Matt Postiff's Blog

Have you ever heard a joke but did not get it right away, only to realize moments or even minutes later what was so funny about it?

This illustration gets us thinking along the lines of a delayed reaction. Another example is when you are trying to diagnose what food you might not tolerate too well. Because there is a delay between ingesting the food and the undesirable effects as the food passes through the digestive pipeline, it can be confusing as to what exactly is the cause of the problem. Tracking down the culprit may take time. The "consequences" of a certain food may not be felt for hours or even a day or so.

These illustrations of delayed reactions remind us that God does not always immediately judge sin. People are involved in a pipeline of activity, mixed with God's patient mercy and normal life circumstances. Difficult things may come despite good behavior, and good fortune may come despite bad behavior. This leads to a situation where you cannot exactly diagnose whether action A that you took yesterday leads to discipline B that you experienced today. Because of the delay between behavior and consequence, you can misunderstand God's work.

Jeremiah 44:17-18 says, "But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble. 18 But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine."

The people of Israel were steeped in idolatry. This eventually brought God's punishment to Jerusalem and the surrounding cities of Judah (Jeremiah 44:1-3). God had sent His prophets to call the people back to righteousness, but they did not listen (44:5-6). God asked the people who now had fled to Egypt why they were continuing the same behavior as their ancestors which would end up causing themselves so much suffering (44:7-14). In hardness of heart they replied that they would not listen (44:15-16). Then they said the words quoted above.

Had they truly forgotten what happened to the others before them, and that is why they continued in idolatry? They did not answer the question directly, but they seem to imply that no, they did not forget. Rather, they had another line of reasoning. Their reasoning had to do with their political and economic situation at the time they were in their idolatry. When they were worshiping the "queen of heaven" idol, they experienced prosperity. Instead of attributing their well-being to God who made them and who was the true giver of all good things, they attributed it falsely to an idol. But consequences caught up to them, so that then, even if they listened to the prophet, they experienced a situation of lack. Their diagnosis was based on that short-term thinking that ignored the delayed effects of judgment.

What they failed to recognize was that they needed a better memory and a better way to diagnose the delayed reaction of judgment. What happened was that there was hysteresis, or carry-over, from a previous state of being. Their condition "lagged" the cause of the condition by, let's say, a number of months. It was something like this: while they were serving God somewhat well, God blessed them. These blessings continued even while the people started down the path of idolatry. They incorrectly assumed that the blessings were because of the idolatry. But really, the blessings were just carrying over from their prior state, lagging behind their current spiritual condition.

The blessings began to "peter out," and now, God sent them prophets and began to judge them. In response to the prophets, they briefly stopped their idolatry. But this did not immediately repair their temporal problems, because the prior judgment of God carried over for a while into their new present situation. The results of judgment continued even after repentance, because repentance does not always or immediately erase consequences. Their incorrect diagnosis: when we worship idols, we are OK, and when we worship God, the blessings stop and trouble comes.

Maybe when they stopped worshiping the idols, they had merely an external conformity to the prophets' message, without an internal heart response of repentant faith. If that were the case, no wonder God's judgment continued.

In any case, their diagnosis ignored the lag effect or delayed reaction, and thus they deduced an incorrect cause-effect relationship. They needed a longer memory and better thinking to realize that God's blessings do not turn on and off instantaneously. God uses normal means most of the time. They needed to think with the help of the Holy Spirit instead of with limited human logic.

Perhaps you have gotten yourself into some trouble. Please be aware of this delayed reaction idea so that when you begin to follow the Lord, you do not expect all the difficulties you have created to just immediately fall away. In fact, some things may get worse. But you can know that God is pleased with every faith-filled thought and intention to follow Him, regardless of your present circumstances.

The title of this post is not the most uplifting, but it reflects a question that comes up repeatedly and deserves a bit of attention.

In Exodus 20:13 in the KJV, the Bible says Thou shalt not kill. Does this mean that all killing is wrong? Can people kill animals? Did God violate His own law when He told Israel to kill some people in the Old Testament?

The wider context of the 10 Commandments is limited to the ending of a human life. God has already made clear to His people that taking the life of an animal is appropriate if the animal is used as food:

Genesis 9:3-4 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

There is likely a pagan connotation to the eating of blood. To do so does not respect the life that God gave to the animal.

God’s permission of using animals as food required that people kill them and let all their blood out. The draining of the blood ensured that they would respect the life of the animal.

Furthermore, the entire sacrificial system is predicated upon the lawful killing of animals--indeed, the required killing of animals as substitute payments for the sins of the people. So the 10 commandments cannot prohibit all killing including that of animals.

Some may go a step farther and suggest that even plants or trees should not be killed. That is not a contextual understanding of the commandment either, for God commands the cutting down of trees and use of plants to build booths. He permits the use of plant life for food, also necessitating the "killing" of the plant. But plants do not possess the kind of life that animals or humans do, so they are outside the scope of the prohibition against killing.

The killing of insects also does not fit the context of Exodus 20. In other words, God did not prohibit the killing of a varmint (that harms your flock or herd), or a dangerous animal (such as a poisonous snake that could harm a human life or a bull that has the tendency of goring people, Exodus 21:28-29), or a nuisance bug like a mosquito.

We have eliminated animals, insects, and plants from consideration. But there are several ways human life may be ended by another human: in an accidental way, an illegal way, or a legal way. The law in Exodus 20:13 is clearly addressing the illegal way in which a life is ended, by an unjustifiable homicide.

The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, called the LXX or Septuagint, uses the verb phoneuw, which means to murder or to kill. This is used also in the Greek of the New Testament. It does not seem to add much to our understanding of the situation.

One simplistic answer to the question suggests that the verb used in Exodus 20:13 specifically refers to "murder" instead of the more general "kill." I do not believe that explanation is sufficient because of the broader use of the word in the Old Testament. Instead, the answer has to be drawn from a more wholistic approach to the semantic ranges of the words and the close and far context of the command to determine its meaning.

Context urges me to believe that the nuance of "kill" in the KJV of Exodus 20:13 fits under the heading of "unjustified homicide" so it should be translated as "murder" instead of the broader idea of the English verb "to kill."

To flesh out the details concerning the verbs, we start with the Hebrew text of Exodus 20:13, where the verb for "kill" is ??? (ratsah). In this context it focuses on murder, that is, to commit homicide, as in premeditated murder. The idea here and in other Biblical texts concerns the unlawful or illegal taking of life. But other Hebrew verbs are used to convey the same idea. The word harag can be used with this significance. Here are some examples:

Gen 4:8 Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed (harag) him.

Gen. 12:12 Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill (harag) me, but they will let you live.

Gen. 27:41 So Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father blessed him, and Esau said in his heart, "The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then I will kill (harag) my brother Jacob."

The previous example is the essence of premeditated murder: Esau is planning in advance to kill his brother.

There are circumstances in which it is lawful to take the life of another human. These circumstances are categorized under the sub-heading of justified homicide and are mentioned in Scripture.

1. Self-defense. Exodus 22:1-2 If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

2. Capital punishment. Gen. 9:6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God, He made man. Speaking of law officers, Paul in Romans 13:4 says, "For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Obviously, if the sword is called into action, it would likely result in the death of the offender.

3. Just war. 1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'

Sometimes, the word used in Exodus 20:13, ratsah, is used of something other than premeditated murder.

Deut 4:42 that the manslayer might flee there, who kills (ratsah) his neighbor unintentionally, without having hated him in time past, and that by fleeing to one of these cities he might live. In this example, there is an accident that causes a person to die. It uses the same verb as the 10 commandments, but it does not refer to first degree homicide.

The person who caused the accident is confined in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. He is therefore not entirely free, but he can live. This shows the seriousness of the loss of human life, which in turn would create in the Israelite community a care about safe working conditions so that human life is preserved. Human life is, in other words, not dispensable. Cultures not attuned to the Mosaic law code do not have this care and treat life as if it is disposable. Exodus 20:13 does not permit that lax attitude toward human life.

This text along with the extensive passage in Numbers 35 concerning cities of refuge alerts us to the fact that while murder is a good translation in the 10 commandments, we need to broaden the scope of the cases that demand something to be done about the loss of human life. We could read the 10 commandments to prohibit murder as well as to teach that other ending of human life that does not fit into the three categories outlined above is not lawful and must be addressed. In other words, the ending of a human life in a premeditated fashion, out of hatred, requires the death penalty. But the accidental ending of a human life also requires a punishment. The consequences are not as harsh as the death penalty, but nonetheless a substantial penalty is imposed in order to enforce the fact that God made man in His image, and it is no small thing when a life is snuffed out.

My point is this: whether accidental or purposeful, it may be that the KJV translators were on to something here.

In conclusion, we cannot translate the verb in Exodus 20:13 as murder simply because of the Hebrew verb that is used. The verb can be used in more senses than just premeditated murder. Still, the broader Biblical context indicates that "murder" is a good translation to convey the meaning in English. But we need to take care that we do not eliminate accidental death from the scope of the commandment, because it too is not permissible and requires a punishment. Finally, we should note that the commandment does not demand that we must be pacifistic, nor that we must be vegetarian.

"If you do not do X, I will never talk to you again." Or, "I will never let you see my children again." Or, "I will not allow you to see your family."

These statements are made by someone trying desperately to get his own way by using strong verbal threats. These threats do not bespeak love or a holy disposition filled by God's Spirit. Instead, they are manipulative and unloving.

There is a sub-category of threat which I will call a "religious threat" or a "spiritual threat." This happens when the threat has to do with the religious part of the victim's life. For example: "If you do X, I will never forgive you." Or, "If you do not do Y, you are going to Hell." Or, "You are an unbeliever." Or, "God will punish you by killing you." The desired action "X" is could be something that violates the better judgment or conscience of the victim, but would be somehow helpful to the perpetrator to cover up an action or maintain control of a situation.

Or, "X" could be a good thing like, "you children need to be quiet while I am on the phone, and if you don't, I will never speak to you again." Here, the desired outcome is reasonable, but the threat is ungodly. (There are "threats" that are in line with Scripture, like "I will send you to your room." There is nothing ungodly about that in itself; it is more of a promised consequence rather than a threatening sort of thing.)

The strength of the threat comes from the effect that it has on the religious sensibility or conscience of the person. Who wants to go to Hell or not be forgiven or never be talked to again? Such amounts to what modern people call "gaslighting" because it attempts to convince the Christian victim that they are not a Christian unless they do "X." This gets some people to second-guess themselves.

Since the religious type of threat lays claim to the Bible, let us see what Scripture says about threats.

Acts 4:17 But so that it spreads no further among the people, let us severely threaten them, that from now on they speak to no man in this name.

Acts 4:21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done.

Acts 4:29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word.

Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest...

Ephesians 6:9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

The verb "threaten" and its cognate noun form are used six times in the New Testament. The words means to warn sharply or threaten, with an implication of very bad (but often unstated) consequences. It can be a declaration of an intention to inflict some sort of harm on another person. In the case of a religious threat, it is a person stating that God will inflict harm on the victim. The goal of the perpetrator in the Acts occurrences is to stop the progress of the gospel. In Ephesians, the threats have to do with overbearing, abusive, or inconsiderate management to get the servants to be compliant.

Notice in each of the above examples that those making the threats are not models of godly conduct: the Jewish San Hedrin, Saul before he became a follower of Jesus, and ungodly masters who are mistreating their servants. These are not our Christian role models.

1 Peter 2:23 Who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously.

Here is the Christian example, the model for us to follow. Jesus did not threaten those who actually harmed him. Compared to what the San Hedrin and Saul and the slave-master experienced, Jesus was suffering a far greater and personal loss in being crucified. Yet He did not resort to tactics such as threatening, even when He had the power to call legions of angels to His aid or to effect various remedies and punishments upon those who mistreated Him.

May I offer a few thoughts on all this? First, someone who says they will never forgive a person—even if only a verbal threat not ever carried out—demonstrates that they have not grasped the full scope of God's forgiveness of sin. Refusing forgiveness shows a self-centered motivation that appeals to the victim's conscience in a very damaging way. It takes advantage of their desire to be guilt-free and forgiven, to be in a good relationship with the threat-maker. A person cannot take God's place by withholding forgiveness: only God can forgive or not forgive sin. Taking the place of God is arrogant.

Second, another way that someone can take the place of God is to set oneself up as judge regarding someone's eternal state. If you level a threat against someone that if they do not do X, they are going to Hell, you are taking to yourself the role of divine judge. You have no place to do that, and to do so is a clear violation of James 4:11-12.

Third, should a threat-maker reply that they are using this tactic to bend a sinner's behavior toward some good outcome, I simply lay this charge: pragmatism. In saying that the end justifies the means, the threat-maker is disregarding the great damage done by threats to the victim, and also to his own mindset. That is not a godly approach in any scenario. Because the means are sinful, this very often indicates that there is something very wrong with the end as well. If the ends are good, there are good means toward it and there is no need for threats.

Fourth, religious threats do not arise from love. Rather, the motivation seems to be either fear (self-protection) or an inordinate desire to control a situation (another form of gratifying oneself). If you are caught in sin, you might threaten the party who found you out so that they will not tell others. If you do not like the way someone is doing something, you may assert your desire for control by means of a threat to force conformity to your preference. These arise from the perpetrator's selfish ambitions.

Fifth, in the case of parents threatening children, this tactic serves to teach the children to become manipulators in their own behavior. This does not advance the cause of godly child-rearing but rather does great damage.

Finally, religious threats, simply put, constitute evil speech. They set a bad example for those watching, they are unloving, unkind, badly motivated and do not reflect the character of God, the fruit of the Holy Spirit, nor a heart of contrition.

Allow me to implore you if you have ever used a threat like what I have discussed above, and especially if you are guilty of a pattern of such behavior. You need to confess your sin to God and have a contrite heart. You need to apologize to those you have harmed. You need to look at your motivations. You need to re-evaluate the thing "X" that you are angling for, because it is likely evil in some way. Instead of trying to manipulate others or live by fear, focus on walking with Christ yourself and let "X" happen or not depending on God's will, not yours.

If someone is verbally threatening you in this way, do not give in to it and do not let it move you away from godly behavior. Confront the person about their ill behavior, and refuse to disobey God under the power of their threats. Remember, do not fear man. Fear God. Trust Him to help you. If it is possible, separate from that person. Seek Christian counsel. If this is happening in a marriage situation, seek Christian counsel with the spouse. Reconciliation is the ultimate goal, but it may not be possible.

Verbal threats are odious and are very damaging. Physical threats are another level of seriousness. They warrant immediate action by those threatened and their loved ones. In a domestic situation, that action may include removal from the home, reporting to the police or child protective services, among other remedies. The one making the threat must repent and begin to live in love.

I received a question today about Zechariah 13:4-6, which says this:

4 "And it shall be in that day that every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies; they will not wear a robe of coarse hair to deceive.

5 But he will say, 'I am no prophet, I am a farmer; for a man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.'

6 And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will answer, 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'"

The bold text has been taken out of context to refer to Jesus, probably because of the word-association that our brains do with the word wounded (Isaiah 53:5) and perhaps also with friend (Matthew 26:50, John 15:5?).

But the Zechariah context does not support a Jesus reference from this text. That is a non-literal, spiritualized use of the text. I do not follow the non-literal school of thought in hermeneutics.

It is best to understand this in a more plain fashion. The authorial intent seems to convey that "in that day" = the day of the Lord = the Messianic Kingdom = the future Millennial Kingdom...people who are false prophets will have to fly under the radar lest they be found out and punished by death for trying to deceive the people away from the King of kings. So, they will not wear the typical prophet's clothing of coarse hair.

Go back to verses 2-3 and see that God is going to cut off the false prophets and idols. Even parents will not support their own child who has abandoned faith in God and gone into false religion. So, times will be "desperate" in the false prophecy business.

The false prophet will not wear the regular prophet's clothing, he will claim he is just a farmer, and he will deny the markings that he got from his false prophecy rituals (wounds between the arms). These markings would indicate scars from cutting themselves, like the false prophets of Baal cut themselves on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:28). The undercover false prophet will make an excuse that he got these scars or wounds while at some friends' house.

Bottom line: in the kingdom of Christ, religious pluralism will not be cool.

Today's question has to do with the firmament or expanse that God created in the early days of the creation week.

The Bible says something about the waters being separated by sky. Is the sky water?

What we know: Genesis 1:6-8 describes how on the second day of creation, God created a vault or firmament. This firmament separated waters below from waters above.

We also know that God called this firmament "heaven" (some Bible translations) or "sky" (NIV).

We also know that in the Bible, heaven can refer to three things: the atmosphere that we breath and in which the birds fly; outer space where the sun and moon and planets and stars reside; and finally, it can refer to the place where God dwells. Sometimes these are called the first heaven, the second heaven, and the third heaven.

We also know that "heaven" in the original Hebrew language was in the plural, so "Heavens." You might have heard before a phrase like "turn your eyes toward the heavens and see the eclipse" or "the starry heavens above." There is only one atmosphere, and one outer space, and one Heaven where God lives, but we group them all together under the term "Heavens" in a way similar to how it appears in the plural form in Genesis.

We also know that in verse 9, the waters underneath the firmament were gathered together into bodies of water that we call seas or oceans. This allowed the dry land to appear. So we know the dry land was also under the firmament.

What we do not know for sure is how far the waters below were separated from the waters above. Some people have suggested that there is a layer of water around the universe, which we cannot see. A more common belief is that God created a sort of "canopy" of water above the earth, protecting the earth from harmful UV rays (that cause skin cancer) and maybe made the earth like a greenhouse where vegetation would grow very well. If this is true, the canopy was temporary, because it is no longer present. Probably it collapsed during Noah's flood and created some of the rains that flooded the earth (read about that in Genesis 6-9). But since we do not know these facts for sure, we hold them loosely and explain that they are potential theories, but we do not believe God is displeased if we do not know exactly what to believe about it.

Now, about the sky being water. It is not water, but it does contain a lot of water vapor (clouds, fog, mist, which create rain, snow, sleet and hail) mixed in with the oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.

Today’s question:

In 1 Samuel 15:11, 35, what does it mean that God regretted that He made Saul king? It is confusing especially in light of verse 29 which says that God will not relent.

Regret and relent (from the NKJV translation) are from the same Hebrew word. In English, regret can mean to feel sorry for a mistake or sin, or sorrow caused by circumstances maybe beyond your control or power to repair. Oxford Languages defines it as "feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over something that has happened or been done, especially a loss or missed opportunity." (In Christian theology, regret and repentance are importantly different.)

Relent means to change one’s mind about a course of action, to become less severe, strict, or harsh, to let up, slacken. Oxford Languages gives this definition: "abandon or mitigate a harsh intention or cruel treatment."

The Hebrew verb naham has a semantic range that encompasses both English words, and only the context can determine which meaning is intended. To simplify, let us say that the Bible word in the Old Testament could mean to feel sad (regret) or it could mean to let up (relent).

In verse 29, Samuel emphasizes that because of Saul’s rebellion, God will not relent, meaning God will not change His mind about rejecting Saul. He will not become less severe or let up on his punishment. The decision is fixed, like a law of the Medes and Persians. This is similar to what we read in Numbers 23:19 where we read of God not repenting of his promise to bless the nation of Israel. God is faithful and reliable, and will keep His word. Now that He has said Saul is out, Saul is permanently done and that fate is not going to change.

The context is different in 1 Samuel 15:11 and 35. God regretted making Saul king because of Saul’s misbehavior. In other words, God was sad about making Saul king. For a similar regret, see Genesis 6:6 where God was sad about making mankind. In view of the wicked behavior of both people in general in Genesis and Saul specifically in 1 Samuel, God was saddened. Notice that he was saddened that "He" had set that in motion.

I believe that God does have feelings, but these feelings arise from his holy, infinite, and immutable nature. Such feelings do not have exactly the same effect on God as they would on man, but nonetheless God is not a being with no “feelings.” At the same time, someone cannot force emotions onto God, but God can have emotions based in Himself and based on His own actions. We can understand these feelings in part as anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms, but these should not to be understood to fictionalize that God actually has emotions. We get our emotional makeup from Him in the image of God.

God had not set up Saul as king with an unbreakable promise of continuance in that office. In fact, Samuel had said to the people in 12:25: "If you still do wickedly, you will be swept away, both you and your king." Thereafter, Saul offered an illegitimate sacrifice, made a foolish oath, did not kill the Amalekite king, and did not destroy all the spoils as he was specifically directed by God. This would certainly qualify as doing wickedly. It is appropriate that this show of disrespect by Saul elicited a negative feeling from God and a subsequent judgment.

Despite the fact that God knew what would happen (He is omniscient, after all), it can still be said that He had a negative emotion about putting Saul in power. In God’s infinite wisdom, He sometimes places people into offices or decrees things to happen that are not themselves good things, but advance His plan in some way. We cannot fully understand it, but we can certainly understand the feeling of regret at putting someone into an office who later proves to be incompetent, or worse as in this case, rebellious.

The regret is not about God having second thoughts about what He did, as if He now realizes something that He did not understand before, but it is about what mankind did with the opportunity God gave them to be faithful, and what God had to do in order to correct the misbehavior. The misbehavior was sinful, and the corrective was extreme, and it would have been better in a sense to not have appointed Saul and thus not have to take that drastic action. So from one perspective it is regrettable, but from another it is necessary.

It appears that God can be grieved by what He has wisely ordained. That seems complicated, but God is an infinite being beyond our complete comprehension. There can be dynamics in the Divine mind that we cannot grasp. We do not have omniscience and omnipotence and love in the way God does, so we find it hard to fathom how He has put the world together in a way that will ultimately please Him but presently has significant shortcomings. Think of it like this: He could be grieved in the short term about Saul but He ordained that for a bigger purpose. He could be grieved at the time about the wickedness of mankind, but that was a consequent necessity after the fall of mankind and the plan that God had ordained for redemption and the eventual future bliss of the redeemed in fellowship with Him.

We can safely say that God was saddened at the poor outcome Saul created, and that He would not lessen the severity of Saul’s punishment. And we can also safely say that God did not have second thoughts, nor would He change His mind if He had it to do over again.

There is a collection of other Bible passages that refer to the idea of God regretting or relenting of something: Exodus 32:12–14; 2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Psalms 106:45; Jeremiah 4:28; 18:8; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13–14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9–10; 4:2.

Part 5

The sixth reason that I am not an Seventh Day Adventist is that the Bible forbids judging another person based on whether he esteems one day above another, or every day alike.

Worshipping on Sunday is not a matter over which one Christian is allowed to judge another. Two texts justify this conclusion. The first is Colossians 1:16 which says, "So let no one judge you...regarding...sabbaths." I am not permitted to view myself as condemned by someone who disagrees about the proper practice of the Sabbath. In fact, I take the text to indicate that I can push back against such a judgment. The second text is Romans 14:4-5. There, the apostle teaches us that we are not to judge other servants of God, particularly on the matter of the observation of one day over another. They will stand or fall before their own master, not before us.

A Seventh-Day Adventist is stepping out of bounds to adjudicate a non-Sabbatarian believer to be a sinner because he does not worship on Saturday. Some people regard one day more sacred than another, and others every day alike. Each has to be fully convinced in his own mind.

Part 7, Conclusion

Part 6

In conclusion, I agree that the principle of resting one day in seven is important. But Christians are not obligated to worship on Saturday because:

1. The Apostolic example of was worship on the first day of the week.
2. The centrality of the resurrection of Jesus to the Christian faith. It is very appropriate to worship Christ each and every Sunday because that is the first day of the week, the day on which He arose from the grave.
3. The Bible's teaching is that the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled.
4. Historic Christian practice has been to worship on the first day of the week.
5. The writings of Ellen G. White are not equal to Scripture.
6. The Bible forbids judging another person based on whether he esteems one day above another, or every day alike. Neither view (Saturday or Sunday worship) is a matter of judgment or condemnation among God’s people.

Here is FBC's annually-renewed set of Bible reading schedules. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2026.

Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind!

• Read the entire Bible in a year, in a somewhat chronological order
• Read the New Testament once
• Read the New Testament twice
• Read the New Testament four times
• Read the Old Testament once

Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year:

• Ligonier Bible Reading Plans
• ESV Bible Reading Plans
• Professor Horner's Reading System
• Read the Gospels Every Day

Credit for this blog post goes to one of our church members who sent me an observation this morning about Hebrews 3:7.

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts..."

Indeed, the Spirit of God speaks, something which no impersonal force does. He is a real (divine) person. We see the same idea in several other passages:

"Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas..." (Acts 1:16)

As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." (Acts 13:2)

So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive..."'" (Acts 28:25-26)

The Spirit of God spoke through the vehicle of the prophets in the Old Testament, and similarly via the apostles in the New Testament. What He spoke, they spoke, or wrote.

Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21)

Today's question from someone who attends Fellowship Bible Church:

In 1 Samuel 13 Saul offered sacrifices before Samuel arrived, thus disregarding Samuel's specific instruction. He was rebuked for not obeying the Lord's command, and seemingly for stepping into the priestly office when it was not permitted. But then in 2 Samuel 6, David offered sacrifices but was not rebuked. What is the difference between these situations? Why exactly was Saul in the wrong?

After Saul had impatiently went ahead and made a burnt offering to get ready for the imminent Philistine attack, Samuel rebuked Saul. He said that Saul had done foolishly and did not keep the Lord’s command (1 Samuel 13:13-14). He should have waited the additional minutes or hours for Samuel to arrive.

The wording of the Bible text seems to indicate that Saul did the offering himself. He said to bring the burnt and peace offerings to him. He "offered the burnt offering" and "finished presenting the burnt offering" (1 Samuel 13:9-10). Saul had ready-made reasons: the people were leaving, Samuel was not coming, and the Philistines were near. He said he felt compelled under those circumstances. But no compulsion is enough to disobey God’s command, which included the command to wait until Samuel arrived. We can verify this by going back to 1 Samuel 10:8:

"You shall go down before me to Gilgal; and surely I will come down to you to offer burnt offerings and make sacrifices of peace offerings. Seven days you shall wait, till I come to you and show you what you should do."

The command is clear. And since Samuel is a mouthpiece for God, this is God’s command. Saul had thus violated the express command of the Lord.

Whether Saul’s hands actually touched the sacrifices or killed them or set them on fire is not as important as the fact that he actively caused the sacrifices to be done (or commanded others to actually do the bloody work) without Samuel being present. Samuel said in chapter 10 that he would offer the sacrifices, but Saul did instead. That is a problem. Nevertheless, my understanding of the text is that Saul actually did the bloody work of making the offering and putting it on the altar. Although the offerer sometimes did kill the offering (Leviticus 1:10-11), it appears that the priests did the "altar work" in arranging the sacrifice on the altar, manipulating the blood, etc. (Lev. 1:13, 15-17). Saul should not have done so.

We recall another time that a king usurped priestly authority: Uzziah. 2 Chronicles 26:16-19 tells us that he became proud, entered the temple, and tried to burn incense on the altar of incense. That was only permitted for the priests who were consecrated to do so. After being struck with leprosy, he hurried to reverse course and get out of the temple.

Saul’s sin was similar in the sense of usurping the priest’s office, but also that he disobeyed a direct command to wait. He should have waited, trusting in the Lord to protect him and the people instead of in the act of making a sacrifice.

A question comes up when we read in 2 Samuel 6:17-18. David "offered burnt offerings and peace offerings" and "finished offering burnt offerings and peace offerings." This language is almost identical to what Saul did at Gilgal. The sacrifices are the same type as Saul's sacrifices. Why was David not sinning when he did this, but Saul was? David also made offerings in 2 Samuel 24:25 and Solomon did the same in 1 Kings 8:64. Was Solomon also guilty?

I take it that David was not guilty for two reasons. First, he did not disobey a direct command from a prophet of God to wait to allow the offerings to be made by another. Second, it seems reasonable to assume that David in this instance reflected his status as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). So whether his hand was directly involved in killing sacrificial animals (as a normal offerer would sometimes do), I do not believe he transgressed the priestly boundary. The priests probably did all the necessary ritual with regard to the altar. It is also doubtful whether David was directly involved in all or any of the animal slayings since there were so many and he was dancing as well (2 Samuel 6:13-14).

We note too that a high official "doing" something does not mean that he actually did the act himself. He likely delegated parts or the whole task to others. 2 Samuel 6:12 says, "David went and brought up the ark of God." Later, "David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD" (2 Samuel 6:15). We know that for this second attempt, the Ark was carried by the priests. It was not carried on an oxcart or by unauthorized persons, and David did not carry it himself. So, David "brought" the Ark, but he did not physically "bring" the Ark with his own hands. He was in charge of the operation, decided when it would happen, and how. But he did it properly.

I think the same line of reasoning shows that Solomon was not in sin for being involved in the initial dedicatory sacrifices for the new temple.

It appears that King Saul did not delegate the task of sacrifice to anyone, but rather took it to himself. And he did so impatiently—not trusting the Lord. He did not honor God before the people. May we strive to honor the Lord in all things and not get ourselves into a situation like Saul did.

Author's note: I thank the Lord that, with this post, He has permitted me to write 500 articles on this blog! My goal has been to honor the Lord and edify His people and I hope these articles are accomplishing that goal.

Yesterday I posted about our "one another responsibilities." Today, I follow up with our "one another un-responsibilities." Ask God to help you by His grace and Spirit to repudiate these attitudes and practices in your life.

1. Do not lie to one another (Col. 3:9, Eph. 4:25)
2. Do not provoke or envy one another (Gal. 5:26)
3. Caution: do not devour/consume one another (Gal. 5:15)
4. Do not deprive one another (spouses, 1 Cor. 7:5)
5. Do not go to law against one another (1 Cor. 6:7)
6. Do not judge one another or put a stumbling block in one another’s way (Rom. 14:13)
7. Do not burn in lust toward one another (principle of Rom. 1:27, particularly of homosexuality, generally true also)
8. Do not plot evil against one another (Zech. 7:10)
9. Do not hate one another (Titus 3:3)
10. Do not speak against one another (James 4:11)
11. Do not grumble/complain against one another (James 5:9)