because someone is a doctor (or a Marine Corps officer, or a noted theologian), it doesn’t mean he is right, even about matters he specializes in. Truth is what corresponds to reality. If what he says is wrong, it is incorrect.   This

Saturday, 5 September 2026   Last of all the woman died also. Matthew 22:27   “Afterward, also of all, she died, even the woman.” (CG)   In the previous verse, it said that the next of seven sons had his dead brother’s wife to raise up seed, and he died. This continued to the seventh son, all of them having her and then dying. Next, it says, “Afterward, also of all, she died, even the woman.”   Note: The Tischendorf and the Westcott and Hort editions leave out the word kai, translated here as even. The Pulpit Commentary says of this, “and seemingly with good reason.” If kai is original as indicated in the Byzantine and Majority texts, it is inexcusable to leave out a part of God’s word. Both doing and saying something like that epitomize the arrogance of some people in how they handle Scripture. As for the verse, the first words say, “Afterward, also, of all.”   The point of the words is that the woman was left until the end. There was a family with seven sons, and she was brought into the family, marrying the oldest son. After this, her husband died. From there, the law stated that she was to become the wife of the dead husband’s brother to raise up his name through his seed. This precept was followed, but before a child was born, he too died.   This continued through all seven sons. All seven eventually died without leaving a son in the first son’s name. Therefore, all of the players in this scene, whether true or hypothetical, were dead but her. At that point, it says, “she died.”   It is a sad note, but one which speaks of the inevitable fate of humanity. Though her life was used within the family in a manner obedient to the precept found in the law, it was not enough to keep her from the effects of law on humanity. As Paul says –   “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:19, 20   The Sadducees were probably not concerned about these points at all. They have come to Jesus for an entirely different reason. However, these points all come into the larger point of Jesus’ ministry and how it bears on humanity. With their statement concerning her, they finish with a point of emphasis, as if they are sealing the matter once and for all, “even the woman.”   Whatever hope there could have been for raising up the dead man’s name is lost with her gone. In Ruth, a similar account is given where a father, his wife, and their two sons go to Moab. While there, the two sons marry women of Moab. Eventually, however, the father and both sons died.   Eventually, the wife of the father returned to Israel, and one of her daughters-in-law accompanied her. Through a series of events, she was accepted for marriage to a close relative, if a closer relative would not marry her. The closer relative could not accept the terms without marring his own inheritance. Therefore, it says –   “And Boaz said to the elders and all the people, ‘You are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi. 10 Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You are witnesses this day.’” Ruth 4:9, 10   In the account in Matthew, with the woman’s death, even the possibility of some broader application of the principle seen later in Ruth—where the name of the dead is preserved through a more distant kinsman—was gone.   This is not the focus of the question that the Sadducees will propose to Jesus, but it is a way of finalizing this matter in regard to the oldest son, his name within the society, and how it could be raised up.   Life application

Friday, 4 September 2026   Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. Matthew 22:26   “Similarly, also, the second, and the third, until the seventh.” (CG)   In the previous verse, the Sadducees spoke of there being among them seven brothers. The first died, having no offspring. Because of that, the wife went to his brother. They continue, saying, “Similarly, also, the second, and the third, until the seventh.”   The woman was given to each subsequent brother, and yet, she had no child from any of them to raise up the name of her first husband. Of this, the Expositor’s Greek Testament says, “As Chrys. [Chrysostom] humorously remarks, after the second the brothers would shun the woman as a thing of evil omen.”   It’s not a humorous thing at all. Rather, it appears to be exactly what occurred in the account of Judah and Tamar –   “It came to pass at that time that Judah departed from his brothers, and visited a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah. 2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and went in to her. 3 So she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. 4 She conceived again and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. 5 And she conceived yet again and bore a son, and called his name Shelah. He was at Chezib when she bore him.6 Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him. 8 And Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.’ 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also.11 Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, ‘Remain a widow in your father’s house till my son Shelah is grown.’ For he said, ‘Lest he also die like his brothers.’ And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house.” Genesis 38:1-11   It appears that Judah was truly concerned that Tamar was somehow the cause of the deaths of his first two sons. He wanted to avoid losing the third through another such union.   As for the seven who died, this does not mean that all seven died without an heir. The Law of Moses did not forbid polygamy. The other sons could have already had other wives. This woman was given to them to raise up a son for her first husband. What happened to the others in regard to other wives or sons is left out of this narrative.   Life application: The Sadducees have brought forward an example of the kind of mess that is possible in a matter of law. Though unlikely and possibly stated as merely an example of what could have happened, it also could actually have occurred. Either way, the point is that there is a seeming void in an original point of the law that had not been fully fleshed out.   Such a case is found in the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27. A problem concerning inheritances was brought before Moses, and a judgment was rendered. However, in Numbers 36, the issue was brought up again because the judgment of Chapter 36 raised another point that could mar inheritances. Therefore, another judgment was rendered to clarify and settle that matter.   One can see how, when law is given, contingencies can arise that were not thought through or fully fleshed out when the original law was given. It may also be that circumstances arise that necessitate further clarification of the law. The US Constitution has been amended many times because of this.   Further, judgments are rendered in courts throughout the land each day, which set new guidelines within the greater framework of the government. Sometimes, they need to be elevated to the highest court in the land for clarification.   Understanding this, there is a problem that will be presented to Jesus, which se

Thursday, 3 September 2026   Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. Matthew 22:25   “They were, also, among us seven brothers, and the first, having married, he died, and not having seed, he left the ‘wife, his’ to the ‘brother, his’.” (CG)   In the previous verse, the Sadducees cited the law from Moses concerning the levirate marriage. With that laid before Him, they now bring in a scenario based on that law, beginning with, “They were, also, among us seven brothers”   As the basis for their question was the levirate marriage prescription found in the law, we can already assume their question will be based on that, which necessitates an evaluation from Jesus. However, it is to be remembered that Matthew introduced the Sadducees in this section as saying there is no resurrection. That will somehow be connected to their question.   Being seven brothers, and their proposal being dependent on the prescription from Moses, the assumption is that these are seven brothers from the same father’s side of the family. The reason for this is that it is the name and inheritance that is being dealt with, something that is irrelevant to a half-brother who is from another father.   Their words continue, saying, “and the first, having married, he died.” One can already assume what the rest of this situation will be. They are speaking to Jesus about the levirate marriage. A son in the family has died. The natural assumption would thus be as is next stated, “and not having seed, he left the ‘wife, his’ to the ‘brother, his’.”   The man had no children before he died. Because of that, it is the responsibility under the law that the next son would perform the duty of raising up a son in the name of his deceased brother.   So far, there is nothing unusual about the matter at hand.   Life application: The prescription of the levirate marriage, being a part of the law, was considered mandatory. However, during the later period of the Second Temple, preserved writings note that there was a shift in thinking about it.   The obligation is that if a man married and died childless, a surviving brother was to raise up a son in his name. However, the law did allow for refusal, with a ceremony specifying what was to be done. The result, based on the prescription, was intended to shame the one who refused to fulfill his obligation. Despite this, there came into the sages’ thinking the issue of the practice of the precept and the alternative of declining the obligation. In fulfilling the obligation, the word used to describe the matter was yabam, the act of marrying the brother’s widow. That comes from the noun yabam, the brother-in-law mentioned in Deuteronomy 25:5 and 25:7.   On the other side of the matter is halitzah, the removal, meaning the removal of the sandal noted in Deuteronomy 25:9. During the later Second Temple period, there was a historical shift in the debate about this practice. The sages debated whether performing the marriage, yabam, could be replaced with simply allowing the halitzah.   The point of approving the the practice of halizah as the standard method of dealing with this was so that there was no shame attached to the matter. This would then allow the woman to marry anyone she pleased, and the name of the brother would end.   One can see the problem here. The law sets forth a requirement, and every effort imaginable is made to circumvent the unpalatable precepts. This is seen in the New Testament when Jesus debates with the religious leaders.The matter of the obligation to help one’s aged parents is a prime example. People will openly and with a pious attitude do things that they find easy to stomach or that don’t complicate life, but those things which are more complicated, distasteful, etc., are given a workaround.   As seen in the typology explained in the previous commentary, there was to be a sense of shame for not fulfilling