On Air
Mon - Fri: 12:00 AM - 12:30 AM & 11:00 AM - 11:30 AM
In today’s episode of The Narrow Path, host Steve Gregg navigates through listener questions and offers spiritual insights into various aspects of Christian faith. The episode opens with upcoming events in Northern California where Steve will be speaking. Moving into a heartfelt dialogue with a caller named Elijah from Florida, Steve shares wisdom on relationships, faith, and the discerning process of marriage decisions within a Christian context.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
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. We have an open phone line for you to call in if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or maybe about something you’ve heard the host say that you think is not correct and you’d like to bring correction. I’ll be glad to talk to you. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. 5737. Now, tomorrow, which is Friday, and then on the weekend and through Monday, I’m going to be in various parts of Northern California. I’m going to be speaking tomorrow night and the next night at two different locations in San Jose, California. And by the way, I don’t even know if I’ve spoken in venues in San Jose before, which is kind of strange, but in any case, it’d be rare. for me to be in San Jose. And so that’s going to happen tomorrow night and the next night, two different churches. And then on Sunday afternoon, I have a gathering, a meeting, a Q&A in Santa Cruz, where I used to live. So that’s Sunday. Then Monday, I’ll be way up in Ukiah, California. And if you live way up there or are going to be going up that way, you can join us there if you’d like to. I believe that’s going to be also held in a church building. So I don’t book these things myself, so I’m not even that familiar with some of the locations. But I’ll be speaking the next four nights up in San Jose, Santa Cruz, and Ukiah. If you’re in the area or want to know how to attend those meetings, you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. That’s thenarrowpath.com. and look under Announcements, and you’ll get all the information you need about that. Okay, and that’s all I really need to say. Before we go to the phones, we’re going to talk to Elijah in Florida. Welcome to The Narrow Path, Elijah. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hello, Steve. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my call and for your ministry. I don’t have a biblical question about the Bible, but more so about the person below God and the I need some wisdom and guidance maybe you can suggest me something and this is something has to do with the marriage topic that has been on my mind for a long time and so basically there’s this girl that I like and she is a godly woman that I’ve knew for a few years now and We get along really well and lately we’re noticing more and more how God has been living through that and kind of showing me how this is more so not to do with Samaya. Emotions towards her, but the faith that he shows in different ways that she’s probably the one. Unless I’m somehow deeply delusional. But the thing is that I think that she does like me and a lot of characteristics that I have. But when I speak to her and ask about her feelings towards me, she says that she doesn’t have the answer from God. She’s unsure about me yet, even though I am. And I’m just in this situation. I don’t know should I continue to pray more fast and just wait for something to happen from some kind of answer from her, or should I just propose and give her some time to decide?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I will say that if you speak to a woman about your interest in her, and she says she doesn’t know what the will of God is in the matter, she may be trying to be polite. I mean, desirable women… often get a lot of men looking for a good woman and some of these men may not be what they’re looking for, but a good woman wants to be polite and she may just say, well, I’ll have to pray about that or something. I mean, I’m not saying she’s not being honest. Maybe she will pray about it, but it doesn’t sound like she has quite the same interest in marriage to you that you seem to have, but I mean, you can certainly pray about it. You can certainly ask God to see if her heart will change and then be patient. But, you know, I would just say that when someone says, you know, I don’t know if it’s the will of God for us to get married, at one level it seems to me like they’re not very eager to get married in this situation. And they might be… They might be eager, but they would probably let you know that I have an interest, but I’m not sure of the will of God. But on the other hand, she might just be a way of saying that I don’t have a strong interest. If God tells me to do it, maybe I’ll do it, but I… I don’t know the situation. You and she have a friendship. There’s some kind of dynamics between you. You’ve obviously got an interest in her that sounds like it’s more than her interest in you at this point. And, yeah, I wouldn’t crowd her, you know, if she said she needs time to pray about it or if she just, you know, it might be more useful if she’s not interested for her to just tell you that because it keeps you, you know, undecided or stringing along. So… I don’t know. If she doesn’t know you well enough, if that’s the issue, well, then I would say see if she wants to get to know you better. I mean, go out places together, get to know each other, and then maybe she will know you well enough. How long have you guys actually been friends?
SPEAKER 05 :
For over a year.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Okay. Well, and during that time, have you seen each other a lot or just kind of casually once in a while? Or have you ever been out together?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, of course, because we’ve been in the same youth. So we’ll always spend time together and sort of time that we will do something.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, why don’t you ask her, since I don’t know her and I can’t tell you what she’s thinking. Why don’t you ask her? Obviously, you don’t feel like you know me well enough to make a decision like that. Would you be interested in getting to know each other better? And, you know, and we can spend more time together. She might say no. She might say yes. But actually, I can’t really advise you about it because I don’t know what she’s thinking. But I would just ask her perhaps directly and say, well, you know, I have an interest in this relationship going someplace that I don’t know if you’re interested in it going anywhere, so I don’t want to push you or I don’t want to assume anything. Maybe you could give me some idea of what your thoughts are and your feelings are about it. If she just says, I don’t know you well enough or I need to pray about it, I don’t know the will of God, well, in a sense, she’s not telling you anything about what her inclinations are. I mean, it sounds that way, you know, that she may be saying, hey, stay tuned, you know, Stay tuned for an update. When I get to know you better, I might be interested. Or she might be putting you off. I would just ask her for more clarity on that because you don’t want to have your heart hanging out there if she’s really not going to be interested. But you need to ask her, what would she like you to be thinking about the relationship at this point? If she says, well, I’d like you to kind of lay back and have nothing, you know, not push anything. just pray about it, just be friends, well then she’s probably not real eager to pursue the kind of relationship that you’re looking for. And you might do better looking for someone else. Which is a hard thing to hear. I mean, when someone thinks and feels the way you do. I mean, it’s a hard thing to hear. But if it’s the truth, it’s better for you to hear it early on so you can adjust your thinking in the situation.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, like I said, I’ve known her for a while now, and I know that she likes a lot of my traits, but she knows that it’s a guy that doesn’t give her direct answer, even though I believe that she could be the one, and it seems like… Well, she’s the one, she’ll be the one if the two of you actually get married.
SPEAKER 02 :
If she’s not interested in marriage, then I’d say she’s probably not the one, and you might look somewhere else, but That’s what you need to find out. You know, many years ago, decades ago, when I was single and I had a child I was raising alone, I was interested in a certain woman. And, you know, we’re friends. And I had a strong feeling that she may not be interested in me in a romantic way, but I was starting to have feelings toward her. So I just told her. I just put my cards on the table and said, you know, I’m – I’m a single dad. There’s a lot of men around you who probably would be interested in dating you. I’m interested, but I just want you to know that my interest would be with the intention of seeing you, getting to know you with the mind of hopefully having marriage in view because I’m not I’ve got a child I’m raising. I plan to get married someday, if the Lord permits. And I said, you know, how do you feel about that? Well, it turned out she said she’s not uncomfortable with that. So we pursued it, and we got married eventually. She’s my wife who actually got killed in an accident six months after we got married, which obviously was a hard thing. But, I mean, I just didn’t like living with the mystery. I know I like her. I don’t know if she likes me. I’m just going to put my cards on the table. If she says, well, I’m not comfortable with that, or I am, that will give me some idea of which way to go. That’s what I would actually recommend probably that you would do also. Nelson from San Diego, California. Welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Steve. How are you doing?
SPEAKER 02 :
I’m good, thanks.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, I hope you’re enjoying your travels in the North Country there. I miss seeing you on the Saturday Bible studies.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, yeah. I’ve been out of town a lot lately.
SPEAKER 08 :
Go ahead. Yeah, I have two questions, if I might. The first one is, it seems that the New Testament was written by the apostles, if I’m not mistaken, except for maybe Hebrews and Luke. And so my first question is, how did Luke get in the mix of the inspired writers And my second question is, I’m reading your book, Empire of the Risen Son, which is great. And it says, I’m reading chapter 18, where it says, entering the kingdom. And it says, one of the sections here says, that Peter said, repent, believe, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit. And I’m wondering what you would consider some evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit would be. It seems to be a secondary act other than just initial conversion. So I’ll take my answer off the line. Thanks, Carl.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Thanks for calling, Nelson. All right. Well, as far as the first question goes… which was how did Luke get into the mix of the works, the New Testament books were accepted into the New Testament on the basis of them being apostolic in authority. And that means that they were either written by an apostle or it was believed they were written under the supervision and with the approval of an apostle. That is, someone who was not just an early Christian, but someone who had special authorizations. Now, best of all, if it’s an apostle, Matthew was an apostle. John was an apostle, obviously. Paul was an apostle. James is called an apostle in the New Testament. Peter was an apostle. So those books that are written by those people, they belong in the New Testament without question. But Luke was not an apostle, and Mark was not an apostle. But Luke, it is well known, traveled for years with Paul, and almost certainly, in my opinion, was with Paul at the time that he was writing the book of Luke and the book of Acts, which means that Paul would have been probably reading the drafts before they were released. It’s hard to imagine that Paul and Luke traveling as partners in ministry for years and Luke writing a book about Jesus and then a book about Paul, that Paul wouldn’t be regularly interested in reading what he’s writing. And if the book didn’t have Paul’s approval, it would not have been… It would not have been preserved. Probably Luke wouldn’t have completed it. So Luke’s close association with Paul gives the impression that he probably wrote it under the supervision and at least with the approval of Paul. Likewise, Mark, the early church fathers said that Mark traveled with Peter. In fact, some of the church fathers indicated that Mark’s gospel is really the preaching of Peter that Mark translated into Greek. and wrote down Peter’s preaching. So with that understanding, it would be apostolic also. Now Hebrews, it was not known who wrote Hebrews, of course. It’s anonymous. But there was evidence that the writer of Hebrews was in Paul’s circle, might have been a close friend of Paul’s. Some have thought it might have been Luke. Some have thought it might be Barnabas. No one knows really who wrote Hebrews. But whoever it was mentions at the end of the book that he is traveling with Timothy, Now, Timothy, in the later years of Paul’s life, was inseparable from him, pretty much. I mean, Timothy was with Paul for years also, just like Luke was. And so if the author of Hebrews was traveling with Timothy, he would have been part of Paul’s circle as well, although his exact identity is never given. And so that’s one reason for accepting Hebrews. Now, Jude, James and Jude would be the only outliers here. The book of James is not written by one of the twelve apostles named James. There were two of the twelve apostles that were named James. But it’s always been believed that the book of James was written by another James, who was the brother of Jesus, half-brother of Jesus. And although he was not one of the twelve, Jesus made a special appearance to him after the resurrection. And as far as we know, it’s the only unbeliever that Jesus appeared to after his resurrection and before his ascension. He was singled out. And Paul refers to that James as an apostle, even though he wasn’t one of the twelve, just like Paul wasn’t one of the twelve. But James and Paul apparently were regarded as apostles by the other apostles. And that was good enough for James’ book to be included. Now, James was the brother of Jesus, and Jude gives no information about his identity except that he’s the brother of James. And it’s believed that Jude is another brother of Jesus. Jesus had four brothers that are named Simon, Judas, Joseph, and James. Not in that order. But Jude, as a brother of Jesus, might have been included because he, like James, was a brother of Jesus. We don’t have enough information about Jude in the Bible to know if he was regarded as an apostle, and therefore his book was one of the last ones to be accepted in the canon of the New Testament. It was held at arm’s length for a while, but I guess maybe they decided that if James was included as the brother of Jesus, Jude belonged there too. But if there’s any question about any of the books having apostolicity, it might be Jude. And it wouldn’t matter if they hadn’t included Jude when they finished the canon because almost everything in Jude is found in 2 Peter 2. Very few things are included in Jude apart from what’s in 2 Peter 2. So, I don’t know that we’d be the poorer for his not having been included, though I have no objection to him being included. So that’s, again, all the books were considered to be apostolic in authority, but not all of them were written by the pens of apostles. But the ones who wrote them who were not apostles were companions with the apostles, traveled with the apostles, almost certainly had the apostolic imprimatur on their writings, and that’s why they would be considered to be authoritative. Now, you asked about evidence for having received the Holy Spirit. Obviously, there are certain people who think that speaking in tongues is what they call the initial evidence of being filled with the Spirit. I don’t think the Bible ever presents tongues as the initial evidence. It is true in the book of Acts that quite a few people spoke in tongues when they received the Spirit, but we have also some cases in the Bible of people receiving the Spirit without any mention of tongues. We do know that Paul regarded tongues as one gift to the Spirit, though there were other gifts, too. And he didn’t indicate that there was any of the gifts that all people had who were filled with the Spirit. So I don’t know that he would say that all people have tongues if they’re filled with the Spirit. But Paul did speak of another category called the fruit of the Spirit. Now, fruit of the Spirit is what is produced by the Holy Spirit in a person’s life in their character. And, you know, Paul said that the fruit of the Spirit is, this is over, of course, in Galatians chapter 5, verses, what is it, 21 and 22 or 22 and 23, something like that. It says that the fruit of the Spirit is, is love and joy and peace. These are, you know, obviously character traits, goodness, self-control, faithfulness. These kinds of things are listed. It’s in Galatians 5, 22 and 23. So you’ve got the fruit of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, long-suffering. That means patience. Kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. These are the things that Paul says the Spirit produces in a person as we walk in the Spirit. So I would say the evidence of having the Spirit or being filled with the Spirit, the truer evidence than just speaking in tongues, would be to have the fruit of the Spirit. You’re walking in the Spirit, and these are the things that people find to be in you. This is the character of Christ reproduced in you through the Holy Spirit. And I’d say that’s much more indicative. of being filled with the Spirit because other things like tongues or prophecy or miracle working, the gifts of the Spirit, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13, you can have all of those. And if you don’t have love, you’re nothing. He said, if I spoke in tongues, the tongues of men and of angels, if I don’t have love, I’m just making a lot of noise. He said, if I could prophesy and understood all mysteries and had all knowledge, if I don’t have love, you know, it’s worth nothing. I’m worth nothing. So Paul indicates love. That, you know, those kinds of things, the presence of seeming gifts of the Holy Spirit are not evidence necessarily that you’ve got the Holy Spirit. In fact, Jesus said, many will say to me that day, Lord, we prophesied in your name. We cast out demons in your name. We did mighty works in your name, which has to do with apparently gifts of the Spirit. And he said, with many of them, I’ll say, I never knew you. Depart from me. So. You can have the gifts of the Spirit or what appear to be the gifts of the Spirit, and they can be fabricated. They can be counterfeit. So I wouldn’t suggest that speaking in tongues or prophesying or those things are the evidences that you have been filled with the Spirit. I would say those things might accompany it and sometimes do, but they would not be the proof in itself. I’ve always liked to quote Chuck Smith about this, my former pastor, because I liked what he said here. He said, I don’t care how high you can jump when the Holy Spirit hits you. I care how straight you walk when you come down. And in other words, the Holy Spirit’s main and most important evidence is how you walk. Are you walking in the fruit of the Spirit? That’s going to be more of an indicator than whatever gifts you have. At least I agree with Chuck on that. And so… That would be my position. All right. Let’s talk to Brian from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Brian, welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi. I had a question for you here. From my reading, it seems like the Old Testament saints, or whether Job or Abraham or whoever, were saved by what has been saved by faith. What are we to think about the unlearned? outside of that group of people. Usually when I read about it, most sites will say, well, they knew enough to be condemned to hell, but not go to heaven is usually what most of the… So you’re talking about people who have no access to the Bible, don’t have any special revelation. Right, maybe in North America or something like that. I guess I read Billy Graham. It said he thought he ran into different tribes and things where there was… Some folks were, he thought, were active, behaved differently. He did think that they could be saved, and he kind of got flogged for saying that, I guess.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, let me just say this. We can’t really say what God will do with such cases, but you mentioned the Old Testament saints, and even Job, who was not even a Jew. He was probably an Edomite, and yet he was godly. He worshipped God. He didn’t have any scripture. So he didn’t know the law of Moses, which had not been given yet. He probably had not had God visit him as Abraham had God do or Noah had. But Job just, you know, he feared God. He did it good. That’s what God said about him in Job chapter 1. And there’s no question that Job was a man of God, though he didn’t know what we know. Even the Old Testament saints like Abraham and David and Noah and Moses, they didn’t know what we know about the gospel. They might have known some things. Some of them knew there was a Messiah coming. But that’s not quite the same thing as knowing that Jesus would die on the cross and rise again and all that stuff that’s part of the gospel. So we have to assume that God has some kind of a way of, you know, judging people according to their response to what they do know. and not blaming them for what they can’t know because it wasn’t revealed to them, wasn’t made known in their day. There are people in the world today, in tribal areas and so forth, that have not been evangelists. So they’re kind of in an analogous position to people who lived before Jesus came because he hasn’t come to them yet. He hasn’t come to their world yet, hasn’t been brought to them. So we’d have to just say that God will do the fair thing. God knows the hearts. God knows if somebody is a person who is open to him, is responding the best they know to the light they have, and who would, if they heard the gospel, would therefore love it and embrace it. Some people think that after people die, sometimes that they’ll have the chance to actually see Jesus and make a decision then for him. But the Bible doesn’t say that. The Bible doesn’t really tell us anything about those who never hear the gospel. All the statements in the Bible about salvation are addressed either to people who have been saved or who know enough to be saved and are rejecting that. But there’s obviously another category, people who don’t know much of anything at all. And so God will do what’s right with those people. My suspicion is… don’t quote me on this because I don’t know, that God may just know which people would receive him because of the state their heart is in. And so he won’t count them as enemies. But they would still, without hearing the gospel, still miss out on the purpose of living, which is to follow Jesus and to serve God and to be a light to the world. They won’t have that if they don’t hear about Christ. But what God will do with them on the judgment day is really going to be his decision. And I’m confident that he’s very merciful. I need to take a break here. I appreciate your call. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. We have another half hour coming up, so don’t go away. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Stick around.
SPEAKER 01 :
If truth did exist, would it matter to you? Whom would you consult as an authority on the subject? In a 16-lecture series entitled The Authority of Scriptures, Steve Gregg not only thoroughly presents the case for the Bible’s authority, but also explains how this truth is to be applied to a believer’s daily walk and outlook. The Authority of Scriptures can be downloaded in MP3 format without charge from our website, thenarrowpath.com.
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. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, maybe you see things differently than the host and you want to present an alternate viewpoint, feel free to give me a call. The number is 844-484-5737. And our next caller today is Robert from the Bronx, New York. Hi, Robert. Welcome.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thank you, and thank God for your knowledge of the Bible. I have just two simple questions. I don’t really question really. I want just to know whether there’s anything in the Bible, any verse of the Bible, regarding the free will. And my second point is about Gentiles. What does that really mean? Gentile.
SPEAKER 02 :
What’s that last word you’re asking about?
SPEAKER 09 :
The Gentile, because the Jews and the Gentiles. Oh, the Gentiles.
SPEAKER 02 :
Got you. Okay. Yeah, okay. I’ll be glad to address those things. So we’re Gentile, by the way. is simply a word that means someone who’s not Jewish. In the Bible, it’s the same word as the word nations. Israel was always contrasted with the rest of the world who were called the nations. In Hebrew, it’s the word goy or goyim, plural. Goy is a Gentile or one of the nations. So Gentiles get to contrast with the word Jew. Israel and the Jews are one nation. entity and the Gentiles or everybody else. Now about free will, there’s lots of things in the Bible that talk about free will, but even when they don’t talk directly about free will, it’s made very clear that people do have the ability, though not the right, they don’t have the right to disobey God, but they have the ability to do so. For example, when Adam and Eve were put in the to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but they had the ability to do it, which is very clear. So when we talk about free will, we don’t mean that God has just said, you do what you want. You’ve got free will. You can do whatever you want. No, God gives instructions, but he has given us a capacity that other creatures like the animals don’t have. The animals always follow his instructions. It’s kind of built into them as instincts. Human beings are not governed by instincts, not entirely. maybe some of our instincts, but we have the capacity to rebel. We have the capacity to say no when we shouldn’t. That is to say, God hasn’t just given us a carte blanche to do what we want, but he’s given us the ability to resist him and to say no to him. And we see that throughout the Bible, not only in the Garden of Eden. We see it in the flood. We see it, you know, how bad the earth became. It displeased God. We see it in the stories of almost every individual whose story is told to us in the Bible does something wrong, which is not what God wanted them to do, which means they did it because they chose to, not God chose it for them. When you choose to do something, that’s an exercise of your will. That’s what the will is. That’s what it means. Jesus complained, and so did the prophets. The prophets always were complaining about Jesus. how God wanted them to do certain things, the people, but the people were doing something different than what God wanted. And God was sometimes very angry about that, sometimes just perplexed. Why aren’t you obeying me? Jesus said to Jerusalem in Matthew 23, 37, he said, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how many times I would have gathered your children as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not. Now, you would not means you were not willing to. You didn’t want to. You exercised your will contrary to what I wanted to do. And that’s not just one case. That’s simply the way, that’s the whole history of humanity. God has always given humans instructions, either actual laws written down or else a conscience that tells them what they should do. And man always, doesn’t always, but all men have done this, have gone against what God’s law was and even what their conscience tells them. So those are examples of free will. There are plenty of times in the Bible that there’s mention of free will, like when Moses said, I’m setting before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose life. Choose blessing, which Israel actually didn’t end up doing most of the time. They usually chose death and cursing. Joshua said, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. But he said, you choose. He said to the people, you choose. this day whom you will serve, which people have that right. Well, I shouldn’t say the right. They have the ability. We don’t really have the right to say no to God because God owns us, and we are obligated to do what he said, just like a child doesn’t have the right to disobey his parents, but he has the ability to do so. We have the ability to do what we don’t have any right to do, something that’s wrong for us to do. But we all do it anyway. And so that’s how we understand free will in the Bible. At least that’s how I do. Thank you. Thank you for your call. Let’s see. We’ll talk to Jeff in Little Rock, Arkansas. Jeff, welcome.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hey, Steve. Good to talk to you again. I’ve got a friend of mine, dear friend, that’s been watching videos from Stephen Armstrong. And he’s a dispensationalist. And he calls me, man, you’re just wrong. You’ve got to see these videos. Well, whatever. What is the difference, if any, is the coming of the Lord and the day of the Lord? I’ve got a second question. Is there any Old Testament writings about the second coming of Christ? Because I’ve always thought, I could keep talking about a second one. You know, I’m not ready. But that’s it.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I personally don’t believe… that the Old Testament talks about Jesus’ second coming. There are a lot of scriptures that some people apply to that, which I would apply to something else from their context. Many people would see Daniel chapter 12, verse 2, as about the resurrection of the last day. I actually think he’s referring to something else figuratively there, but I mean, There would be a difference of opinion among Christians as to whether the Old Testament has anything in it at all about the second coming. I think not. I think the Old Covenant, I think, talks about the first coming of Christ and the subsequent destruction of the old order and the temple and so forth. I think that’s about as far as the Old Testament goes. In fact, Jesus said in Matthew 21, actually Luke 21, he said that when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is near. He said these are the days of vengeance. that all things that are written may be fulfilled. So he’s talking about the Romans coming against Jerusalem to destroy it in AD 70 and said, this is so that everything written will be fulfilled. So he means everything written, of course, in the Old Testament. Now, once Jesus left, there began to be talk among the Christians, because angels announced it to them in Acts 1-11, that Jesus would come back again. And so we begin to read about his second coming. in the New Testament. But you said, is the coming of the Lord the same as the day of the Lord? Actually, both of those terms, both of those expressions, can be found referring to a variety of things. In the Old Testament, the coming of God often referred to God simply bringing judgment on a nation like Egypt or Assyria or Babylon or Edom or the Moabites. When God would bring judgment, which would normally be through ordinary things like military conquest from an enemy, but it was a judgment on the nation that was falling to the enemy, this is often said to be God’s coming. Sometimes he’s seen as if he’s riding a chariot in the clouds against the nation that’s under judgment and leading the armies of the aliens that are coming to destroy them. It’s a figure of speech. Of course, these are not referring to God actually coming down from heaven down to earth and judging. It’s rather saying that because God is the one who’s bringing this judgment, it’s as if he’s leading the troops against the enemy. A good example of that would be Isaiah 19.1, which speaks about the Assyrians conquering Egypt. And Isaiah 19.1 says, the Lord comes on a swift cloud and he will come into Egypt. So God’s coming into Egypt. Micah chapter 1 also talks about God coming and the mountains melting and so forth in front of him. This is all figurative language, but it’s talking about things that happened in the Old Testament times. Actual wars where somebody came under God’s judgment. It was called God coming against them. But also the day of the Lord is used in the Old Testament of a variety of situations. The day of the Lord against Babylon in Isaiah 13. was the defeat of Babylon by the Medes and the Persians. So the coming of the Lord and the day of the Lord in the Old Testament kind of are, we might say, interchangeable terms, which don’t always refer to the same judgment. There’s multiple judgments throughout Old Testament history, and several of them are referred to as the day of the Lord against that nation or the day of the Lord against that nation or God is coming against them. That’s the language of the Old Testament. Now, in the New Testament… except in the cases where Old Testament verses are being quoted. An exception would be like Acts chapter 2, where Peter is quoting Joel chapter 2, which speaks of the great and terrible day of the Lord. I believe that Joel is referring to A.D. 70, the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. But in cases in the New Testament where the authors themselves use those expressions, and they’re not just quoting some Old Testament passage, I believe that both the day of the Lord and the coming of the Lord came to be associated with the second coming of Christ. And so we see the day of the Lord is also called the day of Christ or the day of our Lord Jesus Christ or the day of God. You know, Peter, for example, in 2 Peter chapter 3, uses the term the day of the Lord in verse 10. And a few verses later, he refers to the day of God. Same thing, day of the Lord, day of God. And he said that’s when the earth is going to melt with a fervent heat. That’s when Jesus is going to come like a thief in the night and the elements will melt and the heavens will be burned up and there will be new heavens, new earth. So the day of the Lord, the day of God, as Peter uses it, is a reference to the second coming of Christ. And I believe, you know, like 2 Thessalonians chapter 1 says, Verse 8, it says, the Lord will come in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who don’t know God and who don’t obey the truth. And these will suffer everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. I believe that’s referring to the second coming of Christ. And it’s called the Lord coming. So the day of the Lord or the coming of the Lord in the New Testament usually is looking for the ultimate judgment at the end of the world, of which the Old Testament judgment events that are called the coming of the Lord or the day of the Lord, we could say that those are local, temporal, Old Testament events that took place in Old Testament times. But maybe we could say that each of them was like a type and a shadow or foreshadowing of the ultimate day of the Lord when the whole world comes under God’s judgment. But the terms… Yeah, go ahead.
SPEAKER 10 :
Well, it sounds like the Old Testament and New Testament for the For the disobedient and the unbeliever, it’s all bad. That’s correct. That’s correct, yeah. All right. Sure, thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, Jeff. Good talking to you, brother. Thanks for your call. Joy from Downey, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi, Steve. I love your show. Thank you. We do a good news club. over here in Downey, and I’m looking at the curriculum coming up, and it’s an Easter lesson, but it’s a little bit of a different Easter lesson. And I was wondering if I could just read you this little portion for clarification. It’s very short.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 04 :
It says, He has always existed, and everything in the universe belongs to him. In fact, he made the world and everything in it. And then I’m supposed to read Colossians 1, 16 and 17. And I feel good about this, but do you believe that there should be a little clarification that he, along with God the Father, because it’s not really mentioning God the Father.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Yeah, I think that, you know, Christians like to emphasize that Jesus is God and that he is involved in the creation and all of that, like it says in Colossians 1 and other places. But they sometimes make something unclear, and that is that the Bible says everything was made through him. That’s what Colossians says. That’s what many places say, you know, everything was made through him. But it was the Father. It was God the Father who made things through his word, who is Christ. So, you know, I think that a finer point could be… Now, is this a curriculum for children, is it?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, it’s for first through third. And, you know, kids need to hear the exact things. And I feel like, you know, all year long, this is our last lesson. And all year long, we’ve been talking about, you know, God the Father. And then all of a sudden, I feel like we’re throwing them… a confusion by saying, oh, Jesus was there at the very beginning and he created everything. And I’m like, shouldn’t I be saying, would you say Jesus was with God?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, that’s what John 1 tells us. Yeah, John 1, verses 1 through 3 says, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made by him, and without him there was nothing made that was made. in him is life, and the life was the light of men, and so forth. Now, it says that the word, it was with God, and he was God, and everything was made through him. Now, we know that God created everything by his word. We see that in Genesis chapter 1. God said, let there be light, and there was light. God said, let the dry land appear, and it appeared, and so forth. So, the word of God is the means by which God created, and John is saying that word through whom God made everything, actually is the same being as became Christ, became the Son when he was born. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, it says in verse 14. So the Bible doesn’t actually tell us that Jesus was God the Son. That term is not used. But it does tell us he was the Word, and the Word was God. So, you know, is that six of one half dozen of another? Or is there some big difference? I wouldn’t really want to put a lot of confusion into little kids when this is actually a theological issue that theologians have difficulties understanding and putting into proper words. I would just say, you know, God made everything through Jesus. God made everything through his word, and his word became Jesus or whatever. So this is going to be confusing, but, hey, theology is confusing. It’s like trying to explain particle physics to kids. You know, how are you going to do that? And C.S. Lewis said that, which very truly he said, you know, theology is bound to be, As complex as physics, and for the same reason. Physics describes the physical universe and world. Theology explains the spiritual world, which there’s no reason to believe it’s any less complex than the physical world. So, you know, you try to dumb things down for kids without giving them too much of the wrong impression. To my mind, to say that God made everything through Jesus would not be… Although technically, of course, he wasn’t named Jesus back then. He wasn’t named Jesus until he was born and dead, and then he was named Jesus. But it’s the same word, who is made flesh. So, you know, I wouldn’t be too particular in the way that that word is, as long as we’re not giving the wrong impression. Okay.
SPEAKER 04 :
And is it true to say Jesus was ruling as king… long before the world began, is that like a true statement? That’s not quite true.
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s not quite true. Jesus ascended the throne at his ascension and was given a position at the right hand of God. And that was like a new situation because the word had become flesh and lived as a man. And he was the man who was the Messiah, which is a king. But he wasn’t enthroned as king until after his ascension. I think we could say God was reigning before Jesus came to earth. But to say Jesus was reigning is a little bit anachronistic. I would say that that’s not quite accurate. Once again, though, I’m not so sure that it’s inaccurate in ways that would make it dangerous. You know, I don’t know that we have a way of making it totally accurate in children’s terms. I would probably allow a little flexibility in trying to make these things understood by children. But I would just say, you know, you don’t want to say anything to kids that you don’t feel good in your conscience about saying to them.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. Yeah, because when I initially read that, I didn’t feel good about it, and I thought, I need to call Steve for clarification.
SPEAKER 02 :
I’m sorry I couldn’t clarify it. I don’t feel like I’ve clarified it much.
SPEAKER 04 :
You have. At least you make me realize that. That’s why I’m not feeling sure of it. Okay, well, thank you so much, Steve.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Well, God bless you, Joy. Thanks for your call.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 02 :
Matthew from Bayville, New Jersey. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for waiting.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey, no problem. Thanks for getting to the call, Steve. Steve, I guess regarding 2 Timothy 3.16, all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness from the NIV. is based on or talking about Old Testament books. I guess my question is how do we know or how is it known that, I guess specifically Job, considering I guess the author is like 100% known, which is like I guess one of the criterias when the early church was formed and one of the reasons why Enoch wasn’t included, how was it that Job was determined to be a God-breathed scripture?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, the church didn’t decide that. That was decided by the Jews before Jesus came. So the church simply took over the Old Testament that was already the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh. And so what we call the Old Testament was the Bible that the Jews had put together from their sacred writings. Now, how did they know to include Job as an inspired book? I’m not sure because, like I said, no one knows exactly who wrote it. But I think they probably figured that whoever wrote it must have been a prophet, because how otherwise would they know about these conversations between God and Satan, you know, behind the veil? Now, someone says, well, but how do we even know that Job should have been included even for consideration? Well, Ezekiel mentions Job and lists him with Daniel and Noah as an exceptionally righteous man in history. And so, I mean, Ezekiel’s an inspired prophet, so probably his mention of Job would be significant. You know, that’s in, let’s see, I think that’s in Ezekiel 7, if I’m not mistaken, maybe 721. Let me check it out. No, not 721. What is it here? I’ve got the wrong reference in my mind here, but Ezekiel mentions Job a couple times in his book and lists him as a righteous man alongside Noah and Daniel. And so the fact that the prophet speaks of him under inspiration, apparently suggests that Job not only really existed, but it must be a reference back to the book of Job because we have no other information about Job than that. So that would be my thought. Also, of course, James mentions Job as a historical character. Oh, it’s Ezekiel 14.14. My wife just handed me a note here. When I don’t remember a reference, she looks it up here. So it’s, yeah, Ezekiel 14.14 mentions Job. So I would say because of the prophet Ezekiel and also the apostle James mentioning Job as historical character, there’s reason to accept it. But the Jews already accepted it before that, and I’m not sure how they made that decision initially.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, understood. Yeah, that’s kind of what I was curious, was like what kind of procedure, you know, if there was one back then to… And do you have an opinion on who wrote it? Do you believe it was Job himself?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I’m open to the idea that Job may have written it, since we don’t know who did. You know, that is certainly one theory that is out there and could be true. There are some people, many scholars believe it may have been written much later than Job’s time. I mean, it would be a true story, but written by somebody living much later, like Solomon. Because Job is an example of wisdom literature. The speeches between Job and his friends are classic examples of wisdom literature, which resembles Proverbs and Ecclesiastes and stuff like that, which Solomon wrote. So some have thought maybe Solomon wrote it, but about a true case that was well known before. But I don’t have a theory. But I guess I’d lean more maybe toward Job being the author.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, understood. Thank you so much, Steve. Always a pleasure.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, Matthew. Thanks for your call. Rick from Phoenix, Arizona. I’m going to get you in here, I think. Welcome. Hi, Steve. Can you hear me? Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 03 :
Philippians chapter 2, verse 6, 7, and 8, which is very close to where the lady was the other day or the other moment here. The same kind of thing. How is he God and how is he human? And it would seem to me that in English, it would have said, who being in the form of a man, because I don’t think of God as having a form, but being beyond having a form, because he’s not physical. But it seems like it would say, in the form of a man, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, because he had come down here. He was the eternal God who came down here to be a man and die for our sins. So I just wanted to know, what’s your take on that? Why they use that phraseology? And the rest seven and eight is really pretty self-explanatory. But that thing of being who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Well, let me just jump in here because we’re going to run out of time and you’ve gotten your question out already. So does God have a form? Well, I don’t know that he does. You know, God. mentioned in Deuteronomy to Israel that they had seen no form, that when God was on the mountain and they shouldn’t make any images of God, and he points out that they don’t even know what he looks like when he was on the Mount Sinai. They saw no form of him. On the other hand, God does say in Exodus, or in Numbers actually, that Moses uniquely got to see God in a way that’s more than anyone else had. Now, what did he see? Did he see a form? I don’t know. What does a form even mean? I don’t believe that God has physical form, and I don’t think this is referring to God having a physical form. This is talking about before Jesus became a physical man. This is referring to what he was before he became a man in heaven. He was in God’s form, in God’s category. We don’t know what the form of God looks like, but that’s the term that Paul used. to speak of Jesus before his coming to earth. And then it says he emptied himself and took on the form of a servant. So I guess maybe he used the term form of God because he planned to use in contrast to the form of the servant. He was in the form of God, but when he emptied himself, he took on the form of the servant. And so maybe that’s the reason for speaking that way. But, uh, Yeah, we can talk to Paul about that someday, maybe not too long from now, and we can find out if he meant something we’re not getting from that. Brother, I appreciate your call. I’m out of time. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. We’re listener-supported. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, you can write to us at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or just go to our website. You can donate from there. Everything at the website is free. But if you wish to donate, you can. The website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
