Matt Postiff's Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 5

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

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

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

Part 7, Conclusion

Part 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.