Menu
In this episode of The Narrow Path, Steve Gregg dives deep into the intricate topics of faith and biblical teachings. Opening the floor to audience questions, Steve discusses the debated concept of shepherds breaking the legs of lambs and what it represents in spiritual teachings. The conversation then winds into the understanding of physical pain as a tool for divine discipline, drawing on scriptural examples from both the Old and New Testaments. As the discussion unfolds, Steve offers a theological breakdown of Molinism and Neo-Apollinarianism, exploring how philosophical ideas intersect with Christian doctrines. Listeners are invited to ponder the
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good afternoon, and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and as usual, we are live for an hour, taking your calls. You have questions about the Bible, about Christianity, about anything related to Christian faith, or maybe a difference of opinion from the host, and you’d like to talk about that on the air. We have that opportunity before you at the moment, and we have phone lines. A couple of them are open if you want to call now. The number is 844-484-5737. That number again is 844-484-5737. All week I’ve been mentioning this, and I will for one more day after today. It’s for this Saturday morning. It’s only relevant to people in Southern California, but there’s a lot of you here in this area. Temecula, once a month, the third Saturday of the month, we have a men’s Bible study on Saturday morning, 8 o’clock in Temecula. If you’d like to join us, you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com, and look under Announcements. find out where and when that is. This Saturday morning, Men’s Bible Study Temecula, California. Okay, and no other announcements next, so I’ll just go directly to our phones and talk to Sean from St. Clair Shores in Michigan. Hello, Sean. Welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hey, Steve. How are you? Can you hear me well?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes, very clearly.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good, good. Well, thank you for all the years of teaching. I think you’re excellent, and So I don’t agree with you on everything, but I don’t expect anybody to agree on everything. So I have a couple of questions. And the first one being, in one of your teachings, I had heard that you said that the shepherds used to break the legs of a lamb that would continue to go astray. And I was wondering if this is actually true and if there’s, I imagine through all your years of reading, Hebrew text that you got some source from that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, I would never affirm that. I would never affirm that, but I have heard it, and I often have mentioned that. I say I don’t know if this is true, but I’ve heard it for years, like growing up hearing preachers talk about how shepherded that is a report I’ve heard. I have had questions in my mind as to whether it’s true. I have never seen it confirmed.
SPEAKER 1 :
Right.
SPEAKER 03 :
but it is something that you hear from several places, and you wonder, well, maybe that’s true. Maybe someone has seen some sources I haven’t. It’s worth mentioning as something that’s a rumor. Anyway, it may be true.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. So the reason behind that is a debate has come up between me and another Christian where – God will never cause harm. Let’s say to break your leg to save your life, kind of like what would be in the instance of a lamb. And I’ve tried to kind of express to them, you know, they kind of have this, like, let’s say non-aggressive Jesus that, you know, they kind of discount the whipping in the temple. And that was kind of a secondary note to this is kind of what was the intention behind the whip? at the temple, was he actually trying to hit them, or was he just trying to scare them with no intention of hitting them? Obviously this is speculatory, but is there any general knowledge that most scholars consensus on?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, the Bible does not indicate that Jesus was whipping any people. His objection was that they were selling all these animals and cluttering up the area that was supposed to be the court of the Gentiles so that the Gentiles couldn’t even have room to come in and worship. And the people who were selling the animals were taking advantage, you know, spiking, I mean, just making the prices go very high because people had to buy these animals at the temple. So it’s sort of like buying a buying popcorn at the theater. You know, you’d pay, you know, 15 cents for it if you ate it at home, but, you know, five bucks at the theater or whatever it is. I don’t know the price because I don’t buy it at theaters. But, you know, sort of a captive customer base. And so they would jack up the prices, and Jesus was very much objected. They were turning the house of God a den of thieves, he said. Now, what he was whipping, no doubt, is the animals. I think the Bible says he drove the cattle out. Now, he did drive out the money changers, but he didn’t have to hit them. You know, if your cattle start getting away from you, you’re going to leave where you are and go after them and recover them. So he made the money changers leave by driving their cattle out of the temple. There’s never any suggestion in any of the reports of Jesus cleansing the temple that he struck any people with a whip. He probably would have been arrested for that because that would be assault. But as far as God not being the kind of God who would break your leg to save you or something like that, I don’t know where anyone gets that impression. I mean, did they never read the Old Testament? I mean, or even the New Testament. In Revelation, Jesus says, as he’s speaking to one of the churches, he says, those who I love. I reprove and I chasten. Chasten means to discipline. And in biblical language, chastening usually was with a rod or maybe a little whip or something like that. And he said, if I love someone, I’ll do that. Because, you know, it says in Hebrews 12, what father is there or what son is there who isn’t chastened by his father? You know, if it’s whom the Lord loves, he chastens. And he said, anyone who is not chastened by their father is chastened. not loved by their father. In fact, it says specifically they’re a bastard, is what it says in the King James. Not a true son. So anyone who thinks that physical pain is somehow impossible to be chosen over worse consequences simply doesn’t have any understanding of of the biblical teaching of God’s chasing. It’s in the Old and the New Testament. Jesus said he does that. He chastens those he loves. And that’s in Revelation. In Hebrews 12, it says that God chastens those he loves. So this is not just an Old Testament idea. Now, the idea of breaking a leg to keep someone from going astray has an interesting, maybe near parallel. It’s not an actual parallel. In Genesis 32, where God wrestles with Jacob, And finally touches his hip and cripples him, apparently for life. And Jacob limped away from that. And we don’t read that he ever recovered from that. That was God’s doing. God crippled him. God can do that. The Bible indicates that God allows us to be sick or even disabled for a reason. For example, when Jesus and his disciples encountered the man in John chapter 9… who was a blind from birth, okay, so he was born disabled, blind, he had never seen, the disciples asked, why? Why was this man born this way? Now, Jesus didn’t say, there’s just no reason for it, it’s just bad fortune. Or he didn’t say, well, because the devil got the better of us that time and made this guy blind. No, he says in verse 3 of John 9, Jesus said, neither this man nor his parents sinned, but He was born blind so that the works of God should be revealed in him. In other words, God had a purpose. I don’t think it was the devil that wanted the works of God to be revealed in a man. And it wasn’t chance or fate. Who but God would want the works of God to be seen in him? And so, I mean, in this case, the works of God were seen in this man by Jesus healing him. But that’s not the only kind of works of God there are. Paul asked God to heal him of the thorn in his flesh. And Jesus said, I’ll tell you what, I’ll give you grace for it instead. My grace is sufficient for you. My strength is made perfect in your weakness. And so Paul said, well, I’ll rejoice in my infirmities then. The biblical idea is that God may indeed allow you to suffer pain or disability if it can work something good in you. It says in 2 Corinthians chapter 4, Paul’s talking about how he suffers afflictions, and he did a great deal. He was beaten. Many times he was imprisoned. He was shipwrecked several times because of his ministry. And he saw God’s hand in it. He said, though the outward man is perishing, the inward man is being renewed day by day. He said, for our light affliction, which works for us, which is but for a moment, he said, works for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. While we do not look at the things that are seen, but at the things that are not seen, for the things that are seen are temporary. but the things that are not seen are eternal. That’s 2 Corinthians 4, 16 through 18. Now, he said, our light affliction, and we could just ignore the word light there. Paul’s simply saying, by comparison to what the great glory is, it’s a light matter to be afflicted. But Paul’s affliction was far from light. It was probably worse than most of us will ever suffer. And he said, our light affliction is only for a moment. He means only for this lifetime. That’s a moment. But he said, it works for us, an eternal weight of glory. Now, in another place, in Romans 8, 18, Paul said, I’m persuaded that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that should be revealed in us. So it’s very clear that Paul saw himself as suffering, suffering by the will of God, because he had prayed three times that his thorn in the flesh would be taken away. Jesus said, no, no, I’ve got something else I’ve got in mind. I’m going to give you grace for that instead. Okay, so he saw Jesus had it in mind for him to suffer those things. But he said, but it’s good for me. It’s working for me. Something spiritual, something eternal. These temporary pains, they don’t seem temporary because they last years sometimes with us, but But the truth is they are temporary. You know, our life is temporary. That’s why Paul says we’re not looking at the external circumstances. We’re looking at the unseen things because those are eternal. And as we look at those things, these pains work for us in eternal weight of glory. It says in Psalm 119, verse 71, it says, It is good for me that I have been afflicted. that I may learn your statutes. Now, is it good for me that I was afflicted? Then why wouldn’t God let me be afflicted? If it’s good for me to be afflicted because I’ll learn something from it, why would it be contrary to God’s love to let something happen to me that’s good for me? I don’t understand why that would be objectionable to anybody. I have definitely known afflictions myself, not as much as some people have, and some of them are very, very difficult. But at the same time, you know, it says in Psalm 119, verse 75, I know, O Lord, that your judgments are right and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me. Notice the psalmist said, God, you have afflicted me and you’ve done it because you are faithful. It’s because of your faithfulness that you’ve afflicted me. Well, how do those things go together? Well, like he said four verses earlier, it’s good for me that I was afflicted because I learned your law. That’s good for me. And God wants me to learn his law. He knows that’ll benefit me forever. Being healed right now, even if I never feel another pain in my life, that’s only the rest of this short life that I’m exempt from pain. But if something’s going to make me benefit for eternity, well, it’s a good trade. That’s why children are disciplined by their parents. I know our society has lost sight of the value of that. But the idea is you’re only a child for a short time. And your parents have the responsibility to steer you in the right direction because you’re going to be an adult for a long time. And if you’re not shaped correctly when you’re young, then it’ll mar that long period of time that you’re an adult. So same thing with this life being the short time. This is the time that the children are being disciplined. Us, we’re the ones, we’re learning the lessons. And sometimes these are hard won. They’re painfully won. But That’s only for this brief moment. Afterward, there’s the eternal weight of glory. So I’ve never really understood somebody who says, well, I don’t think God would inflict pain on us. Well, why don’t you? Why wouldn’t he? If it’s good for me, why wouldn’t he do what’s good for me? Don’t parents do what’s good for their children? The Bible teaches everywhere that God does so.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, so that’s what I was thinking because, and the other question was, or tying in with that, is that I was talking to them and they’re like, well, okay, because Jesus would never physically harm anybody or do anything to that nature ever. And I kind of had a conflict. I had conflict with that and brought up the point of how His judgment on Israel for A.D.
SPEAKER 1 :
70.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah. Ask him to read Revelation and see what the Lamb does there, where everybody’s hiding in caves of the earth and trembling, saying, uh-oh, hide us from the wrath of the Lamb. Who’s the Lamb? Jesus is the Lamb. You see, I’ve heard this argument from other people, too, who simply are not very good thinkers. They say, well, you read the Gospels. Jesus never hurt anybody. Right. We read about three years of Jesus’ life.
SPEAKER 08 :
But that’s because he was also in ministry to be the Lamb of God at that point.
SPEAKER 03 :
Exactly. He didn’t come to judge. He didn’t come to judge the world, but to save the world. That was his mission was. But that doesn’t mean he’s not going to judge the world. It doesn’t mean that he never does anything else but those few things that he did on those 39 days that are recorded in the Gospels. I mean, Jesus created the universe. He created the world. So everything that’s been done from the beginning of the world, that God has done is agreeable with Jesus. In fact, it may be Jesus who’s done it. I think it was Jesus who touched Jacob’s thigh and crippled him. But the point is, you know, you can’t just say, well, those three years that Jesus was on earth, he didn’t hurt anybody, so I know he would never hurt anyone. Well, what about, you know, what about Revelation? He hurts a lot of people there. I mean, it’s just people don’t think. I mean, Christians and people who are quasi-Christians, often they just don’t think too often.
SPEAKER 08 :
I think a lot of it is influence, demasculinization of men. Obviously, we see that now. You can’t define what a woman is or a man or whatever. So it’s just spraying all the, you know.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. I mean, I have to say in the last three years, And I could actually say the last 30 years, but let’s just make it three years to parallel the length of time Jesus’ ministry lasted. In the past three years, I have never struck a child. But when I was raising children, I disciplined my children when they needed it. And it wasn’t a bad thing. It was a good thing to do. But I don’t do that now. That’s not this phase of my life. That’s not what I’m doing. I’m not raising little children. But to say, well, I’ve watched your life for three years, Steve. I just can’t even picture you striking anyone. You seem so gentle. Well, yeah, I don’t have anyone to strike anymore. I mean, I don’t have any desire to strike anyone either, but it’s just this phase of my life. I’m not doing that. Jesus, that phase of his life, he wasn’t judging. He was saving. But he’s the Savior and the judge. And there are times when he judges, too. And then there’s, of course, the fact that he disciplines children that he loves. And that’s not judging. That’s correcting. That’s helping. That’s maturing. So, you know, people are too shallow. I’m afraid way too many shallow Christians are out there on the internet saying stupid things. And I think your friend maybe listened to some of them. Hey, I need to take another call. Let’s talk to Eli from Hyatt, Idaho. Hi, Eli. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, Steve. Thank you. So my question is kind of two-part. You don’t have to answer both if you don’t want to at the time. But I First question is, what are your thoughts on Molinism, if it should be rejected as heresy? And I only ask that because what I surmise from Molinism is that you need to add a lot of philosophy to it, a lot of extra-biblical philosophy to make sense of it, right? And a huge proponent of Molinism is William Lane Craig, who also identifies as a neo-Apollinarian. And just knowing that Apollinarianism was rejected as heresy, should neo-Apollinarianism also be rejected?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I don’t necessarily say that everything that has historically been rejected by some bishops at some point centuries after the time of Christ, that everything they have called heresy, that we’re obliged to call heresy. I think that in the church, what is required to be done and believed by all people, and this is the thing that church discipline would be, would be applied to if someone doesn’t comply, is the truth that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus is the Lord, that he’s the Messiah, that he died and rose again, and that we are supposed to obey him. And obeying him means keeping his commandments and living a holy life and loving God and loving other people. Those are pretty much the things that are, in a nutshell, everything that Christianity demands of us. Now, there are lots of theories about God. that have been held by Christians over the years. Unfortunately, that’s what these councils have mostly met about. They haven’t met over things that matter. They have met over what I consider to be just speculative things. Many of the councils and the decrees they made and the decisions they made about who’s now a heretic now that they’ve had this council, they’re not really talking about Holy living. They’re not talking about who Jesus is. I mean, except in some esoteric sense. Yeah, they’re talking about is Jesus, you know, does he have a fully human nature and a fully divine nature? Or does he have one nature that’s fully human and fully divine? Well, the Bible doesn’t discuss that. Why should we discuss it? Who cares? I mean, why would that be important to know? And if it was important, no, why didn’t anyone in the Bible ever even raise the question or answer it? That’s the kind of stuff theologians love to fight over. And, you know, same thing with Calvinism, Arminianism, eschatology things, lots of theological points that you could be on either side and live a holy life following Jesus, and it wouldn’t make any difference to your Christianity. And yet it’s these hypothetical or not so much hypothetical, I just say esoteric, abstract kind of ideas that Christians like to fight over. And if they can’t find agreement with each other, they call each other heretics. That just doesn’t make sense to me. Now, neo-Apollinarianism or any Apollinarianism, I believe, has had Christians, true Christians historically, who held it. In fact, one reason that councils eventually called it heresy is because there were a lot of Christians who believed it before the councils met about it. That means a Christian can believe it. that a council will centuries later call you a heretic for it doesn’t mean that you weren’t a Christian all that time. And I think, you know, I don’t worry about those. Those are abstractions. Those are things the Bible doesn’t really talk that much about and certainly doesn’t indicate that we have a need to understand it. But as far as Molinism is concerned, it is very philosophical. I don’t particularly find myself drawn to it, but some of my friends do. For those who don’t know what it is, it’s a very philosophical notion that I think can be summarized. I say I think because I think it’s over my head. William Lane Craig about this. I can’t understand what he’s saying. I’m just I’m a simple guy and he’s a very brilliant philosopher. But it seems to me that it’s saying that this is a solution to how God knows the future or how it is that God’s not not Calvinistically predestined things, but he’s also not. simply passively seeing them in the future, but that he was able to create any kind of world with any kind of circumstances in it. I mean, every detail of every circumstance. There’s like gazillions of different universes he could have created, and they each would have had their own special sets of circumstances, and he chose only to create the one that had the circumstances that ours has. when he could have chosen others. So he’s not making stuff happen. This stuff, it just happens. But he didn’t allow any universe to exist that had alternative happenings. Now, that might not be a very good way to explain it, but that’s how I understand it. Now, could a person believe that and be a Christian? Sure. I mean, I don’t see any reason to believe it. I don’t see any reason to even discuss it. But if someone finds that helpful, and it doesn’t, to my mind, it doesn’t… I don’t know of any scripture that contradicts it. I don’t know of any scripture that supports it. I don’t even see how the subject even relates to scripture. Again, I don’t know of any case for or against it. So as far as I’m concerned, you know, a Christian can hold a view like that. It doesn’t necessarily change anything about the way they love Jesus or follow Jesus or love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength or how they love their neighbors or stuff. Those are the things. We’re not going to be judged by God. on how many of these abstract theories we understood. Salvation isn’t for intellectuals only. In fact, Jesus said, Father, I thank you. You’ve hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and you’ve revealed them to babes. And I’m not saying you have to be simple-minded to be a Christian. Probably some people think you do. I don’t think so. I think a very intellectual person could be a good Christian. You don’t have to be intellectual to be a Christian. It’s not required. You could be very simple-minded. And I would say, I mean, I’m fairly theologically knowledgeable and sophisticated, but I think I’m too simple-minded to understand Molinism. Every time I’ve tried to read a Molinist author, I think, okay, he lost me there. Not because he’s saying wrong things, but I can’t even understand what it is he is saying. I’m just too simple-minded for that. So I hope I’m a Christian, and I hope they’re Christians too. Of course, I am a Christian, and so are they as far as I’m concerned. But having a different view about something like that, it gives us something to think about if we don’t have anything important to think about. You know, if you really have a lot of time on your hands to think about things that don’t matter, then that might be an interesting thing to think about. But you’re not going to solve it from Scripture because the Scripture doesn’t address it. It’s a philosophical point. It’s sort of like the point that some people say God is outside of time. that time was created, the Big Bang or whatever, and God is not in time, so he’s in the eternal now, and that God sees all things past, present, and future simultaneously because he’s outside of the realm of time. Christians say that all the time. It’s a Greek idea, and many Christians like Thomas Aquinas and so forth I think taught that. So it certainly is something Christians can believe. But it’s also something Christians can doubt if they see reason to, because the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. There’s nothing in the Bible about God being outside of time. So these are philosophical issues. Even when C.S. Lewis wrote a chapter in his book, Mere Christianity, about this question of God being outside of time. And at the beginning of the chapter, he said, you know, some people wrongly think that you have to read every chapter of a book. He says, I’ve never believed that. He said, this is a chapter that you might not find helpful to you. It’s not necessary. You can skip it if you want to because it’s not essential. And then he talked about how he believed God was outside of time. And I agree with him. Not so much that God’s outside of time. That may be true. I don’t know if it’s true or not. But I agree with him. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter to know such a thing. We’re coming up on a break, so I hope – I hope that helps you. As far as the Neo-Apollinarianism and the Molinism are concerned, I think both of those are philosophical slash theological concepts that I don’t know that the Bible proves or disproves them. And even if it taught something different, it doesn’t teach anything different clearly. And because of that, it must not be one of the essential things to understand. Because anything that’s essential, I believe God makes clear. Other things are interesting to think about, but not, in my mind, essential to the Christian life. Okay, we need to take a break. We have another half hour coming, so this is not the end. Stay around. We’re going to be on until a half hour from now. But at this point, we let you know that The Narrow Path stays on the air because we buy radio time from lots of radio stations. It’s very expensive. We don’t sell anything. We have no sponsors, no commercial breaks. This is all listener-supported. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, you can write to The Narrow Path. P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can do so from our website, thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 10 :
Are you aware of the wide variety of teachings available without charge at the Narrow Path website? In several hundred lectures, Steve Gregg covers every book of the Bible individually and gives separate teachings on approximately 300 important biblical topics. There is no charge for anything at our website. Visit us there and you’ll be amazed at all you’ve been missing. That web address again is www.thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gray, and we’re live for another half hour. Taking your calls, if you have questions or disagreements with the host about the Bible, here’s the number to call, 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And we’ll go right back to the phones now. I’m going to talk to Olivia from San Diego, California. Hi, Olivia. Welcome. Or is it Olivia?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, thank you, Steve. Here’s my question. It has to do with sacrifice. And if I were a person living in the Old Testament times and Moses was telling, you know, my family, you know, that we, in order to have some restored relationship with God, sacrifice is necessary. And now my mind jumps to the New Testament time. I mean, you know, our belief is that Jesus died, sacrificed himself, So I’m trying to understand the why of sacrifice, something not connecting with me in regard to sacrifice. Can you give me some insights as to sacrifice itself, why it’s necessary?
SPEAKER 03 :
I will try. I believe the whole biblical subject of sacrifice throughout the Old Testament is based on and to be understood in light of Jesus. I believe that the sacrifice of Christ is the central thing in history, the central thing in God’s concern of history. And because of it, before Jesus came, he ordered his people, the Jews, Israel, to offer certain sacrifices that were pictures of that. They sacrificed bulls and goats and lambs. Jesus, of course, as we know, is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. So these animals that were sacrificed, were pictures or foreshadowing of Christ being sacrificed. Now, interestingly, even before Israel existed, such sacrifices were offered by people like Abel or Noah or Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And this was before there was a Jewish law. But the sacrificial system that became part of Israel’s law, I believe, was designed, as were the previous sacrifices of those earlier people, to be a foreshadowing of Christ. And interestingly enough, after the flood, when all the nations split off from Noah’s family, and we know that Noah offered sacrifices right after he came off the ark, first thing he did. Well, all the nations of the world have descended from Noah’s family. And interestingly enough, all religions that developed man-made religions retained this idea of sacrifice. It’s an interesting thing. I mean, if there is nothing… transcendent of about it why would all religions developing independently around the world all have this one feature you sacrifice something animals almost always sometimes humans in some pagan religions but the idea of sacrifice was obviously built into the human psyche uh from very early on but it was because god intended to fulfill all that that foreshadowed in the sacrifice of Christ. Now, what is the point? And why did God need to have those four shepherds? Well, because it’s hard for us to conceive. Why would Jesus dying have anything to do with saving me? I mean, it’s somewhat counterintuitive. And because people don’t naturally see a connection, God taught them through the kindergarten of the law this concept. And what they would do, they’d bring an animal which was, of course, completely innocent. And a person who was not innocent, a person who was a sinner, would bring an innocent animal to the priest, and they’d lay their hand on the animal’s head and confess the sins of the person. And the idea was symbolically that those sins were now transferred to the animal. Now, that’s just a symbol. Of course, the animal couldn’t literally become a sinner. It was a ritual. to convey the idea of the guilty person’s sins being transferred to an innocent party. And then, of course, what happened? The innocent party was then killed. The wages of sin is death, so we would think the guilty party would be the one killed. But that’s the point. Everyone deserves to die because everyone’s a sinner. But God provided an alternative where an innocent victim could symbolically, in the case of the sacrificial system, take on the sins of the sinner and die in place of them so that the sinner didn’t have to die for his own sins. That’s the concept in the Jewish law of sacrifice. Now, when Jesus comes as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, I believe it’s the same there, too. It says in 1 Peter 2, it says he himself bore our sins in his own body on the cross, on the tree. So Jesus dying was carrying our sins. Our sins were, as it were, transferred to him in the mind of God. Just as the sins in the sacrificial system were symbolically transferred to the animal, I believe there was a sense in which God literally transferred the sins of humanity onto Christ. This is also stated back in the Old Testament, Isaiah chapter 53, verse 6. It says, All we, like sheep, have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way, but God has laid on him, on Jesus, the iniquities of us all. God has laid on Jesus all of our sins, and he is seen there in that chapter as dying, as a sacrifice. So that’s how I understand it. I think we have to read the meaning of sacrifice in the Old Testament back from the understanding we have of Christ as the Lamb. So God, from the beginning of…
SPEAKER 02 :
death. The wages of sin is death, right?
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s what Paul says.
SPEAKER 02 :
So where do I find that in Scripture? Do you know?
SPEAKER 03 :
Romans chapter 6 verse 23 says the wages of sin is death.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, so that to me in a nutshell, I think if I’m understanding what you are saying is a summary of what you’re saying then. The wages of sin is death and so I need a substitute then to God.
SPEAKER 03 :
And God told Adam and Eve God told Adam and Eve in chapter 2 of Genesis, don’t eat of that tree of the knowledge of good and evil because the day you eat of it, you’ll die. And so they did die. And later on in Ezekiel chapter 18 and verse 20, it says the soul that sins, it shall die. So the penalty for sin is death. And so Christ pays that penalty, as it were, for us.
SPEAKER 02 :
It clicks. Thank you. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, Olivia. God bless you. All right. Thank you. All right. Let’s talk to Jacob from Portland, Oregon. Hi, Jacob.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi. I was raised in a cult, and I raised my kids in it as well. The last few years, I’ve woken up to that and became what I believe is a true Christian.
SPEAKER 03 :
Can I stop you for a minute? Let me stop you for a minute, Jacob. Your voice is kind of muffled. Are you on speakerphone? I’m on a Bluetooth. Let me take it off. Okay. It’s harder to understand some of your words. I couldn’t get it. Okay. Go ahead. You raised your children in a cult, right? Okay. Go ahead. Yeah.
SPEAKER 07 :
I’ve woken up today. My dad is.
SPEAKER 06 :
told me here the other day that she also doesn’t believe in Jehovah’s Witnesses anymore, but she’s become, she doesn’t know if she believes in God anymore at this point because of, you know, the way she was lied to and whatnot. So according to the teachings that we were raised with, you’re supposed to have no contact, shun anybody that does that if you’re a Christian. that doesn’t believe in God anymore. And so I was wondering what your take is on that, you know, like on the scriptures of 1 Corinthians and like that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah. Well, let me say first of all that people who leave cults often do not leave the cult and go into a more truthful religion or truthful faith system. They often just give up on faith altogether. And that’s one of the things that cults are answerable for. Jesus said, anyone who stumbles, one of these little ones who believes in me, it’s better for him to have a millstone put around his neck and be cast into the sea and drowned. And cults often do this. They lie to people about God, and they teach false doctrines. And then when these people think it through and find out that these were false doctrines, they just say, okay, so these people who preach about God, they’re liars. And so they don’t trust anyone who talks about God, and it stumbles them in terms of being open to you know, the truth about God. This is especially true, I know, of Mormons. You were with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I don’t know to what degree that’s true with them. Probably it is. But Mormons, very often, when they leave the Mormon faith, if they were raised in it, they don’t come to Orthodox Christianity. They basically, they just many times become atheists. Not every time, but I know several who have, and I’ve heard that that’s the trend here. Which is a shame, and it sounds like the person you’re talking about has had the same reaction. Okay, this cult fooled me, therefore I don’t believe anything they believe, including that there’s a God. Now, you say that the cult says you should shun people who do that. No, the Bible doesn’t tell us to shun people who don’t believe in God. There is a kind of shunning that is mentioned in the Bible. which is when your brother sins against you and you try to correct him and he won’t be corrected. So you bring two witnesses. This is all in Matthew 18, verses 15 through 17. And he still won’t repent. And then you take it before the whole church and he won’t repent of his sin. Well, then you kick him out of the church and you treat him the way you treat any unbeliever. Now, you don’t shun every unbeliever. You just, in other words, you just don’t… You don’t fellowship with them. They’re not part of the church anymore. But this is someone who’s sinning against you and won’t repent. It’s not someone who’s got a mistaken belief. You see, like we were saying to an earlier caller today, in the Bible we’re not told that someone has to have all the right beliefs to be a Christian, but they do have to follow Christ, and that’s a way of life. Now, if a person gives up on faith in God altogether, well, they obviously are not Christians anymore. But we’re not supposed to shun non-Christians. Shunning, although the Bible doesn’t use the word shunning, but Jesus said treat them like a tax collector or an unbeliever. That’s what you do when you’re disciplining a member of the church and trying to bring them back in. But if somebody’s given up the faith and they’re like just an ordinary atheist – Well, there’s nothing in the Bible that forbids us to talk to atheists. In fact, I think they need us to talk to them. So, yeah, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are particularly… known for excluding people who don’t agree with them about everything. And that’s how they keep their group, as they would say, pure. You know, it’s one of the arguments of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ve heard them many times. They say, you know, Jesus prayed that his church would be unified. And they said, look, the Protestant churches are not unified, but look at us Jehovah’s Witnesses. We’re all unified. We all see things the same way. And I say, yeah, well, it’s easy to do when you kick anyone out who doesn’t agree with you. It’s easy to maintain an artificial unity by simply saying, oh, you don’t agree with me? You’re out. Yeah, of course. Then everyone, by the process of elimination, everyone who’s left in is in agreement. That’s not supernatural. That’s not spiritual. And so, yeah, I could see how they’d kick someone out who came to a different belief system. Now, of course, if somebody became an atheist, they don’t belong in even any church. The church is for followers of Christ, and no one who’s an atheist is following Christ. But to say they don’t belong in the church doesn’t mean that they don’t belong in our lives. That is to say that we shouldn’t talk to them and shouldn’t reach out to them and so forth. So if the Jehovah’s Witnesses would, in this case, say don’t have anything to do with her, don’t even talk to her, I would disagree with that. I would say, no, I think you should try to reach out, try to reason, try to… love her with the love of Christ so that she’s drawn back. I don’t remember. Okay. It looks like, okay, Jacob, I’m sorry. Do you have anything more to say?
SPEAKER 06 :
Oh, I thought, yeah, in 1 Corinthians, I can’t remember the verse. I thought there was a scripture that talks about those that don’t believe.
SPEAKER 03 :
No, it’s a person. It’s not their being unbelievers. It’s that they’re living in sin. And you’re not supposed to eat with them. He said, that’s probably what you’re thinking of. Yeah. I’ll read it to you. It’s 1 Corinthians 5, 9 through 11. Paul says, I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people or fornicators. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world. or with the covetous or extortioners or idolaters since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother. Okay, someone who’s calling themselves a Christian. That’s what a brother is in this case. Someone who calls himself a Christian but who is a fornicator or covetous. Now, these are not theological issues. These are moral issues. Who is a fornicator, covetous, an idolater, a reviler, a drunkard. or extortion, or don’t even eat with such a person. So what Paul teaches is if somebody’s seeking to identify as a Christian, but they’re living in immoral behavior, unrepentant, well, don’t associate with them, because they’re taking the name of the Lord in vain in their life. They’re claiming to be Christian, but they’re not. But he’s not saying, he says, if they’re unbelievers, if they’re not even claiming to be Christians, then you don’t have to dissociate from them, because their behavior isn’t reflecting badly on Christ, just on themselves.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay. Yeah, I appreciate that. God bless.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, Jacob. Thanks for your call. God bless. Nelson from San Diego, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. Appreciate you, brother. Hey, in 2 Samuel 12, 24… David and Bathsheba had their second son, and they named him Solomon. I’m sorry. And God said that he loved him, and he told Nathan to go tell them that God loved him and to name him Jedidiah. But I never have heard Solomon referred to as Jedidiah or any reference to that. What’s up with that?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, Jedidiah actually means in Hebrew, loved by Yahweh, loved by the Lord. So when it says they called his name Jedidiah, that means that that was a name for him too. Just like when Jesus met Simon, he says, now your name is going to be Cephas or Peter. Cephas is Aramaic for a rock. Peter is Greek for a rock. So it’s the same name in different languages, but neither of them is the same as the word Simon. his name from birth was Simon. And many people were named Simon. There’s at least two Simons among the apostles, and there’s many other Simons in the Bible. Very common name at the time. But though his name was Simon, Jesus said, from now on, you’re going to be called Cephas or Peter. And from then on, Sometimes he was called Peter, and sometimes he was called Simon. And sometimes he’s called Cephas, and sometimes he’s called Simon Peter. And one time he’s even called Simeon. So it wasn’t uncommon for someone to be known by more than one name, including the name their parents gave them and other nicknames. Jesus renamed some of his other disciples also. And there’s some who had multiple names already, like Matthew is also called Levi. You know, one of the Gospels calls him Levi, but he’s the same guy who was Matthew, the tax collector. There’s one disciple who had three names. Sometimes he’s called Judas, not Iscariot. Another Judas, there’s a lot of Judases too. But that same disciple is also called Thaddeus, and in one place he’s called Levias. So it’s not too strange, you know, Moses’ father-in-law was sometimes called Raguel. sometimes called Rule, and sometimes called Jethro. These are all three names for one man. So in the Middle East, it wasn’t strange for people to have more than one name, and I’m not sure how they usually got them. I mean, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel, and yet he still called Jacob and Israel variously later on. Now Solomon, after this point, as far as I know, is always referred to in Scripture as Solomon, but he also was known as Jedidiah, which means beloved by the Lord. Maybe his parents called him that as an affectionate family name, whereas publicly he was known as Solomon. Hard to say. I really don’t know why we don’t hear more of that, repeated of that name. But, you know, Jesus called James and John Boanerges, which means sons of thunder. He gave nicknames to his disciples. And Saul later called himself Paul. So there’s… It’s just not unusual in the Bible for people to have multiple names.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I’m reading the NIV version here. Maybe it’s a little different in another translation. But it says here, the Lord sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah. And it just seems like that would kind of take priority over Solomon. Yeah, I think so.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, both names. He had both names. And, you know, I’m not really sure why some writers, you know, would use one name for a man and others a different name. For example, the last king of Judah was named Jeconiah, but also Jehoiachin. You know, he’s named Jehoiachin, but he’s also called Jeconiah, and he’s also called Keniah, which is a short form of Jeconiah. For some reason, you know, these people had multiple names, and sometimes they’re called by one and sometimes by another. In this case, as you say, it doesn’t appear that the Scriptures refer to Solomon ever as Jedidiah. But then, on the other hand, his name, you know, only appears in a limited range of passages in the Bible. I mean, how much they might have called him, you know, Jedidiah and other, you know, situations we don’t record in Scripture, we don’t know.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate your answers. And, hey, maybe I’ll see you Saturday at the meeting.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, that’d be great. That’d be great to see you, Nelson.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah. Yeah, okay. Thanks, buddy.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, God bless. Bye now. All right. Our next caller is Steve from Canada. Hi, Steve. Welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hi, Steve. Nice to hear from you there. This is my first time calling. I just recently, you know, started seeing some of your material and stuff. Excuse me. great um my question today was like just a little background um i’ve only read through the bible a couple times you know i’m still trying to learn a lot you know but uh i’m a believer you know trinitarian and um i like to you know share the gospel with a lot of people and stuff um my question uh is in terms of like the holy spirit the person in the holy spirit like um I see like a lot of like similarities between the Holy Spirit and Lady Wisdom and Proverbs and through the Bible and stuff. You know, I was just wondering, you know, if similarities like, you know, both are referred to as being like poured out. They’re both there, seem to be there at creation time. I’m even involved in creation, you know, um, it talks about being born again, right. By the spirit, you know, and then it talks about like, like, like wisdom, having children, you know, and, and the list like goes on and on, but I never hear anyone like bring up these similarities. They seem to be the same person, but I, it worries me a lot. Like, um, When I think about these things, it seems like no other Christian seems to be making the same connections and stuff like that. So I thought I’d bring it to you because I know that you do. I’ve heard that you do a thing on each book of the Bible, every verse, thought through it many times.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yep. Yeah, okay. If you could give me a little information about why… I’m interested in knowing whether wisdom in Proverbs is to be identified with the Holy Spirit. Is that what you’re saying?
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, it seems to be they’re like the same person, but anyone I talk to, like trying to get a little information, they just write off wisdom as a personification.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I think they’re kind of right, but I’ll tell you, it is… It is the case that when Solomon talks about wisdom, and especially in Proverbs chapter 8, where there’s a long speech attributed to wisdom, wisdom is personified as a female. But then Solomon is writing to his son, urging him to choose wisdom over foolishness. And foolishness in Proverbs is often depicted as the foolish woman or the strange woman, who’s generally speaking described as a prostitute or an unfaithful woman. he’s essentially personifying wisdom and foolishness as two women, really. And wants his son, a man usually wants to choose a woman, so that’s kind of why that imagery is used, to choose the woman of wisdom rather than the woman of foolishness. And yet, when he puts words into the mouth of wisdom, because he does have wisdom make certain speeches, it sounds very much like Wisdom is talking as if she’s God himself. And it does say, for example, in Proverbs chapter 1, wisdom says to her audience, she says in verse 24, because I have called you and you refused. I stretched out my hand and no one regarded because you disdained my counsel and would have none of my reproof. I also will laugh at your calamity. And it says in verse 29, because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord, they desired none of my counsel and despised my reproof. And yet she also says that she, in verse 23, she says, turn up my reproof. Surely I will pour out my spirit on you. I will make my words known to you. Now, when it talks about making my words made known to you and pouring out my spirit on you, it sounds like it’s God talking. But, of course, he is basically associating wisdom with God, not in a literal sense, because wisdom is more of an abstract concept. But God is wise. There’s no greater wisdom than in God. He’s the source of all wisdom. In fact, Proverbs says that multiple times. And so when he personifies wisdom, she says the same kind of things that God says. Now, some think she says the same kind of things that Jesus said. And, you know, talks about how verse Proverbs 8, 24, when there were no depths of the sea, I was brought forth. When there were no fountains abounding in water, before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought forth. You know, while he had yet had not made the earth or the fields. He says, when he prepared the heavens, I was there. When he drew a circle around the face of the deep, I was there. And so it sounds like it’s a companion of God. When God did these things, I was there. Now, of course, who’s speaking is wisdom. And the point that Solomon’s making is God was accompanied by his wisdom. His wisdom was functioning with him. When he created things, he created things all wisely. But Solomon just has this way of personifying wisdom. It’s not strange that much, but Christians usually identify wisdom in these cases with Jesus, not so much with the Holy Spirit. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1.30, meaning Jesus, it says, You are in Christ, Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. That’s 1 Corinthians 1.30. It says, Jesus has become for us wisdom. So, you know, is it the Holy Spirit? Is it God? Is it Jesus? Or is it just wisdom has these characteristics? Wisdom is so God-like because God is so wise. And when he personifies wisdom, you know, the speeches that wisdom makes are very much the kind of thing God would say. But I don’t think he’s trying to single out the Holy Spirit or Jesus so much as just saying wisdom is an attribute of God. And when it talks, it talks like God, because God’s wise. I’m out of time. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website’s thenarrowpath.com.
