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 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

Suppose it comes time for your church to find a new pastor. How easily will it be to find a pastor who believes the particular form of doctrine your constitution requires and will enthusiastically teach that doctrine?

It is hard to find a new pastor or an additional pastor, but the job is made more difficult if your doctrinal statement has boxed you into a corner...or stated another way, you have boxed OUT certain otherwise fine candidates.

Example: you demand the King James Version in your doctrinal statement. First of all, that is a big mistake. When set side-by-side with the Bible itself, the KJVO doctrine falls short. After all, the KJV did not exist in the first century, so no one believed in that version for the first 1,500 years of the church. Second, the number of good men who believe that way, and who will enthusiastically preach it, is rightly dwindling. Your doctrine unnecessarily boxes you into a corner because KJVO is a constraint that the Bible itself does not put on a pastoral candidate. If the apostle Paul did not have to believe it, then I think I am safe to say that neither am I required to believe it!

Example: your doctrine requires a five-point Calvinist theology. Does everyone in your church actually believe that way? And would a good Calvinist man who believes say, 4 points, not be good enough to be the pastor of your church?

Look at your doctrinal statement and see if there is anything in there which is unnecessarily restrictive. Certainly there will be doctrines in there with which some people will disagree. Our own statement is quite detailed in its presentation of what we believe and teach. But some things truly are unnecessary additions. And if they are truly unnecessary, you will often find that they are unbiblical. If unbiblical, then harmful. And one harm is this: it will prevent good pastoral candidates, and good members, from joining the church.

One of our young people raised this question. Here are a few thoughts from Scripture and related to my own personal life.

1. Because we were made to worship God. God made us so that we cannot be truly satisfied or joyful unless we know Him. See Psalm 95:6.

2. Because "man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord" (Jesus, Matthew 4:4).

3. Because our soul is so important--even more important than our bodily health. Why would you neglect it? "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26).

4. Because we love God and we love being with God's people. If you are really questioning the value of being at your local church, your attitude about church indicates that you love something else.

5. Because we are commanded to not forsake gathering together (Hebrews 10:24-25)

6. For me personally as a pastor, I go because it is my job! Not only that, it is my joy to do so!

Pastor or not, all of the above reasons apply to me and you as well. Attending church meetings is not a waste of time!

Jansen Lorch, our assistant pastor, delivered a message last night at our Lord's Table service in which he gave us some specific things to remember about our Lord. After all, the Lord's Table is a remembrance service.

He gave us six thoughts to keep in mind about Jesus as we shared the elements:

1. His humility (Phil. 2:5, Romans 15:3)
2. His perfection (1 Peter 1:21, Heb. 7:26, Hebrews 4:15, 1 John 3:5)
3. His death (Eph. 1:7, Mark 10:45, 1 Cor. 6:20)
4. His resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Romans 8:34-35, 1 Cor. 15:22)
5. His accomplishment on the cross (Isaiah 53:5, 1 Peter 2:24)
6. His ascension, exaltation, and return (Phil. 2:9-11)

Here is the annual set of Bible reading schedules that you have become accustomed to seeing here. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2023. This year, the schedules start on 1/1 since it is the beginning of the first full week of the year.

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

• Read the New Testament once
• Read the New Testament twice
• Read the New Testament four times
• Read the Old Testament once
• Read Acts and the NT letters in chronological order
• One chapter a week for young readers
• Read the Greek New 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

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* [universal] church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

*The true Christian church of all times and places, not the Roman Catholic church.

English translation from https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/apostles-creed.

Does the Bible teach in Revelation 10:6 that time will cease?

I noted an article by Gitt in 2013 cites Rev 10:6 to support the end of physical time.

This interpretation is highly suspect. Here is why. First, in Revelation 10:6, "time" (KJV) should be translated "delay." (See the third definition in the BDAG lexicon.) It refers to the fact that there will be no more delay until the mystery of God is finished. The end times will now fully unfold without further delay.

Second, in the context of the eternal state, Revelation 22:2 says that the tree of life which bears 12 fruits, will yield its fruit every month. Evidently the passage of time must occur for this to happen on a monthly basis. Therefore, time seems to continue in the eternal state. Someone might object that in eternity there is no need for the sun or moon. Perhaps those heavenly bodies cease to exist, and so the times they mark (days and months) cease as well. But note that months can be marked without the moon—in fact today we have months that do not correspond precisely to the lunar cycle.

Third, and more philosophically, I doubt that finite creatures can exist in a completely timeless way, for a movement from one location to another would take some time. What transpires as the creature is chewing the fruit of the tree of life? Being time-bound is a feature of finite creatures which distinguishes them from the only infinite being, God.

Fourth, the passage of time is not a negative feature in the heavenly state. Since time existed during the open days of the creation week prior to sin, and the passage of time did no harm to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, there seems to be no reason that it could not exist in the heavenly state.

There are parallels to this. Humans existed in physical bodies in the pre-fall state, and they will exist in physical bodies in the heavenly state. There are three-dimensional objects in the present existence, and there is no reason to suppose that this same sort of thing will exist in the future. After all, the three-dimensional human body of Jesus is approximately the same as the one He had post-resurrection. It exists in Heaven today, and is coming back the very same way (Acts 1:11). The heavenly state boasts a new heaven, earth, new city called Jerusalem with foundations, walls, and gates, a river, and a multi-fruited tree. Such things are similar to the 3-D kinds of things that exist today. I see no reason that time should have to disappear in the future.

Finally, when God created all things, including time, in Genesis 1:31 he said that it was "very good." There is no indication that time was bad, nor became bad simply because sin entered the world. Time is certainly used for sinful purposes, just like our human bodies may be used for sinful things. But time itself is not bad, and this is no reason to suppose it necessary to eliminate time in the eternal state.

I wrote on this subject a few years ago.

I ran into this statement today from an author whose name is unknown to me:

The fact is, redemption has 'not yet' been applied to our mortal bodies in any sense.

Is this true?

I cannot imagine saying this statement to my church family in a sermon on Sunday. I believe it is wrong and leads in a wrong direction. It is like MacArthur's view of "un-redeemed flesh." I know where he gets the idea—that our bodies have not been glorified. True. But to say that redemption is not applicable to our mortal bodies in ANY SENSE is too much. All genuine Christians intuitively recognize that salvation does immediately apply to their bodies. We:

1. present our members as instruments of righteousness to God (Rom. 6:13)
2. present ourselves as slaves to obedience which leads to righteousness (Rom. 6:16)
3. are slaves of righteousness, despite admitted fleshly weakness (Rom. 6:18, 19)
4. put to death our members which are on the earth (Col. 3:5)
5. seek the virtue of self control (Gal. 5:23) which is exercised both internally and externally with the body
6. strive to possess our vessels in sanctification and honor (1 Thess. 4:4)
7. do not hold the carnal Corinthian philosophy of "foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods" (1 Cor. 6:13)
8. know that the body is not for immorality but for the Lord (1 Cor. 6:13)
9. learn that our bodies are members of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15)
10. know our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19)
11. must glorify God in our bodies (1 Cor. 6:20)

This all sounds like redemption has 'already' been applied to our mortal bodies in some sense!

I received this comment from an acquaintance:

Some people say there is no present fulfillment of the kingdom for believers. My difficulty in fully agreeing with them on this is based on passages such as Col. 1:13 and Rom. 14:17.

And another:

There is a present heavenly sphere of the Kingdom of God into which the Church has entered.

Here is how I reply to the above thoughts. It took me a little while to become untangled from the doctrine that there are many kingdoms—kingdom of God, kingdom of Heaven, spiritual kingdom, millennial kingdom, kingdom of Satan.

After much study, I came to agree with the statement that there is no present fulfillment of the kingdom for believers.

One big reason: I believe the disciples' prayer (commonly known as the Lord's prayer) in Matt. 6:10 is still relevant: "Your kingdom come." We should not pray for something to come if it is already here. We pray for the kingdom to come precisely because it is not present yet.

A second reason: "heavenly sphere" language is vague. It is better to say plainly something like this: church saints have not yet entered the kingdom; they have entered the CHURCH. That is what this present age is about—the church. We are not in the kingdom age. We are awaiting the coming of the kingdom. See for example Acts 14:22—we have not entered the kingdom of God yet, but we must through many tribulations enter into it. See also 2 Peter 1:11 and 2 Tim. 4:18 for forward-looking and entrance language regarding the kingdom.

A third: the sphere idea and the texts that are "troublesome" like Romans 14:17 and Col. 1:13 can be explained—fairly straightforwardly in my understanding—like this: when we are saved, we are immediately constituted as citizens of the future kingdom. Without being born again, we cannot see that kingdom, but being born again does not mean you immediately enter it. God is busy right now calling out a people for His name in the church, and preparing them to be members of the Kingdom which will come in the next dispensation.

As citizens and ambassadors of that kingdom, "kingdom ethics" should be displayed in our lives now, in advance of the king's coming. We are not citizens of the kingdom of darkness anymore. Our priorities are not food and drink, but righteousness, etc. Those ethics are not required of us because we are IN the kingdom, but because we are displaced citizens, ex-patriots, ambassadors of that kingdom to the kingdoms of this world.

This citizenship idea is a crucial notion for our relationship to God and this world. Our citizenship is indeed in heaven (Phil. 3:20) but the harsh fact is that we are not in heaven. Indeed, in Christ we have a place there (Eph. 2:6), but we are actually on earth. The heavenly connection demands something of us in the here and now.

Fourth: if a kingdom has a ruler, realm, and a functional actual reign, a quick look around the world will tell us that we are not in the kingdom at all because those features of the heavenly-kingdom-sort are not present. These features include spiritual and societal blessings that are just simply not present today.

Fifth, the Lord's parable in Luke 19:11-27 teaches that He was going to go away on a long journey to a far country. There He will receive a kingdom (be invested with the right to rule) and then return to actuate that rule. Christ has to be back on the earth for the kingdom to be operational. While He is away, other rulers are ruling.