Menu
Join Steve Gregg in this thought-provoking episode of The Narrow Path Radio Broadcast as he tackles contemporary issues surrounding portrayals of Jesus and Christian beliefs. The episode kicks off with a caller’s question about an upcoming production of Jesus Christ Superstar, sparking a deep dive into historical versus modern interpretations of the Christ figure. Gregg explores how these representations align or clash with traditional biblical teachings and what they reveal about society’s approach to religious narratives.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith, we’re always glad to talk to you about those things on the air here. If you see things differently from the way the host expresses things and you’d like to balance a comment, we welcome you to call in about that. We’d love to hear and talk to you about that. The lines are full at the moment, but let me give you the number anyway because these lines will be coming and going as people talk and move along, and we have open lines. If you call randomly during the hour, you will very probably find the line open at some point, and we’ll try to get to your calls. The number is 844-484-5737. Once again, that’s 844-484-5737. 5737. And we’ll go directly to the phones now and talk to Michael calling from Denver, Colorado. Hi, Michael. Welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Steve, thank you so much for taking my call. It’s so good to speak with you today again. And I just once again had a quick question and I’ll take my answer off the air. So really kind of interesting news story. I kind of wanted to get your kind of insight about. So there is this African-American LGBT-identified actress. She’s best known for her role in Wicked. Cynthia Erivo is her name, and she’s been actually cast to play the role of Jesus in an upcoming production of Jesus Christ Superstar, and I guess it’s like a play, but It’s drawn criticism from pastors and Christian audiences alike. And so what I wanted to ask you is, do you feel this is kind of an attempt to rewrite history in a way, or do you feel it’s just more of an extreme example of independent thought?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I don’t know if it’s trying to rewrite history or just trying to ignore history. A lot of people, of course, don’t know that Jesus was literally a historical character and that the Bible gives a true account of his biography. and many people think of it as just a cultural or religious myth, and therefore they don’t see anything sacred about it. Obviously, we feel very differently about that, and we see Jesus as not only real, but somebody whose life and the way he lived it and the things he said and the things he did at the end, his death and resurrection, we consider those things very important things to get right. They’re not just entirely malleable for people to just kind of change, you know, even what he stood for or what he said, much less who he is. Of course, if he’s the son of God, then he’s not a woman. If he’s a godly man, he’s not part of the LGBT community. And I’m not saying that there aren’t pious people or religious people who are part of the LGBT community, but it’s simply Jesus followed the law of Moses for the most part. I mean, he accepted its validity. He took liberties with it, but not moral liberties. He sometimes took liberties with the ceremonial things, which he did not believe were of permanent But the moral issues he certainly didn’t violate ever in any way. And he fully reestablished them in his teachings. So obviously now I don’t know if this I heard about this woman playing him in Jesus Christ Superstar coming up. And I don’t know if if she’s depicting him as an LGBT woman. She’s obviously a woman. So they’re depicting him as a woman. Whether the actress’s LGBT status is part of the character also, I do not know. But I’m against it. I’ll tell you, the original Jesus Christ Superstar came out when I was in high school. And I have to say I had mixed feelings about it, partly because its message was not Christian. It treated Christ with some respect, but but it did not feature his resurrection from the dead and, and many of the dialogues in it made, made one wonder, was he delusional? I mean, there, it was not a believer’s portrayal of Christ. Um, Sadly, in a way, I mean, one might think this was its redeeming quality, but it’s too bad because the music in it was really cool. I actually really liked a lot of the songs in Jesus Christ Superstar, except that I didn’t agree with much of their message. Of course, not all the songs had disagreeable messages in them. So I had mixed feelings about Jesus Christ Superstar. In general, I was against the project. just because it wasn’t representing him reverently or Christianly, and he is a person who actually was a real human being as well as the son of God and had a history that I don’t think should be altered. So I don’t think I would like the new production either. It probably has the same music, I would assume, and the same message. But what it does not have, it has even a less accurate portrayal. of the character. Now, you know, Jesus is accustomed to being mocked by unbelievers. He was mocked by unbelievers during his lifetime. He’s been mocked by unbelievers for the past 2,000 years. That offends us Christians. It should offend us Christians. I don’t know that Jesus has thin skin about it, though. He’s taken a lot of abuse, and he doesn’t seem to fly off the handle about things like this, so I don’t know if we have to get animated about it, but I’m certainly not going to buy a ticket. I’m not going to recommend anyone else buy a ticket. I’m offended that Christ would be changed in any way. The truth is, there are actually Christian productions of the life of Christ that have changed the life of Christ in certain ways, and I’m a little offended by that, too. And they do it out of reverence. I mean, even if we take, say, The Chosen, you know, the series. Many Christians have found that very edifying. I’ve seen some of the episodes of it myself. And to my mind, they treat Christ in a reverent way and not an objectionable way. But they do alter some of the things he said and put them, you know, they’re just different. And I like, you know, if we’re going to talk about Jesus, he said he is the truth. And I think if we’re going to present Jesus, we’d better present the truth about Jesus. And an LGBT actress playing Christ is about as far from the truth about Jesus as we could get. So, you know, I’m not going to protest out in front or throw Molotov cocktails at the places where this plays, but I’m just, I would never approve it. There’s many things I don’t approve, but I’m not… very animated in my discipline, but I mean, this is, this is something I could never recommend and I will not sponsor in any way. All right. Let’s talk to Sean from Surrey, British Columbia. Sean, welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi Steve. Uh, yeah, thank you. Thank you for doing what you do. You know, I consider you an objective theology professor. It’s kind of what you are to me and I appreciate it. Yeah, no, you do a fine job. And we have, uh, When you have tough questions, like the one I’m going to hit you with, is basically I’d like your take on John 20, 23. Okay, do you have that in front of you? Pardon? Yeah, I do have it in front of me, yeah. Go ahead, Reed. Whosoever sins you remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins you retain, they are retained.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, and your question… is about the meaning of it or its applicability to the Catholic Church?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, Jesus is saying that to his disciples, right?
SPEAKER 03 :
Right.
SPEAKER 07 :
I’m saying they have the power to forgive sins. I mean, that’s pretty heavy.
SPEAKER 03 :
That might be his meaning. But I think we would be mistaken if we thought that means that they could just walk around and find any sinner and say, your sins are forgiven. Oh, that’s cool. I’ll go do it with every sinner I see. And their sins will be forgiven them. In the Bible, even Jesus, I think, was not able to walk around and just forgive everybody’s sins. I think there had to be some repentance or faith on their part. But he was able to announce to them that their sins were forgiven. as in the case of the paralyzed man whose four friends lowered him through the roof. And Jesus said, your sins are forgiven you. And Jesus said those kinds of things more than once. But he didn’t just walk through all of Israel and hold his hands up and motion to all the crowd and say, your sins are all forgiven. He certainly didn’t say that to the scribes and Pharisees when he was lambasting them. So it’s clear that it’s not likely that Jesus is saying the apostles had the ability which Jesus himself never even exercised. Though he had the authority to forgive sins, he didn’t just go around saying your sins are forgiven, even though I believe he would have been disposed to forgive all sins if people were repentant and so forth. And some people were. And so he could announce that to them as God’s agent. I think Jesus is saying that the apostles, in this case, are God’s agents too. I believe that they would not be able to forgive the sins of an unrepentant person, that is to say eradicate them so that that man doesn’t have to face them on the day of judgment. There’s been many questions about what is meant and if he’s talking about the church as a whole or just these men, the apostles. And I think the Catholic Church, and I don’t necessarily disagree with him on this point, I think the Catholic Church would say this is essentially talking about a special apostolic authority. that not all believers have, but all apostles have. And, of course, the Catholic Church exercises this through what they call apostolic succession. They know the apostles are dead now, but they believe that before the apostles died, there were people appointed to be their replacements in the next generation, and before those died, there were people who replaced them in the next generation, so that there was essentially a succession of the authority of the apostles through the ages And the Catholic Church believes, the Roman Catholic Church believes, that the Roman Church has leaders that are the most modern representatives of that succession. So they believe the Pope is, of course, the Bishop of Rome. He’s got the authority of Peter. And the bishops in general have the authority of the apostles. And therefore, that’s why, I don’t know if you’re Catholic or not. I’m not. Never was. But if a person is not a Catholic, but they know that Catholics go to the church and they go into a confessional and they confess sins to a priest and the priest then says, okay, you’ll say this many Hail Mary, say this many Our Fathers and light this many candles and your sins are forgiven. They would say the priest has the authority to forgive their sins because he’s the agent of the apostolic Roman Catholic Church and that the church was given that authority. Now, You know, I don’t see, first of all, I don’t believe that apostolic succession is in the Bible at all. And I don’t believe there is apostolic succession. So whatever authority Christ gave to the apostles does not necessarily belong to some ordained clergyman in some religious movement today. The apostles were unique. I mean, the 12 foundation stones of the New Jerusalem have the names of the 12 apostles on them. They are still the apostles. They’re still the same people. apostles as before. They didn’t need to be succeeded because they never left office, even when they died. Even in heaven, there’s still the twelve, I believe. Now, sometimes the Catholic Church will say, well, when Peter died, or not when Peter, but when Judas died, they replaced him. Yeah, but Judas left his position. It says he left his office. And the other apostles didn’t. So, you know, his place was made vacant, not by his death, but by his apostasy. The other apostles died too, but they didn’t leave their positions vacant. And when James, the brother of John, the son of Zebedee, died in Acts chapter 12, no one suggested he needed to be replaced. He died, but he died faithful. So he continues to be one of the 12 apostles, even now. So I don’t believe there’s any apostolic succession taught in Scripture. I think we all are subject to the teachings of the apostles. But what exactly was it that he said they had the authority to do? And he said, whoever sins you retain, they are retained. And whoever sins you remit, they are remitted. Well, again, I don’t believe that meant that they could just walk around, you know, just forgiving everybody’s sins. Because like I said, even Jesus didn’t do that. And I don’t think that the apostles ever did that. If they could, I’m sure they would. If I could, I would. I mean, if I could walk around and forgive everybody’s sins and announce them, okay, you’re saved now, no matter what you think about God, no matter how you feel about your sin, you’re just saved. I declare it. Of course, I don’t think the apostles had that authority. If they did, they never knew it or never exercised it. So what does it mean? Now, Protestants usually think that this statement could apply not just to the apostles, but it could apply to any Christian, that if we preach the gospel… of the forgiveness of sins, then people’s sins will be forgiven. And we will be announcing the forgiveness of their sins through the cross, through the gospel. And therefore, if we announce their forgiveness, then if we preach them, they can be forgiven, and will be, many of them. Not all will. And yet, if we do not preach the forgiveness of sins, people will not come to Christ and they will not be forgiven. They’ll be retained. So some see it more of a generic kind of a thing that the church is given the task and the stewardship of announcing the truth of the gospel so that people’s sins can be forgiven. In that sense, the church is forgiving men’s sins by announcing the forgiveness of sins. And people can be forgiven if they hear about that. But if they don’t hear about it, they won’t be. So that’s kind of a fairly common Protestant way of looking at it. I don’t really know which way to take it. I’m willing to take it as just being an apostolic, what should we say, commission to preach the forgiveness of sins and to let people know that their sins are forgiven, just like Jesus did when they are. But I don’t think they have the authority of God himself to simply say, forgive people unilaterally. And I don’t think the Catholic Church necessarily says they do. I think the Catholic Church would see it probably similarly to what I do in that they feel like if the person’s repentant, if the person has done what’s necessary for forgiveness, they can announce, okay, your sins are forgiven. You’re absolved. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church sometimes thinks that such conditions for forgiveness includes lighting candles and saying Hail Marys and things like that, which of course have nothing to do with acquiring forgiveness of sins. So even if they kind of have a right concept about the apostolic authority there, I don’t think that they quite understand what it means for people to come to Christ and be justified and have the forgiveness of sins. So there’s more than one way this could be seen. You know, one thing I’ve thought, and I don’t know if anyone else teaches it this way or not, and I’m not sure it’s right or it could be wrong, I thought it may be that we are, since we’re a kingdom of priests, that we have the authority to forgive people of sins that they commit against us or not. We are supposed to. Jesus told us to forgive people. And if we don’t forgive, we won’t be forgiven. But is it only important for our salvation that we forgive other people or does it have some impact on them too? If somebody steals from me, let’s say someone takes money from me and I’m damaged by the loss, I can forgive them for it. And if I do, they are forgiven. No one can extract it from them. No one can make them pay me back if I forgive them. On the other hand, if I don’t forgive them, nobody else can say they don’t owe me the debt. That is to say, only I can forgive people and release them from the guilt of things that they’ve done to me. If I don’t do it, they won’t be released from it. No matter what authority says, oh, we’ll let you go, well, they don’t have the right to let them go. I’m the injured party. Only the injured party can forgive or retain. And Jesus might be saying, not so much that we can just go out and forgive everybody randomly, but that people who have sinned against us, if we forgive them, then they will be forgiven for that sin because we stand in the place of Christ to do that. Now, remember Jesus on the cross said, Father, forgive them. They know not what they do. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he forgave them of all the sins of their whole life and they were all now saved just unilaterally by his statement. But rather he was forgiving them and interceding for them. about the sin against him that they were involved in at that moment. And Stephen did the same thing when Stephen was being stoned to death. He said, Father, do not lay this sin to their charge. And, you know, did he have the right to do that? I mean, did Stephen have, I mean, they were sinning against God, too, and not just Stephen. But did Stephen really have the right to say, God, let’s let him off on this one. please forgive them for this one. I think it’s recorded in Scripture because that was perhaps how Stephen understood it, that he was in the position to forgive them of sins against himself. And therefore, God would honor that and would not hold them accountable for that sin. They still had other sins to worry about, but they at least won’t have that on their record. I could be wrong about that, but it does seem like it’s very emphatic in the Scripture that we’re supposed to forgive people who do things against us. Jesus emphasized it many times to the point of saying, if we don’t do it, we won’t be forgiven. And Paul also urged us to forgive others who have sinned against us. And then we had the model of Jesus on the cross and Stephen when he’s being stoned. So it looks to me like maybe what Jesus is saying is we are expected to forgive people the sins they commit against us as agents of Christ, as priests. We forgive them. And God will forgive them because we did. But if we don’t, then he won’t. Unless, of course, I would say unless they repent on their own. That’s a different category of situation. So this is a hard passage. I’ve certainly wrestled with it for 50 years, honestly. But I’ve given a lot of thought. But, you know, there’s different ways it could go. And the third way, I’m kind of inclined to go the way I just described. Though, as I said, as a Protestant, I may be more inclined to say, you know, if Christians announce forgiveness of sins through the gospel, people will be forgiven. If Christians neglect to do that, they won’t be. So, in other words, their salvation is kind of on your head to preach to them. So that’s, I mean, that’s my educated guess.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, well, I agree with what you’re saying. Like, forgiveness is definitely one of the hardest things to do. But it’s, yeah, I mean, it helps yourself, right? And it’s like the old saying, right? You know, revenge or vengeance or whatever is like having your enemy or drinking poison and hoping the enemy dies, like that type of thing. So that type of wisdom is in there, and I believe all that. But like both Jesus and Stephen, they were both asking God the Father, right? For forgiveness. And Jesus also did forgive people’s sins. So I heard you say a couple times that he didn’t, like this scripture that says that he forgave people’s sins. And so my understanding is only God, like only Jesus, can forgive sins.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I didn’t say that Jesus didn’t forgive sins. I even gave an example where he did. I could give more examples, but the example I gave was when the man was lowered by his four friends through the roof, Jesus said, your sins are forgiven you. And the Pharisees said, well, who has the authority? Only God has the authority to forgive sins. And Jesus said, well, I actually do have, the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. And so, I mean, but to say your sins are forgiven, does that mean that Jesus is saying, I forgive you? Or has he been authorized by God to announce to repentant sinners that God forgives them? He just says your sins are forgiven. He didn’t say, I forgive you, or God the Father forgives you, but I guess I’m inclined to believe Jesus was here to speak for God about those things. But it was God, the Father, who forgives when Jesus does. And I believe, perhaps, that the verse you’re asking about in John suggests that it’s the same way with us. We can forgive and God the Father will forgive them for sins they’ve done against us. because of the agency that he’s given us in this. But, I mean, actually, if you don’t think that’s a good answer, that’s okay. You don’t have to agree with me. By the way, I live in the awareness that probably 90% or 99% of the Christians who hear me disagree with me about something, and it doesn’t really matter. I’ve never expected everyone to agree with me. So if it doesn’t work for you, go with the one that does. All right. Let’s talk to Eric from Sacramento, California. Hi, Eric. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, Steve, how you doing?
SPEAKER 03 :
Good.
SPEAKER 04 :
Good, good. Hey, just a quick question. So I was wondering, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine, and he posed this to me, and I was just wondering what your thoughts would be on this. So what would you say to how you or Christians in general look different, like objectively in the eyes of the world, like to atheists or to unbelievers? versus like a Muslim or LDS or Jehovah’s Witness in terms of a changed life. So someone says, oh, I’m a Muslim. You know, my life was changed when I became a Muslim or I was, you know, when I became LDS or became Jehovah’s Witness, my life was changed versus how a Christian, you know, our lives are changed, you know.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, so how is the change in our life becoming Christian’s? How does that differ or how is that any more impressive than the change that people have in other religions? Is that your question?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, objectively, like objectively from the world, like looking at us.
SPEAKER 03 :
Sure. Well, the one thing we have to remember is the world looking at us can’t see anything except our outward behavior. And I believe there’s many ways people can change their outward behavior, including atheists. I mean, if an atheist is an angry wife-beater or whatever, and he goes to some decent counseling or whatever, he might get a hold of his temper and do better and not beat his wife anymore. If an atheist is an alcoholic and a drug abuser or something like that, there are ways besides religion. to improve in those ways. It’s not only Christians, not only Mormons, not only Muslims improve their lives, but even non-Christians can improve their lives. But again, you were talking about observably for the world to look on. The Bible does not indicate that Christians are the only people who will live an outwardly good life. Certainly, there are very clean living people People like the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses or even other religions that don’t associate with Christ at all. So, you know, that’s not the issue. What Jesus does differently is he gives you a new life, which is changed on the inside, and outward behavior then is generated from that inward change. Now, I’m not saying that even other religions and even non-religious philosophies don’t change somebody on the inside in the sense that they may change their mind about something. I mean, if you became a devout follower of Allah and you cared about the strict morality of the highest forms of Islam, it might be true that your mind has changed and it brings forth better behavior. But the thing is that the heart is still the heart of a sinner. And what Christ does is he sets his people free from sin. Not perfectly initially, but gradually. And, you know, if you looked at my life, you might not be able to tell if I’m a better person than a good Muslim or a good Mormon. And maybe my outward life is not really any better than theirs. The question is, do I have a heart that’s been cleansed by the blood of Christ? Do I have the spirit of God? Does the fruit of the Spirit cause me to do better things because I have a better heart, because I have the fruit of the Spirit, the love of God in my heart? That would be a difference, but it’s not observably different to people. Well, it might be over time, but it’s not something everyone can tell by a glance. That would be the main difference, I would say. Hey, I wish I had more time to talk about this. We have a hard break coming up. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be right back.
SPEAKER 02 :
Tell your family, tell your friends, tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to sell you but everything to give you. And that’s The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. When today’s radio show is over, go to your social media and send a link to thenarrowpath.com where everyone can find free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. And tell them to listen live right here on the radio. Thank you for sharing listener-supported The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour, taking your calls. Our lines are full right now, again, but if you’d like to call a little later, you might find a line open. The number is 844-484-5737. We were talking to Eric from Sacramento before the break, and he’s not on the line anymore, but I just want to say a little more than I had time to because the break just kind of crowded us out. His question was, you know, if the world looks on our lives and sees that Christianity or that following Christ has made us better people, that’s obviously a good testimony, but couldn’t in some cases they look on the life of a good Mormon or a good Muslim? or a good Buddhist, or someone who’s not a Christian, and see that that person’s life in many ways has been made better too. And I don’t deny it. I don’t deny it. Following Christ is not the only way to improve your behavior in certain areas. Anyone who fears God may well end up giving up on habits that people who don’t fear God would continue to live in. And most religions have some fear of God if they believe in a God. Now, Buddhists don’t believe in a God, but Muslims do and Jews do and Christians and Christian cultists do. And therefore, if they’re sincere and they love God and they fear God, probably their life will be better, just like a real Christian’s life will be better. But The thing that is distinctive about the Christian, at least Jesus said, will be distinctive of Christians, is that we love one another as God loved us, or as Christ loved us, and gave himself for us. And he said, greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Now, a lot of people who aren’t Christians will lay their lives down for a good friend, or maybe especially for a family member, especially for their children probably. and maybe other family members, a decent person will give their life for certain people that matter to them a lot. But Jesus died for people who weren’t only his friends. It says that he, in Romans 5, says he died for us when we were his enemies. Paul says it’s not that uncommon for someone to lay down his life for a good man. But Christ died for bad people, for enemies, sinners. And so this is the thing that if you love someone basically unconditionally just because they are made in the image of God and God loves them, and you know that your father loves them and whoever wants to please God loves whoever he loves, you’re going to find that self-sacrificing behavior, including laying down your life entirely, will be done by somebody who’s like Christ. And Christ died not just for the good people, but for the bad people, and for the people who were crucifying him. So you don’t find much in other religions of people necessarily doing that. But even if you do find some who would do that because of their religion, it’s likely that they’re doing so because they fear the retribution that their religion threatens upon those who don’t do those things. Now, I realize there’s people who call themselves Christians, and maybe they are, who do good behavior and loving things, mainly because they’re afraid of the consequences before God of not doing those things because they’re commanded. But Christianity, or I should say real regeneration, becoming a true disciple of Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit and being born again, changes you in another way. Of course, the fear of God should always be present. The Bible says that’s the beginning of wisdom. But you reach a point when you know God and you love God that if there were no consequences at all, you’d still do the right thing. That is, even if there’s no punishment to be had for doing what’s wrong, you would still do what’s right just out of love for God. That’s what the difference is. I mean, if Christianity doesn’t make that difference in a person’s life, you’ve got a great point. How is Christianity different than other religions? Apparently not. It isn’t much different, except obviously some people say, well, the main difference is that in Christianity we have forgiveness of sins. We have an atonement in the blood of Christ, and other religions don’t have that. And that, of course, is true. But that’s not the thing that’s visible to the world. That is a huge difference. I mean, it’s a world of difference between Christ and other faiths. But in terms of the improvement of a person’s life by being a Christian, I would say that the principal improvement that shows someone has really been regenerated is that they do things out of love for God and love for people and not strictly out of fear that the neglect of doing something good will be punished. Now, we may believe in punishment. You know, it’s like I believe that if I had, you know, set my parents’ car on fire deliberately when I was a kid, I probably expected that I’d get punished for that, of course. But I didn’t do it, and I wouldn’t do it even if there was no punishment. I mean, I would not do it because it’s not a very nice thing to do. To my parents, obviously. You love people. You don’t want to hurt them or have them suffer loss in your hands. And that’s true whether there’s any penalty for doing so or not. So we are being changed. When you’re born again, you begin to be changed in your heart and your motives. And the Holy Spirit develops the fruit of the Spirit in you, which, like other fruit, has to ripen and grow and mature. You’re not perfect at the beginning, but he’s making you more perfect in that. Perfect love. The Bible says fear has not been made perfect in love yet. So being perfected in love is the goal. So you’re going to find non-Christians in various religions and even atheists probably who live pretty decent lives. Maybe more decent than some Christians live. But that doesn’t prove Christianity is wrong because it’s possible that those people who live, let’s just say an atheist who lives a good life and a Christian who who’s struggling and doesn’t live quite as good, we don’t know whether that Christian would have been a lot worse if they weren’t a Christian. And it’s hard to say how much Christianity or following Christ has made an improvement on them, and they’re progressing and growing. It’s hard to know how much better that atheist would be if he became a follower of God. So we don’t know. Everyone’s got to be judged by God’s own understanding of all those things. But it should be, at the very least, that people should see Christians exhibiting the love of Christ and living in obedience to Christ. And initially that might not look a whole lot different than someone who’s not a Christian who’s very religious and lives a good life. But over time, Christians do mature and they become like Christ. And no one in any other religion really does. Because it’s the spirit of Christ in the believer of Christ. that transforms us from glory to glory into that same image. Well, let’s see here. We’ve got a lot of people waiting here. Next in line is Randy in Redlands, California. Hi, Randy. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey, Steve. Even some Christians claim that the Ten Commandments are true morals, yet the Sabbath man does not seem to meet the definition of a true moral, which is in place all the time, everywhere. but the Sabbath command also had the death penalty for profaning it, just like the other moral laws. If we applied this practice today, though, of capital punishment, I think it would actually be considered immoral, let’s say, putting someone to death for mowing the lawn or something like that. At one time, this was appropriate, so I just kind of wonder what your thoughts are on this.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay. Well, first of all, not all of the moral laws had the death penalty attached to their violation. Obviously, adultery dishonor of parents and murder definitely had the death penalty attached to them. But there were other moral laws in the Ten Commandments, like you should not steal or you should not bear false witness, which didn’t necessarily have the death penalty attached. The law of Moses gave different penalties for it because not all moral infractions are equally harmful to a people. And, you know, for example, if you stole a lamb and you were caught… and you couldn’t replace lamb because you’d already gotten rid of it or eaten it or whatever, you had to replace that lamb with four lambs. If what you had stolen was an ox, you’d have to restore it with five oxen, which is really something. That’s a big difference economically, but that’s because the stealing of an ox is a bigger economic burden upon the person who loses it than the lamb. There’s the theft of property, which is forbidden, obviously, in the Eighth Commandment. Or the Ninth, excuse me, the Ninth Commandment. No, it’s the Eighth. That wasn’t a death penalty. Now, you should not bear false witness against your brother, which is the Ninth Commandment. That comes with a penalty, too, if you’re caught at it. That is, if you’re in court… and you testify against somebody and they’re innocent and you’re lying, you’re bearing a false witness against them, and then you’re found to be a liar, then your penalty is said to be the penalty they would have received had they been found guilty, because that’s the penalty you were wishing upon them wrongfully. So if you accuse someone of stealing, then whatever penalty he would have had to pay if he was found guilty, when he’s actually found innocent, you have to pay that same penalty. If you’re accusing him of a capital crime and he’s found innocent, then you suffer capital punishment. So it’s proportionate. Stealing and bearing false witness, stealing never had a capital punishment attached to it. Bearing false witness might or might not. So to say that these moral commands in the Ten Commandments all have the death penalty, that’s not really the case. Now, there are things that did carry the death penalty in the Ten Commandments, like a blaspheming God, you know. Worshiping idols, those are forbidden in the Ten Commandments. Also, if you struck your parents or cursed them, that’s dishonoring your parents. If you murdered, if you committed adultery, those were death penalty things. Now, I think what you said was that in our society, even though we might still see those things as bad things, we wouldn’t think it right to put people to death for those things. I think most people still, well, I’m not sure, probably most Christians still think it’s okay and proper to kill a murderer, but they probably wouldn’t apply that to someone who cursed their parents or who committed adultery. I wouldn’t object to them doing so, though. I’ll tell you what, there wouldn’t be much adultery or much cursing of parents in any society where they did put them to death for that. It wouldn’t take very many times enforcing that before that behavior would just pretty much disappear almost completely. Our society endures that, permits that, doesn’t punish it at all, and therefore it proliferates. So God never did attach an unjust penalty. Because God simply cannot do anything unjust. He’s perfectly just. So if we read in the law that certain behaviors were subjected to certain penalties, we have to assume that, well, if God assigned that penalty, that’s what it deserves. But that doesn’t mean that in a society like ours, which is not Israel and which was not given that law, that we should go out and kill blasphemers or kill people who worship idols or kill people who necessarily kill people who dishonor their parents, although, I mean, some of that we might reasonably rethink, but the idolatry and stuff like that, that was a capital crime in Israel because they were a covenant nation which had agreed to live in a faithful covenant to God and to worship idols was like having sex with someone who’s not your husband if you’re a woman. It was adultery against God. So Israel was in a different situation. America doesn’t have that kind of a covenant. No nation does. No nation in the world today, including Israel, has that covenant with God. So, you know, we are not under the obligation to exercise all the same penalties for bad behavior. We still recognize it as bad behavior, but as Christians… We’re not living in a society that has a covenant relation with God and has agreed with God to keep these commandments and has agreed to all these penalties. They may be just penalties, but we live in a country that not everybody is a Jew. Not everybody is a Christian. Not everyone believes in the Bible. This country is set up. as a pluralistic society. You can be an atheist. You can be a Hindu. You can be anything you want in this country, and the Constitution gives you permission to do that. So it would be ridiculous for American law to put the death penalty on someone worshiping idols. It’s not wrong for God to do that with Israel, because Israel was set up as a society in covenant with God. We’re not. And therefore, Christians can still recognize the wrongness of these behaviors. We could even say they deserve that kind of penalty. But because not everyone in our country has a relationship with God, we can’t expect them to live by all those standards. Now, the moral laws where an infraction damages someone else in the society, I don’t say we shouldn’t use the same penalties the Bible prescribed for them. because those are not based strictly on the idea that Israel had a covenant with God. Those have to do with protecting society and citizens from other citizens. And that’s what governments are for, to protect from that and to punish criminals, the Bible says. So although we’re not living in a society that follows the Ten Commandments or even is obligated to, the Sabbath command, for example, That’s strictly a religious obligation that Israel had. It’s never been given to anybody else. Even the New Testament doesn’t place it on Christians. But it was placed on Israel. And certainly non-Christians were never expected to keep the Sabbath. So it would be ridiculous or wrong. to have a law that, you know, if you gathered sticks on the Sabbath in America, you should be put to death. Well, America isn’t Israel. It doesn’t have the same basis of foundation. There’s not the same understanding between us and God that there was with Israel. Israel was unique, and the Bible says that. God said it himself. They were unique, a special people, a covenant people with him. That’s not what America is. So there’s a lot to be sorted through here, but the Ten Commandments are not necessarily… the basic rule for the Christian, because like you said, there’s the Sabbath in there. That’s not even a moral thing. That’s a ritual thing, just like new moons and festivals and things on the calendar that make some days different than other days. That’s all ritual. That’s not moral, because there are no days that are different than other days in God’s sight. At least the Christian has every right to, Paul said, to say that I observe every day alike. Some people observe one day above another, he says, in Romans 14.5. But other Christians say, yeah, I just observe every day alike. And that’s okay, too, because there’s no obligation to do otherwise. Pardon?
SPEAKER 06 :
i just quite i don’t understand um you know it must have been difficult for the israelites to stone other people to death over breaking the sabbath it doesn’t seem like another moral you know he murders one thing and adultery is another thing but you know just trying to understand why it was appropriate for breaking the sabbath it’s a little more difficult well it was a it was a violation of a covenant agreement they agreed to do it and um
SPEAKER 03 :
Frankly, it’s not hard not to break the Sabbath. If you intend to keep the Sabbath, I don’t, because I’m not under the law of Moses. But if you’re a Jew under the law, anyone who intends to keep the Sabbath can do so. All it requires is you don’t do the same work you do other days. And it’s not as if there’s some compelling temptation that can’t be resisted to work on the Sabbath. the people who would break the Sabbath did so because they simply didn’t intend to keep it. And if someone didn’t intend to keep it, they didn’t belong in Israel because that was the mark of the covenant. It says in Exodus chapter 30 or 31, one of those two, it says that the Sabbath was the mark of the covenant, the sign of the covenant they had with God. So, you know, it’s like if they didn’t do it, they’re renouncing the covenant. And that’s not a light matter. People who don’t want to give God his due often think, well, that shouldn’t be that big a deal. So what? We ignore God. So what? Lots of people do that. Well, lots of people do do that, but God’s people aren’t allowed to do that. And so there were strong penalties for it. Now, it wasn’t the same, for example, if somebody ate unclean food. That was not a death penalty thing. But breaking the Sabbath in the Old Testament was. All right. I need to take another call, but thank you for your call. Let’s see. We’ll talk next to Buck in Edmonds, Washington. Buck, welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi.
SPEAKER 05 :
My question is concerning historic creeds. Now, in a recent program, Steve, or maybe it was a recorded lecture, which I confess I was only half listening to, but here’s my question. Did I understand you to imply or say that you did not affirm the historic creeds? Which ones are you thinking of?
SPEAKER 03 :
There’s been dozens of His Heart creeds. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church only accepts the first seven of them, and Protestants usually don’t accept that many of them. There are dozens of them. So, you know, which ones do you mean?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, then let’s just keep our context to the Apostles and the Niacin.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay. Okay. Well, the Apostles’ Creed, I think, basically states things, you know, essentially as all Christians believe, with the possible exception of any reference to Jesus descending into hell. The Bible doesn’t mention him descending into hell. I’m not sure why that would have to be part of a creed. And, you know, it’s certainly not part of the gospel. So if a person believed everything in the Apostles’ Creed and did not believe, particularly necessarily believe that Jesus descended into hell they would have scripture at least on their side and I don’t see why we should have to confirm what a creed says unless it says the same thing that Jesus or the apostles said as far as the Nicene Creed the Nicene Creed by the way The Nicene Creed was arguing over an issue that Christians actually disagreed about for a few centuries. That’s why they had the Nicene Council. The Nicene Council meant to try to come to an agreement on the doctrine of the deity of Christ. which some Christians believed one way and some believed another way and had done so for generations. And so they decided, well, let’s see if we can reach some agreement. So they got the bishops together and they came up with a creed, which I personally agree with. I do agree with an icing creed. But it’d be hard to say that people who didn’t believe in that creed before it was made, because it was made, what, 325 A.D.? Right. For the first 300 years of Christianity, Christians did not hold to the Nicene Creed because it didn’t exist. And Christians had some different ways of understanding things that are addressed in that creed. The creed, of course, what it did was reach what they hoped would be an agreement and to help the Christians who had seen things differently to see them all the same way. But I don’t really know that a group of bishops voting on something suddenly makes it mandatory for people to follow the bishop’s conscience instead of their own conscience. So as far as I’m concerned… we are to believe what we find written in Scripture. Now, I don’t know which, like what branch of Christianity you might be part of yourself, but I’m a Protestant, which means I don’t believe that the creeds have the same kind of authority that the Scripture does. And therefore, you know, if John Huss or Martin Luther or Tyndale or some other guys held some things differently than the Catholic Church did, the Catholic Church considered that to be heretical and damnable and even worthy of being burned at the stake. And they They suited their action to the deed, in many cases, to the words about that, in many cases. So I don’t believe that. I don’t believe people should be burned at the stake for having a different opinion about something. Now, if somebody’s opinion is Jesus is not the Son of God, or Jesus is not the Messiah, or Jesus is not the Lord and King, well, then they don’t have any Christian belief at all, because those are essentially what the Bible says. one has to believe in order to be saved. But if it comes to describing the deity of Christ a certain way, differently than somebody else does, I’d say either one or both parties are wrong. They can’t both be right if they’re different. But are either of them really denying the faith? I mean, especially if when we say the faith, we mean the faith as it was defined in 325 A.D., Oh, weren’t there people in the faith before 325 A.D.? I think there were, and they didn’t all have the same opinion. So, in my opinion, it may have been a virtuous thing for the bishops to get together and try to say, listen, we don’t agree here, let’s try to hammer out some agreement, and for them to do so to the extent that they could. I’m not against that enterprise. But what they should have done, in my opinion, is recognized bishops that people who were Christians before they got together and did that could still have been Christians if they were followers of Christ before they used those kinds of words to explain the deity of Christ. The truth is the Bible doesn’t explain it clearly. It announces it. I believe the Bible teaches the deity of Christ. But as far as filling in details, there’s not much there as to how to explain that phenomenon. It’s a great mystery. So if Christians don’t see that mystery explained exactly the same way, I really don’t see how that makes them not Christians. Unless, of course, we decide that being a Christian means you accept all the opinions. that the church councils arrive at, in which case I guess only Roman Catholics are Christians because, like I said, Eastern Orthodox Church only follows the first seven councils’ creeds, and Protestants don’t accept that many of them. So I don’t see creeds per se as something that’s mandatory for the church to come up with or for Christians to believe. I think that all Christians should desire to believe accurately, And I think in the pursuit of that goal should study the Bible and pray and meditate on Scripture and do their best to understand things. And people who have perhaps inferior thinking skills, maybe they should just go with what the creeds say, which could be, I mean, I don’t have any objection to the creeds. I just think that a creed, to me, is just like a Christian book by a good biblical scholar. It presents what looks like a reasonable analysis of what the Bible says on a subject. But in many cases, what we could call a reasonable analysis may not be the only possible analysis. And so I benefit from reading books by Christian scholars. who know more than I do about some things. But on the other hand, if I can see that something they say is not actually taught in Scripture, maybe a blind spot on the part of the authors or whatever, but I feel the liberty to follow what I think the Scripture says because I can read the Bible too. See, I don’t assume that anyone who’s a church leader necessarily has authority uh skills unavailable to me or to you in terms of reading the bible and understanding i do think that people who’ve read it more who’ve studied it more deeply who’ve meditated on it day and night for decades i think they’re more likely to see it correctly than than someone else but uh but still jesus said father i thank you that you’ve hidden these things from the wise and prudent And reveal them to babes. You don’t have to be an educated person to understand the Bible or the Gospel adequately. You just have to have God reveal it to you. And that happens as you study the Scripture with, I think, an open and faithful mind. And ask the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth. But I don’t think any of us reach full agreement or full… I don’t think we have omniscience. I don’t think I’ll die today. with omniscience, even though I do learn more all the time. So even if I haven’t learned at all, and will learn more, I don’t expect to know everything. Nor do I expect the bishops. I don’t think the bishops know everything either. I’m out of time. I wish I wasn’t. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let’s talk again Monday.
