Apply Yourself to the Field Ministry for the Week of November 30–December 6, 2026

Starting a Conversation

Publisher: Good morning.

Householder: Good morning. Please speak quietly because my husband is sleeping. He got home a little while ago after working the night shift.

Publisher: Of course, I’m sorry. If the doorbell disturbed him, I apologize. I can come back another time.

Householder: No, don’t worry, he’s in the back. We can talk here. What did you want?

Publisher: I wanted to offer you a Bible course. It gives us an opportunity to discuss ideas that can help us be more considerate of those we live with.

Householder: We certainly need that. Right now I’m trying not to make noise, and later, when he gets up, I have to leave for work. We hardly see each other.

Publisher: So it’s not only a matter of respecting his rest; it’s also hard for the two of you to find time to be together.

Householder: Exactly. Sometimes, when I say I’m tired of organizing everything around his schedule, it seems that I don’t understand that he needs to sleep. But I also need to do my own things.

Publisher: Of course, you have needs too. I wouldn’t want to give you quick advice without knowing your circumstances. There is a Bible principle that does not present concern for others as a one-way matter. May I read you that thought?

Householder: Yes, one sentence is fine. But I hope it doesn’t say that a woman has to put up with everything.

Publisher: I understand your concern. Notice how Philippians 2:4 speaks about taking into account both our own needs and those of others. It says:

Publisher: Philippians 2:4 — as you look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others. It doesn’t say that your needs don’t matter. It encourages us to broaden our perspective. You are already thinking about your husband’s rest; it would also be important for him to understand what these schedules mean for you.

Householder: I understand it better that way. Still, reading it is one thing and reaching an agreement when we are both tired is another.

Publisher: Yes, reading a sentence does not change work shifts. But it can help us approach the conversation differently: instead of deciding who sacrifices more, think about what each person needs and what you could adjust.

Householder: Such as leaving some chores for another time, but agreeing on it instead of assuming that I will always change my plans.

Publisher: Exactly, finding an arrangement that takes both of you into account. In the Bible course, we can do something similar to what we just did: read a passage, discuss its meaning, and think about how to apply it.

Householder: Would I have to tell you about our problems? I mentioned this because of the noise, but I would not like to discuss personal matters.

Publisher: You do not have to tell me anything you would rather keep private. We can focus on what the Bible teaches. If you would like, another day I can briefly show you what the course would be like, and you can decide.

Householder: That could work on Saturday afternoon. But only to see what it is like; I’m not ready to commit yet.

Publisher: All right, just to show it to you. Would five o’clock be convenient, or would that also be during his sleep time?

Householder: Five o’clock is fine. He isn’t working nights that day.

Publisher: Then I’ll come by at that time. My name is Ana.

Publisher: Perfect. For that first conversation, is there anything about the Bible that you would like clarified? We can start with a question you have.

Householder: Yes: How can I know whether I am understanding what I read correctly? I don’t know much about the Bible, and I would feel embarrassed to get it wrong.

Publisher: That is understandable. This is not an examination. We can read calmly and consider the context—for example, what is explained before and after a sentence. That helps us avoid jumping to conclusions. And you can ask about anything you do not understand.

Householder: I would feel more comfortable that way. We can try it on Saturday.

Householder: I’m Isabel. See you Saturday.

Making Disciples

Publisher: I saw your message. We can change the day of the study. Are Thursdays no longer convenient for you?

Householder: It’s not the schedule. My mother got upset again when I told her I was coming. I thought about canceling, but I preferred to explain it to you here. Maybe it would be better to stop the course for a while.

Publisher: Thank you for telling me clearly. Before continuing with the study, we can talk about that if you want. What concerns your mother the most?

Householder: She says I’m going to stop wanting to spend time with them. On Sunday I arrived late for lunch because I stayed talking with you. To her, that confirms that my family matters less to me now.

Publisher: I understand. Arriving late gave her a specific reason to worry, even though that was not your intention. And it hurts you that she thinks you love her less.

Householder: Yes. But it wasn’t only that. She had already made comments when she saw me reading the Bible. I thought studying something good could not cause so many problems at home.

Publisher: Difficulties in the family can be very discouraging. Jesus spoke about that possibility; he did not overlook it. I’ll read his words at Matthew 10:36, and then we can discuss what they make you think. This passage is very relevant. Shall we read Matthew 10:36?

Publisher: Matthew 10:36 — Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. Jesus acknowledged that there could be opposition even within one’s own household. So meeting resistance does not, by itself, mean that you are doing something wrong by studying the Bible.

Householder: But talking about enemies sounds very strong. I don’t want to start viewing my mother as if she were against me in everything. She has always helped me.

Publisher: Of course. We are not reading an instruction to treat your mother as an enemy. Jesus was warning about a painful situation. You can recognize her opposition without forgetting everything she has done for you or ceasing to love her.

Householder: That reassures me. Yesterday I ended up telling her that she understood nothing. Then I felt bad because she was talking about our family and I just wanted to prove that she was wrong.

Publisher: You have identified something important: you were talking about different concerns. You were defending what you are learning, while she wanted to know whether she was going to lose her closeness with you. Did you ask her what changes frightened her?

Householder: No. As soon as she said I was being separated from them, I interrupted her. I explained several things from the course, but the more I talked, the angrier she became. In the end, neither of us was listening.

Publisher: Think of two people trying to talk with a radio playing at full volume. If both raise their voices, they may only create more noise. Turning down the radio does not solve their differences, but it allows them to hear each other.

Householder: True, but at home there is no button to turn down anger. Sometimes just seeing the Bible on the table is enough to start everything again.

Publisher: That is true; the illustration has that limitation. You cannot control her reaction. But you can avoid adding more noise by interrupting or reproaching her. The point is not to abandon what you are learning, but to try to talk without hurting each other.

Householder: Then I could start by apologizing for the way I spoke to her. Although I worry that she will think I am admitting that she is right and that I am going to stop studying.

Publisher: You can be specific. Apologizing for interrupting her is not the same as apologizing for studying. How would you say it in your own words, without starting another argument about the course?

Householder: Something like: Mom, I spoke harshly to you yesterday, and I’m sorry. I care about what you think. I want to keep learning from the Bible, but I don’t want that to make you feel that I no longer care about the family.

Publisher: That expresses both things without attacking her. Then you could let her speak. If she mentions Sunday, is there something specific that you could acknowledge and change?

Householder: I should have told her I would be late. And I can organize myself so I arrive on time. That meal is the only time of the week when we are all together; I know it matters a lot to her.

Publisher: Fulfilling that commitment can support what you tell her—not as a way to force her to accept the course, but because you genuinely want to care for your relationship with her.

Householder: What if I do all that and she still says I should not study? I don’t want to think that one calm conversation will fix everything, because I know my mother.

Publisher: We cannot guarantee that she will change her mind. The text we read does not promise that there will be no opposition either. But you can continue showing her love and respect, even though she still does not understand your decision to study.

Householder: I had not thought that I could maintain my decision and at the same time acknowledge that I also have things to correct. I was seeing only two options: argue or quit the course.

Publisher: You do not have to solve everything this afternoon. We can end the conversation here and resume the study another day. What would work better for you?

Householder: Let’s keep next Thursday. Today I want to go home soon and talk with her if she is calm. Not to convince her of everything; first I want to apologize and listen to her.

Publisher: And if, while listening to her, she asks you something about the course that you still do not know how to explain, how could you answer without feeling that you have to defend everything at that moment?

Householder: That worries me. If I say I don’t know, she may think I am accepting things without understanding them. That is why I sometimes try to give an answer even when I am not very sure.

Publisher: Acknowledging a question is more sincere than improvising. You could say: That question interests me too. I don’t want to give you just any answer; I would rather understand it well before discussing it with you. In that way, you acknowledge that her question deserves attention without asserting something you are not yet sure about.

Householder: I can do that. If a question like that comes up, I’ll write it down for the next study. I don’t need to have all the answers before I start listening to her better.

Publisher: All right. You can tell me how it went on Thursday, if you would like. And we will try to make sure that the course schedule does not interfere with your family commitments.

Talk

A change in government does not mean that everything changes. Those who make the decisions may change, but authority remains in human hands. When the Bible speaks about God’s Kingdom, it announces something very different. It does not simply present another human government. It announces a Kingdom established by God that will replace all human governments.

That difference is important. If we think that the Kingdom will merely help current governments function better, we will not have understood what the Bible promises. To clarify this, let us consider three details: Who establishes that Kingdom? What will it do to the other governments? And how long will it last? Let us read Daniel 2:44 and look for the answers.

Daniel 2:44 — “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever,

Let us keep the text in view. First, who establishes the Kingdom? Daniel points to God, not humans. Therefore, its origin is different from that of any human government. Our confidence in that Kingdom does not depend on a person’s ability to gain power, but on God’s decision to establish it.

Second, notice what it will do to the other kingdoms. Daniel does not say that it will join them or merely advise them. He explains that it will put an end to them. That is the direct connection between this verse and the theme: God’s Kingdom will replace human governments; it will not be another government alongside them.

Third, consider how long it will last. Unlike governments that may disappear or be replaced, this Kingdom will remain. Daniel rules out both its destruction and the transfer of its authority to another people. So it is not a temporary solution. God is not announcing another stage of endless changes in government.

Now, someone might ask whether that authority will have geographical limits. Will the Kingdom replace some governments while others retain their power? Another passage helps us understand the scope of what God has decided. As we read Psalms 2:7-9, notice what Jehovah grants his Son and the comparison he uses.

Psalms 2:7-9 — Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah; He said to me: “You are my son; Today I have become your father. Ask of me, and I will give nations as your inheritance And the ends of the earth as your possession. You will break them with an iron scepter, And you will smash them like a piece of pottery.”

The scope is very broad: Jehovah places the nations and the whole earth under the authority of his Son. This helps us understand that the promise is not limited to one country. We are speaking about authority received from God that covers the entire earth, not influence restricted to one region.

Let us also think about the comparison between iron and clay. A clay vessel cannot withstand a blow from an iron scepter. The image highlights the difference in power. The nations will not be able to prevent Jehovah’s decision from being carried out. Its fulfillment does not depend on human governments agreeing to surrender their authority.

The two passages complement each other. Daniel explains the replacement of human governments and the permanence of the Kingdom. The psalm shows the scope of the authority that Jehovah grants his Son and that no nation will be able to resist. We do not need to speculate about political events to understand this teaching: the texts clearly express God’s decision.

How does knowing this help us? It enables us to distinguish between expecting human change and trusting in a divine promise. Without taking sides in political disputes, we can maintain our confidence in Jehovah. When we speak about the Kingdom, we do not defend one human government against another. We point to the solution that God himself has announced.

So let us remember these three certainties: God establishes the Kingdom, that Kingdom will replace all human governments, and its rule will be permanent. Our hope does not rest on humans managing to retain power or use it better. It rests on Jehovah’s fulfilling his word. That is a solid reason to trust in his Kingdom.