We know that donkeys don’t talk—which is why it was incredible when one did. The action is miraculous: the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth. The donkey’s words function as a rebuke—ultimately from the Lord—against Balaam’s actions.

So here’s what happened: King Balak in Moab wanted the Israelites to be cursed, so the king sent for an international seer named Balaam who could do the cursing work.
In Numbers 22, Balak’s messengers talked with Balaam about making the trip to Moab. Eventually Balaam went with the messengers (22:21). But he didn’t walk. He rode his donkey.
Since Balaam was apparently not going with the conviction to obey the Lord, an angel of Yahweh opposed Balaam in the middle of the road. Balaam didn’t see the angel. The donkey, however, saw the angel and turned aside out of the road and into a field (Num. 22:23). Balaam, in his frustration and ignorance of the situation, struck the donkey!
The angel of the Lord then stood in a narrow path between vineyards in the field, with a wall on either side (Num. 22:24), and the donkey pushed against the wall and squished Balaam’s foot (22:25). Balaam struck the donkey a second time!
The angel of the Lord moved to block the path entirely, so the donkey lay down under Balaam (Num. 22:27). Balaam, again, was angry and, again, struck the donkey—a third time!
Now something different happened. “Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’” (Num. 22:28).
Did you notice the preface in front of the donkey’s words? The Lord “opened the mouth of the donkey.” We know that donkeys don’t talk—which is why it was incredible when one did. The action is miraculous: the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth. The donkey’s words function as a rebuke—ultimately from the Lord—against Balaam’s actions.
Read More 
Related Posts:

Unfortunately, Justice Robert Peel denied the request, claiming that Indi’s “best interests” would be served by withdrawing treatment — that is, by letting her die in Britain. “I do not think she experiences any meaningful quality of life,” Peel asserted, “and sadly she never will.” Indi’s parents appealed Peel’s decision, but to no avail. Once again, they were denied the right to seek treatment for their daughter, this time by Justice Peter Jackson.

Good parents do everything in their power to protect their children. But what happens when the government takes that power away?
Once again, the United Kingdom has given us the answer.
Dean Gregory and Claire Staniforth, a British couple from the Derbyshire region, are grieving the death of their infant daughter Indi, who passed away on Nov. 13 after suffering from a mitochondrial disease. But baby Indi’s illness isn’t what killed her. The blames lies at the feet of the U.K. government.
Doctors from the National Health Service (NHS) determined that Indi’s treatment at the Queen’s Medical Centre could no longer continue, citing concerns about the pain caused by “prolong[ing]” her life. The case went to the Family Division of the High Court in London, where a doctor (unnamed in media reports) reported, “We feel very sad…. We have tried to treat [Indi] to the best of our abilities.” Despite that fatal determination, Indi’s parents felt her life was worth fighting for. “Our daughter responds to us,” pleaded her father, “and on her good days, she is babbling, making noises, moving all her limbs…. We know she is disabled, but you don’t just let disabled people die. We just want to give her a chance.”
That chance was stolen from Indi and her parents. Not only was she denied life-saving treatment from the NHS, but she was also cruelly prevented from obtaining it elsewhere. In her final days, Indi and her family became prisoners of the U.K. government.
Treatment Denied
Indi was offered an alternative by the Italian government and the Vatican. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni offered not only free health care to the child but even transportation and Italian citizenship. Meloni urged the British government to “defend the right of [Indi’s] mom and dad to do whatever they can for her.” In response, Gregory and Staniforth jumped at the lifeline. They requested that their daughter be allowed to be treated at Rome’s renowned Bambino Gesù (Baby Jesus) Pediatric Hospital, which is “under the jurisdiction of the Holy See.” According to the Washington Post, doctors there offered a treatment that they said “would ‘more likely than not’ enable Indi to survive without artificial ventilation.”
Unfortunately, Justice Robert Peel denied the request, claiming that Indi’s “best interests” would be served by withdrawing treatment — that is, by letting her die in Britain. “I do not think she experiences any meaningful quality of life,” Peel asserted, “and sadly she never will.” Indi’s parents appealed Peel’s decision, but to no avail. Once again, they were denied the right to seek treatment for their daughter, this time by Justice Peter Jackson.
The British pro-life community was outraged. Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Centre, which represented Gregory and Staniforth, said, “It is very concerning that a child can be held against the parent’s wishes when they have alternative treatment available.” She added:
Transferring Indi to Italy involves no cost to the taxpayer or the NHS. What is at the heart of this case that is preventing Queen’s Medical Centre from allowing Indi to be transferred to Rome?
Meloni expressed her sorrow at the verdict of Britain’s judges. “We did everything we could, everything possible,” Meloni wrote on Facebook. “Unfortunately it was not enough. Happy journey little Indi.”
Not the Only Victim
Tragically, baby Indi is not the first such victim of the U.K. courts. Readers may be aware of the heartbreaking cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans, two infants who died in 2017 and 2018, respectively, when the NHS blocked their medical treatment against the will of their parents. Charlie suffered from a mitochondrial disease similar to Indi’s; Alfie, a neurological condition. Rome extended offers of treatment to both, and Charlie was even offered an experimental treatment by a New York doctor. The case of Alfie was hauntingly similar to Indi’s, with Pope Francis intervening and the Italian government, the National Catholic Register reported, even sending “a military air ambulance helicopter, fully equipped with medical equipment,” to fly Alfie from London to Bambino Gesù. Alfie and his parents were helpless, blocked by the state from leaving the hospital room.
And the victims are not only infants. Earlier this year, a 19-year-old British teenager with a degenerative disease, identified as “ST,” passed away after being denied treatment. The court had even acknowledged that the woman displayed an “overwhelming desire to live.”
No amount of suffering and no disability can take away the value of a human being’s life and that person’s right to keep it. Those who deny this right must be held accountable.
Spark of Hope
As for Indi and her family, father Dean Gregory described fighting for his daughter as the catalyst for his own religious awakening.
“When I was in court I felt like I had been dragged to hell,” he said. “I thought, if hell exists, then heaven must also exist. It was as if the devil was there. I thought that if the devil exists, then God must exist.”
It was this realization that led Gregory to have Indi baptized before her death. He plans to be baptized as well. Perhaps his newfound hope is the only appropriate response to such evil.
This article is used with permission.
Related Posts:

Written by S. M. Baugh |
Wednesday, May 3, 2023
A robust, biblical understanding of the kingdom of God is deeply beneficial for our perseverance in faith and for our spiritual life. As a work of new creation, Christ is already transforming our inner person into his own image through the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:18; 4:16; Eph. 3:16; Col. 3:10). But this transformation now has a great and glorious goal at his arrival when our bodies will bear his image in heavenly, resurrection glory (1 Cor. 15:49; 1 John 3:2). This is the focus of Christ’s kingship over the kingdom of God, the new creation, of which we are now a part. 

It was my custom in my seminary class on the Gospels to ask the students at the opening of the kingdom of God section the simple question: “What is the kingdom of God?”  Their faces grew serious as they invariably discovered that they did not know the answer exactly or that their thinking was unsatisfyingly vague. Yet the definition of the kingdom of God is easy to give: it is the new creation, the new heavens and the new earth. In the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, it is “the kingdom of glory” (Q/A 102). According to that catechism answer, we are asking our Father to hasten this new creation kingdom when we pray for his kingdom to come in the Lord’s Prayer.
I don’t think people expect the definition of the kingdom to be so simple, but it is, and the Scriptures are clear on this. The kingdom of God is an eternal inheritance for all those who have been redeemed by Christ (Westminster Confession of Faith 8.5). And a promised inheritance necessarily lies in the future. Jesus confirms this when he speaks of our coming into the inheritance of the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:23–24) at the “rebirth” of creation when “the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne” (v. 28). At that time, all believers “will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:43) and “inherit eternal life” (Matt. 19:29).
This is why Paul, in a very important chapter in 1 Corinthians, insists that believers must be raised bodily and concludes, “I declare this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the corruptible inherit incorruptibility” (1 Cor. 15:50).
Thus, to enter into eternal life is to enter into the kingdom of God in resurrection glory. This shows that the kingdom of God is the new creation, when this heaven and earth will be comprehensively shaken (Heb. 12:26; cf. Rev. 6:12–14) and destroyed by fire (2 Pet. 3:7–13; cf. 2 Thess. 1:7–8). Then God will make all things new (Rev. 21:5) to be an “eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” into which we who persevere in faith will enter by God’s rich provision (2 Pet. 1:11). “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken” (Heb. 12:28).
Is That It?
Yet is that it? Is the kingdom of God solely a future, divine, cosmic renovation of this creation when the Lord Jesus returns? Strictly speaking, yes, it is. The kingdom of God is the new heavens and new earth by definition, strictly speaking. It is true that we can possess this kingdom now as a covenantally guaranteed inheritance (especially Matt. 5:3, 10; Luke 22:29; 1 Pet. 1:3–5), but it is a future inheritance for which this whole creation groans in anticipation (Rom. 8:19–22).
But what about the New Testament proclamation that the kingdom of God has decisively drawn near in Christ (e.g., Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 12:28)? Did he postpone the kingdom to some distant future when he ascended to heaven in resurrection glory as the old form of dispensationalism teaches? No! On this the New Testament is very clear: “the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:5), marking the kingdom of God, have already arrived with the Son of God “in these last days” (Heb. 1:2; cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26; 1 John 2:18). Yet this requires some careful distinctions to understand properly.
Inauguration and Consummation
Scholars and preachers speak of the kingdom being “already” and “not yet” to deal with the fact that the Lord Jesus has indeed established it at his first coming. The distinction itself has the particular advantage of being biblical. For example, in Revelation 12, John sees a vision of the birth and ascension of Christ immediately followed by a battle between the devil and his angels who are cast out of heaven. We are then told what this means:
And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down.” (Rev. 12:10; emphasis added)
Thus, the kingdom of God is “already” when Christ Jesus “was caught up to God and to his throne” (Rev. 12:5) at his ascension.
In another vision in Revelation, though, John sees a portrayal of judgment day when the wrath of God comes, and he exerts his almighty power to take up his reign (Rev. 11:17). Then loud voices in heaven shout:
The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever. (Rev. 11:15)
Obviously, what had transpired earlier in history at the ascent of Christ (Rev. 12:5 above) was a real inauguration of the kingdom of God but not its consummation; it was “not yet” in the final, consummate sense. But how do we sort out this “already/not yet” dynamic without merely stating an unhelpful enigma?
Five Vantage Points
To address this potential problem of “already/not yet” sounding like an obscure riddle, I find it helpful to discuss the kingdom of God from five vantage points: 1) the king; 2) his authority to rule (“dominion” or “kingship”); 3) his realm (“dominion”); 4) his subjects or citizens; and 5) the divine covenant, which in biblical kingdoms acts as charter and constitution. Let’s sketch out four of these very briefly.
Read More
Related Posts: