Matt Postiff's Blog

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)

In my sermon preparation, I ran into the "one another" commands yet again. Here they are:

1. Pray for one another (James 5:16)
2. Confess to one another (James 5:16)
3. Love one another (John 13:34 (2x), John 13:35, 15:12, 15:17; Rom. 12:10; 13:8; 1 John 3:11, 3:23; 4:7, 4:11-12, 2 John 5; 1 Peter 1:22, 4:8; 2 Thess. 1:3, 4:9)
4. Show preference to one another (Rom. 12:10)
5. Share fellowship with one another (1 John 1:7)
6. Be humble toward one another (1 Peter 5:5)
7. Serve one another (1 Peter 4:10)
8. Be hospitable toward one another (1 Peter 4:9)
9. Spur one another on toward love and good works (Heb. 10:24)
10. Exhort/encourage one another (Heb. 3:13, 10:25)
11. Pursue good for one another (1 Thess 5:15)
12. Be at peace with one another (1 Thess 5:13)
13. Encourage and build up one another (1 Thess. 5:11)
14. Comfort one another (1 Thess. 4:18)
15. Teach and admonish one another in songs based on the word of Christ (Col. 3:16)
16. Bear with one another and forgive one another (Col. 3:13, Eph. 4:2)
17. Regard others as more important than yourself (Col. 2:3)
18. Submit to one another (Eph. 5:21, 22ff show how)
19. Speak to one another in song (Eph. 5:19)
20. Be kind to one another and forgiving each other (Eph. 4:32)
21. Recognize that we are members of one another (Eph. 4:25)
22. Through love serve one another (Gal. 5:13)
23. Greet one another (Rom. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Peter 5:14)
24. Exercise mutual care one for another (1 Cor. 12:25)
25. Wait for one another (1 Cor. 11:33)
26. Admonish one another (Rom 15:14)
27. Accept/receive one another (Rom. 15:7)
28. Be of the same mind with one another (Rom. 12:16, 15:5)
29. Pursue peace and building up of one another (Rom. 14:19)
30. Be at peace with one another (Mark 9:50)
31. Speak truth to one another (Zechariah 8:16)

By God's grace these things will be a significant part of your life.

Another question today:

Is Ezekiel speaking of the destruction of the temple to come in chapter 9, or more of the end times?

We can unravel somewhat the mystery of Ezekiel's prophecies by looking at the overall outline of the book:

1. Chapters 1-24 concern prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem. These are fulfilled in the "near term" from Ezekiel's perspective. He prophesied around 593 to 572 B.C. and the city and temple were destroyed in 586 B.C. in the midst of his ministry.
2. Chapters 25-32 concern near-term fulfilled prophecies against the nations.
3. Chapters 33-34 are a call to repentance by the watchman Ezekiel.
4. Chapters 34-48 are about the future restoration of Israel with a focus on the future millennial temple and its worship. These things are almost all to be fulfilled in the far future in the end times.

To look a bit more into chapter 9, let us back up to chapter 8. There, God shows Ezekiel the awful idolatry of the nation of Israel, with idols even inside the temple. In chapter 9, God explains to Ezekiel that there will be a severe judgment against the people for their idolatry. This judgment, in agreement with the outline above, is soon, within Ezekiel's lifetime.

As that information was being revealed, Ezekiel saw in his prophetic vision some movement of the glory of God in and around the temple. This movement shows that God is slowly, sadly leaving the temple. The Shekinah glory was moving out because idolatry had moved in. Notice the movement:

9:3 - Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub on which it rested to the threshold of the house. (ESV)

10:4 - And the glory of the LORD went up from the cherub to the threshold of the house, and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was filled with the brightness of the glory of the LORD.

Next, the glory of God leaves the temple, accompanied by the cherubim, to the east gate:

10:18-19 - Then the glory of the LORD went out from the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubim. 19 And the cherubim lifted up their wings and mounted up from the earth before my eyes as they went out, with the wheels beside them. And they stood at the entrance of the east gate of the house of the LORD, and the glory of the God of Israel was over them.

Next, the glory of God leaves the city:

11:23 - And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city and stood on the mountain that is on the east side of the city.

The glory of God had now departed. It will not return to a temple until the new temple in the millennium. But the Lord Jesus did suddenly appear at the temple in the first century, but He was rejected by the officials of that temple, just like God was rejected in Ezekiel's day.

Today's question has to do with Ezekiel being called the "son of man." Sometimes it is in lower case, and sometimes in upper case. Is there any significance to that?

The question arose because last Sunday I spoke on the "Son of Man" terminology from Luke 22:69 and connected it to Daniel 7:13-14. I said that the phrase did not merely indicate the humanity of Christ, but is also connected to His deity and right to rule as divine King over the Messianic kingdom. The San Hedrin council understood this connection because they then asked Jesus, "Are You then the Son of God?" When Jesus affirmed that proposition, they condemned Him to death.

In Ezekiel, God refers to the prophet as the son of man, but in those uses it has no Messianic implication. God is referring to Ezekiel as a man, who is unlike God, as in Psalm 8:4—"What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him?" See also Psalm 144:3, 146:3; Isaiah 56:2; Jer. 49:18, 49:33, 50:40, and 51:43.

About the capitalization of "son of man" in Ezekiel, I did a case-sensitive computerized search in the NKJV and found that "Son of Man" (both capitalized) does not occur in the book. That dual capitalization would mean that the translators believe the phrase to refer to the Messiah, as it does in Matthew 8:20. In Ezekiel, "Son of man" is capitalized with a single capital 'S' at the beginning of a sentence or direct address in quotation marks. And sometimes it is dual lowercase, "son of man" when the phrase does not occur at the beginning of a sentence or quotation. So, there is no significance to the capitalization in Ezekiel; all references are to Ezekiel the prophet, not to the Messiah.

It is also interesting that Ezekiel is never called "the" son of man. But in the gospels, Jesus is often called "the" Son of Man. So for Ezekiel, "son of man" refers to his humanity. For Jesus, "Son of Man" does refer to His humanity, but in a different way. He is the perfect man, the second Adam, and as such, the title points us to His Messianic office and in effect His deity.

In the United States, the Sovereign Citizen or Sovereign Citizenship (SC) movement is a collection of groups who believe that the U.S. government is illegitimate and that they can through various means liberate themselves from the laws, regulations, taxes, and penalties of the government.

According to the Bible, SC a false teaching. Here is why:

1. It denies governmental authority over the individual, when in fact God has ordained the governing authorities and they are to be obeyed inasmuch as they do not command something contrary to Scripture (Romans 13:1-7). Scripture commands the payment of taxes, and respect for law enforcement.

2. It has a strongly anti-authoritarian bent, which runs contrary to the Christian doctrine of submission (Eph. 5:21, 1 Peter 5:5) and respect of leaders (1 Thess. 5:12-13).

3. It suggests schemes to “legally” default on debt or have it paid by some other entity, running contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture that those who borrow and do not repay are wicked (Psalm 37:21). Tax fraud is also a common theme in SC thought, with some creating fake churches and claiming to be ministers to take advantage of tax benefits.

4. It teaches squatter’s rights, which amounts to theft of property that belongs to someone else. Again, this is contrary to God’s word, which forbids stealing (Exodus 20:15).

5. Some SC adherents have borrowed theological concepts: Christian patriot, created sovereign by God, Kingdom of God, Synagogue of Satan, and mark of the beast. They claim that sovereignty of the citizen comes from God and the Bible and common law, among other things. Some claim that the world is controlled by corporations only interested in their profit and power. These ideas run contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture that God is the true sovereign over all things (Psalm 103:19) no matter what temporal powers He may permit to exist at any given time.

The SC doctrine has caused some adherents to reject organized religion because it limits the person’s autonomy, and they may reject any guilt or shame as manipulation tactics. This meshes well with the culture’s common thought that people can be “spiritual” but not “religious.” This allows a sort of spiritual free agency with no accountability to others, which agrees with the anti-authoritarian bent of SC but not with God’s design for the church.

Churches should be ready to stand against the SC doctrine, because people who start to believe it will likely be drawn away to follow these false teachers instead of Christ (Acts 20:30).

References

A Quick Guide to Sovereign Citizens, UNC School of Government, 2013.

Sovereign citizens: A narrative review with implications of violence towards law enforcement.

The religious concepts of the Sovereign Citizens Movement by Daryl Johnson.

Links to This Article

Bert Perry, The Sovereign Citizen Movement.

Another question:

This question is about Deuteronomy 23:3 and the prohibition of Moabites entering the assembly out to 10 generations. How does Ruth's Moabite heritage and inclusion in Jesus's lineage square with this verse? Does Ruth's assertion that Naomi's God is her God indicate that she is now a proselyte and has given up her original national heritage?

Moses spoke/wrote Deuteronomy 23 roughly around 1405 B.C. (assuming a conservative date for the Exodus at 1445 B.C., plus 40 years of wandering in the wilderness). It is hard to pin Ruth on a timeline, but some suggested dates are around 1290 or 1115 B.C. The earlier date would put Ruth about 115 years after Moses wrote Deuteronomy 23:3. That is only perhaps four or five generations assuming 20 to 25 years per generation. If Ruth entered Israel around 1115, that would be 290 years, which is about 11 generations. That would surpass the "10 generations" requirement.

A complication arises when we read to the end of verse 3 and also the end of verse 6. There, the word "forever" is used. Perhaps it is the case that "ten generations" is a figure of speech that really means "never." That would make your question more difficult because the condition would be more stringent.

Another issue is the genealogy of David: Boaz and Ruth had Obed, who bore Jesse, and Jesse bore David (Ruth 4:18-20). David was 30 years old when he became king (2 Samuel 5:4) in what we best estimate is about 1010 B.C. If we suppose that Obed was 20 when he had Jesse, and Jesse was 20 when he had David, plus the 30 years until David reigned, working backward that would be 1010+30+20+20 = 1090 B.C. That would put Ruth closer to the 1115 date than the 1290 date. And from all the genealogies we have of David in the Bible, the list Boaz-Obed-Jesse-David does not seem to have any missing links or gaps in it so we cannot stretch it too far. Even if we suppose the men were older, say 60, when they had their children, that would only work out to 1010+30+60+60 (if I have my math right—you can check it) and that would only put is back to 1160 B.C. which is still safe for the 10-generation requirement. And one other point on this: since David was at least eighth in the birth order of his family, assuming 20 years of age for Jesse above is somewhat unrealistic. He was probably closer to 30, putting Boaz and Ruth's marriage closer to 1100 B.C.

Anyway, there are a few other points, one of which you have raised in your question. The first point is that Ruth has abandoned her idolatrous religion and connections. The beautiful confession of Ruth 1:16-17 shows that she had become a Jewish proselyte. I believe that is completely sufficient to remove her from the curse on the Moabites in Deuteronomy 23:3, because she is disowning them and what they did/do. She is fully embracing Yahweh.

The second point is that Ruth was a woman, and once she was married to a Jewish man, and then again to a very faithful Jewish man (Boaz), she would come under his wing. Her Moabite heritage would be not erased, but in some measure it would be emptied of significance if she was faithful to her husband. Of course, any woman could bring her idolatrous beliefs into a marriage and ruin the man and the family, but that was not the case here.

A third point: The Moabites and Midianites were confederated in the Balaam incident in Numbers 22 (see 22:4). Later in Numbers 31:18 Moses permitted the people of Israel to keep the young virgins of the Midianites for themselves after the battle had destroyed everyone else. It seems that the women were exempt from a curse and could be integrated into the nation. Perhaps this same principle applies to Ruth.

God is gracious, and I think this truth justifies exception cases like this one, regardless of whether all of the above reasoning is somewhat flawed. For example, God will not justify the wicked. But he justifies us who are definitely wicked, on the basis of His grace in Christ. He includes in the genealogy of Jesus Ruth (Moabite), Tamar (Jewish prostitute), Rahab (Jericho prostitute), and Bathsheba (Jewish adulteress). We do not know if Tamar and Bathsheba had saving faith in God, but Ruth and Rahab did. In any case, God is full of grace and compassion, and general rules can be overcome by grace-based exceptions.

Today's question:

In Deuteronomy 15:4 it says there will be no poor among the Israelites because of the abundance of the land they are entering. Then later in the same chapter (15:11) it says there will never cease to be poor in the land. I know the Bible isn’t contradicting itself, but I wondered how to understand these two statements.

I just received this question, and I happened to notice the same thing in my reading of the Legacy Standard Bible earlier this year. I had not considered it before because the NKJV, my normal reading Bible, offers a different translation:

NKJV Deut 15:4 "except when there may be no poor among you; for the LORD will greatly bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance."

But when I read the LSB, I noticed the problem:

LSB Deut 15:4 "However, there will be no needy one among you, since Yahweh will surely bless you in the land which Yahweh your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess."

The supposed contradiction arises in 15:11 where the translations are in agreement: "For the poor will never case from the land" and "For the needy will never cease to be in the land."

I think the NKJV translators noticed the discrepancy and wanted to help the reader understand what is going on. But I believe the key to understanding that there is no contradiction is that verse 5 contains an IF clause that controls the prior verse. IF you will carefully obey God, then you will be blessed. The idea is that if they are obedient to God, they will be so blessed that they will not have any poverty. This is in accord with the general promises of blessing under the Mosaic covenant. However, given the reality of depravity, the condition of verse 11 will be the normal situation—because of sin, oppression, disobedience, and God's disfavor, there will be poverty amongst the people. That poverty will be one of the curses of disobedience.

To this the words of the Lord Jesus agree, for in Matthew 26:11 he says, "For you have the poor with you always."

An entitlement mentality has crept into the church over the years. For example, some people do not seem concerned that they are reliant on government handouts when they should be working diligently to supply their needs (or drawing off savings that they earned while doing such work). The entitlement mindset is not befitting a Christian. But there is another type of freeloading that is even more concerning, and I call it ecclesiastical freeloading (or church mooching, if you prefer).

A little background teaching first:

1 Corinthians 9:11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? (NKJV)

Romans 15:27 It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things. (NKJV)

The Bible makes it clear that “the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.” This refers to pastors and missionaries and those in vocational ministry. Those who benefit from the teaching, ministry, administration, counseling, writing, sermons, etc. of these ministers must support the work that is providing that edification.

The problem is that some people are watching church services from home without any real attachment to the church that they are watching. This became very common during the COVID pandemic of 2020-21 and now beyond. The feeling of entitlement has settled in so that we want to get our church like we get our sources of entertainment, or like we get our schooling by watching online lectures. And we want it for free—but it is not free.

The online audience does not offer financial support to keep the cameras going, the lights on, the Internet bill paid, etc. They do not support the pastor’s time, or the missionaries or general budget of the church. They do not attend the worship service, participate in singing, help with cleaning, join in evangelism, use their spiritual gifts, or anything else. They benefit but do not pay. They use all their finances for other things.

This is what I mean by ecclesiastical freeloading.

If you are in that category, please begin to support the church that is feeding your soul. And I do not only mean with money because that is not the most important part. Begin to be a true part (member) of the church.

On the other hand, if you are supporting a local church’s ministry in the kinds of ways I outline above, THANK YOU! Keep up the good work. God is using good churches to make His will known in His word, to seek the lost, to restrain evil, to uphold the weak, to admonish the unruly, and to comfort the fainthearted. This takes people, time, and money, and your support in doing God’s will will result in fruit in your heavenly account.

A tract is a pamphlet, usually of a religious nature or sometimes political. Someone could hand out a tract advocating the gospel, or the pro-life movement, or support for Gaza. Christians have passed out tracts for generations.

Some people call them “tracks,” but the actual word is tract with a T at the end. Tract is a shortened form of the word tractate which is a formal and often more lengthy version of a tract. Both words derive from the Latin tractatus which is a discussion or treatise about some topic. A treatise is a detailed and organized written document about a topic. In common usage, a treatise is usually quite long. A tract is always very short, usually no more than four or six small pages folded as a booklet or tri-fold.

People have been saved by reading Christian tracts. It would be good for you to carry a few with you in a pocket or purse so that you can give one to someone you meet at a store or restaurant or wherever. We have a couple nearby our front door so that if a salesperson comes and we think it is appropriate, we can give him or her a tract. We like using the so-called Bridge tract but there are others as well.

Finally, consider studying a good tract so that you can store its contents in your mind. You never know when you may need to share the good news verbally with someone and you can draw on your memory and adapt it to the circumstance at hand.

FBC was recently mentioned in the local amateur radio club blog. The ARROW club holds FCC license testing once a month and recently held training at our church building to prepare to move from paper testing to electronic testing. Our church opened a space for them after the Red Cross building became unavailable during COVID.

Amateur radio is a technical hobby having to do with radio reception and transmission, antennas, electronics, and the like. It is squarely in the STEM knowledge area. Many of these hobbyists also participate in emergency and community services. For example, some are storm spotters, others are ready to assist hospitals and general communications in the event of a disaster such as an earthquake or fire. Some assist with passing messages at community events like bicycle rides. Others—the volunteer examiners or VEs—do testing and training to help young people get into the hobby, which sometimes directs them onto a career path in electronics and communications.

We are glad to be able to provide a community service to this group and to help them, as Dan KB6NU says, to "religiously" carry on their radio testing.

Here is a question I received a few months ago from a young parent. How should we address the problem of evil with young children, specifically the evil associated with Halloween? It is so very present and surrounds us everywhere we go these days, and naturally our daughter is asking a lot of questions. I often state that it is bad and evil and just "not good." But I don’t know how to present to her Scripturally "why" besides that it is scary and that it is not kind, or that it is not good things to think about, and God wants us to think about good things. She often asks "why do they have those things?" Or "why is it bad?" Another young mom friend I know is struggling with the same thing with her toddler. How can I explain our disagreement with Halloween in general?

This is a very good question, and very timely when it was asked in October (I know, I'm late posting this to my blog...hopefully it will help someone in 2025 and beyond!). Here are some thoughts for you.

1. It is ok to say it is bad, but as you have sensed, you need to be able to say why.

2. Many of the holidays that we celebrate, and indeed all of them that we should celebrate, exist to honor God in some way. They are Godward in their focus. Consider Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, even our birthdays (because God gave us life). Even holidays like Memorial day and independence day and Veterans day should have a Godward focus because it is the sovereign God who provided these blessings to us and the sacrifices that they represent point us to a greater sacrifice. In fact, the word itself, holiday, is derived from "holy day."

3. But Halloween is not celebrated to honor God nor to uplift holiness.

4. Halloween focuses on celebrating the dead. But our focus is not to be on the dead.

5. Halloween focuses on things like skeletons, ghosts, witches, all the realm of death and the Devil, again not about God. It has a tendency to stimulate interest in death, which is not a healthy subject for young people to dwell on. Similar things are done with young people in secular schools today, trying to stimulate interest in sexuality, gender transition, etc. This "holiday" also desensitizes young people to the demonic realm. We do not want them to treat that lightly.

6. Today Halloween is also about having fun. There is nothing wrong with having some fun and giving away and enjoying candy (in moderation) but modern culture has turned it into a huge commercial holiday about money and candy and costumes. This is not necessary for us.

7. Conservative Christians want to avoid the pagan association of practicing Halloween: "Halloween's origins can be traced back to the ancient Celtic festival known as Samhain, which was held on November 1 in contemporary calendars. It was believed that on that day, the souls of the dead returned to their homes, so people dressed in costumes and lit bonfires to ward off spirits." (Britannica online encyclopedia) There were other very abominable acts such as sacrifices and immorality. This is very incorrect theology and we cannot be associated with it. The celebration of evil, death, and demonic activity is not befitting a Christian. These things are coordinate with pagan "theology."

8. Christian parents should not ignore Halloween. But they are not required to do something in place of it. It may be instructive and helpful to not do something in place of it “just to make my child feel included.” Feeling included is not a spiritual virtue that we need to teach about dark holidays. But you could do something in place of it, like a harvest remembrance, as long as it is more a “holy day” than a “secular day.” We can thankfully welcome the fall harvest of God’s provision.

9. You have given good answers about the kinds of things we should fill our minds with. Fear and violence and boundary-pushing costumes are antithetical to the Christian faith and ought not be the subjects of our meditation, much less our money which belongs to God. Things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and praiseworthy should fill our minds.

10. Christians are to be children of life and light, not death and darkness.

11. Things like fortune-telling, seances, etc. are forbidden in the Law of Moses and we see no instruction in the New Testament that makes those things now permissible (Deut. 18).

12. Halloween brings to the surface some of the spiritual battle in which we are engaged. Things sometimes "under the table" through the year are brought to the surface. Daniel 10:13.

13. In short, Halloween is closely associated with spiritual darkness instead of spiritual light. We are to be all about light.

14. Watch the slippery slope for yourself, and the generational slope that you can create for your children. Instead, set them on level spiritual ground, a stable position which they can move forward on into the next generation. It is likely that cultural practices will only become more edgy and debauched as time goes on.

15. Is there a redeeming value to Halloween? No.

16. Is celebration of Halloween necessary? No.

17. See this article by Phil Cecil.