Tuesday, 6 January 2026   Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. Matthew 15:28   “Then, Jesus answering, He said to her, ‘O! Woman, your faith is great! It become to you as you determine.’ And she’s cured, her daughter, from that hour” (CG).   In the previous verse, the Canaanite woman agreed with the Lord’s assessment concerning bread going to the children, but she noted that even the puppies got the crumbs from the table. With that, we next read, “Then, Jesus answering, He said to her, ‘O! Woman, your faith is great!’”   These words are not because of her astute assessment of the workings of a household. Rather, her note concerning crumbs being sufficient for the great miracle she requested in the healing of her daughter is what set her apart. How unlike Naaman the Syrian, who misunderstood God’s workings and capabilities –   “Then Naaman went with his horses and chariot, and he stood at the door of Elisha’s house. 10 And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, ‘Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you, and you shall be clean.’ 11 But Naaman became furious, and went away and said, ‘Indeed, I said to myself, “He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.” 12 Are not the Abanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?’ So he turned and went away in a rage.” 2 Kings 5:9-12   Naaman was looking for something great and exciting as a means of healing his servant. This Canaanite woman asked for no such thing. She was observant of how things worked in a house. In hearing Jesus’ words concerning His mission, she was able to take the two and conclude how things must work in God’s economy.   In other words, “If God has a plan and purpose for the lost sheep (a metaphor) of Israel, and that purpose is to provide bread to the children (another metaphor), then He must be dealing with Israel in a way which reflects those metaphors.”   Astute, yes, but her faith is in understanding that bread, no matter how small the amount, would crumble off and be uneaten when it was broken. And more, that teeny amount of bread would be sufficient to tend to her needs.   Understanding this, Jesus next says, “It become to you as you determine.” The woman had asked in faith, Jesus accepted her request, and from there His words noted that as she determined, so it would come about. Just as when a person calls out for spiritual healing, the physical healing was to be realized for her daughter. This is noted in Matthew’s closing words, “And she’s cured, her daughter, from that hour.”   The woman determined that healing her daughter was what she desired. Jesus responded accordingly, and her daughter was immediately healed. Concerning salvation, Paul says –   “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.” Ephesians 1:13   Life application: The word repent has been so thoroughly abused from its original meaning that there is no longer any sense of what God expects of His people in order to be saved. See if you think these words from George Barna match what Paul says concerning salvation as noted in Ephesians 1 –   “Tens of millions of people who attend Christian churches every week, and who consider themselves to be followers of Christ and eternally secure, do not seem to understand that repentance is necessary for salvation, and repentance demands a change in behavior.” He stressed that “repentance is not merely sorrow over misdeeds” but “must include a determined effort to change both mind and actions to avoid committing the same sins in the future.”   The answer is that not only do they not match what Paul says, bu

Monday, 5 January 2026   And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Matthew 15:27   “And she said, ‘Yes, Lord. And even the puppies – he eats from the crumbs, the ‘falling from their master’s table’.’” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus responded to the Canaanite woman, telling her it wasn’t good to take the children’s bread and cast it to the puppies. Now, her incredible response to His words is given. Matthew records, “And she said, ‘Yes, Lord.’”   This Canaanite woman doesn’t argue Jesus’ premise, nor does she go off on some woke tangent, crying that His words are xenophobic, racist, or anti-Canaanitish. She fully accepts His statement, knowing it is right and logical.   However, she has words for Jesus that not only acknowledge this, but which highlight them in the most profound way, saying, “And even the puppies – he eats from the crumbs, the ‘falling from their master’s table.’”   A new word, psichion, crumbs, is introduced. It will only be seen here and in the parallel account in Mark. It is also found in Luke 16:21 in some texts. Of this word, the Topical Lexicon says –   “First-century Mediterranean households commonly used small flat loaves both as food and as utensils for dipping and scooping. Portions too small or too soiled for human consumption were discarded from hand to mouth or allowed to fall to the floor, where house dogs—kept not as pampered pets but as low-status scavengers—would consume them. In that light, ‘crumbs’ suggests the tiniest, seemingly insignificant portion of sustenance. The woman’s statement accepts her social standing without protest while affirming the superabundance of the Master’s provision: even leftovers from Israel’s table are sufficient to meet her need.”   This woman understood the power of Jesus, obviously having paid heed to what was said by others who had encountered Him. She understood that she had no standing in Israel but that the God of Israel was abundant in mercy and was capable of extending Himself beyond the Israelite nation.   Using the metaphor of the dog receiving table crumbs, she acknowledges Jesus’ words concerning her being a dog. Without finding any fault in His statement, she humbly accepts her status but wisely notes that even in Israel, where dogs are unclean animals according to dietary laws, it did not make them inherently unclean within the society or the household.   Instead, they were a recognized and acceptable part of the family and received their sustenance, including that which was reserved for the family under ceremonial laws of cleanliness, when it was surplus to the needs of the family.   This woman had in no way “out-mastered the Master.” Rather, she had brilliantly relieved the tension that He faced in the matter of being sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, which was contrasted to His innate desire to help this distressed Gentile woman.   Jesus’ response to her logic will be seen in the next verse.   Life application: No person who has heard the gospel message of Jesus and believed that it is true should ever feel that he is unacceptable to be saved. It doesn’t matter if a woman was a prostitute or a lesbian, it doesn’t matter if a man was a womanizer or a drunk, it doesn’t even matter if someone was a cannibal. God’s mercy in Christ is without any such limit.   People from each of these categories, and an innumerable list of others, have heard, been saved, and gone on to do great things for Jesus. To assume that your earthly status, culture, skin color, or past is a limiting factor in your being accepted by God is to place that supposed issue above God, who created all things.   All such things are incidental to your state as a human. It is your humanity that allows these things to be overlooked because Jesus shared in human existence. Don’t fret that you are unworthy to be saved. Every other person ever saved has been unworthy of being saved. Rejoice that in o

Sunday, 4 January 2026   But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” Matthew 15:26   “And answering, He said, ‘It is not good to take the children’s bread and cast to the puppies’” (CG).   In the previous verse, the Canaanite woman came to Jesus and worshiped Him and asked Him to help her. Following this, Matthew records, “And answering, He said, ‘It is not good to take the children’s bread and cast to the puppies.’”   A new word is seen, kunarion, a diminutive form of kuón, a dog. Thus, it refers to a puppy. The word is found only four times. All four are in the same account found in Matthew and Mark. According to the Law of Moses, a dog is an unclean animal in regard to dietary restrictions.   It does not logically follow that dogs are unclean and not to be associated with, apart from those dietary laws. If that were true, those of Israel could not ride on donkeys, horses, mules, or camels. Therefore, equating a dog to something inherently unclean is not something to be found in Jesus’ words.   Further, Jesus’ words about casting the bread of the children to the puppies are not devaluing the woman at all. It is simply a truth that Jesus, the Bread of Life, was sent to the house of Israel, not to the Gentiles.   And that brings up the obvious metaphor used in the Hebrew Scriptures of Caleb. His name means Dog. He is used typologically as a picture of the Gentiles every time he is mentioned. Likewise, in Judges 7:5, the dog is used again typologically referring to Gentiles –   “So he brought the people down to the water. And the Lord said to Gideon, ‘Everyone who laps from the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, you shall set apart by himself; likewise everyone who gets down on his knees to drink.’” Judges 7:5   In that seemingly cryptic passage, the focus is not on how the lapping is conducted but on which animal did the lapping, the dog. The dog, anticipating Gentiles in Scripture, is thus typologically equated in that story to the fact that Gentiles during the church age will lap up the water (the word, Christ, the Spirit, etc.), meaning by faith. They reflect those who will engage in the spiritual battle that Israel failed to accept at the coming of Christ.   Jesus’ words here do not speak in a derogatory manner. Rather, there is the matter of priority. God covenanted with Israel. Therefore, Jesus’ ministry was to be focused on the House of Israel. Only after they rejected Jesus would the Gentiles become the focus of God’s ongoing redemptive narrative.   Life application: It has been said that the actions of Jesus toward this Canaanite woman show a flippant, derogatory attitude toward Gentiles. The exact opposite is the case. Referring to a group of people by their nature is simply a way of making people understand a particular point about them. This is as common as threads in a weaving factory.   Throughout the Bible, the names of people groups are identified by the things they do, the places they live, or certain characteristics they possess. This is true in both testaments. Instead of finding offense in such things, we should try to discover why the name of a person or a people group identifies them in such a way.   By doing this, we will understand more about their nature and how God and other people groups perceive them. Further, when we understand these things, we can then understand how they and their names anticipate other things typologically. The entire Old Testament is filled with typology, anticipating other truths that are realized in Jesus Christ, His church, the future state of Israel, the dispensations of time, and so forth.   The only thing that is derogatory about the account of Jesus and this Canaanite woman is how people misuse it for various reasons. However, in understanding how God views the Gentiles, using the dog as a metaphor for them, and then in understanding the noble traits of the dog, we find that God is actually exalt

Saturday, 3 January 2026   Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” Matthew 15:25    “And having come, she worshipped Him, saying, ‘Lord, You rush-relieve me!’” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus said to His disciples that He was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. However, the woman who had been crying out after Jesus was unrelenting. Matthew next records, “And having come, she worshipped Him.”   It is a word already seen several times, proskuneó. The idea of worship here does not have to mean as to a deity. Rather, it is a type of reverence where she would have bowed down before Him, acknowledging His abilities and petitioning Him to favor her with them. That is seen in her words, “saying, ‘Lord.’”   The wording of the previous verse implies Jesus’ response about only being sent to the lost house of Israel was directed to the disciples. However, it appears she heard His words because she has stopped using the term Son of David from verse 21.   This is unlike the blind men in Matthew 20, who continued to call Him Son of David after the people rebuked them. As such, the woman, understanding that His ministry is only to Israel, drops the reference to David. She has no claim on His Jewish heritage.   Despite this, she still refers to Him as Lord, acknowledging His position and authority. With this understood, her words continue with, “You rush-relieve me!”   She introduces a word to Scripture, boétheó, to help, aid, or relieve. It is derived from boé, intense exclamation, and theō, to run. Therefore, it signifies “to run and meet an urgent distress-call (cry for help); to deliver help, quickly responding to an urgent need (intense distress)” HELPS Word Studies. Lacking any suitable single word to describe the intent, rush-relieve is a suitable substitute.   With her in Jesus’ presence, the tension of her needs, His set mission, and His human desire to assist her reaches its highest moment.   Life application: The humanity of Jesus went through all of the struggles that man is familiar with. The love of God for His creation, despite the sin that has infected it, means that God desires reconciliation with the people of the world.   However, a tension exists between God and man. This tension is the result of sin. God cannot arbitrarily overlook sin because He is just and righteous. Because of this, reconciliation without removal of sin is not possible. Thus, this tension between the different attributes of God exists.   These things are resolved through the human body of Jesus. For example, sin must be dealt with. Jesus received the penalty and punishment for our sin. Therefore, God can now fellowship with us through the work of Jesus.   This process of restoration leaves nothing undone. Everything necessary to restore man to God is complete through the work of Christ. The law is satisfied, sin is removed, and felicity is restored. However, despite everything being done, restoration is not automatic. God will not force His offer on anyone.   Rather, each person must come to Him voluntarily through His offering of restoration. This truth is clearly taught in Scripture. The Calvinistic notion that God selects those whom He chooses to save and then saves them apart from their free will choice is not found in Scripture.   Likewise, one can see how offensive the doctrine of law observance is to God. If He has done everything necessary to secure our salvation, and yet we attempt to add to that, we mar the grace that He has offered. It is a heretical doctrine that excludes salvation for those who hold to this aberrant view.   The tension between Jesus’ mission to Israel and His desire to assist this woman actually existed. God is teaching us through such things. In understanding them, we can then understand our own relationship with Him as well.   Pay attention to the carefully constructed stories found in Scripture. God is giving us information on how things work in the process of rede

Friday, 2 January 2026   But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24   “And answering, He said, ‘Not, I was sent, if not to the sheep, the ‘having been lost’ – House Israel” (CG).   In the previous verse, the disciples came to Jesus, urging Him to send the Canaanite woman away because of all her croaking after them. Matthew next records words concerning Jesus, “And answering, He said, ‘Not, I was sent, if not to the sheep, the ‘having been lost’ – House Israel.”   The KJV and several other versions did a terrible job, saying, “I am not sent...” The verb is aorist, not present. Rendering it this way leaves the reader thinking that this was His only reason for being sent. Rather, He was sent on a mission. When that mission is fulfilled, the aorist leaves the narrative open for the change that will come, something a present verb fails to convey.   Jesus was sent to those of Israel who were lost, meaning all of Israel. Nobody is saved until Christ saves them. The exclusivity of the thought rests in the words “House Israel.” Jesus was only sent to the people of Israel. This was proper because only Israel had been given the Mosaic Covenant.   No other people received it, and it applied to no other people. Jesus came to fulfill this law, bring Israel out from under it through His fulfillment of it, and introduce a New Covenant with them, which would also include the Gentile people of the world. Charles Ellicott rightly says –   “Those wandering sheep, without a shepherd, were the appointed objects of His care. Were He to go beyond that limit in a single case, it might be followed by a thousand, and then, becoming, as it were, before the time, the Apostle of the Gentiles, He would cease to draw to Himself the hearts of Israel as their Redeemer.”   There is an order in which God’s redemptive plans take place. For Jesus to include Gentiles, who were never under the law, would thoroughly disaffect Israel from considering His Messiahship. Even without tending to the Gentiles, the nation as a whole still rejected Him. As for the metaphor, it would be understood from several passages in the Old Testament, such as –   “My people have been lost sheep.Their shepherds have led them astray;They have turned them away on the mountains.They have gone from mountain to hill;They have forgotten their resting place.” Jeremiah 50:6   As noted in the previous verse, there is a tension that has arisen in the narrative. Jesus ignored the woman while the disciples specifically asked Him to tell her to leave. Instead of doing that, His response to them was that He was sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. All He had to do was tell her to go away, but He didn’t.   One can see that Jesus, in fact, wanted to help her. However, His mission was not to minister to the Gentiles. Should He voluntarily help every Gentile that came His way, it would be a violation of His principal ministry. And so, the tension existed. “There is something I do not want to do, which is to send this person away. However, I have been charged with doing this thing for Israel, which does not include helping this Gentile. Therefore, I will ignore the issue and see how it plays out.”   The case of the centurion having his request fulfilled by Jesus was resolved by the very people He came to minister to –   “And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear to him, was sick and ready to die. 3 So when he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, pleading with Him to come and heal his servant. 4 And when they came to Jesus, they begged Him earnestly, saying that the one for whom He should do this was deserving, 5 ‘for he loves our nation, and has built us a synagogue.’” Luke 7:2-5   There was no tension in the issue of tending to the centurion’s request. The people of Israel, in fact, the elders of the people, petitioned Him to heal the person. As they saw it advantageous to their cause, Jesus could re

Thursday, 1 January 2026   But He answered her not a word.And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” Matthew 15:23   “And He answered not a word. And having approached, His disciples, they entreated Him, saying, ‘You dismiss her! For she cries after us’” (CG).   In the previous verse, the woman of Canaan came to Jesus while He was in the region of Tyre and Sidon, begging Him to have mercy on her, seeking help for her demon-possessed daughter. Matthew continues the narrative, saying, “And He answered not a word.”   There are various thoughts on the cold shoulder, which is presented here. Some think that Jesus knew all along what would occur, and He was testing her, allowing the situation to unfold before doing what He knew He would do all along. Ellicott thinks that “the prevailing power of prayer working on the sympathy of Christ” is what eventually will motivate Him.   But at this point, He is candid about why He does not respond to her. That will be seen in the next verse. Jesus was on a mission. It was purposeful, targeted, and required His full attention. Hence, at this time, He did not answer her as she croaked out for her daughter. Matthew continues, saying, “And having approached, His disciples, they entreated Him.”   A new word is seen here, erótaó, to interrogate. HELPS Word Studies says, “make an earnest request, especially by someone on ‘special footing,’ i.e. in ‘preferred position.’” A good word to define this is entreat. The disciples are in such a preferred position, and they want to know why He is allowing this to continue.   One can see them, saying to Him (the verb is imperfect), “Why are you allowing her to annoy us. Why don’t you just tell her to leave!” It was an interrogation of sorts as to His motives for doing nothing, one way or another. In their ongoing words, Matthew notes they were “saying, ‘You dismiss her! For she croaks after us.’”   Stating the obvious doesn’t help anything here. Jesus knows she is there, and yet He is neither dismissing her nor assisting her. Therefore, their petition must be more for their own benefit than to convince Him. They are trying to figure out why He is not acting.   Life application: Put yourself in such a position. If you have been given instructions to do something, and yet an issue arises that does not fit within the parameters of your instructions, but you also don’t want to ignore the issue, what would you do?   It is probable that most people would not act. Not acting is not a violation of the mission unless it was made explicit from the outset. To cover every such condition would mean an infinitely long list. Hence, such things are normally not even addressed.   Think of any movie or play where such an event arises. A person has to do something. A secondary issue enters the scene that is not a part of the mission, but which has taken hold of the main actor. It introduces a tension into the narrative as both issues are dealt with. The main directive is followed while the secondary issue is allowed to play out, even though nothing is actively done about it by the main character.   This type of thing happens in real life all the time. An example might be a missionary who goes to a foreign land. His mission is to evangelize the people, making converts. He is not being paid for other things. While there, he meets a lady whom he is big time interested in. However, she is not a Christian, having not accepted the gospel.   What will he do? He cannot act toward her to develop a relationship because that would be contrary to the faith. However, he doesn’t want her to go away either. And so he does nothing. Regardless of the outcome (but for the sake of the love story, we’ll say she eventually accepts Jesus and they get married), the tension has developed.   This is as common as bullets in an ammo factory, and it is just why so many stories, plays, and movies are developed with this theme. It is a part of the hu

Wednesday, 31 December 2025   And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” Matthew 15:22   “And you behold! A Canaanite woman from those same borders, having come, she croaked to Him, saying, ‘You compassionate me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter, she is demon-possessed badly’” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus left the land of the Gennesaret and departed to the allotments of Tyre and Sidon. With Him there, Matthew next records, “And you behold! A Canaanite woman.”   This is the only time that the word Chananaios, Canaanite, is seen in the New Testament. That is derived from Chanaan, Canaan, found twice in Acts. This was the early name of the land of Israel, having been named after Canaan, the grandson of Noah through Ham.   The meaning of the name Canaan (Hebrew kna’an) is debated. It is variously translated as Land of Purple, Low, Merchant, etc. The likely meaning is Low, Abased, Humble, Humiliated, something along these lines. This is based on the account of Genesis 9, where Canaan is first mentioned.   In Mark, it says of this same woman that she “was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth.” There is no contradiction in this. Syro-Phonecia is the area, and the term “Greek” is being applied as we might when we say of a person from Germany, “He is a European.” One is a wider explanation of a more precise designation. Albert Barnes provides the historical understanding –   “In ancient times, the whole land, including Tyre and Sidon, was in the possession of the Canaanites, and called Canaan. The Phoenicians were descended from the Canaanites. The country, including Tyre and Sidon, was called Phoenicia, or Syro-Phoenicia. That country was taken by the Greeks under Alexander the Great, and those cities, in the time of Christ, were Greek cities. This woman was therefore a Gentile, living under the Greek government, and probably speaking the Greek language. She was by birth a Syro-Phoenician, born in that country, and descended, therefore, from the ancient Canaanites. All these names might, with propriety, be given to her.”   Of this woman of Canaan, it next says, “from those same borders.” The meaning is based on the previous verse, that it is the “allotments – Tyre and Sidon.” Understanding this, Matthew continues, saying, “having come, she croaked to Him, saying, ‘You compassionate me, Lord, Son of David!’”   Nothing is said about how she knew of Jesus, but it is apparent that His fame had extended far and wide. In both Mark and Luke, by this time in the narrative, it was already acknowledged that people from Tyre and Sidon had come to see Jesus (Mark 3:8 and Luke 6:17). Thus, Jewish residents of that area had already gone to see Jesus, returned, and spoken of the things they saw.   Now, knowing He was in the area and understanding that He was the promised Messiah, indicated by the words “Son of David,” this Canaanite woman begs for compassion to be extended even to her, a Gentile.   But more, she is of the cursed line of Canaan. This is based on Noah’s cursing of Canaan for what Ham did to him in Genesis 9. The last thing a person of such lineage might expect from the Jewish Messiah would be compassion. And yet, she faithfully came forward in hopeful expectation that He might listen to her plea, which was, “My daughter, she is demon-possessed badly.”   This woman, having heard of Jesus’ capabilities, has placed the situation concerning her demon-possessed daughter in the hands of Jesus, hoping He will respond and cure her. Her faith is on prominent display, even if the level of it is not yet revealed.   Life application: In commentaries on this verse, both Cambridge and Vincent’s Word Studies say something similar –   “...out of the same coasts] Literally, those coasts. Jesus did not himself pass beyond the borders of Galilee, but this instance of mercy extended to a Gentile points to the wide di

Tuesday, 30 December 2025   Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. Matthew 15:21   “And having departed thence, Jesus, He withdrew to the allotments – Tyre and Sidon” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus finished His explanation of the things that defile a man. Eating with unwashed hands was not among those things. Next, Matthew records, “And having departed thence.”   The last record of where they were was in the land of Gennesaret. That was noted in Matthew 14:34. The account doesn’t say why they left, but some scholars assume it was to avoid the anger of the Pharisees whom He had shamed. Regardless of the reason, it next says, “Jesus, He withdrew to the allotments – Tyre and Sidon.”   This is not the first time that these two cities are mentioned, but it is the first time that it notes Jesus having gone to them. The first time, it was in reference to His works, which evidenced His being the Messiah –   “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.” Matthew 11:21, 22   As for the terminology, it says that He went to the allotments of Tyre and Sidon. Thus, He may not have gone to these cities, but to the surrounding area. However, it would be inappropriate to assume that He didn’t go there based on His words to the disciples about not going in the way of the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5) or His words concerning being sent only to the House of Israel, which will be stated in verse 24 of this chapter.   The reason for this is that, despite being Gentile cities, there was probably a sizeable Jewish presence there. Going to a Jewish home in a Gentile area would not violate either statement. He would remain in the “way of the Jews,” and He would be ministering to the House of Israel.   Of this visit, the Pulpit Commentary says –   “If, as Chrysostom suggests, Jesus, by going to these partly Gentile districts, wished to give a practical commentary on the abrogation of the distinction between clean and unclean (breaking down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile), this lesson was given equally well by the acceptance and commendation of the Gentile woman's faith, even though Christ himself was outside of pagan territory.”   This is, as noted in a previous commentary, not an appropriate sentiment. It is true that Jesus fulfilled the law and set aside all dietary laws in its fulfillment. It is also true that the wall of partition is brought down in Christ. However, it is an unacceptable leap to assume that Jesus was there to “give a practical commentary on the abrogation of the distinction between clean and unclean.”   That is putting the cart before the horse. Only in the completed work of Christ is that realized. The introduction of the Gentile woman will be the same lesson to Israel as that stated by Him in Luke 4:23-27. God does not favor Jews over Gentiles, and His mercy towards Gentiles was evidenced concerning this in the past.   His point is the same there as it was with the centurion already noted in Matthew 8. God is looking for faith in people. He would rather have a faith-filled Gentile than an entire nation of Jews lacking faith. True as this is, it has nothing to do with Jesus hinting that the ceremonial parts of the law had been abrogated by Him.   If that was what He intended, and the people of Israel would have known this very well, they would have taken Him out and stoned Him. Even after the resurrection, the Jews still didn’t get this. They insisted on maintaining the dietary laws scrupulously. Peter had to be explicitly told that this was not appropriate in Acts 10 before he was told to go to the house of Cornelius.   Life application: It must be trumpeted loudly that the dispensational model is a necessary part of what God is d

Monday, 29 December 2025   These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” Matthew 15:20   “These, they are, the ‘defiling the man,’ but to eat with unwashed hands, not it defiles the man” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus gave a list of things that stem from the heart and which defile a person. He confirms this now with the words, “These, they are, the ‘defiling the man.’”   The list from Jesus, as recorded in Matthew, is not all-inclusive. In Mark, rather than seven items, Jesus gives a list of thirteen. It is certain that the list could go on all day as the human heart thinks up new ways of sinning. That is a thought stated by Paul in Romans 1:30, where he notes those who are “inventors of evil things.” In fact, the Lord, through Jeremiah, says –   “The heart is deceitful above all things,And desperately wicked;Who can know it?10 I, the Lord, search the heart,I test the mind,Even to give every man according to his ways,According to the fruit of his doings.” Jeremiah 17:9, 10   It is the heart where the source of true defilement of a man comes. Jesus continues, saying, “but to eat with unwashed hands, not it defiles the man.”   Here is a new word, aniptos. It is derived from the negative particle a, and the word niptó, to wash or cleanse. Therefore, it signifies unwashed. Jesus explicitly says what He was referring to concerning foods entering the mouth. He was not speaking of the foods themselves, but of the fact that they are unwashed.   Without considering these words, scholars have run ahead of the dispensation’s completion and said that Jesus was claiming that all foods are acceptable to be eaten. However, that would be a violation of the Law of Moses, something not yet fulfilled by Him. Having said that, the parallel account in Mark says concerning food –   “...because not it enters him into the heart, but into the stomach and into the john it ejects, cleansing all the foods.” Mark 7:19   Taking this to a wholly unintended extreme, the NIV et al, which is based on the offset of the NU text, thus implying it is the wording of Mark, says, “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)”. This is not at all what Jesus is saying. He is saying that the food is purified through the process of going through the body. As in Matthew, the context is that of ceremonial washing of foods, not the types of foods.   It is true that during this dispensation, all foods are acceptable –   “For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving.” 1 Timothy 4:4   This sentiment is taught by Paul in several ways in Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8, Colossians 2, etc. But this is not what Jesus is referring to while under the Law of Moses. The distinction must be made and kept separate. Until the law was fulfilled, it had to be obeyed.   Life application: Those who have come to Christ “are not under law but under grace” Romans 6:14. If there is no law, then there can be no imputation of sin (Romans 5:13, 2 Corinthians 5:19, etc.). As this is so, believers cannot lose their salvation.   However, Jesus states moral truths in the verses we have been looking at. The things that we do, which stem from a wicked heart, are wicked. No, we will not be imputed sin and lose our salvation for doing those things. However, we are not blameless either.   In doing such things, we harm our relationship with the Lord, we set a very poor example for the world to see, and we will lose rewards at the Bema seat of Christ. We may also lose our lives, health, savings, etc., in the process of doing such things. These are truths that the Bible proclaims.   We are not given license to do wrong, something those who say the doctrine of eternal salvation necessarily must teach. That is a false dichotomy that is unsupportable from Scripture. Scripture teaches eternal salvation, while it also teaches holiness and consequences for wrongdoing.   Be sure not to get bullied

Sunday, 28 December 2025   For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. Matthew 15:19   “For from the heart, they come: evil meanderings, murders, adulteries, harlotries, thefts, false-witnessings, blasphemies” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus told the disciples that it is what proceeds out of the mouth that defiles a man. Having said that, He now explains what that means, saying, “For from the heart, they come.”   Rather than something entering externally and passing through, this is something that begins internally, in the heart. Therefore, it reveals the nature and characteristics of the one from whom those things issue. In the case of defilement, Jesus begins His list of seven defiling items with “evil meanderings.”   It is two words in Greek, dialogismoi ponēroi. The first word is new, dialogismos, a discussion. Internally, it signifies a consideration (by implication, purpose). Thus, it would signify a meandering. The second word is an adjective signifying evil.   Taken together, this refers to the general evil thoughts that arise in a person’s head. The thought itself is wicked. To act on such meanderings only compounds the guilt of the person. Next, He says, “murders.”   It is another new word, phonos. It is from pheno, to slay. In this case, it is intentional, unjustified homicide. Jesus continues with “adulteries.”   Another new word is given, moicheia, the act of adultery. It will only be seen again in Mark 7:21 and John 8:3. Throughout the Bible, the act of adultery is condemned as wrongdoing, but the act begins inside the person. Jesus will later note that the thought alone brings guilt, even without committing the act. Continuing on, Jesus says, “harlotries.”   It is a word already seen, porneia. It signifies various harlotries, such as adultery, incest, and fornication in general. Next are “thefts.”   It is yet another new word, klopé, meaning stealing or theft. It is derived from the verb kleptó, to steal. One can think of a kleptomaniac. But it includes any stealing, not just the compulsive type. A person taking something that does not belong to him is a thief. The act is known as theft. Jesus continues with, “false-witnessings.”   It is another new word, pseudomarturia. One can easily see the breakdown. The first part is pseudo, being derived from pseudés, that which is false or untrue. It defines what a liar speaks. The second half of the word is from martus, a witness. Thus, it speaks of a false witness.   The word martus has come to signify a martyr because one’s witness will often lead to his martyrdom. This word, pseudomarturia, only refers to a false witness. Jesus finishes the list with “blasphemies.”   It is a word already used in Chapter 12. It refers to vilification, especially against God. As such, it is defined as blasphemy, evil speaking, and railing in general.   Life application: Jesus says these things stem from the heart and render a person unclean. The fact is that most of us have had many of these thoughts in our hearts many times. They exist as a part of fallen humanity. It isn’t that we would necessarily act on these thoughts, but we may even have done or still do them.   As people, we are responsible for quelling the inner urges that stem from within us, keeping them from overtaking us. When we fail, does the Lord understand? The answer is, Yes. He knows our weaknesses and frailties.   David was overtaken by adultery. That started in his heart, and he acted out his desire. This led to his next wicked act, murder. Again, that started in his heart. He acted against one of his own soldiers. The law called for death in such instances. However, the record of the account says –   “So David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’And Nathan said to David, ‘The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord t

Saturday, 27 December 2025   But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. Matthew 15:18   “And those proceeding from the mouth, it comes from the heart, and those, it commonizes the man” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus gave the disciples a lesson in basic human physiology, something they should have thought through by themselves. Now, He uses that instruction to provide an example of what defiles a man, something foods do not do. He begins with, “And those proceeding from the mouth.”   Jesus turns the thought around. “Proceeding from the mouth” corresponds to “into the john it ejects.” Therefore, the source of what He is referring to will be different than the previous example. That is stated in the next words, “it comes from the heart.”   The meaning is that what enters the mouth is something external. It passes through the body and then is ejected. There was nothing defiling in the process. However, that which proceeds from the mouth, meaning that the words of man, come from within the man. Their source is the heart.   Remember that the heart in the Bible does not refer to the organ that pumps blood. It is only used figuratively for the place where moral preferences are derived. It is the biblical source of thoughts and feelings, of which Jesus next says, “and those, it commonizes the man.”   Here is a new word, koinoó, to make (or consider) profane. Thus, it is that which treats what is sacred as common or ordinary. To get the meaning, the adjective form is used this way in Acts 2 –   “Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common [koinos], 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.”   People are to be sacred, having been made in the image of God. However, man becomes commonized through what comes from his heart and the words that proceed from his mouth. Jesus will explain why this is so in the next two verses.   Life application: The heart is the inventor of wickedness in man. This is then turned into action as he is spurred on by what the heart has developed. As noted, Jesus will explain the various ways that this occurs. However, we can already consider how this process is realized in us.   The things we think are often not things we would actually act on. Further, we would not normally say the thoughts that well up in us. We have filters and checks that properly suppress such things.   At times, however, the filters may be lacking. We blurt out something that is caustic, and it causes damage to a relationship. Even if it was unintentional, what we have said is perceived to be the reality of what is going on inside of us by the recipient of our words.   Likewise, the checks on our words and actions are usually in place to keep us from acting in certain ways. However, if we are hungry, that can exacerbate our mood in a negative way. We become hangry, releasing our anger because the normal checks are blocked through our physical degradation. This can be true with a lack of sleep, high-pressure situations, etc.   We are still accountable for our words and actions, but there are reasons they occurred. When it happens, we regret what we have done, showing that it wasn’t our intention to act in such ways. In an old Clint Eastwood movie, he said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”   When we feel we are reaching a point where we may do wrong, we need to work harder at limiting the inclinations that arise. We may also want to remove ourselves from whatever situation we are in. This will keep us from saying or doing something we will later regret.   Everyone responds to internal and external stresses differently. Therefore, it is up to us to carefully monitor ourselves and respond to those things that stress us.   Having said that, there are people who have no such limitations. They openly act on their inappropriate impulses. The problem with this is that it can become ordinary as others follow suit.

Friday, 26 December 2025   Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? Matthew 15:17   “Not yet you grasp that all, the ‘entering into the mouth,’ into the stomach it contains, and into the john it ejects?” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus chided the disciples, noting their still being unintelligent. He now explains their question with basic information that any child could understand, beginning with, “Not yet you grasp.”   Two new words are seen here. The first is oupó, yet. It is not found in all manuscripts. Instead, some say, “Not you grasp.” Either way, the word will be found in all manuscripts starting in Matthew 16:9.   The second new word is noeó, to exercise the mind. Thus, it means to understand, comprehend, etc. To keep it distinct from other similar words in a translation, saying “grasp” satisfies the need.   HELPS Word Studies says that this word “underlines the moral culpability we all have before God – for every decision (value-judgment) we make. This follows from each of us being created in the divine image – hence, possessing the inherent capacity by the Lord to exercise moral reasoning.”   What Jesus wonders if they yet grasp is “that all, the ‘entering into the mouth,’ into the stomach it contains.”   Jesus gives them a lesson in basic human physiology. In fact, it is characteristic of life everywhere. In these words are two more new words. The first is eisporeuomai, to enter. When a person feeds himself, food enters his mouth. From the very first moments of a baby’s existence, this is understood. They know exactly what to do to obtain nourishment.   The next new word is chóreó, to be in space or to give space. Thus, it gives a sense of holding. When a person eats, the food doesn’t just stay in his mouth. Rather, it takes a journey down the alimentary canal. As it heads down, it stops in the stomach. While there, the stomach contains it and processes it.   Anyone who has had a meal knows this. The feeling is sensational each time we eat as the stomach whirls and churns, breaking down the food. If there was something upsetting in the food, the feeling may still be sensational, but in a bad way. Maybe we would call the sensation miserable. Whatever way it affects us, it eventually leads to Jesus’ next words, which finish His question, “and into the john it ejects?”   Here is yet another new word, aphedrón, a place of sitting. Eventually, the food is processed in the stomach, continues on a long meandering journey through the bowels, and eventually it is ejected in the place of sitting.   In English, we have innumerable words to describe the location. There are locative descriptions, such as outhouse. There are accommodating descriptions, such as privy. We have coyly deceptive descriptions, such as powder room. And then there are colorful descriptions that every schoolboy knows, and many build upon.   And there is, of course, the memorial word john. That is most likely named after Sir John Harington. He was a 6th-century godson of Queen Elizabeth I. Being Mr. Inventive, he designed an early type of flushing toilet. Even though he wasn’t the first to invent a flushing toilet, his invention, along with a satirical pamphlet he wrote about it, popularized the word john. Thus, his name became slang for his device.   Jesus’ basic physiology course ends. He will next teach a truth about this process, making a contrast with it to something else.   Life application: Imagine your name is associated with such an invention, being repeated millions of times every day. There are lots of ways to be remembered that are far more tasteful. However, the best way of all is to be remembered on the day the Lord comes for His church.   Paul describes the event –   “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised

Thursday, 25 December 2025   So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? Matthew 15:16   “And Jesus, He said, ‘And yet, you, you are unintelligent!’” (CG).   In the previous verse, Peter came to Jesus and said, “You expound to us this parable.” With that, Matthew records, “And Jesus, He said.”   Jesus’ response is not a question. Rather, it will be a statement. He has been instructing them on matters, and they have been unable to put His words into intelligent meaning in their minds. Therefore, what He says is an emphatic declaration. It is also in the plural. He is speaking to all of the disciples, “And yet, you, you are unintelligent!”   There are two new words. The first one, akmén, means “a point.” The idea is that it refers to a point in time. If one were to coin a new word to suit the literal meaning while conveying the intent, the word “pointly” would get the point across. Someone should consider coining it in this context.   For now, the adverb “yet” is sufficient. The point in time is reached, and yet, there is something that is awry. That leads to the next new word, the adjective asunetos, unintelligent. It comes from a, the particle of negation, and sunetos, to mentally put together, and thus sagacious.   HELPS Word Studies says, “foolish because incoherent (failing to ‘put facts together’).” Also, “a person failing to structure information in a meaningful way, and therefore unable to reach necessary conclusions.” The word is often translated as “without understanding.” A single word that exactingly describes the person is “unintelligent.”   Jesus isn’t asking them if they are yet without understanding. He is affirming that they are, as yet, unintelligent. They have heard His words, and they have not learned to come to proper conclusions concerning what He is saying. This will continue even till the time of His crucifixion.   Life application: It may seem harsh for Jesus to say to His disciples so directly that they are foolish or unintelligent, but it is not at all uncommon in Scripture. Such words are used throughout the Old Testament when referring to the people of Israel –   “When its boughs are withered, they will be broken off;The women come and set them on fire.For it is a people of no understanding;Therefore He who made them will not have mercy on them,And He who formed them will show them no favor.” Isaiah 27:11   Such examples are common. The Lord rebukes the people for their lack of heeding Him, attending to His words, etc. In our modern society, it is considered offensive to say directly to people that they are foolish, unwise, unintelligent, and so forth. But to coddle people unwilling to engage their brains will lead to a generation of people who truly are unintelligent.   If we remain in a slumber, without rebuke for our unwillingness to learn, there is no incentive to strive for better. When everyone on a team gets the same award, there is no reason for anyone to strive to be the best. The Bible unashamedly says otherwise –   “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it.” 1 Corinthians 9:24   In fact, striving for what is right is so important that Jesus instructs those of Israel to do so with the thought of eternal consequences for not doing so –   “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” Matthew 13:24   When we approach matters of life, we should take time, demonstrating patient perseverance and wholehearted dedication to the task at hand. Marble will not tolerate an impatient and impulsive sculptor. Rather, the one who is wise with the hammer and chisel will slowly and methodically pay attention to the task set before him, mentally shutting out what will distract him.   If this is so for worldly things, how much more dedicated and patient should we be in our pursuit of God and of obtaining right understanding in His word? Are we

Because I believe Jesus came from Heaven to Earth  to show the way From the Earth to the Cross  my Sin Debt to pay From the Cross to the Grave From the Grave to the  Sky His love for me will never die

Wednesday, 24 December 2025   Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.” Matthew 15:15   “And Peter, having answered, he said to Him, ‘You expound to us this parable’” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus noted that if the blind-conductors are also blind, they will both fall into a pit. Having finished His words, Matthew notes, “And Peter, having answered, he said to Him.”   Peter heard something that needed clarification from Jesus’ words. Therefore, he continues, “You expound to us this parable.”   Here is a new word, phrazó. It is found only here in the New Testament. It means to indicate by word or act. Thus, it is rightly defined as “expound,” which signifies to explain the meaning in a detailed manner. Peter goes back to Jesus’ words of verse 15:11, not knowing the meaning of the parable –   “Not the ‘entering into the mouth’ it profanes the man, but the ‘proceeding from the mouth,’ this, it profanes the man.”   The problem with Peter’s words is that Jesus wasn’t speaking in a parable at that time. Hence, he misunderstood the intent of Jesus’ words. For this, he will receive a rather stern rebuke, followed by a more detailed explanation of Jesus’ intent.   Life application: It is not always easy to know when something in the Bible is being spoken literally, metaphorically, in parable, or in some other way. It is also difficult to determine if what is being spoken of is one thing rather than another.   A good example of this is found in Joshua –   Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon;And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”13 So the sun stood still,And the moon stopped,Till the people had revengeUpon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. 14 And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.   Translations generally assume that Joshua’s words indicate that the sun and moon literally stood still in the heavens. This is then bolstered by the words of verses 13 and 14. However, the words are poetic, having been included in the Book of Jasher. The way it properly reads and what is happening is as follows –   “Then, he will speak, Joshua to Yehovah, in day gave Yehovah the Amorite to faces sons Israel, and he said to eyes Israel:   ‘Sun, in Gibeon, you must be silent. And moon in depth Aijalon.’ And is muted, the sun. And moon stood. Until he will avenge nation – his hatings.   Not it written upon scroll the Upright (One)? And it stood, the sun, in the half the heavens and not it hastened to go, according to day complete. And not it was according to day, the it, to its faces and after it, to hearken, Yehovah, in voice man, for Yehovah being fought to Israel.” (CG)   Notice the structure:   V.12 – [Then, he will speak, Joshua to Yehovah, in day gave Yehovah the Amorite to faces sons Israel, and he said to eyes Israel].   V.13 Until he will avenge nation [Israel] – his hatings.   V.15 - And not it was according to day, the it, to its faces and after it, [to hearken, Yehovah, in voice man, for Yehovah being fought to Israel].   The bracketing thoughts explain what the exceptional thing was. It wasn’t that the sun and moon stood still in the skies. Rather, it was that the Lord listened to the voice of a man and fought for Israel.   As you read the Bible, understand that what you are reading has been translated by man. A translator comes to the text with biases and presuppositions. If he is only a translator, he is also trying to make sense out of very difficult language. Therefore, it is natural to make assumptions based on a lack of study.   Even scholars will start with presuppositions, reading a translation first and then working with that picture in their mind

Tuesday, 23 December 2025   Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.” Matthew 15:14   “You leave them! They are blind, blind-conductors. And blind, if they should conduct, both – they will fall into a pit” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus told His disciples that every plant His heavenly Father had not planted would be uprooted. He now says, “You leave them!” The words are imperative. Their instruction is based on corruption, not the truth. What the Father plants is truth, but the devil only sows lies, confusion, etc. To explain further, Jesus says, “They are blind, blind-conductors.”   A new word is seen here, hodégos. It is from hodos, way, and hégeomai, to lead. Thus, it speaks of one who leads in the way, and thus a conductor. With the adjective blind attached to the thought, they are conductors of the blind.   And yet, Jesus notes that they, too, are blind. Paul, speaking to the Jews in Romans 2, uses the opposite terminology to describe the way they felt about themselves, even though they acted contrary to their teachings –   “Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God, 18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law. 21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? 24 For ‘the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,’ as it is written.” Romans 2:17-24   This is the attitude that Jesus rebukes in these leaders of Israel. They were blind leading blind people. It is a recipe for disaster. He next says, “And blind, if they should conduct, both – they will fall into a pit.”   It is an obvious truth. When a blind person is conducted, it is where the conductor takes him. He is placing his trust in the one leading him. But if the conductor himself is blind, any step he takes could bring him to the edge of a pit. The next step will see him tumbling in along with the one he was charged to lead.   Now imagine one who is willfully blind, like these leaders of Israel. They were disregarding the law and causing others who were untrained in the law to follow them –   “One who turns away his ear from hearing the law,Even his prayer is an abomination.10 Whoever causes the upright to go astray in an evil way,He himself will fall into his own pit;But the blameless will inherit good.” Proverbs 28:9, 10   Isaiah prophesied of Israel’s blindness. It was a chronic condition with them –   “Hear, you deaf;And look, you blind, that you may see.19 Who is blind but My servant,Or deaf as My messenger whom I send?Who is blind as he who is perfect,And blind as the Lord’s servant?20 Seeing many things, but you do not observe;Opening the ears, but he does not hear.” Isaiah 42   Life application: Think of the variety of doctrinal disputes between Christian instructors:   *Israel are God’s people vs. Israel are not God’s people. *The church replaced Israel vs. Israel and the church are separate entities. *Salvation is eternal vs. Salvation can be lost. *There is such a thing as the rapture. There will be a pre-trib rapture. There will be a mid-trib rapture. There will be a post-trib rapture. *The church began at Pentecost vs. the church began with Paul’s conversion. *Believers are free from the law. Believers must adhere to the law. Believers are free from the civil law but are bound to the moral law. *The Sabbath must be observed. A Christian Sabbath must be observed. No Sabbath is necessary. *Bacon

Monday, 22 December 2025   But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Matthew 15:13   “And having answered, He said, ‘Every planting that not He planted, My heavenly Father, it will be uprooted” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus’ disciples came to Him, exclaiming that Jesus knew the Pharisees were offended when they heard His saying. In response to that, Matthew records, “And having answered, He said, ‘Every planting that not He planted, My heavenly Father.”   A new word in Scripture is seen, phuteia, a plant, but literally a transplanting. It is found only here in the Bible. Jesus is referring to the religious leaders, equating them with plants. It is probable, He is connecting this to the parables He gave in Chapter 13 –   “Another parable He near-set them, saying, ‘It is likened, the kingdom of the heavens, to a man having sown good seed in his field. 25 And in the ‘sleeps the men,’ he came, his enemy, and he sowed darnel in between the wheat, and he went away.’” Matthew 13:24, 25   The explanation of that parable is found in Matthew 13:37-43. Along with that, there are other such references to be found in the Old Testament, such as in Deuteronomy 29 –   “...so that there may not be among you man or woman or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations, and that there may not be among you a root bearing bitterness or wormwood; 19 and so it may not happen, when he hears the words of this curse, that he blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall have peace, even though I follow the dictates of my heart’—as though the drunkard could be included with the sober.” Deuteronomy 29:18, 19   “And the Lord uprooted them from their land in anger, in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.” Deuteronomy 29:28   As was recorded at times in the Hebrew Scriptures, something the scribes and Pharisees would have known and understood, and as Jesus relayed to the disciples in Matthew 13, Jesus notes of these apostate leaders, like darnel or a root of bitterness and wormwood, “it will be uprooted.”   Just as a plant can be transplanted by one person, it can be uprooted by another. If the devil has sown into God’s field worthless plants, it is certain that the Lord will have them uprooted and disposed of through judgment and fire.   Life application: The Bible uses simple metaphors to convey deep spiritual truths. The things it mentions are things that were understood by the people in the land. And despite Israel being a land that many people may not be able to fully identify with, such as a desert if someone is raised in a forest, the surrounding explanations are usually sufficient to enlighten people to whatever is being conveyed.   And yet, the spiritual truths that are tucked away in Scripture are so deep and so profound that to this day, people are still discovering new information from this word. Because of this, you will get out of the Bible whatever effort you put into it.   At the same time, some things are only meant to be properly understood or interpreted at specific times. God slowly releases the information, inspiring His people to understand His word according to His wisdom.   This is why new things continue to be found. So don’t be frustrated if something comes out and you think, “Why didn’t I get that!” There is enough in the word of God to satisfy the minds of His people until the consummation of all things comes to pass.   Keep reading, meditating, and studying His word. It is a treasure trove of God’s wisdom in relation to the process of redemption that is going on in the world around us.   Glorious God, what a wonderful word You have given us. Thank You for its insights into so many areas of life. When we pick it up and read it, it always seems relevant to what we need to hear right at that moment. What an amazing and relevant word You have giv

Sunday, 21 December 2025   Then His disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” Matthew 15:12   “Then His disciples, having come near, they said to Him, ‘You have known that the Pharisees, having heard the saying, they stumbled!’” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus noted that it isn’t what goes into the mouth that defiles a man. Rather, what comes out of his mouth is what does. Having said that, it next says, “Then His disciples, having come near.”   Jesus spoke to the scribes and Pharisees, probably without the others grouped around them. Room was allowed for Jesus to engage in the conversation without interruption, but still close enough that the disciples could hear and learn.   Once the conversation with them was finished, Jesus called to the crowd, and with an implicit rebuke to these leaders, told the people His words about what defiles a man and what doesn’t. After He said this, the disciples, probably seeing the leaders go off in a huff, came to Jesus to personally address Him. Once with Him, “they said to Him, ‘You have known.’”   This is not a question, as translations imply. The verb is a perfect participle without any form of negation to indicate a question is being proposed. The participle signifies a completed action with a state that continues into the present. More likely, it is an exclamation, “You have known!”   They were completely surprised that Jesus said what He said, knowing it would elicit a negative response. He was aware of what would happen, and He continued in that state, knowing they were miffed. That is explained in their next words, “that the Pharisees, having heard the saying, they stumbled!”   The word translated as stumbled is rightly paraphrased as “offended.” They took offense at Jesus’ rebuke concerning transgressing God’s commandment. They were offended at His continued rebuke of them for being hypocrites by placing tradition above that commandment. They were offended at His citation of Isaiah, which pointed directly at their hypocrisy, even suggesting that Isaiah was referring specifically to them.   And if they heard His words to the crowd, they would have been offended at what He said to them as well. He had taken their tradition and spoken against it to the general public, taunting them with His wisdom that was superior to their poor, self-centered customs.   Life application: Jesus came on a mission. It was to fulfill the Mosaic Covenant and introduce a New Covenant in its place. However, as long as the Old Covenant was in effect, He defended it while still implying that something better was to be found in Him.   There is nothing contradictory in this. The words of the covenant, along with their associated penalties for disobedience, were written down. Obedience was not optional. However, within the Mosaic code, which included the later writings, Jeremiah prophesied a day when God would cut a New Covenant with Israel.   Jeremiah never said, “This is great! Now we are no longer under this covenant, and we are free from the curses and the punishment.” Instead, he acknowledged Israel’s transgressions and accepted that their punishment was just and deserved.   Jesus, likewise, conveyed this same truth to Israe l. They would remain bound to the Mosaic code until they came to Him. Knowing they wouldn’t, He prophesied of all the disasters that would come upon them.   If those disasters came upon them, which were according to the Mosaic Covenant, then that means, by default, that they are still, even to this day, bound to that law. Unfortunately, because the Mosaic law is fulfilled by Jesus, it is no longer what God accepts in order to be right with Him.   They will build a temple. The rites and sacrifices associated with it will take place. And not one iota of what they do will be accepted by God. Rather, this will only continue to keep them from any possible right relationship with Him. Until they realize this, fo

Saturday, 20 December 2025   Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” Matthew 15:11   “Not the ‘entering into the mouth’ it profanes the man, but the ‘proceeding from the mouth,’ this, it profanes the man” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus called for the attention of the crowd to “Hear and understand.” He now explains to them, “Not the ‘entering into the mouth’ it profanes the man.”   This is based on the shocked attitude of the scribes and Pharisees as the chapter opened –   “Then they came to Jesus from Jerusalem, scribes and Pharisees, saying, 2 ‘Through what – Your disciples, they sidestep the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they may eat bread.’” Matthew 15:1, 2   Jesus then went through an explanation of how these same people who had set up traditions were actually violating God’s law. Because of this, their hearts were far from God. What the people ate, regardless of any external washings of hands, pitchers, bowls, etc., was clean.   It was something God had given to man for food to sustain him, and that was its purpose. A man is not rendered unclean by such things. However, He continues, saying, “but the ‘proceeding from the mouth,’ this, it profanes the man.”   He has already explained the meaning of this in His citing of Isaiah. What God finds deplorable are those who disobey Him, or even those who obey Him, but do it with an evil heart. Because the disciples missed the point of Jesus’ words, He will have to explain the intent more fully in verses 18-20 of this chapter.   Life application: Missing the point of what is going on, Charles Ellicott, citing the general tenor of innumerable scholars, pastors, preachers, and teachers, says –   “Now a great broad principle is asserted, which not only cut at the root of Pharisaism, but, in its ultimate tendency. swept away the whole Levitical system of ceremonial purity—the distinction between clean and unclean meats and the like. It went, as the amazement of the disciples showed, far beyond their grasp as yet. Even after the day of Pentecost, Peter still prided himself on the observance of the Law which was thus annulled, and boasted that he had never ‘eaten anything common or unclean (Acts 10:14).’” Charles Ellicott, et. al.   The last thing on this planet that Jesus would have done is to hint that the Levitical law (the Levitical system of ceremonial purity) was done or that it could be ignored or sidestepped. He was born under the law, and He abided by it, fully and completely. To not have done so, or to have taught others to not do so, would have been to fail fulfilling... Anyone? – Yes, the law!   “Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them.” Deuteronomy 27:26   More to the point, however, is that Jesus would have been taken out and stoned as a lawbreaker if He were to have promoted ignoring God’s law. What Jesus is telling these people is something they would have understood from the context of their lives under the law. There were certain foods they were allowed to eat and certain foods they were not permitted to eat.   There were also times when foods were rendered impure as well. Jesus is not speaking of these things, nor would the people have thought He was. Jesus was questioned about ceremonial washing. As noted, Mark gives more details, saying –   “Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.” Mark 7:2-4   This is what these religious leaders were referring to and what Jesus was likewise referring to. The law deemed eating a camel

Friday, 19 December 2025   When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: Matthew 15:10   “And having summoned the crowd, He said to them, ‘You hear and comprehend!’” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus finished citing the words of Isaiah, which He had said rightly referred to the scribes  and Pharisees. Next, He will begin a new thought, but one which is still connected to His ongoing words against these leaders of Israel. The words begin with, “And having summoned the crowd.”   This would be the crowd gathered in the land of Gennesaret, as noted in verse 14:34. They would have seen the ongoing dispute the scribes and Pharisees had with Jesus. With His words to them complete, He turns to the crowd to instruct them on the matter.   This is particularly important because the scribes and Pharisees would have been considered the cream of the crop in religious circles. The people would have heard them and accepted their word concerning such matters. And yet, Jesus had strongly refuted them, directly quoting Scripture to make His point.   With that complete, He turns to the crowd. One can see the scribes and Pharisees still there while Jesus ignores any further discourse with them. Instead, He addresses the people in what will turn out to be a stinging rebuke of these religious leaders. It will conclude His thoughts about what they presented to Him in verse 15:2. Understanding this, Matthew records, “He said to them, ‘You hear and comprehend!’”   The crowds have been filing away the thoughts of the scribes and Pharisees all their lives. Anytime they needed to know a matter, it would be these men who would be consulted for a definitive answer to their question.   In this case, however, Jesus will address the crowds directly. Saying, “You hear and comprehend,” is like saying, “Pay careful heed. I have an important matter for you to hear and then file away for future reference when these people come to you with their faulty conclusions concerning this matter.”   Life application: In any argument, be it religious, political, mechanical, structural, nuclear, etc., the only thing that matters is what is true. Truth can be defined as “that which corresponds to reality.” If two nuclear scientists disagree on the effects of adding tritium into the fission process when developing a nuclear bomb, there are certain parameters that can be determined by mathematical calculations.   The calculations will determine the truth of the matter. But if one scientist continues to disagree, building a bomb with the disputed amount of tritium and igniting it will resolve the matter. Likewise, if someone says that he wants to build a skyscraper in a certain way, there are calculations to determine if his plans will succeed or fail.   If a point of stress is misidentified or ignored, the entire structure could fail and come tumbling down. When debating religion, it doesn’t matter how someone “feels” about a matter. If what he says contradicts Scripture, it doesn’t matter if he claims the Spirit told him, God spoke to him, he had a dream or a vision, etc. If Scripture is God’s standard in understanding Him, then such claims are irrelevant.   People all over the world, and also for the past two thousand years, have made claims about matters of faith, doctrine, inspiration, etc. And yet, none of them has added a single word to God’s word. It is true that some have claimed such additions, like Ellen G. White of the Seventh Day Adventists and Joseph Smith of the Mormons.   However, their writings, which are supposedly inspired by God, have only caused division, confusion, and apostasy from the truth of Scripture.   Therefore, when talking to someone about matters of doctrine or theology, there must be a basis for any disagreement, meaning a standard by which the matter can be resolved. If someone claims he has had a dream that tells him something and it contradicts Scripture, then either Scripture is wrong, or his