In our series on doctrine uniting and dividing, my main point is that you should not view doctrine as divisive. Instead, we should view it as uniting. How does it unite? Following are several factors.

A. The purpose of doctrine is to provide a common base upon which we can unite. To the extent that our teaching impacts our thinking, and our thinking is as close to God’s thinking as it can be, this draws us closer to God as well as to one another. Shared doctrine knits us together in a closer relationship.

Notice the connection of doctrine to the early church in Acts 2:42: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." Ephesians 4:3-6 adds,

“endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

There are seven “ones” here – including one faith and one hope and one baptism. There are not two faiths, two hopes, two baptisms, two possible futures, two different versions of Jesus, two different gospels, or three for that matter. These “ones” are the basis of unity in the church. The apostle Paul teaches that doctrine does unite us.

B. The unifying feature of sound doctrine has a side effect or consequence of marking off those who are outside of its boundaries. It is akin to the difference between Jesus coming to save the world versus to condemn the world (John 3:17). His coming, which was salvation-oriented, is not bad because it has judgment as a side-effect for those who do not believe. They were already under judgment (John 3:18). The purpose of the incarnation and atonement is not condemnation but salvation. Ina similar way, doctrine is not bad because it has a consequence that it shows someone to be wrong and outside of the boundaries of healthy teaching. Just because it happens (as a side-effect) to demonstrate a delineation between people who do not hold sound doctrine and those who do, does not mean that doctrine is bad. In itself, it is inherently a good and healthy thing.

C. The Scripture repeatedly commands Christians to be "of one mind" (Romans 15:6, 2 Cor. 13:11, Phil. 1:27, 1 Peter 3:8). The doctrine that "doctrine divides" promotes a very broad approach that downplays doctrine and really encourages people to have a wide variety of views on various matters—often in practice it amounts to whatever suits their fancy. You cannot have "one mind" with others in the church if you actually have "several minds" in the church.

As an example, if I believe in believer’s baptism and you believe in infant baptism for the infants of believing parents, we do not have the same mind. I would argue that difference is significant enough that we should properly separate into different churches. This is precisely why Presbyterian churches are not Baptist or Bible churches, and vice versa.

Another example of a doctrine that is almost always relegated to the third tier as a non-essential is the rapture. We believe the rapture is imminent—the next event in the divine plan. This is an encouragement to those who face trials today, or who have lost a loved one and are awaiting the resurrection. 1 Thess. 4:13-18 is a real comfort to those who grieve someone who has died. This shared comfort unites us in the Lord in a practical way. Others believe that the church will pass through the Tribulation and only afterward will the Lord return. This does not offer the same kind of comfort as the view we hold. This is not merely discomforting; it is dis-uniting because it is a contradiction. Both of these views cannot be correct.

(In other venues I have stated my belief that although there are doctrines which are not essential to believe for salvation, there are a good deal of those very doctrines are appropriate to delineate for church fellowship and sound worldview, and in order to avoid unnecessary disunity. Furthermore, while we may disagree on some doctrinal matter and thus not be of the same mind, we can do so charitably.)

E. Our viewpoint that doctrine unites encourages discernment and also demands discernment. Discernment is the ability to understand things that are not immediately obvious, along with the skill to differentiate between one viewpoint and another. It is a skill that helps us to select what matches Scripture and to reject what does not.

1. The idea that doctrine unites encourages discernment because we want to know what is right and true, and to know if a church properly holds Scriptural teaching. This allows us then the freedom to join that church and partner with that church in good conscience. Sound doctrine is the platform and foundation of discernment that allows us to be united. It helps us begin a relationship of unity.

Of course we are not expecting that everyone agrees on every detail. But what we are aiming for is that along the main lines of doctrine that there is agreement, not just on the bare minima involved in the gospel. We ought to be able to discern that it is wrong to delete as many truths as possible from the "important list" to get down to a handful of statements regarding the gospel of Christ that must be believed. As Christians, we are not to be focused on believing a few facts. Instead, we are believing in a person and in what He believes.

2. The idea that doctrine unites demands discernment because you become displeasing to God if you unite yourself to those who are not the friends of God in some way. Sound doctrine is the foundation upon which discernment is built, in order to know if something is wrong. If it is wrong, we must separate from it or refrain from joining in close partnership with it—that is, to not unite with it. It helps us to avoid relationships that damage unity.

Someone who believes a different gospel or a different Christ or a different spirit (2 Cor. 11:4) is not a friend of God. They might be a “nice” person, but niceness does not save anyone or please the Lord. Without faith it is impossible to please Him. You must possess discernment in order to avoid partnering with error.

Allow me a couple more remarks to conclude this series on the unifying nature of sound doctrine. Maximizing unity for unity’s sake is not a doctrine that we can find in Scripture. I do find a command to maintain the unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3). That is a task enough in the life of a local church, one to which we should apply ourselves diligently.

Our doctrine unites us as one, as Eph. 4:4-6 teaches us. And that is my message: doctrine does not divide. True doctrine unites and gives us a solid foundation to serve the Lord.

I want to add what I think are two helpful points to this discussion.

First, there are some doctrines that you cannot rightly divide over. Which doctrines fit into this category is a judgment call that will differ from person to person. In the following examples, I will assume charitable, well-informed, patient Christians are involved. I should be able to assume that, right?

Let's pick a doctrine that my wife and I experienced lately: head coverings for women in ministry. We were visiting some churches where a head covering was required of the ladies, particularly those ministering at the front of the church, so we purchased a hat / beret, and my wife wore it. It was not a big deal. What is not optional or debatable is that women must be in submission to their husbands, which we believe a head covering symbolized in the early church (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1, 3:5, 1 Cor. 11:3-16). That symbolism has passed in many of our western churches so that a head covering does not have that meaning.

Here is another one that I believe we should not divide over: Whether Christ died only for the elect without any real reference to the non-elect, or he died to provide a salvation available to all but God only elected some to salvation. Some see these two views as insurmountably different. And they are different. But are they sufficient to cause a rift in fellowship, even church membership? Relatively speaking, they are in fact very similar views when compared to a view that says personal election is false (contrary to Matt 24:22, 31; Mark 13:27, Luke 18:7, 1 Thess. 1:4, Co. 3:12, Rom. 8:33, 11:7, 2 Tim. 2:10, Titus 1:1, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 John 1, 13). Or a view that says Christ’s death was only partially sufficient for our salvation and we have to supply the remainder of the merit, or that Christ did not die at all!

Here is a third example: do you believe that the two witnesses of Revelation 11 are Moses and Elijah? Or are you unsure of that identification? There is no way that this question should cause a division between Christians.

A second helpful point: separation or division is not the same thing as non-cooperation. I am not required to partner or cooperate with everyone or any particular person who claims to be a Christian. We do not partner with many churches, both near and far, simply because of distance, lack of familiarity, lack of time, etc. At the same time, we hold to a specific form of doctrine and invite people to fellowship with us on that doctrinal basis. But my point is that Scripture does not demand that I try to draw in the largest circle of fellowship I can simply for the sake of unity, or that I actually enact that circle of fellowship. Limited time and resources prevent it, among other things.

As time permits, I hope to add one more part to talk more about how exactly doctrine unites us.

Why is the mantra "doctrine divides" as it is commonly used actually a false teaching?

First, because proponents practically assume most division is wrong (see parts 1 and 2). But the Scripture presents ample evidence that separation from false doctrine is a basic aspect of the Christian faith. This is so because of God’s holiness. Doctrines that do not agree with God’s word are not holy and thus not pleasing to God.

Second, because proponents over-emphasize unity at the expense of truth. Unity is important, but unity around the truth is what God desires, not unity for unity’s sake with error mixed in. We are called to be one as the Father and the Son are one, John 17:11, 22. They are and always have been and always will be perfectly agreed with one another, of the same mind, of one accord. “As” means we are to be unified in the same manner—not just unified in any way.

Third, because practitioners of "doctrine divide" downplay genuinely important doctrines that are critical for developing a Biblical, Christian worldview. Matters such as the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the historicity of the creation account, the historicity of the flood account, God’s irrevocable promises to Abraham, and many others are critical to a Biblical worldview. They are doctrines and they are interwoven into all of Biblical revelation. Taking them out undercuts much of Scripture. They cannot be simply set aside for unity’s sake.

Fourth, because some proponents accuse those on the opposite side of possessing a schismatic spirit. If A accuses B of over-emphasizing doctrine and tells him that doctrine divides, person B may well respond that he has no desire to divide. He is just holding to what Scripture plainly teaches and wants to convince others to do the same. A schismatic person is much different than a person who has thought through a Biblical question and come to a specific answer. For example, believing that inerrancy is worth taking a strong stand is not schismatic. I would argue that departing from that standard and uncontroversial doctrine is what is schismatic.

Some division is good. Some division is bad.

Some division is bad and has a bad effect. Read 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 3:1-4 for an example.

Some division is good and has a good effect. Read 1 Corinthians 11:18-19. "Doctrine divides" overlooks the good kind of division and focuses overmuch on division as a bad thing. Some people seem to treat all division as if it were bad, when it is not.

Here are some examples of doctrines that are very much worth dividing over, and in fact it is explicitly commanded to do so in several of these cases.

1. Another gospel. Galatians 1:6-9. "We are saved by Jesus Christ after all that we can do" is an oft-repeated Mormon doctrine and it is worthy of good division because we are saved by Jesus Christ apart from all that we can do.
2. Unorthodox teaching about Jesus. For example, some hold the doctrine that Jesus is Michael the archangel. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe this. 2 John 9-10.
3. Jesus is not God’s Son, or that God has no Son (Islam). John 5:23, 2 John 3.
4. That Jesus did not come in the flesh. 1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 7.
5. Those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to sound doctrine. Romans 16:17-18.
6. The doctrine of Balaam. Rev. 2:14.
7. The doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus hates. Rev. 2:15.
8. "Strange doctrines." Heb. 13:9.
9. Not consenting to wholesome words and the doctrine which is in agreement with godliness. 1 Tim. 6:3.
10. The doctrines of demons. 1 Tim. 4:1.
11. The opposite of sound doctrine, including behaviors such as fornication, sodomy, kidnappers, lying, etc. 1 Tim. 1:10.
12. The commandments of men. Mark 7:7.
13. Teach no other doctrine. 1 Tim. 1:3.

Part 3 will detail why "doctrine divides" is a false teaching.

There is a common mantra held by some Christians, churches, and organizations. It is this: "doctrine divides."

What exactly do they mean? In practice, it means that if you hold to some view they disagree with, or they think you should not hold, then they will not fellowship with you. This is not mere speculation or empty assertion: it actually happened in the life of our local church. It means that they have a short doctrinal statement with the hopes of attracting the most people. It means they hope to avoid division.

But what is the statement "doctrine divides" but a doctrine itself? Is that doctrine found in Scripture? Doctrine simply means "that which is taught" or "a teaching." The teaching that doctrine divides is a doctrine. And when this doctrine is applied against a conservative Christian by a more broad-minded Christian, the latter sometimes divides from the former! In this case, their doctrine that doctrine divides has caused them to divide! What an ironic situation!

Of course, the more conservative person may separate or divide from another, but it is not usually because they love division or that they have a strange belief about "doctrine." They simply believe that there are some things that are wrong and ought not be held as true by God's people.

The common meaning of "doctrine divides" is a false teaching. False teachings are not only doctrines like "salvation by works" or "Christ is not God’s Son." There can be teachings like these:

• "our doctrine is that doctrine is not important" or
• "our doctrine is that we do not take a stand on things like that" or
• "our doctrine is that doctrine divides" or
• "our doctrine is that it is fine to believe many different teachings on a variety of theological questions" or
• "our doctrine is love and unity" or
• "our doctrine is that science and human reason are greater authorities than the Bible."

Those are doctrines, even though they would probably not be expressed in those terms by those who hold them. But those are wrong and sometimes dangerous doctrines.

If those things were true, why would God tell us to give close attention to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9, 2:1)?

In part 2 we will see that some division is indeed bad, but other division is good.

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 word is used also in the Greek of the New Testament. It does not seem to answer the question of whether kill or murder is the best translation of the Exodus passage.

To summarize my understanding: the entire Biblical context urges me to believe that the nuance of "kill" in the KJV of Exodus 20:13 is too broad. "To kill" in modern English suggests more situations are prohibited than the Bible's context allows for (e.g., animals, plants, self-defense). The divinely-intended meaning of the prohibition fits better under the heading of "unjustified homicide." So, it instead should be translated as "murder."

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: it is used in ways other than premeditated murder. 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.

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. I believe 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.

These examples show that harag is used of premeditated murder, so that ratsah does not own that part of the semantic domain.

Furthermore, 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, as the following three examples demonstrate.

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.'

Another argument that undercuts the simplistic understanding of the verb ratsah is that sometimes, ratsah is used of something other than premeditated murder.

Deut 4:42 explains that a manslayer may flee to a city of refuge. This is a person 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 sometimes 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 ultimate point is this: while I support "murder" as the better translation in the 10 Commandments, I think it could be that the KJV translators were on to something with "kill" because they recognized that not only purposeful murder but also accidental killing is contrary to God's moral order.

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. You might run into this twisting of the passage "on the street" like we have sometimes in ministry in our city. An opponents says, "You believe the Bible says to not kill...and yet you kill animals and eat them. You are hypocrites!" As I said above, the context of the passage shows that the killing of animals is not within the scope of the commandment at all.

"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.

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.

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)
32. Have compassion for one another (1 Peter 3:8)

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-watching 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.

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.

I heard that your pet dog or cat died today.

I am very sorry to hear the news. When this happens, I am reminded of Proverbs 12:10. Why don't you take a moment to look that up in your copy of God's word and see what it says? Christian people care for their animals, as they should because animals are part of God's creation and we have been assigned stewardship over them. Animals cause us toil and tears from time to time, but they also bring great joy. God has created them for our enjoyment and use (Gen. 1:26-28). They also to help us learn responsibility. But they can also become a misplaced priority that reduces our love for God or our resources to do God's work.

We are thankful to God in every situation (1 Thess. 5:18). I am thankful that you had the years of enjoyment that you did with your beloved pet. I am sure you are ten times more thankful than I am because you had a personal stewardship connection with the animal. I hope you will make the conscious choice to thank God for His gift of your pet, so that instead of focusing on what you no longer have, you thank God for what He gave.

Sometimes people ask me if their pet will be in heaven. We naturally hope that the answer is "yes," but we do not have Biblical data to indicate this is the case. We know there will be animals in the millennial kingdom (Isaiah 11:6-9). Scripture does not say explicitly that there will be animals in Heaven. However, it seems plausible that there will be animals there because when God created animals in the beginning, they were part of his "very good" creation (Gen. 1:31). In other words, there is nothing "wrong" with animals that would prohibit their presence in Heaven. In fact, we know that some of the angelic beings appear to be part animal in form (Ezekiel 3:10).

A diverse and peaceful animal kingdom in the Heavenly state would glorify God because they would show His handiwork for all eternity. Of course, redeemed people will show God's saving handiwork in a far more significant way. Animals were hurt as a result of mankind's fall into sin (Romans 8:22) and in the restoration of all things it would be fitting for the animal kingdom to be restored from the suffering of death. But the Bible does not indicate salvation or after-life for animals. So while I cannot say that your particular pet will be in heaven, I believe that animals like your beloved pet will be there. There will likely be some that look similar or are even more wonderful than your pet (if that is possible!). But of course, our focus in heaven will not be on pets or the environment; rather, it will be focused squarely on the Triune God.

Meanwhile, look to the Lord for comfort and guidance so that you are not overwhelmed with sorrow and lose sight of why you are here on this planet--to trust in God through Christ, to live for God, to honor God, to worship God, and to do good works. May He help you do that in these days and also give you wisdom about your next steps.

May God's grace direct you toward Himself so that you not be overtaken with inordinate grief.

Here is today's question:

How do you answer in your own heart His words in Matthew 23:37-38 where Jesus says, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate...” This desire is not a reflection of special grace, but how can you explain this longing of God that never in fact came to pass?

Answer: This saying comes immediately after the Lord’s lamentation that the Jewish people had a habit of killing the prophets and rejecting God’s messengers. This wicked tendency grieved God not only because it indicated a damaged relationship where the people were not welcoming Him as their God, but that it had terrible temporal and eternal consequences. Despite these necessary and natural consequences, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11).

Like an extremely patient human father or national leader, instead of rejection, what the Lord was hoping for was that they would receive him, along the lines of making a commitment to this effect: “You will be our God, and we will be your people.” God is pictured as a caring hen who wants to protect and provide warmth for her chicks. But the little chickens were unwilling. They refused God’s care and protection. They wanted to go their own way.

The longing of God which did not come to pass is parallel with many other of God’s desires in Scripture that are morally right but which do not come to pass because, ultimately, God did not decree those things to come to pass. God’s decree is the primary or first cause. But there is a secondary cause which is the human element, because people are immoral and desire bad things. People do not always (or often?) follow God’s desired or moral will.

God has good reasons for His decree, the highest of these to demonstrate His great glory—including the glory of His longsuffering, love, grace and forgiveness. He also has in mind the long-term good of His creatures. My answer touches on what theologians call “theodicy,” or “justification of God” which attempts to explain exactly how God does such things which we see as contradictory or difficult. A full “theodicy” in this brief article is not possible. Suffice it to say that in some things, God decrees what He hates in order to bring about what He loves. God decrees in temporal history those things which are unpleasant to Him in order to achieve a greater eternal good. God decrees that which is undesirable in one sense so that He can accomplish something more desirable. God decrees things that we would not in order to accomplish results, like His greatest glory, which are beyond the horizon of our present sight and understanding.

Jesus speaks of Himself as God in human terms (using the figure of speech called an anthropomorphism) so that we can understand His stance toward mankind. It is not a harsh stance. It is not a judgmental, hyper-critical, hateful kind of stance. It is a forbearing, caring, loving stance.

Think of a good human judge. He cares for the people who come into his courtroom. But he also is bound to execute justice. If he is visited by someone who does wrong, and he gives a light sentence and an admonition to do better, he shows his care for them. He hopes that they will listen and heed his warnings. He earnestly hopes so because if they do not, he knows that they have to face consequences for wrongdoing. If that person comes into his courtroom another time with a more serious offense, the judge might say, “Oh, how I wish you had heard what I said, but you refused. Now I have to punish you in accordance with what is right.” God is like this judge, but the offenses have been multiplied over and over again by the Jewish people and their leaders for generations. At some point Jerusalem has to face the consequences.

Finally, we should remember one more fact. The initial question assumes that God’s desire never in fact came to pass, that is, that Israel was not gathered under His wings. But that is only for the time being. In the future, God will gather Israel, and they will at that time be very willing. Ultimately, God’s longing will come to pass, for the nation as a whole, though not for specific historical individuals who might otherwise have enjoyed God’s blessing had they not been so hard-hearted.

Are a person’s dreams sometimes God’s way of revealing truth?

In the church era, no. We can say this with confidence because the canon is closed, and new revelation is not being given by any means, whether dreams, visions, prophecies, etc. See 1 Cor. 13:8, Eph. 2:20, 2 Peter 1:3.

The Scriptures are clear that during prior times, God sometimes used dreams to reveal information (Daniel 1:17 for example, or Matthew 1:20). Given the frequency of dreams, however—every night millions of people have them—it is clear that dream-based revelation had to be very rare as a percentage of all dreams.

The Scriptures are also clear that during the future era, dreams will once again be used by God to convey information from Heaven (Acts 2:17).

What leads to the content of my dreams?

This is a difficult question. Dreams are basically thoughts—thoughts that we have while sleeping. Now think about this related question: what leads to the content of my thoughts during the daytime, when I am awake? There is a combination of factors, including:

1. What you try to think about, which may be righteous or sinful.
2. What your flesh desires, which is sinful.
3. The stimuli that come from the outside world, say through sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. These factors can induce thoughts that may lean righteous or sinful.
4. Your memories.
5. All three of the above factors can interact with one another so that you try to think about bad things and seek flesh-pleasing stimuli that come from the outside and you direct your eyes senses to focus there.

Your brain can remember many if not most things that you see, hear, sense, etc. Your brain can remember faces you have seen at the store; and it can even construct new variations of those faces, places and circumstances, sometimes in fantastical or unrealistic ways. All this is fuel for dreams.

Sometimes what you think about a lot during the daytime makes its way into your dreams. Other times, what you have not thought about much lately makes its way there.

Is there accountability to God for what is “thought” in dreaming?

Yes. Your dreams are yours and neither come from nor belong to anyone else. They are not the Devil’s fault. They arise from your own heart and mind, and as such are subject to the truth spoken by the Lord Jesus that out of the abundance of the heart come evil thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:21-23, Luke 6:45). Our hearts are characterized by sinful depravity to a greater or lesser degree which affects what comes out of them in our thoughts—whether during the day or during the night.

Because a dream happens while you are asleep or partially unconscious, it may feel like you can excuse the content of your dreams because you do not have overt control over those thoughts (#1 above). But you can have thoughts or influence thoughts during your dreams. Regardless of whether you have experienced that phenomenon, we must recognize that our flesh (#2 above) still desires sinful things and can affect what we are thinking while asleep. Stimuli from outside of our mind can also affect our thoughts while we sleep (#3 above; perhaps we have a fever, or smell a skunk in the middle of the night, or a hear loud noise outside the house). These stimuli can be incorporated into our dreams as well.

The bottom line is that if we dream a sinful dream, we ought to confess it as sin to God, because it is sin. Thank the Lord for pleasant dreams!

Can I influence my dreams?

In short, yes. As you ingest God’s word, purify your heart more, and are cautious about what you expose yourself to during the day, you can reduce sinful and scary dreams. You are responsible for shaping the influences on your heart because it is the source of your life (Prov. 4:23).

Sometimes, there are triggers, such as foods, illness, or lack of exercise or too much stress or mismanagement of stress, that may influence the presence and frequency of dreams. If you become aware of particular things in your life that do this, you can take steps to mitigate their influence on your nighttime thought life.

A passage I use often when asked about dreams is Philippians 4:6-9. There, Paul teaches us to fight anxiety with prayer and purpose of thought and obedience to apostolic teaching. If we do that, "the peace of God...will guard your hearts and your minds" and "the God of peace will be with you."

We hope to conform our thoughts to Scripture so that we will be godly even in our nighttime thoughts: "when I remember you upon my bed, and meditate on you in the watches of the night" (Psalm 63:6).

Resources

Heath Lambert, Fighting the Fear of Bad Dreams