On Air
Mon - Fri: 12:00 AM - 12:30 AM & 11:00 AM - 11:30 AM
In this episode, we navigate the intricate terrain of marriage and divorce through a biblical lens, addressing challenging personal dilemmas while remaining grounded in scripture. We also delve into the significance and lasting impact of baptism, even when initial understandings were vague. Additionally, the episode touches on the oneness of Jesus and the Father, offering clarity on one of the most profound theological mysteries. Tune in for thoughtful discourse and spiritual enlightenment.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Good afternoon and welcome to The Narrow Path. We’re glad to have you with us today. We have, as usual, an hour of live broadcast so that you can call in during the program. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, You may feel free to join us and we’ll be glad to talk about your questions. If you have a different outlook from that of the host, whether you are a Christian with different views than those of the host, or whether you’re not a Christian and you have very different views because of that, you’re always welcome to call in and discuss those differences. I’ll be glad to have you join us. Right now there are a few lines open. If you want to call right now, you can get through. The number is 844-484-5737. Once again, that number is 844-484-5737. And we’ll go directly to the phone lines right now and talk to Kerry from Texas. Kerry, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for coming.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi, Steve. I hope you’re doing well.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 09 :
Steve, in the Gospel of John, first chapter, John is teaching about the Word, and I’m just wondering if this is new revelation, or is this something that his Jewish readers would be able to make a connection with?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, there’s a sense in which it’s not new revelation. He’s basing it on things that are said in the Old Testament, but he is approaching it from kind of a new way. You know, he says, in the beginning was the Word. He says the Word was with God, the Word was God, he was in the beginning with God. He says all things were made through him, that is through the Word, and without him nothing was made that was made. Now, that is an Old Testament concept, though it was never stated exactly that way. In Genesis chapter 1, we know that the description of the creation… It depicts God as speaking, and until God speaks, nothing exists. There’s nothing until he says, let there be. Well, there is something before that. It says he created the heavens and the earth, and then he said, let there be light. But there’s every reason to believe that the creation of the heavens and the earth were done by the same means, by him speaking them into existence. everything else he spoke into existence, and therefore we could say no power other than the power of his own word brought these things into existence. And it says there was nothing that came into existence. We’d have to assume that heavens and the earth would be included in that. There’s nothing made that was made except through the word. Now, in the Old Testament, that idea doesn’t really personify the word as John does. So there’s a sense in which In John saying that everything was made by the word of God, he’s saying what all Jews would recognize, by God speaking. But obviously John begins to call the word he as if he’s a personal being. And so this begins to personify the word, not just referring to sounds coming out of a person’s mouth or information being conveyed by speech. But the word itself is seen as having a personality of its own, as it were. And this is hinted at in the Old Testament, though not ever developed. You see it, for example, in Psalm 33, 6. It says, Now, it’s interesting. Someone reading the Psalms would probably just assume he’s stating, might not even notice, that he’s worded Genesis 1 somewhat differently. Because in Genesis 1, it says, God said, and it was so. Now, God’s word is in there, but the expression word is not used. He said it. Now, that was his word, but we don’t read the word word there. Now, in Psalm 33, 6, it says, by the word of the Lord, the heavens were made. Now, like I said, someone might not notice that he said something slightly differently, but the same information. Namely, everything came about as a result of God’s word. But the way that the psalmist has worded that and spoken of the word of the Lord as something through which the heavens and the earth were made opens the door, at least for further development in John’s expression, that that word was not just a something, it was a someone, it was God. He was with God and he was God and everything was made through him. Now, John is the only, well, I was going to say the only New Testament writer who calls Jesus the word, although Hebrews 1.3 does say that God upholds all things by the word of his power, that Jesus upholds all things by the word of his power, which isn’t quite calling him the word, but it is mentioning that his, Christ’s word, upholds all things. But John, elsewhere, both in 1 John and in Revelation, refers to Jesus as the word. In 1 John 1.1, it says that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have handled with our hands, of the word of life. For the life was made manifest, he said, and dwelt among us. So the idea here is that he now speaks of Christ in 1 John 1.1 as the word of life. And then he speaks about the life was manifested. But in the Gospel of John, we see that after it talks about the word, it says in verse 4, in him was life. And the life was the light of men and so forth. So this idea of life, Jesus being the word, being life, is found in John’s Gospel. It’s found at the beginning of his first epistle. And, of course, in Revelation chapter 19. I don’t know. I think it’s around verse 11. John sees Christ himself riding a white horse. with a sword coming out of his mouth, striking the nations with it. It says his name is called the Word of God. So, again, Christ is identified with the Word of God, but made flesh. And that’s what John 1.14 says. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Now, I don’t know exactly how we’re to understand all of that. Of course, typically, the Word has, in classical theology, been seen as a person who was the same as the Son in those days. In those days, there was God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in heaven. And this may be the correct way to see it. It wasn’t described that way necessarily throughout all of church history, but it was since about 325 A.D. Whether that’s the best description or not, I don’t really care to dispute. But I will say this, the Bible does indicate that until Jesus came to earth, his preexistence with God was as the Word. And John, in using that, is, as I said, repeating sort of concepts from the Old Testament, but he’s also giving it something of a new spin in personifying the word. Now, John, many scholars believe, was writing in terms that the Greeks would appreciate, although some have said that John is the most Jewish of the Gospels. I always would have guessed that Matthew was, but some scholars say John is the most Jewish of the Gospels. Most scholars do believe that it’s written with a Greek readership in mind. And the Greeks had a concept of the logos, which is the word in Greek that’s translated word here. So in the beginning was the logos. In the Greek philosopher’s mind, the logos was like the ultimate reason and mind and phenomenon behind all reality. So even independently of Jewish thinking or of Old Testament writings, the Greeks had this concept of the Logos was the ultimate mind and purpose behind all things. So John, in personifying the Logos, he connects with Old Testament ideas, but he also kind of connects with New Testament, I should say, Greek ideas. And so when you say, was John presenting a new revelation, or was he just repeating something that was already taught? I think there’s a mixture of both. There’s certainly some originality in what John says. He’s not using the word logos exactly the way that we find it in the Old Testament, and he’s not using it exactly the way the Greeks used it, but Both the Jews and the Greeks did have ideas about the Logos, or about God’s Word, that John is merging here into speaking of the significance of who Christ was before he came to earth, when he was simply in God. Now, when he did come to earth, the Word became flesh, and it became human and lived among us. So Jesus is the embodiment of this Word, according to John. And that’s probably completely original. I don’t even know if any other New Testament writers had that concept. I’m not sure John had that concept until he saw the book of Revelation. Because I believe that John’s other writings, his gospel and his epistles, were written after the book of Revelation. And that would explain why his other writings do speak of Jesus as the word, whereas the Revelation, chapter 19, seems to be the time that God reveals to John that Jesus is the word. I think that revelation perhaps provided the foundation for John’s reference to Jesus as the word in his other works. So it’s possible that Jesus as the word, as described in John chapter 1, certainly was not a concept exactly like anything in Judaism, and not exactly like anything in Greek philosophy, though there were connections to both. But I’m thinking it may not have even been a way that John or the other apostles understood Jesus, until John saw the revelation and saw Jesus riding a white horse, and it says his name was the Word of God. And that’s probably chronologically the first time anyone thought of Jesus as the Word of God. Now, I could be wrong, but I will say this. Many people believe probably that John’s gospel and epistles were written before Revelation. I don’t think so, but we don’t have any solid date for the writing of any of them, which means that, you know, They could have been written in any order that we can imagine. But I think the fact that Jesus was revealed to John as the word in Revelation chapter 19 provides a good explanation of why that idea captivated John. Oh, and he had thought about it and he incorporated it at the beginning of his gospel and his epistle. I think it’s much less likely that John had kind of thought of that on his own before and written it in the gospel and the epistle And then lo and behold, the revelation God kind of just confirmed it and used imagery that John had already come up with. I’m not saying it’s impossible. I’m just saying, you know, the shortest line between two points would suggest that John got the revelation on the Isle of Patmos about Jesus being the word. and then used that revelation as a theme in his later writings, including the Gospel and the Epistles of John. So there’s definitely some new revelation in it, but it doesn’t exist entirely in the absence of the old. Well, thank you. All right, Kerry, thank you. Okay, Richard from North Las Vegas, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 01 :
You’re welcome. I don’t really have a question. I just wanted to suggest something. Have you ever heard a song? It’s a song called Let’s Talk About Jesus by Rob Shields. He’s a Canadian person. I don’t remember the song. I think it might be a good – you might want to use it on your show. I have the WWW connection.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, thank you for the suggestion. And, no, I’m not familiar with the song, but I’m not looking for songs. This is not a music show, but I appreciate your call. All right, let’s talk to Sue from San Diego. Sue, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, thanks for taking my call. I’ve been married 28 years. You were talking about reasons for divorce, biblical reasons for divorce. And after we had our child, who’s now 19, And he informed me that he wanted to have men in a relationship, like, you know, a menage a trois, whatever. And instead of most husbands wanting a woman, he wanted a man. And anyway, things progressed, and it turns out that he had lived with men, and his brother was gay and had a very – he was open about the fact that he participated in orgies and stuff with men. This was all after we were married and after we had a child. So I would like to divorce him, but I can’t in my mind because I cannot say that he’s been unfaithful. And I can only find in the Bible that if you’re going to get a divorce, it has to be on the grounds of infidelity. So could you clarify what your opinion would be on that biblically?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, don’t hang up yet. Are you saying that your husband had been involved in homosexual orgies after you were married and after your child was born?
SPEAKER 07 :
You know, he told me after we were married, but it was supposedly before we were married that it took place. And he says he’s bisexual, which he also did not tell me he was bisexual until after that. I never would have dated him as a Christian.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right.
SPEAKER 07 :
So now I’m stuck.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, it’s a terrible situation. Shame on him. He’s very culpable of hiding that from you. I’m sure that there are some Christians that would say that, I mean, like Roman Catholic Church would probably allow you an annulment on the basis of that knowledge having been hidden from you. On the other hand, if he is not engaged in any sexual activity outside the marriage, I think you said 29 years you’ve been married? A long time?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
If he has been actually physically faithful and continues to be, that would mean that he is resisting temptations that would be extremely damaging to your marriage if he practiced them. And many people have temptations that they don’t act upon. In fact, I would say that if we could divorce our spouses because we knew that they had some sexual thoughts and temptations that, you know, that would involve unfaithfulness if acted out, then most people, I think, would have grounds for divorce, which I don’t think is the case. It’s an awful thing to be awakened so late in marriage to the fact that your husband is not the person you thought he was and that he’s sexually, you know, confused and corrupted. But But if he’s saying, well, yeah, I’ve had those problems in the past. I’m still tempted with them. I would probably still do them if you allowed me to. It sounds like he’s saying. But I haven’t done it, and I’m not going to do it unless you agree. Now, if you did agree, which would be stupid, then he would be guilty. But, of course, if it’s with another man and there’s a threesome, then you’d be guilty, too. So that would be a total mess. You have to stand your ground, of course, and say, absolutely not. You know, we’re going to have a monogamous, heterosexual-only marriage. That’s what we covenanted to do. As far as I know, we have had that until now. And we’re going to have to continue to have that or else the marriage is over. That’s the position I would take. I don’t think that just learning that a man has bisexual interests, as harmful as that is psychologically to be aware of, especially to learn it late in the marriage. I don’t think that in itself is grounds for divorce because, as I said, if this is something that’s a temptation to him but he doesn’t act upon it, then he hasn’t necessarily sinned against the marriage. You know, this is something, when people say they’re bisexual, I’ve never understood how people, for example, I’ve known people who were married for years and suddenly the husband or the wife says, decides that they are bisexual. And so they leave the marriage and take up a homosexual relationship. I think, wait a minute, wait. If you’re bisexual, that means you can go either way. And you’re married to a person of the opposite sex, which is a legitimate marriage. You’ve made vows to them. So if you can go either way, just go the right way. You know, just go the heterosexual way. Then you will not cheat on your spouse. You will not destroy your marriage, but it’s so strange when people say, oh, I suddenly realize I’m bisexual, so I’m going for the homosexual way. Well, wait, I don’t understand. How can it be that you could go either way, and now you’re choosing the wrong way, the way that would destroy your marriage and that would violate your husband? Now, your husband apparently is in that position, but he hasn’t done it as far as we know, and he has not made that choice. It sounds like he’s flirting with these. He’d kind of like to see if he could persuade you of it. Just stand firm and say, no, that’s not going to happen. And, you know, if he then sneaks off and is involved in affairs, either heterosexual or homosexual, if he’s involved in affairs, that is, of course, grounds for divorce. There’s a sense in which I wish I could give you some kind of biblical permission to divorce short of that happening. But I don’t know that the Bible actually gives that permission at this stage. The reason I would love to give you permission is because of how difficult it must be, I know, for you to live with somebody knowing that about him. And that’s a trial that you don’t deserve, but we all go through trials we don’t deserve. And that’s part of our testing to be faithful, you know. Now, again, if he actually does get involved in a sexual activity, Trist outside of the marriage, then I would say that would be grounds for divorce And maybe he will that sounds like he’s sounds like he’s kind of slipping I would I mean I’d have a long conversation with him and ask him are you saying? You will not be able to remain you know faithful in this marriage that you’re not satisfied just with me and Is there nothing I can do to keep you satisfied so that you won’t be driven into other relationships? And depending on what he says about that, I think you’re the one in the position to negotiate the matter. You’re the one in the position to make the demands that he wants to keep in the marriage. He needs to be told that he needs to be strictly faithful to his vows for the rest of his life or yours. or else you won’t be staying there. That’s what I would say.
SPEAKER 07 :
Can I add two things? I’d like to add two things. So we have not, since he told me that in the last 15 years we’ve been together, we have only had sex maybe two, three times. And he wanted me to use, they called them toys, a device, Put it on me and do that to him. And I said no. And so he didn’t get what he wanted. I didn’t do what I didn’t want to do. And so we have no sexual relationship and haven’t had for a decade.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, boy. That’s a very hard thing.
SPEAKER 07 :
Because I don’t trust him. I don’t trust him. Because why would I trust him?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, the thing is, I don’t know that he can be trusted. But… If he has not cheated with you, he obviously has made some perverted suggestions, which neither of you have acted on, fortunately. But, you know, if he is simply a man who’s having temptations of a perverted sort, but he is choosing to stay faithful and be in the marriage despite those temptations, I don’t think you should be depriving him of sex. And I don’t know if that’s why you’re not having sex. I don’t know if it’s because of his choice or yours. I can see how it’s his choice not to.
SPEAKER 07 :
His, yes.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Well, then that too, well, then I wonder what he is doing then instead.
SPEAKER 07 :
For all that time, right?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, and he’s 10 years younger than I am. I’m 56 and he’s 56. Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
I think, do you guys go to church anywhere?
SPEAKER 07 :
I do. He does not. Okay.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. You should try to get him into a session, at least one, with some Christian counsel.
SPEAKER 07 :
We’ve done both Christian and non-Christian counseling. About this? Yes, and both times the counselor said that there was enough reason for me to not trust and not…
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, well, those counselors, that may be true. I mean, if you have any reason to believe that he’s been running around with other people, including men. I do. You do, okay. Well, you should ask him outright to confess it if it is so. And if he does, then I would say that is your grounds for divorce. After all, he may be bringing home all kinds of diseases. Who knows? I can see how.
SPEAKER 07 :
Right. And I think that’s why he’s making that choice. So, okay. Thank you very much. God bless you and have a Merry Christmas to you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Same to you, Sue. I’m very sorry to hear this. Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER 07 :
Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 02 :
Bye now. Okay. Rayma from Michigan. Welcome to The Narrow Path. We may only have a couple minutes before the break. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, hi, Steve. I have a question about Christians being too judgmental. I have a brother who accused me and my other siblings for not being, quote-unquote, members of a church, and then I have a cousin who accused me of being backsliding for not going to church on Christmas. So I want to share four scriptures that I use to justify that. Thessalonians 3.11 and Thessalonians 4.11 literally states, you’re a busybody and you need to mind your business. I was shocked that that scripture was there. So that’s what I used for both of those relatives. I also used Ecclesiastes 3.8, which says there’s a time and season for everything. and it’s a time for people to stay in their lane and quit being judgmental. So the brothers clapped back, if you will, and stated, I mean, a soft answer turns away wrath. That’s the only scripture he knows in the 31,000 scriptures in the Bible. So my question to you is, what would you use if someone is extremely judgmental? I have read nowhere that I have to be, quote-unquote, a member of a brick-and-mortar church. I have to be a member of the body of Christ, which I am. I’m just tired of justifying my life to these Christian relatives. Okay, well, let me ask you. I think the verdict is still out.
SPEAKER 02 :
Let me ask you something before we get.
SPEAKER 04 :
Even on Christmas Day.
SPEAKER 02 :
Go ahead. Let me ask you something, if I could. Just out of curiosity, what is the reason that you are not in a church today? Do you go to a church without being a member? Do you visit churches? Do you worship with other Christians?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes. I’ve joined churches, and I’m technically a member of a church in Michigan, but the pastor had sex with his wife’s niece and had a baby by her. So, I’m sorry, that’s hypocritical.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I hear you.
SPEAKER 04 :
I would take the same position.
SPEAKER 02 :
I would take the same position, but that doesn’t mean, I just wondered, are you getting fellowship with Christians somewhere other than in a brick-and-mortar church?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes. And I do, especially after COVID, I can just tune in and fellowship anywhere around the world, which I do.
SPEAKER 02 :
You know, that’s not quite the same as fellowship when you’re not in the life of someone. You’re just kind of looking at them on a screen. But, I mean, you really should be in the company and in fellowship with other Christians, but you don’t have to be a member of a brick-and-mortar church. At least the Bible doesn’t say you have to. I would say if you are doing well in the faith, if your Christian life is without compromise – if you’re fellowshipping with Christians in various places, then I would just tell any relative who judges you, just say, well, are you saying I’m not living for Christ adequately? And if they say, yeah, we are seeing that, I’ll say, well, on what basis? And if they say, well, because you’re not going to a church, I would say, well, okay, I don’t know of any scripture that tells me that that’s a requirement. I do wish I could go to a church. I’d like to go to a church. I’d love to be in fellowship with Christians. And, you know, without having that, I’m still trying to follow Jesus with all my heart. But I simply won’t accept, you know, condemnation over that. On the other hand, Reem, I think you should be looking to be with other Christians as much as possible, as all Christians should, because only then can we really find our place of service in the body of Christ. Anyway, I need to take a break, but I hope that helps. If you’re listening to The Narrow Path, our website’s thenarrowpath.com. We’ve got another half hour. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 03 :
You have been listening to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg, a listener-supported Bible ministry heard on radio stations throughout the United States. If you like what you hear on The Narrow Path Radio Ministry, you can share what you hear with many others by going to thenarrowpath.com and donating your year-end tax-deductible gift. Your giving will help lift the spirits of my beloved people throughout our nation. Thank you and bless you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. We have a lot of our lines open right now if you want to get through. We have a half hour. When those lines fill up, that’ll probably be all we get in before the end of the program, but they’re not full now. If you want to get in today, call now, not later. The number is 844-484-5737. You have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, or you disagree with the host and want to say why, you’re always welcome to be on the program. Call now, 844-484-5737. Our next call is from Scott in Escondido, California. Scott, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, you’re talking about the Word. I just wanted to share that, you know, you mentioned there is a Greek word logos. Well, that is translated two ways, either word or expression. So if you read that the way it says in the beginning, well, what was before the beginning was God. So we’re talking about a beginning. A lot of people can see eternity in the future, but eternity was going on before the beginning. God doesn’t live in time. You’re in a time slot. So If you read that from the other way it’s translated, the beginning was the expression, and the expression was with God. And then, so that expression God used in the Old Testament could appear, could disappear. Isaiah 59, 16 said, It came a point in time there was no man, no intercessor to go between God and man, and his own right arm brought him salvation, and his righteousness sustained him. So this expression became flesh and dwelt among us. So the real understanding of that is, The other way it’s translated from the original word logos. So it helps give a better understanding of the angelic form God used in the Old Testament. It could disappear and appear, like appear to Samson’s parents, Manoah and Judges. Chapter 13, verse 17 said they saw God and they were going to die. They asked him his name. He said, why ask us out for my name, for my name is a secret.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right. Let me ask you this, because I want to make sure I know what you’re saying. Are you saying that the expression of the word in the flesh, that’s God expressing himself, that this is the same thing as, say, the theophanies in the Old Testament where God appeared? Of course, yeah, that’s exactly what it is.
SPEAKER 11 :
It says the expression that God appeared to Abraham, he appeared in different forms. Sometimes angels would give their name and sometimes they wouldn’t, but This angelic form that God used in the Old Testament, you can see it in many different places.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, so you’re saying Jesus was a created angel? Is that what you’re saying?
SPEAKER 11 :
No, Jesus is God. And so God, it says in the beginning. So before the beginning, what was there? There was God. God. So God didn’t become two or three different gods when he took on a body.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Well, I would say I have some agreement with you. Let me tell you the part I do agree with. I do agree that the expression logos does include more than simply what we think of as the word. In fact, many commentators say it’s a difficult Greek word to put into a single English word, though most agree that our English word word is the closest that we’ve got. But it does also have some connection to reason or thought, right? I mean, the word logic in English comes from the word logos. It’s thinking, it’s reasoning, but it’s reasoning that is expressed. Now, we express our reasoning in words, and therefore you’re saying it means expression. I’m not positive that we could say that that is a literally equal synonymous translation of the word logos, but I think it is correct that an expression of one’s mind and thought is inherent in the whole concept of the logos. And since that’s what a word is, when you speak a word, you’re expressing your thoughts. You wouldn’t have to change it from word, although I think maybe you’re thinking of the expression, the idea of the lotus being an appearance or something, because in the Old Testament, as you’ve pointed out, there are theophanies where God appeared, or I guess you’re possibly saying expressed himself in a human form. He appeared as a man to wrestle with Jacob all night long. And afterwards, Jacob said, I’ve seen God face to face and my life is preserved. There is a, He appeared to Abraham as a man and ate with him, along with two angels who accompanied him. He appeared to Manoah, the father and mother of Samson. He appeared to the 70 elders on Mount Sinai. And so I do see this as God appearing in the Old Testament. Now to say that Jesus was an appearance like that, I would limit the sense in which they are like. I would say in one sense they are like. That is, Jesus coming to earth is like a theophany in the sense that it is in fact God who has localized himself for the time being in a certain place on earth to be seen and to interact with people. Certainly that is in many ways analogous. to the incarnation, but the incarnation is different in important ways. For one thing, when God appeared in the Old Testament in Theophanies, he didn’t really become part of the human race. He just took on a human-like appearance, just like angels sometimes did. Angels who were not God sometimes took on a human-like appearance. I mean, they were physical. They took on a physical appearance in a human shape. But they did not become part of the human race. And by that, I mean they didn’t become descendants of Adam and Eve. They simply took on, for the time, for the moment, a humanness, a human likeness, in order to relate with human recipients of that revelation. So I believe that God can and has, you know, appeared like a man many times and communicated with man in the Old Testament. These are what we call theophanies or Christophanies. The incarnation is different, though, because although it’s the same in one respect, that is, God is now appearing to men in a human form, this time he came right through the human bloodline. He’s a descendant of Adam. More than that, and perhaps even more important, I don’t know if it’s more important, but he’s a descendant of Abraham. He’s a descendant of David. And that bloodline is very defining of his identity. Because, of course, he came as the Messiah, and the Messiah, by definition, had to come through those lines. The Messiah had to be descended from Adam and Eve, according to Genesis 3.15, I think it is. He had to come through Abraham, according to Genesis 12.1-3. He had to come through David, according to 2 Samuel 7.12 and following. So he had to be an actual human, not just God taking on a… putting on a human costume for a little while, but God actually entering into human nature and becoming a human being through the human family. Now, I’m not saying that you were denying that. I think you probably agree with that. I’m not sure, but I’m saying that is a significant difference. But insofar as it is God taking on a human form, and that’s what the word was, was God’s expressing himself or manifesting himself or whatever. I’m not going to argue with you about that. I’m not going to say that’s wrong. You know, I have portions of that statement. My views themselves would overlap, and I’m not even sure where all the limits of the agreement would be. We might be more in agreement than I know, but I would not make the incarnation identical to And maybe you wouldn’t either. I wouldn’t make it identical to a theophany from the Old Testament for that very reason.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, no. Am I still there or what?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes. Uh-huh.
SPEAKER 11 :
Oh, yeah. No, I’m saying the Scripture is pretty clear. It says in the beginning. Well, we have to see what was going on before the beginning. So now in the beginning, God… use this expression that could appear and disappear is all I’m saying. To help get an understanding of that, when you look at that word logos and you study it out, it does translate in two ways in English, which is expression or phrase.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, well, we’ve heard that part, and I haven’t necessarily disagreed with you, so thank you. We’re going to move along, and we don’t need to hear that all again while we have people waiting. By the way, we do have a couple of lines open if you want to still get through. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Lori from Sacramento, California. Lori, welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. I wanted to know, around 1998, I got baptized as a Christian and accepted Jesus, but it didn’t have near the meaning as it does for me today. So I got baptized in the river. My ex-husband was a Christian, and I had gone to Bible studies and retreats, and I thought, okay. I’m going to accept Jesus. I want what they have. And I waited, I don’t know, about a year and a half, and then I decided to become a Christian. So I was dunked in the water, river baptized, came up. But I had no idea what that meaning meant at all. So then I went on with my life, but I didn’t really open the Bible anymore. I went to church with my husband. But now I’m 71, and for the last two years I’ve been in the Bible. And I know what it means now to be born again. And I’m much more in the word. Am I still baptized? Does that baptism still hold from 1998?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes. I mean, it would be very similar, in my opinion, to saying, you know, when I got married, when I made my vows to my wife, I’m not saying this is so, but if a person said this, you know, when I made my vows to my husband or to my wife, I never really understood the depth of commitment that marriage involved, you know. But thankfully, I’ve matured and I’ve learned what it does mean. I don’t have to go and get married all over again. I’m still married. The vows I took are still binding. But now I can appreciate it at a much deeper level. Now, I will say this, Laurie, that there are sometimes Christians, couples that decide to renew their vows. once they, I mean, if they feel like when I made my vows to you, I really wasn’t, my head wasn’t in it. I’m not sure I was really serious. It wouldn’t matter, in a sense, if that were the case now, because you understand it now. In other words, you can start living up to your vows anytime that you understand more about them. But sometimes people feel like I was so out of the, you know, out of the right mindset when I made my vows that I’d like to, now that I understand it better, I’d like to renew them. I’d like to repeat them. Now, there’s nothing of this in the Bible. It’s just something that some Christians have done, or because sometimes their marriage has gone through a crisis, and they’ve come through it, and they say, okay, you know, our marriage was almost totally devastated, shattered, but we want to make it work now. Let’s take those vows again. Once again, it’s not necessary to renew the vows, though I could see it being maybe meaningful and helpful in some cases. And it’s also possible just to say, okay, we almost destroyed our marriage because we didn’t keep the vows that we made 25 years ago, 29 years ago, whatever. We didn’t keep those vows like we should have, but we’re going to now. We know better now. We’re going to do better now. And I think baptism is a lot like the wedding vows. It’s a promise. When you get baptized, you’re committing yourself to Christ in a covenantal relationship. And true, many people when they’re evangelized have never really been told what baptism really suggests, or sometimes they haven’t really been told what being a Christian really means. They’ve just been told, say a prayer and you’ll go to heaven, which is hardly a description of what the gospel is or what being a Christian means. And so, you know, obviously people who jumped through hoops, religious hoops, and did what the religious guides that they were listening to told them to do, might well look back and say, I never really was saved at all. I didn’t even mean it, partly because I didn’t know what it meant. But I do now. And so to get baptized again, I don’t think it would hurt. I don’t know of any case where that would be necessary. We do, in Acts chapter 19, have those people who are baptized with the baptism of John the Baptist not knowing about Christ. And when Paul preached to them, this is at the beginning of Acts 19, the first seven verses, when Paul preached them and they understood the gospel then, they got baptized again. So, I mean, but they really hadn’t known who Jesus was or certainly hadn’t had a commitment to him prior to that. I would say that if someone was baptized as an infant or as a child and they didn’t have any clue who Jesus was because they didn’t have any clue about anything in those days, Or maybe they were baptized a little older, but they still were just kind of doing it because their friends were doing it or because their parents wanted them to do it or they really had no commitment to Christ in mind. I would definitely suggest being baptized again after you come to Christ. But the thing is, if you say, well, every time I come to understand the depths of Christian commitment and the meaning of it, I feel like I need to get baptized again. I wouldn’t suggest that at all. I would say if you got baptized one time, knowing what you were doing and at least basically knowing that you’re committing yourself to Christ by doing it, but not really understanding fully what all that involves, I would just say count that to be your baptism. If that’s your baptism, just live up to it. Sort of like I said about marriage vows. If you haven’t lived up to marriage vows and you suddenly realize what it means and you want to, then you just start living up to it. You don’t have to make those vows again. So that would be my approach to that thought, that question.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay. Thank you so much. That’s very helpful.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, Lori. Thanks for your call.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 02 :
Bye now. Robert from California. That’s the last three calls of it from California. Hi, Robert. Welcome.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hi, Steve. Yeah, my question is I remember one of your programs you were talking, and I don’t know if it was your regular church, but you were attending a church event, And you said you don’t always agree with everything that’s said, the pastor says. Right. And I’m kind of curious, what do you do about that? Do you just, like, water under the bridge? Do you go talk to the pastor? Because I’m in a situation like that, and I’m not sure what to do about it.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I believe that, I mean, a lot of pastors would see lots of different things differently than I do. But I would make a distinction between disagreements that are dangerous and and disagreements that are relatively non-consequential. Generally speaking, Christian doctrines about abstract things which have no impact on the way I live my life but would maybe distinguish me theologically as belonging to one camp or another, those kinds of things are not, to my mind, dangerous. A person might believe very, very differently than I do on some of those things and still not be at all a danger. But Other kinds of teaching, like misrepresenting the gospel, teaching people something that will have a negative impact on their obedience to Christ or on their holiness. And I was teaching practical things that are wrong and leading people astray so that they’re doing those things which God will have to judge them for negatively. I would probably have to speak to that. Now, I would say every time I’ve been to any church… I have been among people, some of them the leaders, some of them the people in the congregation, who see lots of things differently than I do. I have never felt – well, maybe when I was very young I might have thought this. I’m not sure. I can’t remember that far back. But as a mature adult, I’ve never felt that I can only fellowship with people who see everything my way. Of course, I don’t believe in joining a church either. I don’t believe in church membership. It’s not a biblical concept. But even though I don’t believe in technical church membership, I do believe that it’s very necessary, helpful for a Christian to attend the same group of Christians on some kind of regular basis, not necessarily every week, but as often as possible, that you should be developing relationships with with a certain congregation or group of Christians, or maybe more than one. You might be going to more than one group regularly and developing broader relationships with the body of Christ in many places. But you can’t really be a normal Christian without having relationships with a group of Christians. And if you don’t go to the same place with any regularity, it’s almost impossible to develop anything rather than the most shallow relationships. With the people there. So I, you know, I personally, if I go to a church, I’m looking for a place where people love Jesus and obey the Bible and so forth, the best they know how. And I would want to be with some of these same people on a regular basis so that they become part of my life. and I become part of theirs. That’s what relationships are. So if you’re going to a church and you’re developing relationships, and they’re godly relationships, and you don’t know of any other church that would be better in this respect or even better theologically that you could go to, but you have problems with the theology of the church you go to, I’d say stay there. Unless the problems you have with theology is that they’re teaching people to sin and they’re putting a stumbling block before people. That would be a church I would not stay in. I would warn the pastor that I can’t stay and that he’s doing something very dangerous. And, of course, he would ignore me, and therefore I would go somewhere else. But if I go to church and the pastor says something I disagree with, well, that’s about average. I mean, that happens everywhere I go. It doesn’t matter. I don’t judge him. I figure he’s hopefully teaching the word of God as best he honestly understands it. And that means his heart is right with God as much as mine because I teach it as best I honestly understand it. So he and I are the same. We don’t have the same conclusions. But where do you find a bunch of people who have all the same beliefs about things? Well, the only place you have that is a cult. Cult members all share the same beliefs of the leaders because that’s what they’re required to do or they get kicked out. So outside of cults, you can’t find any group of people where everyone thinks everything’s just, they think everything’s just like, even your immediate family. So you’ve got to fellowship with people who disagree with you. You have to choose your battles because there are some disagreements that would lead to dangerous errors of behavior. And you want to make sure that you don’t encourage that or support that or leave that unaddressed but I’m guessing that most Christians when they go to church if they find something the pastor believes differently than they do it’s probably something they could literally live with without causing problems though I can think of exceptions so you know I do go to churches and I have a regular church I have in my home with a group of people but I go to other churches also and you know I’ve never been anywhere where everyone agrees with me about everything So that can’t be a requirement that I make it, or else I’ll simply move into a cave and be a hermit somewhere. Believe it or not, even my wife doesn’t agree with me on everything. But that doesn’t prevent us from living together and getting along very well. So if that’s true within the home, it is likely to be true in any kind of congregation you attend also. Thank you. Let’s see. We want to talk to Eve from Arizona next. Eve, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Hi.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi. Thanks for taking my call. I have a question that’s been puzzling me. When Jesus said, if you’ve seen me, if you’ve seen the Father, I and the Father are one, and then one asks later, When he will be returning to earth, he says, only the Father knows. So that’s, I can’t sort out in my mind, why would he not know he and the Father being one?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, well, because he was the Word made flesh. He had become a human being. Now, God in heaven is not a human being. But Jesus was. Jesus was God coming among us as one of ourselves and having, therefore, an existence that is somewhat separate from the disembodiedness of God in heaven. Now, we were talking to an earlier caller about the Old Testament theophanies, for example, when God appeared as a man wrestling with Jacob all night. Well, that was a human form of God on earth wrestling with Jacob, but while that was happening… God still inhabited the whole universe. God still inhabited every place. God wasn’t just there. He was just manifested there. God’s universal presence is universal in all the universe, but God’s manifest presence is sometimes localized, and when that is true, it doesn’t cancel out the fact that he’s everywhere at once. He can stick his finger into our world and appear as a man or be among us as a man, while the rest of him is still out there. And when Jesus said, the Father is greater than I, that was in the same chapter in John 14, where he said, do you not know that I’m in the Father, and the Father’s in me, and if you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father? Now, he said, if you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father. He said that the Father is greater than I. These are the kinds of statements that people have had a hard time harmonizing throughout history. Because Jesus speaks of the Father as almost identified with him and also as, in a sense, different from him and superior to him. This is what the Trinity Doctrine seeks to settle. I mean, how do we deal with these different conflicts? Well, the way I understand it, which may not be the correct way, but the Bible doesn’t require us to understand it correctly, but the way I understand it is that when God came into our world as a human being, that human being, had a permanent humanness. Jesus is still a man at the right hand of God. It says, and Paul told Timothy, there’s one God and one mediator between man and God, the man, Jesus. So Jesus is still a man, but he’s also God. When God becomes a man, he is permanently the God-man. That’s how I understand it. And so he has an existence separate from his father. in the sense that he has taken on an additional form, an additional identity. Is this hard to understand? Well, to me it is. Maybe not to some people. I find it very hard to understand. But then I find some things in the natural world hard to understand. And, you know, there’s a lot of things, physical laws I don’t understand. It shouldn’t be too surprising. There’s many things my children, when they were little, didn’t understand even about me as an adult. So, It shouldn’t surprise me if there’s things about God that I can’t understand. As long as he says them plainly enough, I’ll just accept them. And I do. So, I mean, C.S. Lewis made an interesting point. He said theology is describing the spiritual world just like physics describes the natural world. And you would not be surprised if theology, therefore, proves to be as complicated as physics. If the spiritual world is as complex as the physical, then… then theology and physics would both have similar complexity. Now, there’s a lot of things about physics, the physical world, that I really do not understand at all and probably never will. Nor do I need to in order to live in the physical world successfully. And there’s many things theologically I probably don’t understand. I’ve worked at understanding them more than I have at physics, but I’m sure there’s plenty I don’t understand theologically. But those things must not be the things I have to know because… the ignorance of those things has not prevented me from doing everything that I believe the Bible calls a Christian to do. So we can live with the fact that we don’t know everything as long as we know enough to know how to obey God and please him, because that’s our duty. I need to take off now. I wish I didn’t have to. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener supported. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. We’ll be on again tomorrow, Lord willing. See you then.
