Menu
Join us on today's episode of The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg as we delve into the biblical practice of anointing with oil and its implications for modern Christians. With insights from historical traditions and scripture, we discuss the nuances of this ritual and how it applies to the faithful today. Additionally, we explore the phenomenon of apostolic martyrdom, unraveling the truths and myths surrounding the early disciples' commitment and courage.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour, as we usually are on weekdays, taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we'd love to talk to you. You can call me at this number, 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. And, boy, I don't think I have anything to announce today, so we can just go directly to our callers. Oh, I should mention, yeah, there is something that should be mentioned. A major part of our ministry is our website. It's been up for many years, and it has lots and lots of resources. I give the website out every day on the air so you can go and get those resources, or you can even donate from there. But the website's been down. We don't understand the technology, but we think somebody does. We have a webmaster in Connecticut who I think he feels everything's under control. Something is being copied or something is being done. Whenever something goes wrong with the web, I'm totally at a loss. I have no idea how technology works. But I will say this, that there's a lot of people who kind of are used to going to the website all the time. And it's been down for several days. We're not sure exactly when it'll be back up, hopefully very soon. But in the meantime, although you can't donate from this site, there is a backup site that has all of our stuff on it, or not all of it, but all the audio, all the lectures, the shows, archives, and so forth. And it's working well. That's called Theos, that's T-H-E-O-S, theos.org slash media. So if you go to theos.org. slash media. You can't donate from there, but you can certainly access the resources. So if you become kind of addicted to listening to those and they're not now at the moment available, I don't even think they're on our app because I think our app depends on the website. So this is a kind of a crippling thing, but we have backup. There's another website that has at least the things you can listen to that you want to, the radio shows and the Bible studies and so forth are all at www.theos.org slash media. So you can go there for the time being. Hopefully I will announce when the website's back up. Okay. Having said that, we're going to talk to Benjamin from Greenville, Ohio. Benjamin, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good afternoon, brother. Thank you. I have a question on trying to get your insight on Anointing with oil, for instance, our homes or a sick person. And I guess my questions would be the actual procedure of doing it and the frequency that we should be doing something like that. And I can take the answer offline.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. All right. Thank you for your call, Benjamin. Well, the Bible doesn't actually advocate the anointing of oil except in the case of a sick person. calling on the elders of the church. In James chapter five, it says, is any of you sick or is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. In the prayer of faith, she'll save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up. And if he's committed sins, they'll be forgiven him. Now, many people think that this is simply what the Roman Catholics call the extreme unction, that when somebody's dying, they're sick and dying, that they should call for the the priests or the leaders of the church, and have them, as it were, kind of baptize them, although it says oil, not water. So it's questionable whether that's what it means. But that's, for example, how Catholics understand it. Most evangelicals, especially charismatic people, believe that anointing with oil is simply a procedure to accompany the prayer for healing. Now, because there's so little said about it, and there's little or no explanation about it, you know, there's some questions as to what its effectiveness is. Some people think it's merely a point of contact for faith. That is that, you know, a person, if you just say, well, just believe, well, that's kind of, for some people, it's a little nebulous. Okay, I kind of believe. Do I believe now? Do I believe enough? You know, when am I supposed to believe? When is something supposed to happen? And there are people who say that, excuse me, sorry, that such procedures as laying on of hands for healing or anointing with oil, that these really only function as a point of contact for faith. So that if a person kind of has a vague idea that God's going to heal them at some point that you, you can, their expectations will be raised that that point will be when hands are laid on them or when oil is put on them. And it becomes sort of a symbolic gesture, uh, Usually the oil is thought to represent the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure that that's even an essential part of the whole thing. The point is that we're not told why anointing of oil is of use. Now, there are some teachers who have simply said anointing with oil is what is done to a wounded person. You know, in the Good Samaritan parable, the man who fell among thieves, when he was found by the Good Samaritan and ministered to, the man poured wine and oil into his wounds, wine probably to disinfect them and oil to promote healing. And use of oil medicinally, topically, was an ancient medical procedure for certain conditions. And so some say, well, James is envisaging a situation where somebody who's sick has got wounds or festering sores or whatever, and that the elders should come and administer medical procedures with oil. Now, I don't personally think that's what it's saying, but I've heard it said. I'm just trying to tell you there's a lot of different opinions about that. And the reason there's so many opinions is the Bible says nothing to explain it. It just says do this. And so many people will just do it out of obedience to the scriptures without having any particular or precise understanding of what it's supposed to accomplish. But apart from that one passage in James 5, we are not really told to anoint anything with oil. Now in the Old Testament, the priests and the kings, when they were installed into office, had oil poured over their heads, and even a prophet might in some cases. But the point there is simply it's an installation service, probably represented the Holy Spirit coming on them, the oil representing that. But this was not a situational thing where someone's sick or you're trying to accomplish something in particular through it. It's just part of the ceremony of installment. And that's just an Old Testament thing with kings and priests and others who were installed into divine office. But in the New Testament, we only have that one usage of it mentioned. Now, I'm aware of people anointing their houses, their cars, the windows of their houses. And I think the implication they have in mind is they're kind of putting protection upon their house or their car against, I'm not sure what, maybe demons coming in or something. This... I mean, I don't mean to be critical of people who do it. There's simply no biblical grounds for it. It strikes me as superstitious. But on the other hand, one might say, well, it's no more superstitious than anointing a sick person to get well. Well, the one exception to that is that anointing a sick person to get well is a scriptural, you know, a scriptural suggestion where to start anointing all kinds of things for oil for nebulous reasons, you know, seeking undefined results, it just begins to be sort of a, it can be superstitious. Now, I'm not saying God can't honor it if your faith is in him. And somehow, you know, you're just thinking, hey, God, this place I'm putting the oil, I want you to please, you know, protect it there. I don't do that kind of thing. I've been with people who did that kind of thing. I even at the time, I thought it was a little superstitious, but I didn't want to be critical. I mean. It's just not a biblical practice, okay? And I, generally speaking, do not like to include in my Christian practice anything that the Bible does not command and which I cannot see having any obvious value, you know? And therefore, I don't practice it. If you're wondering how often should this be done and so forth, yeah, there's nothing in the Bible that says it should be done at all. So, you know, I personally don't do those kinds of things. And, you know, if someone could come up with a biblical rationale for it, I would certainly relook at my thoughts about that. But I don't know of any. All right. Let's talk to Ryan from Spartanburg, South Carolina. Hi, Ryan. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Casey, thank you. I had heard it said that all of the disciples of Christ had died as martyrs because they refused to basically admit, or I'm sorry, they refused to affirm that they did not actually see Jesus risen from the dead, and as such, because of their conviction, they were martyred, except for John, I believe. And it was always used as a very powerful argument rationale for the fact that Jesus actually did resurrect from the dead, because the disciples had nothing to gain by lying in that sense and dying for something that they didn't actually believe to be true. And I always thought that that was a very powerful argument, and so then I went in to check what kind of external sources we have if someone was to say to me, well, what evidence is there that they were all martyred in the various ways? And as far as I could find, there was only James, the son of Zebedee, James, the son of Joseph, Peter, and Paul, who we have external sources for that they were martyred. I think the rest, as far as I know, is only church history or church tradition that teaches that they were martyred.
SPEAKER 08 :
Is that correct? Well, all of them are church tradition, with the exception of James, the son of Zebedee. We have the record of his death given to us in Acts chapter 12. We don't actually have the record of the death of any of the other apostles in the Bible, but what we do have is early traditions that And since these early traditions, you know, are, you know, they're not all alike for each apostle, even John. I mean, the tradition is that John wasn't killed as a martyr. So we can figure out that, you know, the church didn't decide to make up martyr stories for all the apostles or else they would have done so for John too. I mean, my impression is the church fathers were interested in preserving accurate memories of what happened to these founders of the church as apostles. I know if I were them, I'd want to. I think some people think the church was led by con artists, and therefore they made up stories promiscuously that they thought would be edifying or convincing to people. But I think these men are themselves, many of them, martyrs. I mean, the sources, Christians were being martyred, and especially the leaders of the churches were hunted down and martyred for the first three centuries. And it's from men living at that time that we have the stories about the martyrdom of the apostles and of other Christians like Polycarp and such and James, the brother of Jesus. There's really no reason I can think of why these stories would be fake. Now, uh, you've heard this, the martyrdom of the apostles used as a, uh, an apologetic for the truthfulness of their testimony that they'd seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. Um, And I use it that way, too. I mean, I'll just say I do use it that way. But sometimes the way it's presented is just simply, well, these people could have not been martyred if they'd simply admitted that Jesus was not risen from the dead. And you might get the impression that every one of them stood with, as it were, a gun to his head saying, confess that Jesus didn't rise from the dead or I'll kill you. And each one of them stood with that testimony. that's not exactly how it happened. Many of them were martyred because simply they were church leaders. Some of them were martyred because they wouldn't burn incense to the Caesar. Some of them were martyred just for going against paganism. And so it's not really the case that each one of them was put on a trial where they had a specific question asked to them. And the wrong answer they die for and the right answer they would, you know, be granted freedom for. And that question is, did Jesus really rise from the dead? OK, that's not how it happened. What is true, though, is that they they went into situations facing deliberate danger and martyrdom. because they believe that Jesus rose from the dead. The point is, if they were not persuaded that Jesus rose from the dead, they wouldn't be risking their lives. Paul himself said that in 1 Corinthians 15. He says, if Jesus isn't risen from the dead, why am I facing these wild beasts and risking my life every hour? So it's not so much that they literally died on the spot for saying Jesus is risen from the dead on an occasion when someone would have said, we'll spare you if you say he didn't. But the point is that their whole careers faced death, faced danger, faced hardship, faced imprisonment and beatings. I mean, the apostles had all that. And the only reason they were motivated to do it is because they believed Jesus was risen from the dead. If they hadn't believed it, they would have gone somewhere else and done something else with their lives and avoided all that danger. So when someone says, well, they all died confessing that Jesus is risen from the dead, And therefore he did. Well, that's true. I mean, that was their confession. That is what they believed. But it's not always the case that somebody would have let them off the hook if they had said, OK, he didn't. I mean, because sometimes people just want to kill their mobs. You know, Nero didn't like Christians in general and killed Paul and Peter and others. So, you know, if what you heard, and you could easily have heard it because I've said things very similar myself, is that, you know, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, these guys wouldn't have risked their lives like this. They all died confessing that Jesus had risen from the dead. And that was, they did. They believed that and they said that right up until the time they died. But it wasn't always that one statement of theirs that was, you know, what got their heads cut off or got them fed to the lions. Sometimes it was more of a the general embrace of Christianity in a hostile world that got them killed.
SPEAKER 06 :
Right. The place that I read that James, the son of Zebedee, the son of Joseph, Peter, and Paul were martyred, or at least the external evidence was in Clement, I believe, 1 Clement 5. I'm not too familiar, however, with that book. Is that a church father?
SPEAKER 08 :
Clement of Rome was a bishop in Rome in the generation after the apostles, but not long after the apostles. He was like before the end of the first century. I'm not sure. I think the Catholic Church places him as like the third bishop of Rome or something like that. But Paul, in writing to Rome... mentions Clement, and many people think that's the same Clement that wrote the book Clement of Rome. It's an epistle to the Corinthians that Clement wrote, or that somebody wrote. So we don't know if he's the same Clement that Paul mentioned, but he was certainly a man of the first century church who would be in a prime position to know how Peter and Paul had died and so forth. Now, we don't have any one church father telling us everything about it, but there is, like in Fox's Book of Martyrs, I'm pretty sure he's got most of the apostles named in there, right in the opening chapters of Fox's Book of Martyrs. Sometimes it's not very much detail, but... I don't think there's very many of the apostles that aren't mentioned there. And I don't know what all of his sources were, but, you know, Fox was a historian and would have looked at all the sources available.
SPEAKER 06 :
Thank you so much. You've all checked that out. Thank you for your time.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, Ryan. Good talking to you, brother. Thanks for your call. Bye now. All right. See, Jacob in Orange County, California. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Good afternoon, Steve. Thank you for this ministry. My question is, would you be willing to give a brief hypothetical defense of dispensational eschatology? I'm familiar with some of their teaching points, but I'm curious to hear someone with a gift for teaching as yourself describe their position, and I'll listen to your answer up there. Thank you, Steve.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, sure. Thank you. Well, dispensational theology basically was introduced by a very intelligent man. John Nelson Darby, he's sometimes seen as kind of a villain in the minds of anti-dispensationalists. And there were things about him that were not very savory. He could be very divisive in his personality. In fact, he actually excommunicated one of my favorite people, George Mueller. George Mueller and he were acquainted, and both of them were in the Plymouth Brethren movement. And Darby excommunicated Mueller because he didn't agree with Darby about everything. And so, I mean, the guy was a little divisive. Let's just say quite divisive. And so I don't like Darby much, but there's still... The truth, he's a very brilliant man, and he made a complete translation of the Bible, the Darby Translation, which is still available, usually online. And he wrote lots of books. I think he wrote like over 50 books of theology. And they're not lightweight stuff. So, I mean, he was very persuasive in his own generation in certain evangelical circles. He He was Anglican, and he came out of that and became part of the Plymouth Brethren movement. But his theory was that Christians had been inconsistent throughout history in spiritualizing many Old Testament prophecies. The prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel and the minor prophets often are spiritualized by all the church fathers, all the medieval church, all the reformers, and in modern times by people like myself, who see many of the prophecies that mention Israel in the Old Testament are in some cases spiritualized, that is interpreted to refer to the spiritual Israel. And that's called spiritualizing. At least that's what people who don't like the practice call it. And so he said, that's not right. If it says Israel, it should be natural Israel. I mean, why do we take Genesis literally and the Gospels literally, but we don't take these prophecies literally when they say Israel and Jerusalem? And so he felt... the church was inconsistent and needed to consistently take things literally, including these Old Testament prophets. And in doing so, of course, he came up with an entirely different theology about Israel than the church had ever held before. And of course, he's living around 1830-ish when this was done. So for the first 1800 years, the church taught a certain theology about Israel and the church And Darby challenged it and said he actually felt he was rediscovering truths that only the apostles had taught. He knew he was going against the whole church for 1,800 years before him. And his view was that there are promises that God made to Israel and Jerusalem that simply have not occurred. That the Messiah was supposed to come and sit on David's throne in Jerusalem and restore Jerusalem to its former glory and glory. And Jesus didn't do that, so that still has to happen. He thought when Jesus comes back, that's got to happen. And so his argument was you find all these prophecies about the Messiah reigning over a restored Israel and Jerusalem and all the nations bringing gifts to him and him ruling the world with a rod of iron and so forth. And since Jesus didn't do that, now Darby's idea was Jesus would have done that. Jesus actually came intending to do that, but couldn't because the Jews rejected him as the Messiah. Now, I'm not sure why God would come and make his program so vulnerable to the Jews' disapproval. I mean, the Jews had rejected all the prophets before. Why would anyone think they'd accept Jesus? You know, I mean, so it's like Jesus comes and says, the time is fulfilled. The kingdom of God is drawn near. And yet it's not going to come because God knows very well that the Jews are going to respond to him exactly as they responded to the prophets before him. So in other words, it wasn't near. It was a mistake or it was, you know, I don't know, conditional or something. But Jesus didn't say the coming of the kingdom was conditional. He didn't say it depended on the Jews accepting him. But Darby said, well, because the Jews didn't accept him, Jesus did not bring the kingdom that he said he was going to bring. It was postponed. Jesus went back to heaven, took with him the kingdom that he had in mind. And he'll bring it back when he comes back. And he'll set up the millennial kingdom and set up the temple in Jerusalem. And he'll reign from Jerusalem, from David's throne, for a thousand years. That's the dispensational idea. And Darby also believed that the church and Israel should never be confused with each other. He felt like that was a big problem the church had done for 1800 years is take these prophecies about Israel and apply them to the church. He said, no, no, no, no, no. The church in Israel, different things. He said the church was an institution that was not even anticipated in the Old Testament. It was a mystery that only was revealed to Paul and the apostles, and therefore it didn't even exist in the Old Testament. It wasn't even anticipated. The church is, he said, a parenthesis because the Jews who God came to bring the kingdom to had rejected christ and caused the kingdom to be postponed there was now this parenthetical phenomenon of god going to the gentiles and creating the body of christ and you know doing what he's doing now until he's done doing that and when he's done doing that he'll rapture the church out of the world But then he'll keep working in the world on the Jews, and the tribulation will be his way of disciplining and bringing the Jews to himself. And then they will come to him, and then Jesus will come and set up the millennium. That's Darby's ideas. Now, there are, I guess you wanted me to give an exegetical polemic in favor of dispensationalism. I used to think I could do that, but it really wasn't exegetical. It was more or less just assumption. It was the assumption that my teachers had told the truth about these things and that interpreting the Bible the way my teachers did is the only honest and faithful way of handling Scripture. And it took me years of my own study of Scripture to realize that that's not the best way to interpret Scripture. I didn't know what dispensationalism was. I was dispensational. I never heard the term before. I just thought dispensationalism, or I should say, I thought what they were teaching me was what the Bible teaches. They didn't tell me. My teachers never told me. This is a view called dispensationalism. I had to discover that the hard way over years after teaching dispensationalism without knowing that it was that. But I found out that the early church actually had been more accurate in the way that they handled scriptures. That the apostles in the New Testament, when they quoted Old Testament scriptures, the very ones that Darby said should be taken literally about the literal Israel and Jerusalem, whenever the apostles quoted those scriptures, they didn't take them literally. They applied them to the church. And that's why the whole church understood them that way. They thought the apostles were right. And that Jesus was right because he did the same thing. When they quoted... Old Testament passages, which Darby thinks we should apply to Israel and Jerusalem, and which dispensationalists say we should, the apostles and Jesus didn't take them that way. They took them in a spiritual sense and thought that Jesus actually came to fulfill the prophets and that he did not fail to do so. At the end of his life, Jesus prayed and he said, Father, I have finished the work you gave me to do. He didn't say, hey, I tried, but the Jews wouldn't let it happen, so sorry, God, I couldn't do it. No, he said, I finished it. And this is what the church has always believed, that Jesus did not fail. He succeeded. And I don't think there's a good exegetical case for dispensationalism, but there's just a grid you can read the Bible through in order to think about it that way. Hey, I'm out of time for this segment. I'll be back in about 30 seconds or so. Please stay tuned.
SPEAKER 09 :
Tell your family, tell your friends, tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to sell you but everything to give you. And that's The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. When today's radio show is over, go to your social media and send a link to thenarrowpath.com where everyone can find free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. And tell them to listen live right here on the radio. Thank you for sharing. Listener supported The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.
SPEAKER 08 :
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 about the Christian faith, feel free to give me a call. The number is 844-825-8000. 484-5737. And you're always welcome to call if you disagree with me about something too. Again, our website has been down for a few days. Hopefully it'll be up. I don't know. It could be up today, tomorrow. I'm not sure. It might be down for a while. If you're used to, you know, listening to things from our website, we've got thousands of things there to listen to on a regular basis. And you're kind of going through withdrawal because the site's down. Go to this alternative website, It's called theos, T-H-E-O-S, theos.org slash media. It at least has all, I think, has the archives of the radio show and it's got the lectures there. And that's mostly what people want when they go to our website. Our website has some other things, too, that aren't there. But essentially, you know, if you're listening to the lectures or the archives, you can get them there, too. All right, at least last I checked. I haven't been there for a long time myself, but I hope it's up and running too. Technology is not always our friend, but it certainly has been convenient sometimes. Okay, let's talk next to Roberto from Kansas City, Missouri. Hi, Roberto.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Steve, Greg. Thank you for taking my call. I would like to ask you, Well, I watch you on YouTube. That's mainly where I get your program and everything. How can we pray in a godly manner for our president not to be set up the way he was today? All we can pray is that, you know, God's will be done. That's all I've been praying for lately is God's will be done. We learned the hard way over the last, like, you know, to elections. And, um, he was set up today to go to this, uh, church service where the, uh, pastor, if you will, uh, was begging him for mercy on, um, on the homosexual community, gay rights and, uh, migrants. Um, how can we pray, uh, for his spiritual direction and leadership? Because he has apparently surrounded himself with the same crowd like, um, Paula White was a prosperity gospel person.
SPEAKER 08 :
Is she still in the picture there? I didn't know she was still in the picture. I thought he'd moved on to someone like Jack Hibbs.
SPEAKER 07 :
I thought she was out of the picture, but I pulled up a video that was just done two months ago. by Forbes, which is, you know, a liberal source. But two months ago, she was praying over him with that type of crowd. So I didn't know that either.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, let me jump in. Let me jump in here. I hadn't heard about what happened today. So I don't know anything about that. But as far as being set up, I'm not sure how you mean that. I mean, the president is going to be challenged about lots of things throughout his term and should be. Presidents always should be. And I didn't obviously hear how he responded. So I can't tell. But all I can say, if your question is how shall we pray for him? I mean, if that's not just a way of you making some statements, but you're really wondering how should we pray for him, I think we should pray for him to be wise and for him to be committed to justice. And, of course, we should pray for him and everybody that they be converted to Christ. Now, I don't know. I'm not going to say he's not a Christian. He doesn't. If he's a Christian, I don't think he's a very mature Christian, and I don't think he's been discipled very thoroughly, obviously. So we could pray either that he'll get converted, or if he has been converted, that he'll be properly discipled, that he'll have better Christian influences around him, hopefully, than Paula White, and that he'll be a wise ruler. Yeah. I also pray for his protection since there's, I don't think we've had a more hated president. Although, I mean, some people obviously almost idolize him, which is bad too. We don't want to idolize him, but he's a very polarizing figure. In my opinion, I don't think he did anything to encourage that polarization, but it's just the fact. I think he's following his conscience, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know him, so he might be worse than I think. I've heard him give speeches. I've watched how he governed before. He was a president before, after all. and you know i've actually seen how he conducted himself in the years he was not president since then so my impression is that he's he's got some convictions and he's he's trying to put them forward and fortunately they are agreeable with the constitution and you know if he had constant if he had convictions that were unconstitutional i'd be very concerned because he kind of moves moves like a bulldozer uh you know forward with his programs um But it seems to me, as far as I can tell, the main controversial features of his plans are quite in keeping with the Constitution, which is what the president's supposed to be. Now, some people, but he doesn't follow the Bible. Well, I don't know what he does in terms of following the Bible, but the job description of the president is not about following the Bible. I think everybody should follow the Bible, including the president. I don't know if we have any national leaders around the world who do follow the Bible, and I don't know that Trump does either. But the special job description of the president is to uphold the Constitution. which is something our previous president had no interest in doing. In fact, he allegedly added an amendment to the Constitution just as he was walking out the door, which, of course, a president can't do. That's unconstitutional itself. So, I mean, we've had a president for four years who had no interest in the Constitution, just his own agendas. Now, Trump has agendas, too. No question about that. But as near as I can tell, his main agenda is to restore Congress. a constitutional integrity to the government. He might have other agendas too, but as long as he does restore constitutional integrity, that's a positive. It'll be a net positive that he became president in that case. But we should pray that he will be able to do what's good and that he will fail if he has any plans that are evil, and that he'll be converted, and that he'll be kept safe from assassins, I would say. You know, I didn't specifically pray that for many presidents before, but But this one's had a couple of attempts on his life, and I don't think his assassins or would-be assassins have gone anywhere. I don't think they've gone away. So those are the ways I would pray for him. And, you know, inherent in the prayer that he would have wisdom is that he would know how to address situations like the one you described today. And, of course, presidents have to face those all the time. They face challenges, and they should be able to. I think he's up to it. But on the other hand... He doesn't always know the truth. He's not omniscient. So we should pray that God will give him wisdom in those situations. Thank you for your call. All right, we're going to talk next to Oscar in Napa, California. Oscar, welcome.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hey, Steve. Enjoy your ministry. I learned a lot from it. A lot of Hebrews. about Melchizedek. I heard some people say, I don't know if it's true or not, but some say he wasn't a human being. Was he a real man? Because they say he had no descendants, no mother or father. And I was just curious. Can you answer that for me?
SPEAKER 08 :
I think I can, but not everyone would agree with me. Melchizedek, appeared very briefly at the end of Genesis 14 and met with Abraham. And there's a very brief description of the transaction between them. And it's mysterious because he kind of appears out of nowhere. He's described as a priest of the Most High God and the King of Salem, which most scholars think refers to Jerusalem at the time. Now, remember, Jerusalem in Abraham's day, it was not a Jewish city. There were no Jews. Jerusalem was a pagan city, a Canaanite city in those days. So If he was the king of Jerusalem, he was ruling a pagan Canaanite people. Now, Jewish tradition holds that he was Shem, the last surviving son of Noah. And it is true that Shem, if you follow the chronology, Shem would still be alive at that time. So that would explain why Abraham died. would show such deference to Melchizedek if he was Shem, because Abram was descended from Shem. He is a Shemite or a Semite himself, as Jewish people today understand themselves to be also. So, you know, the Jews think he was Shem. Now, the author of Hebrews did not think that was a satisfying answer. He thought there were things about Melchizedek that would not apply to Shem. And I have to agree. I mean, it does say in Hebrews, he had no father, no mother, no beginning of days, nor end of life. Now, this would suggest he wasn't an ordinary man, that he was a divine being, almost like when an angel comes to earth, although I think it was more a theophany. You remember when Jacob wrestled with a man all night? The man just kind of showed up, wrestled all night, and then went away. The man presumably was God, at least that's how Jacob understood it, God in a human-type appearance to interact with Jacob. And I kind of think Melchizedek is like that, that he just kind of showed up that he is God. We might even say Christ, the Word, in his pre-incarnate state, coming in a human form to meet with Abraham and to bless him and to allow Abraham to interact with him face-to-face as if he was a human. Now, when God does that, and he does it several times in the Old Testament, although the Bible doesn't tell us in the Old Testament that Melchizedek is an example of this phenomenon, but there are other examples of that phenomenon in the Old Testament. I think Melchizedek probably is. because that would be the only case in which he's without father and without mother. and no beginning of days or end of life. Now, those who don't take this view, who think he's maybe Shem, or maybe that he's just some other guy who was a king of Salem at the time, and many commentators don't believe he's Christ, or don't believe he's God, they would say, well, when it says he had no father or mother, it just means his father and mother were not recorded. And when it says he had no beginning of days or end of life, it means his birth and death were not recorded. Well, that's hardly worth mentioning. Most of the people in the Bible who are named, their births and deaths are not recorded. In many cases, their parents are not recorded. But if it was Shem, his parentage is known. He's the son of Noah and Noah's wife. So we don't know the exact birthday to celebrate of his birth, but we do have record of his birth. Noah had three sons, it says. That means they were born. Shem, Ham, and Japheth. So If he was actually Shem, as the Jews believe, the writer of Hebrews wasn't buying it. Because even if he was saying he has no recorded parentage, well, that wouldn't be true of Shem. I don't believe he's saying there's no recorded parentage. He could have said that if he wanted to. And by the way, if it was Shem, I'm not sure why Moses, when he was writing Genesis, wouldn't just mention it was Shem. After all, Moses had recorded that Shem had been one of the sons of Noah who came out of the ark and that Shem was an ancestor of Abraham. That's all recorded in the Genesis. Why would he not refer to him as Shem? Why would he refer to him by a term that means king of righteousness? So I don't think we can easily get away from the fact that the writer of Hebrews was identifying Melchizedek as Christ himself. And I have a whole discussion about that. If you go to my lectures on Hebrews, Hebrews chapter 7, I go into this in great detail. And normally I could say you'd find that at our website, thenarrowpath.com. But as I said earlier, our website's kind of down for the moment, but you can go to theos.org. dot org slash medium and find those lectures and i do go in depth both in my lecture on genesis 14 and in my lecture on hebrews 7. i go into that in much more detail i appreciate your call brother all right thanks thanks for joining us all right we're going to talk next to james from fresno california james welcome
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, Steve, thanks for taking my call. Just real quick, in regards to the website, I was just on there. I'm on an iPhone. Is it working? It was working, but I had to bypass the warning that Safari gave me saying that somebody was trying to impersonate the website. So I just click on Go Ahead and View Anyway and take the risk. And that way I was able to finish your book today, which was phenomenal, by the way.
SPEAKER 08 :
Which one is that, The Empire of the Rising Sun?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I just finished both books, and I've got to say, I've been waiting to read that for years. I just didn't know it was out there. I came across it recently, and man, I'm so impressed. I feel so blessed that I was able to read that. You explain things in a way that, like I said, I've just been waiting to hear for a long time. You did it in a way that you just take out all all the biased theology, all the denominationalism, and I really appreciate your honesty and your integrity in writing that. Thank you. In fact, I just finished it a couple hours ago, like I said, and I really just wanted to call and thank you. But I did have one question that's been bugging me for a long time, and I was hoping you could elaborate a little more. In the book, you said that the disciples prayed to the Father, and that we as disciples... should pray to the Father also. And I was just wondering if you could maybe get a little more in-depth on what's the difference in our prayer life when we pray to the Father, pray to Jesus, and how we include the Holy Spirit in that. And one more thing I just want to know, do you have any kind of curriculum about discipleship that I can share with my church, and maybe I might be able to lead, I might be able to borrow from you?
SPEAKER 08 :
I haven't prepared any curriculum, but the second book of the Empire of the Risen Sun, you know, book two?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 08 :
I intended that to be, you know, at least functional as a curriculum for discipleship. It definitely is. It's all about discipleship, and I think it's quite practical and goes into the weeds, even about, you know, application and so forth. So I I don't have it laid out as sort of a curriculum with lead questions and workbooks or anything like that. But I could see, and I'd certainly welcome anybody taking that material and developing it into a curriculum. You know, I would think that, you know, if someone wanted to, or I mean, they could, like I said, they could make a curriculum out of it. But if they didn't want to go to that trouble, they could just have a study group where they'd each read it. You know, they'd read a chapter of it each week and get together and discuss it and look up the scriptures in it and talk about it. You know, there's 40 chapters in those two books. So it'd make almost close to a year's curriculum. But I don't have anything prepared in the form of a curriculum. No, I'm sorry to say.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. Well, I'm so thankful that you have the book, at least. And I'll definitely use that.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, brother.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Thank you, brother.
SPEAKER 08 :
Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 08 :
I'll talk about the prayer. Thank you. Yeah. Jesus said that we should pray to the Father in his name. That is in Jesus' name. Now, the Bible also talks about us praying in the Holy Spirit. And praying in the Holy Spirit, I believe, means directed by the Holy Spirit and, you know, through empowered by the Holy Spirit. So, I mean, the Holy Spirit is living inside of us, so he's active in our prayers, at least he should be. We need to count on that to be so, that the Holy Spirit will be guiding us and directing us in our prayers, energizing our prayers, convicting us about what we need to pray about, and so forth. But our prayers, of course, are the actual utterances, the actual petitions we present. to God, external to us. The Holy Spirit is in us, but we're addressing God who's out there, just like Jesus did. Obviously the Father was in Christ, but Jesus spoke to the Father as someone external also. So praying to the Father is simply what Jesus taught us to do. He said, when you pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be your name. Or Paul said, I bow my knee to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. in, I guess it's Ephesians chapter 3, you know, the apostles, when they prayed in Acts... chapter 4, when they addressed their prayer, they said, Lord, which could be Jesus or could be the Father, but as you read on what they said, they go on and speak to the Lord and say, for truly against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. So they refer to Jesus as the holy servant of the one they're speaking to, which of course would be the Father. So we find, you know, prayers to the Father just as Jesus instructed us to pray to the Father. Now, prayer in Jesus' name, many people don't understand what that means, but that simply means praying to the Father with the authorization and access that Christ's name grants us. You know, it's like if there's a, you know, a card slot to enter into the throne room, and you've got Christ's access card, you know, you're authorized, as long as you got it legitimately. You know, you've got authorization to come in. And that's what the name of Jesus is. Jesus is our authorization to come before the Father as if we were him. And, of course, with that authorization comes the obligation to pray in his interest for In other words, Jesus doesn't just give us an Aladdin's lamp and says, listen, say Jesus, and that's like rubbing the lamp, and then whatever comes out, your wish is our command, God's command. No, when you act in someone else's name, you're acting on their behalf. You're acting as their agent. You're doing what they would do. And with their authorization to do it. So praying is that way, too. When you pray in Jesus' name, you're going to the Father, authorized by Christ, to go as if you were him. And to pray such prayers as he would be inclined to pray, according to his will. And that's what prayer in Jesus' name means. But it's the Father we're praying to. Now, some people say, well, is it okay if I pray to Jesus or pray to the Holy Spirit? Well, I'll just tell you. Prayer, technically, is presenting petitions to God. And Jesus said, present your petitions to the Father. That doesn't mean you can't speak to Jesus or even to the Holy Spirit. But I think we've tended to use the word prayer to be kind of an umbrella term for every time we say anything to God, that's part of our prayer life. Well, prayer is part of our relationship with God. But there are other parts of our relationship with God, too. are thanksgiving, worship, praise. Those aren't exactly the same thing as prayer, but they are presented to God just as petitions are. So prayer and praise and thanksgiving are all parts of our relationship with God. Now, Jesus made it very clear when we present our petitions, we should present them to the Father. And that's what the apostles did when they prayed. They put presented petitions to the Father. That doesn't mean you can't praise Jesus or that you can't even just, as far as I'm concerned, converse with him. I find it very natural to converse both with Jesus and with God and, you know, in my life. So there's nothing wrong, I think, at least the Bible doesn't say there's anything wrong with speaking to Jesus or even to the Holy Spirit, though I don't know of any case of that being done. The thing is, It's not wrong. I mean, we have a relationship with God. We have with the Father and with the Son and with the Holy Spirit. It's just that the Father is the one that Jesus tells us to bring our requests to. Because it's the Father who will grant them. And he'll grant them because we're praying as agents of Christ, authorized by Christ, presenting the prayers that Christ himself would approve of being prayed and that he himself would pray. So that's what it means to pray to the Father in Jesus' name. I appreciate you asking. Let's talk to Tim from Marietta, Georgia. Tim, welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hi. Good afternoon, Steve Gregg. I hope you're doing well. So I had a quick question. I have a grandfather who's about in his late 80s and his son or my uncle who is in his late 50s. you could say converted maybe a decade ago to Islam, even though my grandfather raised all of his kids in a Christian upbringing, but maybe he was not faithfully secure. But recently, my uncle, when he visits my grandfather, he would bring his mat and demand to pray, or choose to pray in my grandfather's house, and in one of the rooms, not like within the presence of my grandfather, but in a room within his house. And I was just wondering if, you know, what steps, whether that's, whether my grandfather has the ability to communicate to him that he's not able to pray in the house, or what steps he should take as a Christian man. Because I know in Deuteronomy 7, they talk about not worshiping or not encouraging the worship of idols, but I'm wondering if that's a plus to that situation.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right. Well, first of all, your grandfather has every right to forbid any activity in his house that he doesn't want happening there. It is his domain. It's just like he could forbid someone from bringing their girlfriend over and sleeping with them when they're a guest in his house. It's his home. He can maintain it and its sanctity however he sees fit. Different people have had different opinions. Different Christians have had different opinions exactly about the identity of Allah. I personally would not feel comfortable having anyone praying to Allah in my house because I don't believe that that's necessarily acceptable to God. Some people have seen things a bit differently than that. But I think that if your grandfather has objection to it as a Christian, He should just tell, is it your cousin I think you're talking about? You should tell him that he, you know, he can't do that there. I mean, if he wants to pray outside on the lawn, you know, or out in the car or whatever, he could do that. But he doesn't want that happening under his roof. Now, some might feel it's unkind or unfair, but once again, A person has to go by their own convictions. You know, I mean, some people would not allow statues in their home, even if they're not in any sense being worshipped. But they might say, well, this is this, you know, we got this from, you know, some African tribe or something. We don't know. They might have worshipped it. So I don't want it in my home. I mean, a person would have every right to do that. Although, I mean, I also think that'd be up to them because I'm not so sure that a statue, you know, is itself an idol unless someone's worshipping it. So anyway, that'd be simply a matter of conviction. I think your grandfather's convictions about that should be honored by anyone who comes into his home. I'm not saying what his conviction should necessarily be about it, simply because I'm aware of more than one Christian way to look at this whole issue of Allah. You know, the Athenians were worshipping a god they didn't know. They had an altar to the unknown god. And when Paul saw it, he said, I saw a lot of false gods, a lot of idols in your city, but there was also an idol to one you call the unknown God. And I'm here to tell you about him, this one that you worship ignorantly. I'm here to tell you who he is. In other words, he considered that the Athenians may well have been worshiping the true God, but didn't know him and needed to know him. And so it's possible that some Muslims are worshiping the true God, but they don't know him properly. They don't have accurate knowledge of him. So, I mean, that's one way that some have understood it. I'm not pushing one way or the other of seeing this. But, yeah, I'd just say your grandfather should make his own decision according to his conscience about that. Oh, I'm sorry, we're out of time. I'd like to tell you, you can donate at the website, but I'm not sure you can get there. So if you wish to donate to help us stay on the air, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. And our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let's talk tomorrow.
This episode of The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg tackles an array of intriguing topics that bridge ancient biblical principles with modern-day dilemmas. As listeners call in with questions, Steve unpacks the complexities of dreams and their potential messages from God. Delving into the Bible's take on tithes, offerings, and giving, the discussion shifts gears to explore how Christians can navigate societal pressures while remaining steadfast in their faith. Additionally, the conversation touches on controversial topics like Calvinism and predestination, encouraging listeners to consider varied theological perspectives. The episode concludes with a thoughtful reflection on how personal convictions should guide our actions in a way that aligns with our beliefs and spiritual values.
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 to take your calls if you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith or you have a different view from the host and want to present that. There's a phone number you can call to get on. We have actually a couple of our lines are open at the moment. They may not be for very long. You can call me at this number, 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. Now, I've been getting a lot of emails from people asking if the debate in April with Dr. Michael Brown is still going to happen. We've certainly not announced anything else, and we have not expected anything else to happen. We there erupted, I guess it was near the end of last year, some issues in his personal life that raised questions as to whether he'll be available. And we weren't sure, but we've talked to him. At least some of the people intending to organize the debate have talked to him, and it looks like he's still going to be available. for the dates that we had in mind, which is the first weekend in April. And I think it'll be in the Fresno, California area. So that'll be confirmed. Actually, the location may be a different one than what we had planned on. We're looking for the best possible location. So we don't have that posted. We don't have that information out yet. It's still not until a while from now in April. So anyway, for those wondering, at this point, it looks like the debate will be going on, debating about the subject of Israel. And not just one debate, possibly three. I think we're talking about a Friday and a Saturday. So it should be an enjoyable weekend for anyone who comes, including Dr. Brenner and myself, I hope. Now, a couple of other things about where I'm going to be coming up. I am going to be in Texas. I've been saying that all week, and that's true. I'll be in Texas April 18th through the 28th, and there's still plenty of spots during that week. I don't mind speaking every day and every night. When I'm out of town, I don't like to sit around twiddling my thumb. So if I have a day off, it's not my favorite situation. I'd rather be busy. So if you're in Texas, anywhere in Texas, but especially anywhere like Dallas-Fort Worth or Houston or San Antonio, those areas, and you want to set something up, let us know. You can get in touch with us through the website if you want to. That is to say there's an email address there for me. Let us know that you have something in mind that we're talking about any time between the 18th and the 28th of April in Texas. Now, there's one other thing that has come up. And that is, it looks like I'll be in Nashville speaking on the second weekend of March. We're looking at March 7th and 8th. Now, once again, whenever I go to Tennessee, I don't mind being very busy. And we've got me booked for the 7th and the 8th of March, the week leading up to that or the week following that. are all possibilities if you want me to come to any place we're on. I think we're on four different stations, at least three different stations in Tennessee in different areas. So, again, you can get in touch. We're talking about essentially the first week of March we're looking at, or the second. March is pretty open, and so we'll determine whether we fill in the week before the 7th or the week after the 7th, depending on what kind of time people are asking for. So anyway, those things are happening. March and April, we're talking about Tennessee and Texas. And of course, at the beginning of April, we're talking about a debate in the Fresno area. So These are the things that are coming up, and if you want to book something, get in touch with us soon because the time slots do fill up. It costs nothing to have me come. Sacramento, I guess with the Fresno thing, I'll be possibly close enough to take something in Sacramento, too, although the weekend will be taken in Fresno. But anyway, these are places that I go regularly or at least try to go once a year or something like that. And these are the dates we're looking at right now in the next few months. All right, enough of that information. We will hope to hear from some of you. Let's talk to Patty in Carmichael, California. Patty, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for coming.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thank you, Steve. I want to thank you for finishing answering the question on Exodus 4 after the break the other day. That was very good.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, thanks.
SPEAKER 07 :
My question today, another little weird thing. On Ezekiel 13, 18 and 20, when they're talking about sewing pillows to armholes and then I'm against your pillows, what are they talking about?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, well, if you look at commentaries about that, they'll say that has something to do with the worship of Tammuz, a pagan god, that women, it was mainly women that worshiped Tammuz. And they sewed pillows onto their arms, I guess it is, for purposes that no one to this day understands. Oh, of course. Yeah. I mean, this was going on, you know, 2,600 years ago in a land that is very far away from us and culturally very different. Right. and worshipping a deity that isn't worshipped anymore. So we don't know all the reasons for these things, but that's what it is. So those are the kind of things that you kind of read over and you scratch your head and say, well, I guess Ezekiel and the people in his day knew what this was about.
SPEAKER 07 :
Guess we'll find out when we get to heaven, huh?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, if they're talking about that up there.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, thank you. I appreciate your time, and God bless you for all you do. I really appreciate it.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, Patty. God bless you.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thank you so much. Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 02 :
Bye now. All right. Our next caller is Dennis from Bloomfield, Colorado. Hi, Dennis. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi. Thank you. I'm a long-time listener, first-time caller.
SPEAKER 02 :
Great.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I have a quick question. I know in Catholicism, they believe in mortal sin, and they believe if you don't go to church on a holy day obligation, if you die in that sin, you go to hell. Obviously, it's following the Jesus. We don't believe that, you know, Protestants, whatever label you want to call it. Right. So what is truth? It's for them. Is that true for them? And for us, not Jesus followers, but don't believe in Catholicism. So I have a hard time understanding what is the truth about stuff like that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Well, there are corruptions of the simple Christian message, which involve obligations that the Bible never places on people. And certain religions, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and many forms of Protestantism, they have some kind of rules that are not in the Bible that God never cared about and never commanded. And yet they become not only expected, they become required. You know, if you neglect them, they call it a mortal sin. But this is the authority of man, not God declaring it. God never said anything about that. You know, when we stand before God, we'll be judged on the basis of what we did in response to the light that God gave us. Did we obey Christ as best we understood from his word? Did we trust in Christ? If so, then all will be well. Now, the legalistic rules and so forth that certain religious sectors have invented, are not required by God. Now, I will say this, though. Paul did say that people should follow their conscience about things. It doesn't mean their conscience is always right, but it's not safe to go against your conscience. And the reason is your conscience... is that part of you that tells you that something is right or wrong. It may be itself mistaken, because some people think, for example, it's wrong for a woman to wear pants. There are churches that think that, or that it's wrong for a woman to cut her hair or something like that. So, I mean, when groups have those kinds of convictions, and if you're raised with those or indoctrinated with those, then it'll be in your conscience. Your conscience will make you feel guilty if you violate those rules, even though God doesn't make those rules and God doesn't care. But you do. That's the thing. If your heart is telling you you're doing the wrong thing and you do it anyway, this suggests that you are willing to go against what you think is right, even if what you think is right is mistaken. It's your orientation toward God and toward obedience to him that God's looking at. And that's why Paul said, you know, in 1 Corinthians chapters 8 through 10, he has a long discussion about this, how that it's not really wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but some Christians thought it was. And he says, well, if you think it is, then it's wrong for you to do it. Now, he doesn't mean that there's different moral standards that God imposes on one group than another. He's saying that if you can't get free in your conscience about this, if you feel like you're not supposed to do it and that it's bad to do it, then don't do it, because doing what you believe is bad to do is simply showing a willingness to do what you think is wrong. Now, if you're more enlightened and realize that it's not wrong, more power to you. Paul said, blessed is the man whose mind does not condemn him in the thing which he does. Now, some things are right and wrong, but then there are personal convictions and religious convictions that some people hold which they think are right or wrong and to violate the conscience. is never a safe thing. Now, does that mean that a Catholic should live in bondage to rules and so forth that aren't in the Bible? No. But a Catholic should not violate their conscience. As long as they are convinced that these are things that God wants them to do, they shouldn't stop doing them until they can become righteously convinced that it doesn't matter to God. And that can happen. Your conscience is not static. It's dynamic. It can become corrupted. For example, people can do things they know are wrong enough that later on they don't feel that they're wrong. Their conscience has been corrupted. It's been cauterized, the Bible says. On the other hand, a person's conscience might be too sensitive about things. Well, it can be changed too. Your conscience should be educated by the Word of God. And so, you know, if I think it's wrong for a person to smoke cigarettes and then I'd better not smoke them. If I see someone else smoking them, I'm not allowed to judge them about that because the Bible doesn't say it's wrong to smoke cigarettes. But if I think it's wrong, I shouldn't do it. And if I do it, I'm doing the wrong, I'm sinning. I'm sinning against my own conscience. And that's something that we're not allowed to do. So if a Catholic thinks that they have to do all these things, observe the, you know, festal calendar of the Catholic Church and things like that, and if they don't, They're going to hell. Well, I'm not saying they'll go to hell if they violate those things. But I will say they can't just ignore what they believe to be required. But they can change their mind about what is required. They can educate themselves and discover. And this would happen to Luther and many people who were once Catholics and came out of that. They realized that the rules they were keeping were not in the Bible. The church taught them to do things that weren't required. And once they realized that, they were free to not do them. But as long as you think you have to do them, then you'd better not violate them. Because the main thing is that you make sure you do not violate your conscience. And so I think many Roman Catholics would be of the view that that they have to do those things. But the Bible doesn't say it. I don't think it's so. And so the question is whether you think so or not. So that would be the main concern. Okay. Teresa from San Francisco, California. Welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Teresa. I've been listening to you for a year now, and your words are really magnificent for me to go on throughout the week. So I have two questions that have been bothering me for years. Dreams. Where in the Bible does it actually let us know that Jesus is talking to us or warning us or communicating to us through our dreams? Where can I find that at? For instance, I have dreams. Sometimes they're a death of a certain person, and it may not be of that person. It's the next person to them. Or it's something's about to happen or has happened. That person came in my dreams twice, and I wake up with that specific thought, and it's there as if it happened yesterday. So where in the Bible can it speak about the talk of dreams? The second question is tithes and offerings. of the church. How often do we actually pay into it, and when is it too much of a stress on our own home that we have to be obligated to pay our tithes and offerings in church?
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. All right. Well, thank you for that call. I'll address both those things. When it comes to dreams, dreams are mysterious things, don't you think? I think everyone will have to agree it's very mysterious. Sometimes you'll have a dream at night, and there'll be elements in it of things you were talking about the previous day or something that's happening to somebody else that you know about that's on your heart. Or it may be a strange mixture of different aspects of things. And you think, well, where did that story come from in my head? And it's mysterious. The mind is a mysterious thing. And I think dreams are among the most mysterious functions of the mind. Now, the Bible, of course, records God speaking to people through dreams. You know, Joseph famously said, had dreams. Daniel had dreams. In fact, many prophets had dreams. Zechariah had dreams. In the New Testament, Joseph had dreams where an angel appeared to him and told him on one occasion to go ahead and marry Mary who was pregnant and on another occasion he was told to go to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Paul had either visions or dreams too. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between a vision or a dream in the Bible because In either case, it is God giving somebody a message supernaturally. And if it's in a dream, it's when they're asleep. If it's a vision, I presume it's when they're awake. In fact, in the Bible, an inspired dream seems to be no different than an inspired vision. except in one case the person's awake and the other case they're asleep. And so you could get the impression from reading the Bible, because it never records other dreams that are not prophetic. You get the impression, oh, the Bible teaches that dreams are God talking to you. And yet the Bible doesn't really say that. The Bible simply gives examples of people who had dreams where God was giving them a message and a dream. However, some people dream every night. And certainly it would be crazy to suggest that every night they're getting prophetic messages from God, especially given the craziness of some of the dreams that people have and the unedifying types of dreams many people have. Fear-inducing or lustful or other kinds of dreams that you couldn't really attribute them to God. Sometimes it seems like they may come from the devil. And I suspect sometimes they may. I believe that God may give dreams, or I think the devil can give dreams, but I also think just your brain or your mind can produce dreams. Now, I don't know where they come from. Again, I don't know how all the stuff tangled up in your experience somehow gets processed into a weird story in your sleep. That's very mysterious. But my suspicion is about dreams, and the Bible doesn't tell us this per se, but I think just from experience, and there's nothing against this in the Bible, I think most people's dreams, most dreams are just a natural function of the mind, you know, processing or regurgitating thoughts, and emotions from real life into really fantastic and fictional and weird contraptions, strange stories. But I also believe, and I think this would be much less frequently, a dream may be something that the devil gives somebody. Now, this would be the kind of dreams that are perhaps temptations to sin or terrifying dreams. which God is not in that case trying to terrify you. It's just an intimidating and terrifying thing. I would not be surprised if the devil gives those kinds of dreams. The Bible doesn't say so. The Bible doesn't talk about the devil giving dreams. So I'm just speculating here. But I think the majority of dreams are either just from your own mind or sometimes from the devil. And then from time to time, God does give inspired prophetic dreams. Now, I don't know that everyone has those. In the Bible, God said to Moses that if he calls a person to be a prophet, he will speak to that person in a dream or a vision. And he was basically saying that it's different with Moses because Moses was, you know, greater than most prophets. But let me find that passage for you. It is... Chapter 12 of Numbers, in verse 6, God said, So, he says that he does speak to his prophets in dreams, and we have examples of those, as I mentioned earlier. But even those people didn't have prophetic dreams every day. I mean, Daniel was remarkably inspired in terms of both having dreams and interpreting other people's dreams, as was Joseph. But we only read of them having a few such cases. We don't read of them doing that kind of every week or every month or every year. So I think it's a rare thing when a dream is actually a word from God. Now, how would one know if it is, you ask? And I'm not sure exactly how to say, but I will say this. And this is I can say with a measure of confidence, but not with certainty. When Pharaoh had dreams that were from God and he called for Joseph to come interpret them. And indeed, they were prophetic dreams that Pharaoh had. And likewise, Nebuchadnezzar, when Nebuchadnezzar had dreams and he needed Daniel to come interpret them. In both cases, these these guys woke up unsettled. I mean, they had dreams, and they woke up disturbed. Like, I mean, something in their spirit told them, this is not just another weird dream because I had anchovies on my pizza. This is something that needs an interpretation. They had a strong conviction that God was speaking to them, and they're very emotionally disturbed by what they'd seen. I think that was no doubt disturbing. God letting them know that this was something special, something unusual. Now, I myself have had a couple of dreams in my life, which I, in retrospect, believe were from God. And there was information in those dreams I needed to know, but I couldn't know naturally. And I woke up in both cases that I can think of very disturbed, feeling very disturbed from the dream. And then I later would check up on things that I didn't know and found out they were confirmed. So I personally think on a couple of occasions, maybe three, that I have had dreams that were something I needed to pay attention to more than just an ordinary weird dream. And they turned out in each case to be giving me information that was important for me to know. And in each of those cases, I didn't wake up feeling normal. I woke up with a strong sense that this was something other than just a normal dream. Now, that sounds so subjective, but hey, sometimes when God is doing stuff, revealing stuff, I'm sure there's a strong subjective element to that. But I'm not telling you that every time you wake up on Easter Eve that you've had a prophetic dream. This is just something that it's going to have to be God who lets you know in some way. God will somehow let you know that this is something you need to know. But I'm not of the opinion that most people have prophetic dreams at all. And if they do, not very often. So, you know, there's no teaching in the Bible that tells us how to necessarily recognize if a dream is from God or not. And I think it's, I guess... It's up to God to give you the strong sense that he's trying to tell you something. Now, you asked about tithes. How often do we have to tithe and so forth? Well, tithing is not something that is, as far as we know, practiced in the New Testament. It's an Old Testament practice. It was a law that all the tribes of Israel, except the, well, including the Levites, had to take a tenth of the produce of their farms, and 11 of the tribes had to give that tenth to the Levites. Then the Levites had to take a tenth of that, of their income, and give it to the priests. So everyone was giving away a tenth of what they got. That was called tithing. The word tithe means tenth. That's an old English word for tenth. So the giving of 10% to the priests was called tithing. Now, we don't have any priests like that. We don't have a tabernacle. We don't have Levites today. And we don't have any command in the New Testament to pay a tithe to anyone. We are, of course, to be very generous with the money that God's given us because we're stewards of whatever we have. If God has blessed us with enough and more than what we need, we should recognize that what we have extra is an opportunity to help somebody else who needs it. Now, among the needs that the New Testament tells us are important for us to be mindful of are the needs of the poor, especially the poor. That's what Jesus said to the rich young ruler. Sell what you have and give it to the poor. He didn't say give it to the church or give it to the temple or give it to me. He said give it to the poor. That's how you lay up treasures in heaven, he said. And then, of course, the Bible also says that people should help with their finances, the support of the ministry of the word. So people who are preaching the gospel, pastors, teachers, people who their whole livelihood is made in sharing the word of God, making sure that they are supported is one of the other priorities that the New Testament mentions. So the two primary things that money is for, besides meeting your own obligations, but giving is for, is to help the poor and to help promote the gospel. Now, giving 10% is not required in the New Testament. You might give less, but you very well might give more. I've never felt that giving 10% for me was enough. I didn't think it was giving enough. I thought I should give more than that, and I do, but I've never looked at the tithe as a standard of how much to give, but rather, how much can I give? How much can I... How inexpensively can I live so that I can give to people who don't have enough? That would be the way to think about such things, I believe. And so... Don't worry about tithing. The New Testament mentions no obligation to tithe. It's an Old Testament obligation. All right. I appreciate your call. We're going to take a break here, but we're going to come back, obviously, and have another half hour. You're listening to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg. We are listener supported. If you'd like to write to us, the address is The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California. You can also donate to the radio ministry from the website, which is thenarrowpath.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds, so don't go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
toward a radically Christian counterculture, as well as hundreds of other stimulating lectures can be downloaded in MP3 format without charge from the Narrow Path website, www.thenarrowpath.com. There is no charge for anything at the Narrow Path website. Visit us and be amazed at all you've been missing. That web address, www.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. Our lines are full at the moment. So I'm not going to bother giving out the phone number, but if the lines are opening up and we have time for more calls, we'll give out that number. Let's see if there's anything else I need to say. That's all I'll say right now. We need to get to the phones and take as many of these calls as possible. Our next caller is Terry in Fort Worth, Texas. Terry, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, hello, Steve. Thanks. I've called in before, and this is my second time calling in, second time I got on. So I'm so proud. Great. Why did Jesus say, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me when he was up on the cross dying?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, that's a good question, and different people give different answers. The most obvious thing that can be seen right away is that he was quoting from an Old Testament passage. He was quoting Psalm 22, verse 1, which has those very words. David, writing perhaps of his own anguish, says, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? But the New Testament treats many of the Psalms of David as if they are the Messiah speaking. That's because even though the things that David said about himself were true of himself, he was also seen as a type and a figure of the Messiah. The Messiah was going to be his offspring. David was a prototype of the Messiah. And the New Testament sees concealed in many of David's words about himself, rather hidden identification with the Messiah and the words of David then are taken in the New Testament as if they are the Messiah's own words. This is something that I think the apostles saw as a result of Jesus, as it says in Luke 24, opening their understanding of so that they might understand the Old Testament scriptures. I think they saw Jesus in the Old Testament places where maybe another person might not see him. But Jesus was speaking as David did at the beginning of Psalm 22. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Now, there's a number of reasons that people have suggested that this could be so. One of them, and I've heard this a lot since my childhood... is that Jesus at that moment was indeed forsaken by God at that moment, briefly. The story goes that the sins of the world were laid upon him, as in the Old Testament sacrificial system, when the priest would lay hands on the animal before it was sacrificed and confess the sins of the people so that, symbolically, the sins were transferred from the people to the animal. Then the animal was symbolically treated like the sinner and the sinners themselves were treated as innocent. It's sort of like there's a transfer of status from the people to the animal and vice versa. So as the animal was in fact an innocent party, so the people then were treated as innocent parties. And as the people were guilty of sin, so the animals treated as it was guilty of sin. Now this is all very symbolic in the sacrificial system, but Christians tend to believe that this animal represented Christ and that Christ had our sins placed upon him. just as it says in 2 Corinthians 5, that he who knew no sin became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. So some feel that what Jesus is doing is actually speaking a reality, that as the sins of the world have been placed upon him, and he was now suffering the penalty of sin, the penalty of sin includes God turning his back on sin, on the sinner, and that now God was turning his back on Christ, and that Christ was experiencing the emptiness and the absence of God's presence with him. And so when Jesus said, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? It's not that he was looking for an answer, more of a rhetorical question, more of a statement, really, that God had, in fact, forsaken him. Now, this is a very common way of describing what Jesus did, and and explaining it, and it could be that this is the correct explanation, though it's not the only one, and so it may be that some other explanation works. Now, one thing that people have sometimes said is that at certain ceremonies, and this was the Passover when Jesus was crucified, the high priest would utter the beginning of some passage of Scripture which was familiar to the people, And he'd maybe recite the first part. And then the people were supposed to be mindful of the rest of that passage, even though the priest didn't quote it. Now, of course, Psalm 22 is a psalm that describes... the Messiah being crucified. He talks about how they pierced my hands, my feet, all my joints, my bones are out of joint, you know, my tongue cleaves the roof of my mouth. He says they cast lots for my clothing and they divided among themselves, which all these things happen to Jesus on the cross. And so the passage, as you read through Psalm 20, you find there's a description of of what was actually going on, being fulfilled right there in their presence was Jesus on the cross. And that Jesus was simply, this is one theory, quoting the first verse of Psalm 22 so that the people might become mindful of the whole chapter. Which, if you go further in the chapter, it describes the Messiah essentially crucified. So that he was pointing out to the crowd, by the citation of that one verse, that this was what David predicted was happening before them. Now, that's another common explanation. Now, there's a third, and it's much less profound sounding than those, but it could be true. And that is that he was simply speaking out his anguish, his agony. And that he wasn't really saying that God had forsaken him any more than David was saying that God had forsaken him. David uttered those words first, but David knew that God had not forsaken him. In fact, if you read further into the psalm, David actually mentions, you know, you won't depart from me, God. You know, you alone are the ones who stands with me, you know. So, excuse me. So I think that, you know, David might be simply speaking hyperbole. just saying that I personally feel that you've forsaken me, but I know that God really won't forsake me, but I feel like it. And he's expressing that feeling. And that Jesus was doing the same thing. Jesus was just expressing the anguish of feeling God forsaken, even though he didn't necessarily mean that as a literal reality. So there's a lot of ways to look at that. I think the one I'm most familiar with from my childhood is that he actually was forsaken by God briefly on the cross, and that was because our sins were transferred to him. But there are other possibilities. And since the Bible doesn't explain for us, it doesn't really champion one or another of those views, I think we can consider more than one possibility.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay. Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, Terry. Thanks for your call. Let's see here. We've got next, looks like Kevin in Northford, Connecticut. Welcome to The Narrow Path, Kevin.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. I appreciate it. I was just calling because I had a very strong impression before the election, and I was very serious and devoted to asking for God to have mercy on this country. And to me, that manifests in having Trump come into office. He's not our savior, but it's just the way he has more traditional values that are certainly Christian-friendly. But I believe that he's given us, like, maybe two years before the midterm elections, and that if the church, not the government, not Trump, but if the church doesn't get its act together... there's a very good chance that, you know, the evil spirits that were kicked out, they're going to come back, they're going to bring seven more with them, and we're going to be in a worse condition than we were before that. And one of the main things that concerns me is how people can say that they're christian and believe that abortion is okay i think to me it's very very offensive to god one of the main things that's offensive to god and one of the main things that he would like us to uh work on rectifying the having the um the church be willing to have the courage to speak up in love but to speak up and speak the truth and and i and like my church it's very hard to and i think it's true of a lot of churches I can't really say for sure, but it's my impression that people don't hear that in order to abide in Christ, we have to pick up our cross and bear it. So if you have an unwanted pregnancy, you have to pick up that cross and bear it for nine months. You can give the baby up for adoption if you needed to. If you are gay and you really want to have sex with a person of the same sex, but you believe in Christ, then you pick up your cross and you bear that. And the same thing for if you have a strong compulsion to you feel like you're a man trapped in a woman's body or a woman trapped in a man's body. All these things, if you're Christian, to me, you have to abide in Christ and you do that by picking up these crosses and bearing them. And I don't think that the church preaches that anywhere. And I think that the... the result of that for our country can be quite devastating fairly soon. And I was just wondering what your thoughts were on that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I don't know about the two-year limit. It certainly could be true. Obviously, there's going to be some change in the Congress in a couple of years. And if the Democrats take over the houses there, then it does strongly inhibit the reforms that Trump is trying to bring about. So I think you're right. It could be, it could be that there's only, uh, two years before things could go sour. And I agree with you too, that it's not, it's not the society, uh, or the government in general, that's going to decide whether we come under God's judges. It's the church. Uh, it's the church's responsibility to stand, especially in a country like ours, where it's got the largest number of professing evangelicals per capita of any nation, I think in the world, probably, um, if not in the world, certainly of any major nation. So, yeah, we definitely have a responsibility there. I agree with everything you said, and I think the reason that the churches fail is because the churches don't preach the gospel. Now, I'm sure they preach what they think is the gospel, you know, come to Jesus and go to heaven. That's not the gospel in the Bible. The Bible doesn't ever mention that. you know, accept Jesus and go to heaven. It's not part of the message that any of the apostles or Jesus taught. The gospel is, of course, that Jesus is king. Jesus is Lord. There's a kingdom, and he's ruling, and we're supposed to come under his authority and live to obey him. And as you said, Jesus said, if anyone comes to me, they need to deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. Now, churches do not preach this, partly, I think, because the ones preaching often aren't doing it. It'd be rather embarrassing for for a pastor who's got a fat salary and living super comfortably, maybe more comfortably than a lot of people in his congregation are, to be saying, oh, you need to take up your cross and deny yourself and forsake all that you have to be a disciple, like Jesus said. You know, that's going to be awkward if the pastors aren't living that way themselves. And I really think a pastor has an awful hard time preaching from the pulpit, that people should do things that anyone can look at him and say, well, why don't you start? Why don't you do it first? You go first, you know. And so I think pastors have – now, some pastors really have it hard. Some really are denying themselves. Some are really making sacrifices to serve God in the pulpit. I'm not broad-brushing all pastors. But a lot of the biggest churches and the biggest denominations really – they've got a pretty cushy gig. They're pretty cushy. And I'm not saying that a Christian can't be comfortable if they're doing everything God tells them to do and not neglecting anything. But I think that the gospel is not preached today very often the way that Jesus preached it or the way that Paul or Peter preached it. And that's partly because people are not looking for a gospel that makes any demands of them. They're looking for the easiest access to heaven when they die. You know, they want to live their life how they want to live it now, but they want to be with God later. I don't know why they think they'll like being with God after they die if they don't like being with him now. If you live with God now, you live under his lordship. You live convicted of your sin and repentant and living an obedient, holy life. And you don't want to do that now. Why would you like doing that in the next life, you know, forever? Well, I guess a lot of people would answer, well, it's better than going to hell. Yeah, but if you don't want to live with God now, I'm not sure there's any assurance you won't go to hell. I mean, why should God think that you're on his side after you die? when your life shows you're not really on his side now. You might say you are. You might have said a little prayer, which is not something the Bible says to do to become a Christian, but a lot of churches do. And so what churches are doing is they're giving away real cheap tickets to heaven. The problem is that many people who've got these cheap tickets, as Jesus said, will find out at the gate, oops, this one is not validated. Jesus said, many will say to me in those days, Lord, Lord. We prophesied in your name. We cast out demons in your name. We did many great works in your name. And he'll say, I never knew you. He said, not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of God, but he that does the will of my Father in heaven. And that means someone who's living obediently to God. That's what being a Christian calls us to, not just to have a ticket and live the way we want to. It means we surrender to God as our total ruler. And if we find out that he says, listen, I want you to carry that baby and don't murder it, then you do that. If he says, I want you to live a clean and holy sexual life, well, then you do that the best you know how. And if you fail, you repent and seek to do better, you know, because you're committed to following Christ. But many churches never talk about that because, first of all, that's politically wrong. unpopular position, but also it's just unpopular with human nature. Human nature does not want to be told that they are not allowed to take the easiest route, but the most obedient route. And I've never understood, like you said, you don't know how anyone who could be a Christian and could be pro-abortion, me either. It's like if we were at church and right outside the church parking lot, someone was regularly dismembering toddlers and cutting their heads off and their arms off, and injecting living toddlers with poison that kills them. I would think it very strange if the pastor didn't say anything about that. What kind of Christian can tolerate that? And there's no difference between doing that to a toddler. And somebody who's a baby inside a womb. It's still the same person, just at a different stage. You know, when a person is an adult, they're the same person they were when they were a toddler. They're just at a different stage. And when they're a toddler, the same person they were when they were inside the womb. They were a person there, too. They're the same person. So, I mean, Christians simply are not thinkers. And I think they don't want to think about some things because it's something they don't want. to have to submit to. They don't want to submit to God about something that they know he requires, but they're looking for pastors to give them permission to do the wrong thing. But you know what? If pastors give you permission to do the wrong thing and you do it, that pastor, yeah, he's going to answer to that, to God. The Bible says teachers will receive a stricter judgment from God. So I wouldn't want to be one of these pastors who gives people permission to do evil, especially to murder. But I wouldn't want to be the murderer either because you still are responsible for what you do. The pastor may give you bad advice, but your conscience tells you what's true. And many, many women who get abortions, even though someone told them it's okay, they know as soon as they've done it that it wasn't okay. Your conscience will tell you that. So anyway, it's a sad state the church is in, and I do think the church has to repent. I think Christians have to start being actual followers of Jesus, or else stop calling themselves Christians. Why take the name of the Lord in vain? The Bible says that God will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. And if you say, I'm a Christian, but you don't make any effort to follow Jesus and obey Jesus, you're taking that name Christian, the name of Christ, in vain. And God won't hold you guiltless for that. So I'm on your side about that, Kevin, and I hope we do turn around. I think some good things are turning around, and some of them are in the church, but there's always those progressive churches that are a lot more interested in pleasing man than pleasing God. And Paul said in Galatians 1.10, if I was speaking to pleased men, I couldn't be the servant of Christ. I think it's a lot of men in pulpits and women, unfortunately, who are not seeking to be servants of Christ, but rather to please the congregations. Or even to please people outside the congregation, to please the world. Rashad from Brooklyn, New York. Welcome.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi, Steve. It's Rashad. How are you?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, good to hear from you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good, good. Hey, so this is my question. And just tell me if I have it wrong. As far as caverns are concerned, there's some people that are elect and some people that are not elect, correct? Yes. Okay. Now, is this a good analogy? Because I was thinking about this the other day. I was thinking, you know, how they say that God, you know, doesn't elect some people. So I thought about it like this. It would be like a scientist making a robot that kills programs it to kill, the robot kills, but it still blames the robot for killing. Now, is that a good analogy for what Calvinists think about the unelect, where God says, you're not elect, but I'm going to still blame you for sinning, even though you have no choice but to sin, because that's how I created you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I see it the way you do. Calvinists may not feel comfortable with that. They don't like us saying that God makes people to be robots. because they would say, well, technically we're not robots, we have a lot of freedom, but they would say that people do not have the freedom to do what's right unless God has elected them to be saved. And if they're not saved, if they're not elect, then they are elected to be evil. And so the point you're making is, well, if you made a robot and you programmed it to only do evil, When you could have programmed it to do good, you know, and then it goes out and does evil. Why blame the robot? It didn't program itself. You programmed it. So it seems to me that the person who programs the robot to do evil has got to take full responsibility for the evil done by the robot. Now, again, Calvinists don't like the comparison of people with robots, although that is true. You know, to demonstrate that there's any significant difference between their idea of people and the analogy of a robot that's been programmed to do things and can't do anything other than what's programmed to do. You know, they don't like it, but they can't really explain their theology in a way that sounds different than that. And this is something I find about Calvinists a lot. They'll say, no, you just don't understand. That's not what we mean. You don't understand. But then when they tell you what they mean, it sounds like that's what they mean. And I've always thought this about Calvinists because I've read their books and I've debated them. They say, well, you just don't understand. Well, if we don't understand, could you say it in a way that we do? How can it be that almost everybody who's not a Calvinist hears what Calvinists say and say, it sounds like you're saying that people are programmed like robots or puppets, that God's pulling the strings. Oh, we don't mean that. Well, if you don't mean that, why don't you tell us your theology in a way that doesn't convey that notion? Because I can't see a dime's worth of difference between those analogies and what Calvinists actually do say. They just don't like those words. But it's like I think they just don't like the implications of their actual theology. They hold the theology because they think the Bible teaches it. And it's refreshing when you study the Bible. It doesn't teach that. The Bible doesn't teach Calvinism, which is why no Bible teacher or theologian ever believed in Calvinism until about 400 A.D. You know, we've got thousands and thousands of Christians in the world before 400 A.D., and not one of them was Calvinistic. And then Augustine comes up and invents it, and then it becomes, you know, Augustine's the most influential theologian, and the Protestant reformers were Augustinian in their theology. So, you know, it's not in the Bible. It's just in Augustinian theology. But, yeah, thankfully the Bible doesn't teach those things. But if it did, it's hard to know how Calvinists could escape the analogy. I appreciate your call, brother. Thank you. All right. Good talking to you. All right. That's it. You too. Bye-bye. Okay. Mark from El Dorado, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. I didn't really agree with your... Oh, by the way, your phone sounds really weird.
SPEAKER 02 :
Are you talking through a speakerphone?
SPEAKER 05 :
No. I'm on a traffic street here.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 05 :
Now you're saying... Unless you need to let me go.
SPEAKER 02 :
No, I don't want to let you go. It's a lot louder now. Just go ahead and give your question, then we'll talk about it.
SPEAKER 05 :
Sure. Matthew 16, 27, 28. I completely agree with you that verse 27 is second coming. Verse 28, there are those standing here who will not taste death until they see the coming. Wouldn't it logically follow that It would be, there are some people that the fact is standing there who will face death prior to the coming of the Lord. And it says, wouldn't that negate the common thoughts about 2018, the transfiguration, ascension, or the
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, I don't know what is wrong with your phone, but it is the most difficult thing to listen to of any call I've ever received, probably. Listen, let me talk about those verses. But, yeah, you're not in a good place to be talking on your phone right here because it's just not coming through very well. But you're talking about... Matthew chapter 16, verses 27 and 28. And what they say, they're both talking about judgment. And verse 27 says, For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will reward each one according to his works. Okay, I believe that's talking about the second coming. You said you agree with that. Now the next verse says, Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Now, Jesus said, whatever he's talking about there, some of them would still be alive when it happens. He said, some of you here will not taste death until you see this. Now, because both verses talk about the coming of the Son of Man, it is sometimes assumed that both these verses are about the same thing. I think in verse 27, he's talking about the ultimate judgment. But in verse 28, he's saying that within your lifetime, there will be a precursor of his judgment in the destruction of Jerusalem. I believe that the Bible teaches there's going to be two judgments. One came upon Israel. Paul said the Jews first and then the Gentiles will be judged. The Jews were judged, I believe, in A.D.
SPEAKER 1 :
70.
SPEAKER 02 :
And the Gentiles will be judged when Jesus comes back. And I think the story in Matthew 22 says, The wedding feast is a good illustration of that. The judgment on Jerusalem came in verse 7 of Matthew 22 when the king was angry and burned down the city. And then there was an influx of Gentiles and a later judgment in that parable of the Gentiles too. And I think there's two different judgments. And Jesus, that's just too complicated to get into right now because I have five seconds to get off the air. You're listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com.
In a vibrant exchange on faith and understanding, this episode unravels various theological and philosophical questions. From the nature of divine favor in Romans and the possible interpretations of spiritual blindness, to contemplating the historical roots of Christianity as an extension of Judaism, listeners are guided through enlightening discussions. The podcaster delves deep into debates on biblical interpretations, lift veils of confusion, and lays bare the heart of Scripture that is relevant both today and throughout history.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour each weekday afternoon. Taking your calls if you have questions that you'd like to ask on the air about the Bible or Christianity or anything related thereto. If you have objections or disagreements with anything the host has said in the past, we always welcome you to call to balance comment. We've been on the air for 28 years. As a daily program, and I used to say this all the time, but I haven't said it for a long time, though it's still true. The purpose of this show is not to highlight the personal opinions of the host, but to discuss Scripture in an open forum and seek truth and so forth. I mean, my opinions obviously do come across, but there's no suggestion here that my interpretations or that my opinions... are sacrosanct. So if you think I see something wrong, you're always welcome to call and to correct or to at least share another viewpoint. The number to call, by the way, I will say this, most of our lines are open at the moment, not all, but if you hope to get through in this hour, this is a very good time. We've got quite a few lines open. That will change quickly. The number to call is 844- four, eight, four, 57, 37. That's eight, four, four, four, eight, four, 57, 37. And, uh, before we go to calls, I'd like to just remind you that we're setting up an itinerary for me to be, uh, I'll be speaking in Texas and we have a lot of listeners in Texas. Um, And if you say where in Texas, well, kind of almost anywhere. I'm scheduled to speak in Dallas. Texas but I also have friends in Houston and San Antonio and other areas in Texas anyone who wants to schedule something when I'm in Texas I usually make myself available to all those areas and of course we have to put together a rational and organized itinerary to do that so if you want to set something up where you live either in a church or a home group or some facility you want to schedule a meeting feel free to get in touch with us. You can email me at thenarrowpath.com, the website down at the bottom of the main page. You can see my email address, and you can email me and say, hey, how about here? Now, the dates we're looking at are going to be anywhere between almost any day, between April 18th and April 28th. So keep that in mind, April 18th. And April 28th, I think I'm speaking in Dallas on the 27th. So the whole week before that and one day after that, we're seen as flexible. So give us a shout if you want us to consider putting you on the itinerary. That's, again, April 18th through the 28th, any of those dates. should be fine at this point because we've just begun setting it up. Okay, we're going to go to the phone lines now and talk to Kevin from Baytown, Texas. Speaking of Texas, Kevin, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hello, Steve. I have a question. I just finished listening to your Romans series, and I really enjoyed it, got a lot out of it. I'm still wrestling with how God views people that have Semitic or Jewish DNA. When I listen to Paul, it seems like sometimes he's making the point that DNA is not the issue. God does not favor DNA. God favors faith. People who have faith are accepted with him. People without faith. And then there's other times it seems like Paul is making a division and saying, well, Here's the vine, the branch has been cut off, and God is able to graft them back in chapter 11. And so at some point, it seems like he's saying, there is no Jew or Gentile. And then it seems like in the next moment, he's drawing a distinction again. And so... You know, I don't, in my heart, feel that God is a racist. I can't understand him favoring somebody or anybody based on what their genealogy is.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right, and he doesn't. Even in the passage you mentioned, he doesn't. He said that the tree, the olive tree, this is in Romans 11, verses 16 and following, the olive tree, which represents Israel, has had a change in its constituent branches. Initially, the Jewish people were Israel. In the Old Testament, the nation of Israel was the tree, and the branches were the individual Jewish people. Now, what he says is that some of those original branches, that is some Jewish people, have been broken off the tree because of their unbelief. He goes on to say it's possible for them to come back if they don't stay in unbelief. He doesn't say they will come back. He just says, you know, anybody can come in. Anyone's welcome to be part of Christ, including those who have been cut off. If they want to, if they want to come to faith, they can. But he said also Gentile branches, because of their faith, have been added to the tree. So the tree has Jewish believers as branches and Gentile believers as branches. So the tree is made up of Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ. We also call that, of course, the church. And that is what he's calling Israel here. That's the olive tree. Now, when he says that the branches that have been broken off can be put back on, he's simply saying, you know, if somebody isn't a believer right now, that doesn't mean that that condition is terminal. Many Jewish people have become Christians. Paul had, and many other Jewish people have throughout history. There's There's tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who believe in Christ and have been grafted back into the tree. Paul's simply saying the fact that they were unbelievers and broken off does not mean that there's no possibility for them. Now, when we say them, we're talking about individually, not as a group. He's never saying that the whole group of the branches that were broken off, that is the unbelieving Jews, are somehow going to be rejoined to the tree as a group. He never suggests a thing like that at all. He never speaks to them as a group. He's talking about there is a plurality. He uses the word plural because there's many people who fit into that class. There are many Jews who are not believers in Christ. But he says those same Jews who are not believers in Christ could become believers in Christ. We could say the same thing about Christians. about Chinese people or Japanese people or Nigerians or Irish or Scottish people. Many don't believe in Christ, but they could. They could come to believe in Christ. This is not being racist. This is the opposite. He's saying that anybody who comes to Christ is welcome. And that includes Jewish people who currently don't believe in Christ.
SPEAKER 08 :
So when he says blindness in part has happened... unto the Jew. Israel. Israel. So what is he referring to there? Is there still a blindness? He's not saying there's blindness on part on the church.
SPEAKER 04 :
No, he's not saying there's blindness on all Jews either. In part means part of them. Some Jews have been blinded, and some Gentiles have too, by the way. I mean, people who aren't believers are blind. And so he's saying there's part of the nation of Israel is blind. But that's not the first time he says it. He says it there, of course, in verse 25 of chapter 11 of Romans. But he already said it earlier. He said in verse 7, Romans 11, 7, What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks, but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Okay, so part of the Jewish people, have come to Christ. The other part are blinded. And so when he says a few verses later, less than 20 verses later, he says, so blindness in part has happened to Israel. Meaning part of the race are blind. And many Gentiles are blind. Anyone who's not a believer is blind. So he's saying that part of the Jewish people are blind right now. But he doesn't say whether they'll stay blind or change or anything like that. He's simply pointing out what he said earlier. Israel, and this is the point he's been making from chapter 9 and 10 and 11. Israel does not refer in God's reckoning as far as his promises to Israel are concerned. It does not refer to every person who's Jewish. Now, Jewish people still exist today. as a race, it's as if, you know, let's just say let's just say we're talking about other races. Let's say black people and white people. And let's just say there was one group, say the white people, felt that they were superior to the black people in the sight of God. And Paul wrote and said, listen, white people are not superior to black people in the sight of God. You know, it may be that there's maybe there's more white people in America than black people, but any black person or white person can become a Christian. Now, in that discussion, we still recognize we're calling some people white and some people black because there are people who are white and there are people who are black. But what we're saying is it doesn't matter what color they are. And that's what Paul's doing with Jews and Gentiles. There are people who are Jews. There are people who are Gentiles. And he speaks of them as groups when he's talking to their group or about their about their category. But his point is, though he has some things to say to Jews, and some things to say to Gentiles, he's saying Jews and Gentiles really don't have any different status in God's sight. Some Jews and some Gentiles are blind. Some Jews and some Gentiles are believers. And God doesn't care what race you are. He only cares whether you're believers or not. And those who are not believers, Jews and Gentiles, have the possibility of becoming believers and being joined back in. That's what Paul says.
SPEAKER 08 :
So is the veil that he talks about being upon them, is that the same identical thing as the blindness in part happening?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, it's no doubt related. The veil he talks about over the minds of the Jews when they read the Scriptures, he mentions that in 2 Corinthians 3. He says even to this day when the when the Old Testament is read, there's a veil over their heart, so they don't understand it. But he says, but when they turn to the Lord, he said this veil is taken away in Christ. He says when they turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. So he's saying these are people who, because they don't receive Christ, they don't see clearly when they read the Scriptures. They don't recognize the Old Testament's talking about Christ. And therefore, they read it with kind of a veil over their eyes. They kind of read it, but they don't see it. Seeing they see and do not observe. Hearing they hear and do not understand, as Jesus said in Matthew 13. So, you know, he's talking about Jewish people who don't believe in the Messiah. They obviously do not, when they read the Old Testament, they don't see Christ there as the Messiah. But he says when they turn to Christ, they see it clearly enough. Now, I don't know if this is the... In one place, in Romans 11, I think Paul's talking about their blindness to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah. They're blind to that fact. They don't see it. In 2 Corinthians, I think he's more talking about because they don't see that Christ is the Messiah, they don't see what the prophets in the Old Testament are actually saying. So it's kind of similar. It's part of their blindness, but Because they're blind about who Christ is, they're also blind in terms of understanding their own scriptures. That's what Paul is saying in 2 Corinthians 3. Hey, brother, I need to take another call because we're going along here. I appreciate you joining us. Let's talk to Dana from Mount Lake Terrace, Washington. Hello, Dana. Welcome. 2 Corinthians 3. You need to turn your radio off. I need to take another call because we're going along here. I appreciate you joining us. Okay, your radio is not off. I'm hearing your radio.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hello, Dana. Welcome. Hello, hello, hello. Thank you for taking my call.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 02 :
I have a question about a passage in Numbers. I've been going to a Bible class here at the plaza where I live now, and the leader said that these words were the first prayer blessing that God gave to his people. And you must know them. It says, The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. Now, the question I have about this is, when I read this in the New, this is something King James I just read. If I read the NIV on verse 26, The Lord lift up his face upon you. So he mentions the word face twice. Is that what the word countenance means?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. So he mentions, make your face shine upon you and be gracious to you. And then the Lord looked up his face upon you again and give you peace.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. Yeah. Countenance is just an old English word for face.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Okay. That's the only question I had, but it's been a blessing to me because I had trouble sleeping when we were going over this passage, and she said it was the very first prayer that God gave to his people. Is that correct?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I don't know if it's the first prayer. It may be. It is definitely what's called the Aaronic Benediction there in Numbers chapter 6. verses 23 through 26. This is what Aaron is supposed to say. I don't know if it's the first prayer. It's a blessing. It's a blessing, yes. It's a pronouncement of blessing. Again, I don't know if that's the first one. I don't know of any earlier, so it could be. The first blessing. Yeah. I don't even know why it would be any more or less important if it was the first or the second or the third.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, that's right.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, it is a blessing that Aaron was supposed to pronounce on the people, apparently daily or regularly when they gathered for worship.
SPEAKER 02 :
And many churches still use it today as a blessing. It's helped me to sleep. If I say this before I go to bed, I seem to be able to sleep better.
SPEAKER 04 :
I don't know, but it's helpful. Okay, yeah, I know of churches that either begin or end their service with this benediction. By the way, the reference to his face shining upon you and lifting up his face upon you, these are Hebrew expressions for him showing you favor, smiling upon you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, thank you so much. That's all. Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, Dana, thanks for your call.
SPEAKER 02 :
Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 04 :
Bye now. All right, Deborah from Fairfield, California, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 06 :
Oh, hello. Yes, I just have two questions. It's not really a scripture, it's just traditional. I was wondering why Trump did not put his hand on the Bible during his inauguration.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, from what I understand, is that Melania had gone to get the family Bible, the house Bible from the house to use. And they were running late on the inauguration date. there had been some delays earlier, and legally they're supposed to do the inauguration, I guess, at 12 o'clock. And it had already gotten to be 12.02, which seems kind of legalistic to be worried about it, but they were kind of in a hurry to do it. And so the Supreme Court justice who was doing it just had him put up his hand and do it. And Melania didn't get back in time with the Bible, from what I understood. This is how I read it. Anyway, so they didn't use the Bible. Now, using the Bible, I'm not sure how far back that tradition goes, but there are Christians who feel that you shouldn't swear on the Bible because of Jesus not taking any oaths at all. I think that, too, is a little bit legalistic. I think to show respect for the Bible, that's not a problem when you're taking your oath of office, but Anyway, that's what I heard. I don't have all knowledge about those things. I wasn't even watching the inauguration, so I only heard about this later on. So I'm not the authority on this. I just know what I've read on the subject. And so that would be your answer. Did you have a second question?
SPEAKER 06 :
I did. I did. I was just going to also add to that. Was there a Bible, though? Was the Supreme Court justice holding a Bible?
SPEAKER 04 :
I don't think so.
SPEAKER 06 :
Because I didn't look at it. I mean, he was not.
SPEAKER 04 :
I don't think so. I don't know. I think not.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay. Because I didn't look at it either. But I just saw excerpts on TV with his hand up but not putting it on the Bible and everybody was talking about it. My second question was, do you think everybody seemed to be offended by the pastor buddy that was asking Donald Trump to have compassion on people? and they shouldn't be offended by that. Do you think that was a bad thing for the pastor's buddy to ask something that Jesus would ask? Jesus was very compassionate.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I thought it was a little inappropriate simply because she was addressing it to Trump, and he had no chance to answer. If I had been sitting in his seat, and she had said it to me, and I was given a chance to answer, I would have said, yeah, I agree. We should have compassion on people. For example, when people are mistaken about their gender identity, we should have the compassion to set them straight about that, just like we would anyone else who's living in a delusion. It's a loving and compassionate thing to disabuse people of the delusions in their mind. And as far as the people breaking the law, frankly, I think compassion on their victims would be more important. The violent criminals that Trump was determined to remove from the country, If she said, why don't you have more compassion on these, you know, illegal aliens? I don't know. I mean, she shouldn't have said that in a case where she's saying something controversial and not very well informed. Because she said, these people, these transgender people are terrified. They're afraid for their lives. Well, I'm not sure if I've ever met a transgender who's afraid for their lives. And if they were, someone should have cleared it up for them. Their lives are not in danger from any policy that Trump's made, nor anyone else. I don't know of any laws... that prosecute people for being transgender. I think the only reason people would be afraid if they're children is because their parents are telling them they should be afraid because there's no actual danger to them other than that they're living in a delusion, which someone should help them with. But there's no one threatening to arrest them or hurt them. So, I mean, the woman was simply, she was stepping out of her role as a representative of Christ and speaking to one person in order to promote a political agenda, which I think was poorly informed. I think she was repeating a narrative that is not a true narrative, namely that it's cruel to not give special privileges to transgenders that others don't have. For example, allowing a transgender woman a woman, let's say a man who thinks he's a woman, to go into a woman's bathroom. Is that compassion? To whom? To him? No? I mean, he can go into a men's bathroom. Why not? He's a man. It's easy to say any man can go into any bathroom, no matter what he thinks he is. If he thinks he's Napoleon, if he thinks he's a dog, if he thinks he's a woman, he still goes into the men's bathroom because he is a man. How is that not compassionate? So and nowadays, so many places have, you know, any gender kind of restroom. So, you know, it's not a crisis. And I don't really believe that either of the groups that she spoke of, which was transgenders and illegal aliens. I don't think either of them are threatened in any way with any harm unless they're criminals. Now, of course, she did say many of these illegal aliens are not criminals. Well, I'm not sure how she defines criminals, but if you're breaking the law, that's what a criminal is, someone who breaks the law. And somebody who's here illegally, illegally means against the law. So, you know, the president and, frankly, the government and the courts of law are not commissioned in Scripture. And Jesus never spoke to them. Jesus never spoke to courts of law or rulers about this kind of thing. but the government, according to the Bible, according to Romans and Peter, 1 Peter, the government's role is to enforce the law and to protect innocent people. Now, Trump happened to have been in church when this woman said this to him, but he was the president, and she is addressing him as president, and the president has got to protect the public from violent crime. Now, maybe I, as a Christian... It's not my place to go out looking for violent criminals and hunting them down and giving them retribution. That's not my role. But it is the role of the government. So I think that she... I think she simply misrepresented things. She gave a very woke talking point sermon. Now, I don't know what the rest of her sermon was like, because we only get really a few minutes of her statements played again and again and again on the news. So I only heard the one part. But I thought, you know, to say, have mercy, have mercy, have mercy. Well... Yeah, okay, fine. But you are assuming, she was assuming, that having mercy means let the criminals stay and let them run free and let the children who are being misguided about their gender and who are confused stay in a delusion and live it out for the rest of their lives. Maybe even be mutilated by surgery. This is what the transgender agenda is. And I don't think any Christian should support it. That's just me. That's because I think we should have mercy. I'm in favor of having mercy. But letting people be totally deluded and let them go on their way to hell without addressing their delusion, that's not my idea of mercy. I'm not sure why anyone would think it was. Hello. Hi. Thanks for joining us. Okay, Douglas in Los Angeles, California. Welcome. Welcome.
SPEAKER 09 :
Were Adam and Eve apes?
SPEAKER 04 :
No.
SPEAKER 09 :
Why?
SPEAKER 04 :
Why would they be?
SPEAKER 09 :
Doesn't evolution say that apes evolved into humans?
SPEAKER 04 :
No. No, it doesn't. At least modern apes didn't. Evolution, if we believe that's true... tells us that apes and humans evolved from different branches of the same tree, but not that humans evolved from any creatures we today call apes. But I don't believe in evolution. I don't believe in human evolution. But even if it was true, it would not be the case. Evolutions do not believe that humans evolved from apes. They believe humans evolved from the Australopithecines.
SPEAKER 09 :
When Adam and Eve and humans come from the same root,
SPEAKER 04 :
Adam and Eve were the first humans.
SPEAKER 09 :
But didn't apes and humans have a common ancestor?
SPEAKER 04 :
I don't think so.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Thanks for your call. All right. Now, by the way, there are many Christians who do believe that God used evolution in the production of various species, but I'd First of all, I don't think the Bible leans that direction at all. It may be possible to take Genesis 1 in a non-literalistic way, and some Christians would, and to then allow evolution to be in the picture. But you've got another problem, and that is fossil evidence. You know, it's not only that the Bible doesn't seem to support evolution. But the scientific evidence doesn't seem to support, at least the fossil evidence, which is the record in the rocks that tells us what lived and what did not. And there were no transitional forms of any significance in the rocks, so they probably didn't live. At least that's the way that I think about it. Not everyone does. Some Christians see it differently. I need to take a break, but we have another half hour coming up, so don't go away. You're listening to The Narrow Path. We are listening to support it. If you'd like to help us out, you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.org. And it will show you how to donate if you wish. I'll be back in 30 seconds. Don't go away.
SPEAKER 03 :
In the series, When Shall These Things Be?, you'll learn that the biblical teaching concerning the rapture, the tribulation, Armageddon, the Antichrist, and the millennium are not necessarily in agreement with the wild sensationalist versions of these doctrines found in popular prophecy teaching and Christian fiction. The lecture series entitled, When Shall These Things Be?, can be downloaded without charge from our website, thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 04 :
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 are interested in calling in with any questions you have about the Bible or the Christian faith, or maybe you disagree with the host and want to say why, I'd be glad to hear from you. The number to call is 844-484-5737. Now, it looks to me like our line's just filled up, just as I was saying that. So if you call now and get a busy signal or something, just call back when you can, and lines will be opening up. The number is, again, 844-484-5737. All right, we're going to talk next to Albert from Walnut Creek, California. Hi, Albert. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay. Hello. Hello, Steve. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER 04 :
I can. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 05 :
I have a question. In the first century, were the people who were living in Jerusalem, were they practicing Phariseeism or were they practicing Judaism?
SPEAKER 04 :
That's the first part of my question. Okay, well. They were practicing Judaism, but there's many branches of Judaism. One branch was the Pharisaic branch. There were only about, I think, 3,000 Pharisees, something like that. It might have been 6,000. I forget the exact number, according to Josephus. But the Pharisees were a minority party, but they were more influential than any other party. They were more respected as spiritually important. uncompromised by many Jews. They kind of looked up to. Now, there was the Sadducee party. That was another branch of Judaism. There were the Essenes out in the Dead Sea area. And then there was a more militant party called the Zealots. And these were all different parties who practiced Judaism. It's a little bit like, you know, today, if you say Judaism... We don't know which branch people are talking about because there's Orthodox Judaism, there's Conservative Judaism, and there's Reformed Judaism. And then there's, of course, Nazarene, Messianic Judaism. So there's different branches of Judaism. But Pharisees were one of those branches. And, yes, that's what they were doing back then.
SPEAKER 05 :
The reason I ask that is because I was visiting a church the other day, and I was talking to one of the members, and he says, oh yeah, Christianity is an extension of Judaism. Well, he brought up it. Is it an extension of Judaism, or is it an extension of Hebrewism?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, Hebrew is simply a race, a race of people who are descended from someone named Eber. The Ebrites, that's where the word Hebrew comes from. So it's like saying, you know, Irish or something like that. You know, Hebrew is not a religion. It's a language and it's a race of people. At least it's a racial term. So... They weren't practicing Hebrewism. They were Hebrews. They were Hebrews. That's their race. Just like I'm mostly Irish, but I don't practice Irishism. I just happen to be more than half Irish. So that's not a valid question.
SPEAKER 05 :
So what religion would we say King David was? Did he practice Hebrewism or did he practice Judaism?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, there is no Hebrewism. No such thing as Hebrewism, okay? So, I mean, that's not one of the options. He was a Jew, so he was part of the Jewish religion.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay. Okay, I can work on that.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thank you for your show.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, and Christianity did arise out of Judaism. Jesus was Jewish. He was circumcised, like all Jews. He was raised in the temple, worshiped. He was the Messiah of the Jews, okay? And his initial followers were all Jews, too, because his ministry was conducted in Israel and among the Jews. So the first believers in Christ, and we called it the first Christians, were Jewish, Jewish believers in the Messiah. But then after Jesus was gone, thousands of Jewish people began to be followers of his, but they weren't part of Judaism anymore, per se. They were now Christians. followers of Christ, Christians. But they were Jewish by, they were Hebrews, which is their race. And so that's, you know, they were Hebrew Christians. Later on, Gentiles were added to their number. Eventually the gospel went out to the Gentiles. It didn't initially. So what we call Christianity is simply the messianic faith of those who believe in Christ. Okay, that's a good perspective. All right.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thanks for having the show. Love it. Okay, Albert.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Thanks for your call. Bye now. All right. Bill from Vancouver, B.C. Welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hi, Steve.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hello.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes, go ahead.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hi, Steve. Yeah, I just had two quick questions in regards to race or whatever. Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought when Jesus created man, he created one race, but a bunch of nationalities. And my second question is, what happens to me if I was to die right away today, and I'm a believer in Jesus and saved? And I'm going to go now and take the answer. Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. Thank you for your call. Yeah, well, of course, there's only one human race because everybody came from the same couple. Adam and Eve were just one human couple, and everybody's descended from them. Now, you distinguish between that and nationalities. Nationalities have to do with people forming different nations. Now, after Adam and Eve had thousands and thousands, if not millions, of descendants, the flood came. And after the flood, there were just the family of Noah again, his wife and his three sons and their wives. And so the world began to be populated again from that stock. Again, they're all one race. But then sometime after that, they tried to build the Tower of Babel. That is not just those few people, but their descendants did. How many people were there? We don't know. But there could have been thousands or millions. We don't know. And they started building the Tower of Babel, and God divided them up. He confused their languages so that they couldn't complete the project. and the people scattered around and formed national entities, which would just, of course, grow out of a tribe or a people living together in a society, forming some kind of government among themselves and rulers of some kind, kings perhaps usually. And then these would make up different nationalities as they began to have generations of offspring. those people, their offspring would be of each different nations. So God didn't really make nationalities, but kind of. I mean, he did so by scattering them and confusing their languages. And so I guess we could say God eventually created nationalities. But that wasn't original. God didn't originally create nationalities. He just had one big family, human family. But when there were millions of them, they, of course, didn't all live under one roof. And so they... They scattered and formed different societies, which became nations. And their offspring were of whatever nationality their nation was. Now, you said if you died today as a Christian, what would happen to you? Well, I believe that your body, which is what dies, will be buried and be decomposed until the time that Jesus comes back. And then he'll raise the dead. Your body will come back. immortal and glorified this is the doctrine a key doctrine of the Christian faith in the New Testament is the resurrection of the dead that will happen when Jesus comes back now the question of course from the time you die let's just say you or I would die let's say today someone's going to die today it could be me it could be you but Jesus doesn't come back and raise the dead until let's say a couple centuries from now that's a possibility well where am I in between Am I, you know, from the time I die until the time Jesus raises me up? Now, there's two views on that that Christians hold. Some believe that you're nowhere, that when your body is dead, your mind shuts off, your soul, you know, is no longer alive. conscious of anything, and this is called soul sleep, though one could call it soul death if they wanted to. Such people believe that when you close your eyes in death, you do not know anything. You're aware of nothing, like when you're under anesthesia, you know, for an operation or something like that. You just don't, you're not aware. of the time going by. And then they believe when Jesus comes back and raises the dead, then you wake up from that. So that from the time you die till the time you're raised from the dead, you're nowhere. You're nowhere. You have no consciousness of your own existence even. But you'll be raised from the dead. And when your body rises from the dead, so will your mind and your soul. Now that's one view. A view that I think is probably more scriptural is that there's two parts of us. Our body And our inner part, the soul or the spirit, maybe spirit and soul might not be the same thing, but there is that inner man Paul talks about. It's the spiritual aspect of our existence. That's our consciousness and so forth. And so when we die, our bodies go into the ground and they deteriorate until Jesus comes and raises them up. But what happens when we die is our spirit leaves our body and goes to be with the Lord if we're Christians. And we are with the Lord. until he comes back and brings us back to re-inhabit our glorified bodies when he returns. That, I think, has more actually in favor of it than the other view, but there are Christians on both sides of that. Paul spoke about death in terms of departing from his body or being absent from his body. In Philippians chapter 1, he said that he had a desire to depart and to be with Christ again. but he says because God wasn't really finished with him, he thinks he's probably going to have to remain in his body for a while more. So he saw dying as leaving his body and going away to be with Christ. That's in Philippians chapter 1. In 2 Corinthians 5, He talked about how as long as we are at home in this body, we are absent from the Lord. And he says we're looking forward to being absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. So, okay, when we're alive, we're in this body. When we're dead, we're absent from this body but present with the Lord. That seems to be Paul's understanding in both those passages that we talked about. So what is present with the Lord? The body isn't. The body's in the ground. You can dig up the bodies of anyone who's died, even Christians, and find their bodies, what's left of them, still there. Their bodies didn't go to heaven. But is there another part of us besides our bodies? Do we have a soul, a spirit? that lives on and goes somewhere else to be with Christ until the resurrection of the body. I think Paul does argue that that is so. Though, again, there are Christians who see it differently. It wouldn't really matter. I mean, as far as your subjective experience, if you were put under with anesthesia and you're not aware of anything until you wake up again, and therefore if it was like that, If you die and then you know nothing until you rise, it would be like instantaneous in your own subjective experience. You die and then you're instantly alive again in the resurrection. So I don't think there's anything more or less desirable about one of these views. I think they're both fine. But I think that Paul's argument is that when we die, we leave this body and we are with the Lord until we come back to be in the body again when Jesus returns and raises our bodies from the dead. That's at least how I read the New Testament. Okay, Eddie in Sprague River, Oregon. Welcome. Hello, Steve.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi. Hey, my questions were pertaining to Daniel 9, particularly verse 26 and 27. I've heard you mention that they somewhat mirror each other. Is that correct?
SPEAKER 04 :
I believe so. I believe that verse 26 mentions two things, and verse 27 mentions the same two things. So the two things are the death of the Messiah. That's the first thing. And the destruction of Jerusalem is the second thing. Jesus died around 30 A.D., and Jerusalem was destroyed around 70 A.D. So I believe those two points... are found in chapter 9, verse 26, and the same two are mentioned in verse 27. So in verse 26, go ahead.
SPEAKER 07 :
I also heard you talk about how the end of 27, it kind of coincides with Matthew 23, the end, and I had mentioned something about this once before. But my question was concerning the people that, well, actually, it mirrors being cut off in 26 in the same lexicon, basically, is saying that he's passing through flesh, or it's a covenant. So I take the cutting off as that, a covenant. And then for, not for himself, and then it goes on, but after himself is a colon. So the next part of the sentence would be complementing what took place to begin with, which is the cutting off. And I view that as a coming of the people at that time, was the High Sabbath, which brought a lot of people to that area. And they all, you know, welcomed him with the triumphal entry and all. And then, you know, he went to court and they turned on him. You know, so there's several of his people coming to him, you know, and he is their Messiah, whether they like it or not. And so that's where I'm seeing... the discrepancy with my thinking and your thinking as far as the Prince, because through the whole thing, it's the Prince, it's talking about the Messiah, it's talking about our Christ. They had a Christ, you know, like I was taught. And my eyes were so blind to that understanding that I had to dismiss the whole thing altogether because it didn't make sense.
SPEAKER 04 :
So you think the people of the Messiah destroy the city and the sanctuary?
SPEAKER 07 :
No, it's what they did. It's their rejection of him.
SPEAKER 04 :
But if the prince who is to come is a reference to Jesus, as I think you're suggesting, then the people of the Messiah would be the disciples of Jesus, would they not?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, it would be, but also the Jews, because at the triumphal entry, they welcomed him. They said, Hosanna in the highest, and there were lots of people there. But then, you know, when he was brought before Pilate, they totally turned against him. And most, even his disciples turned against him, Peter, and they all stood their distance. Okay, let me put it this way.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I don't mind if you see it that way. You're not the first person I've met who sees it that way. My understanding is that the people who met him in the triumphal entry and said, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, blessed is the kingdom of our fathers, David, that comes in the name of the Lord. And Jesus said, if they wouldn't say that, the rocks themselves would cry out the same words. I don't think those are the same people who called for his crucifixion. This was a week earlier than that. These seemed to be the people who received him. Whereas his crucifixion, as near as I can tell, being almost a week later, was called for by the people who were against him. I believe that throughout his ministry there were people who were for him and people who were against him. And I think there were great crowds of both. so the Bible doesn't tell us that the crowd at Pilate's house who were calling for his crucifixion were the same crowd that had been seeing him during the triumphal entry and calling him the king on the other hand we don't know who was in those crowds so if that's how you want to see it you can I personally think that it's more natural to say for those who aren't aren't looking at Daniel 9 and don't even know what we're talking about. There's a prophecy about the Messiah coming in Daniel chapter 9, and verse 26 says, after the 62 weeks, we won't go into that right now, Messiah shall be cut off. Now, the word cut off is an expression that usually means killed or die. He's murdered. Now, you said it means something like making a covenant. There is a covenant that's true. And there is an expression in the Hebrew that talks about the forming of a covenant. It's called cutting a covenant. But I don't think the word cutting off is used for that. It's simply a figure of speech that when people made a covenant, it was said they cut a covenant. It had a lot to do with cutting an animal in two and passing between the pieces and things like that. The expression cutting a covenant was a Hebraism. But we don't have that exact expression here. We simply say he'll be cut off, which is also a Hebraism. for being killed throughout the Torah. It continues, it says, you know, if a person commits this abomination, he should be cut off from the people. In most cases, it meant stoned to death. So just because the word cut is used for covenants, it's also used other ways. And I think here the wording is more favorable towards seeing it as the Messiah is killed. And it says, and the people of the prince who is to come, I take this to be the Romans saying, The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The Romans did come and they destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the temple, the sanctuary. This happened. And so I think it's more natural to see the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary as the Romans rather than the disciples of Jesus themselves. Or even the Jews. We could say, well, the Jews did it because they're responsible for it. Well, okay, there's a sense in which that's true. It's not as directly true as it is to say it's the Romans. And I personally think that seeing the Romans that way would be, I guess, have the fewest difficulties. There are ways to look at passages like this and accept greater difficulties and still say, okay, despite the difficulties, I see it this way. And, you know, frankly, everyone's at liberty to do that. I myself would rather take the position that I think has fewer difficulties, but that's everyone's prerogative. Thank you for sharing that. Larry in Joshua, Texas. Welcome.
SPEAKER 10 :
Thank you very much. This kind of goes along with three or four calls before me regarding evolution. It took me back to, do you remember the first miracle that Jesus was recorded as ever doing? The water to wine? Yes, the water to wine. And do you remember what the master of the ceremonies who knew what his business was, he said that, in fact, he stopped. the ceremony and said, this is the oddest thing. Most people, you know, serve the best.
SPEAKER 04 :
We're running out of time here. So he said, you saved the best for the last, right?
SPEAKER 10 :
He saved the best for the last. Okay, well, here's Jesus. It took him. A guy used to work for me and bought a vineyard. And he gave me a history on And there is a forensics way of getting to the first part of the growth all the way to the end of it and knowing some things about it. That person that was talking about, you know, we evolved from apes or, you know, what about the fossils? Well, the wine that Jesus created was complete and perfect. And had they have had the forensic capability to determine that and to verify, they would have found all of those steps that was within. But Jesus did it in a nanosecond.
SPEAKER 04 :
I hear you. I hear you. So it sounds like you're saying that when you look at creatures that are fully developed, although you can imagine or postulate creatures, you know, less fully developed, in a trail going back to some earlier kind of creatures. And you can therefore postulate that the modern creatures developed from the others, just like you can see with the fermenting or the development of the grapes normally. But Jesus could make the grape juice instantly wine, or the water wine. So God could make instantly wine. Fully developed people, as opposed to bringing them up from apes. Yeah, I mean, that's what I take from your analogy, and of course that's true. I believe that God could make a fully functional Earth and a fully functional biosphere in an instant if he wants to. Now, he took six days to do it for reasons we don't have time to get into right now, but he could do it any way he wants to. He could even do it with evolution if he wanted to, but I don't think he did. Because if he had used evolution, or if evolution had occurred at all, we would see it in the fossil record. We would simply see there's not only fossils of fully developed creatures, highly differentiated from each other, there would also be a lot of intermediate forms. If these creatures evolved from one another very gradually, then, for example, a reptile evolving into a bird over millions of years would have to go through stages where it was part reptile, part bird. And at some points it would be nearly half of each. And, you know, that's simply the way it would work. It's like if you're watching a film and there's two ends of a strip of film, you've got a person. The first trip he's on one side of the room. And the end strip, he's at the other side of the room. You expect to find all the intermediate steps on the film of him passing from one side of the room to the other and progressing and being at a different position each time. I mean, if that's how evolution happened, we should see this kind of thing not once or twice. We should see this kind of thing with every two species, any species that evolved from another species. And according to evolution, since there are millions of species, there should be millions of ancestries from one creature to another kind of creature. And you should be able to trace all of these step by step by small stages unless it happens suddenly, in which case most even scientists would say it would take a miracle for that to happen. And Christians believe, or at least the Bible seems to teach, it was a miracle and that God could certainly do it instantly. And then there'd be no transitional forms found in the fossil record, which is exactly the case. We don't have any real transitional forms. Now, we do have creatures, strange ancient creatures, that have some characteristics of one kind of creature and some of another kind, but they can't really be said to be, you know, they don't fit some kind of a smooth line from one creature to another. For example, if you found a whale or something like a whale that had, you know, nubs from its pelvis that we think, well, that's where legs could have been if it was once a land animal. We could postulate that's so, but it's a far cry. from a smooth transition from any land animal that we've known to a whale. We do know there are lots of creatures that have strange, unusual characteristics. The duckbill platypus, which obviously lives today in Australia and New Zealand, it's a mammal, but it lays eggs. It's a very weird thing because mammals don't lay eggs. It's almost the definition of a mammal, that they give birth to live young. There are exceptions. This one lays eggs. It also has a fang on its back foot that shoots venom into an enemy, like a snake. It also has a pliable, hairless bill, like kind of a duck bill. I mean, but it's not transitional between anything. It's just an unusual animal, and God made a lot of those. Hey, I'm sorry I'm out of time. I'd like to talk about this more. I do have at our website a series of lectures called Creation and Evolution you might want to look into. It's at thenarrowpath.com, which is where all our stuff is found for free at thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
Join us in a compelling episode as Steve Gregg responds to listener questions about apocalyptic visions in Revelation and its possible parallels to modern disasters. Explore the historical and prophetic significance of the book of Revelation, set against the backdrop of recent fires in Los Angeles. Steve dives into historical context, offering a thought-provoking analysis of whether these events were foretold, or just another cycle in history.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we're live for an hour each weekday afternoon, taking your calls. I do seem to have something in my throat, making my voice a little hoarse, but that'll probably have to just be talked out. I haven't been talking much today. Sometimes my morning voice when I wake up stays with me until showtime because I don't do very much talking before then. Anyway, if you'd like to be on the program, if you have questions about the program, The Bible, about Christianity, about Christian history or doctrine or ethics or apologetics, any of that stuff. If you differ from the host on something and want a balanced comment, we welcome your calls today. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. And we'll get right to the calls right now and talk to Michael Culling from Denver, Colorado. Michael, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you so much for taking my call. And I just had a quick kind of question and I'll Take my answer off the air. So I was actually thinking about this this past weekend about the Palisades fire where, you know, initially there was that big gathering of cars when they were trying to escape and it kind of. almost looked like an apocalyptic gathering almost, and where everyone got out and looked at the sky and then had to run for their lives, basically. I was wondering if there's anything comparable in Scripture that kind of describes, you know, say an apocalyptic scene where, you know, people essentially have to have impending doom and have to run for their life or anything in Revelation that is comparable to that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, there's a lot of disasters, obviously, described in Revelation, most of them probably in symbolic form, but some of them maybe have some resemblance to the literal phenomena. The thing is, though, a fire, a big fire, is nothing new in history. I mean, there was a huge fire that burned most of Rome back in 64 AD, which most people believe that Nero himself set on fire, but In the old days, before they had firefighting technology, you know, any forest fire would just have to burn, you know, until it burned out. And that must have meant there were lots of fires like that, lots of sky darkened with smoke and things like that, just like what people saw if they were in the midst of the L.A. fires. There's no reason to believe that any given fire would be connected to to a given vision of fire in the apocalypse, unless, of course, that fire is somehow unique or belonging to a particular period focused on in the apocalypse. But I personally, of course, it was a terrible disaster for so many people. But I don't see it as connected to any prophecy in particular. By the way, fire and smoke are extremely common images of judgment in the Bible. And so you're going to find a lot of references in the Old and the New Testament to fire burning up cities, burning up their gates, the smoke darkening the sky. Lots and lots of those kinds of references are found in the Bible, including the book of Revelation. But Honestly, those kinds of things have also been extremely common historically. There's been a lot of those. So, you know, the idea of attaching any particular passage which mentions fire to any particular event of such fire would seem to be, to my mind, arbitrary. And so my own thought is that the book of Revelation is not describing our times. Most people do seem to think that the book is discussing end times. My view is that it's mainly focused on the great Holocaust and the burning of the city of Jerusalem in the first century by the Romans. But obviously there's different views on that. But even if I held to the view that Revelation is talking about the end times, I still wouldn't have a particular reason. to look at any given fire in any one place and say, oh, well, Revelation said there's going to be a fiery judgment. Well, yeah, but there's been thousands of those throughout history, and I don't know that there's anything that would point distinctly to any modern fire as having a connection to any prophecy about fire. That's my general approach to Revelation, is that I don't look at things that are happening today and say, oh, those definitely were predicted in the book of Revelation, partly because I think Revelation is about a different time period, but also, even if it were about this time period, the things that people point to, you know, earthquakes, famines, you know, the moon turning to blood and things like that, those things have happened throughout history lots of times. And therefore, it would be rather, to my mind, irresponsible to say, well, that's definitely what the book of Revelation is talking about. I would also say that I don't feel it's an extremely healthy obsession that many Christians do have of trying to identify signs of the times in our own time. Again, Christians of every era over the past 2,000 years. have come to the conclusion, wrongly, that they were living in the end times. And, of course, they weren't. In fact, there were books, many books, pointing to the signs of the times back in the early 70s during the Jesus movement. My ministry began around 1970, including, most famously, Hal Lindsey's book, The Late Great Planet Earth, and many other copycat books that came out at the same time. So that many people were saying, oh, this is it. These things you can find, you know, wars, rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes all over the place. This is definitely what the Bible is talking about. But it wasn't. We're talking about something now 55 years ago. So, you know, that wasn't the time. So, you know, I think anyone who's lived as long as I have and seen this kind of false alarm and also studied the Bible enough to know that these are very common and in many cases symbolic descriptions of God's judgment. And when they are not symbolic, when they're literal, they are essentially about kingdoms that have fallen long ago and were burned. Babylon and, you know, Assyria and those kinds of kingdoms, Edom. And Moab, you know, these judgments that come upon them are often described in terms of fiery judgment, which either is referring to literal fire in some cases or other times simply the judgment of God. The wrath of God is referred to as fire that burns. So it's got the language of that. So I'm not – yeah, I don't look at the L.A. fires, even though they came relatively close to where I live. I don't see them as something the Bible predicted. And, you know, now if the whole country burned up, I would say, well, that seems significant, though I still wouldn't be able to attach it to any particular prophecy. But it is, of course, the second largest city in America, the most powerful country in the world. You'd think that its burning would be significant, and I'm sure it is, although not all of L.A. burned up, actually. My wife and I were in Los Angeles during the Palisades fires on other business, and we didn't even see the smoke. So much of L.A. was totally untouched. Anyway, I appreciate your concern, but in terms of biblical phone and prophecy, I don't see any connection with the fires that have happened recently in California. I appreciate your call, though. Let's see. Gary from Holly, Michigan. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes, Steve, thanks for your program. I'm thankful you're all right there in California. You probably have a lot of friends here in Los Angeles. Did you see where President Trump's trying to help them?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, I did. I did see that, yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, that's awesome what he's doing there.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, hopefully he can have more impact than the mayor.
SPEAKER 03 :
Then my third question today is, have you ever read Haley's handbook?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, according to Mr. Haley, he said there's several that wrote about Jesus. besides Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Have you checked it out to see if you can find any of those other writings?
SPEAKER 08 :
I'm familiar, I think, with everything that's available out there that was not in the Gospels. Now, except for the fact that I haven't read the Gnostic Gospels, but they weren't written at the same time. They were written in the 2nd and 3rd century, much too late to be written by the people who they claimed to be written by. But, yes, Suetonius and Tacitus, the Roman historians.
SPEAKER 03 :
There were many disciples. Can you find these books in the library or on the Internet?
SPEAKER 08 :
They're available, yeah. But what do you mean there's many disciples? You mean disciples who wrote the story of Jesus?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, according to Haley's handbook, there's other disciples that wrote about Jesus, and it's not in the Word of God.
SPEAKER 08 :
But we don't have their works. You know, Luke tells us that he had read works of other disciples who had written the life of Jesus. So Luke, back in, you know, 60 A.D., had access to other people's writings about the life of Jesus. Those might have included Mark and Matthew. So it's possible that he's referring to them. But he does talk about many have done so. But he doesn't tell us who he's referring to. Now, as far as surviving works, the church fathers in the second century didn't know of any authentic Gospels written by disciples except for the four that we have in our Bible. They knew of many false Gospels. The Gospels that claim to be written by Thomas and by Judas and by Philip and by some of the other apostles, Peter, all those, the Gospels, those have the names of apostles on them. But the early church knew very well those were written after the death of those people by forgers, and they were Gnostic in their theology. So they were propaganda. It's as if the Jehovah's Witnesses had written their own versions of the Gospels and tried to pass them off as real. They had their own theology they wanted to promote, but they claimed to be people that they weren't. So they obviously were dishonest. Outside of other Gospels, The Roman historian Suetonius and Tacitus did make passing reference to Jesus or things related to the Gospels. Josephus also did, and he's a Jewish historian who is not a Christian. There are not a lot of writings from the first century that mention Jesus, but there are some, and enough of them from pagan sources, that we know that the Gospels didn't invent the character. But the Gospels that we have are the only real authoritative... biographies of Jesus, these other pagan works, they mention Jesus as a character who is, for example, they mention he was crucified by Pontius Pilate, which would be all that the Romans would care to know about him, but they mention it, and so does the Bible. Josephus mentions the ministry of John the Baptist and also the death of Jesus' brother, James, and yet he doesn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, but he does confirm the existence of these people. So we have offhand confirmations of the existence of Jesus and some of these other people that are mentioned in the Bible from pagan sources who knew of them. But only the Bible really provides anything like biographical material. Now, I haven't read Haley's Handbook since the 1970s. In fact, there was a time when I was so poor that the only book besides the Bible I owned was a Haley's Bible Handbook, which someone had given me. and Strong's Concordance. And for a few years, those are the only books I had as reference books to teach. But that was in the early 70s. I have it on my shelf, but I haven't opened Haley Sandberg for, you know, 40 years or more. So I can't remember what he mentioned about other gospel writers, but I've read many books, I mean, scholarly books that mention these other places. So, you know, quite apart from what Haley said, I'm aware of these things. All right. Gary? Oh, Gary's gone. He hung up. Okay. Hope that helps. Emmanuel from Laredo, Texas. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Hi, Emmanuel.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. I got a question. Can we open spiritual doors and give to the devil permission to attack our lives? For example, if we watch movies or engage in any Malignant spiritual interaction, you know, symbols or something like that. That is possible or not.
SPEAKER 08 :
So you're saying, can we open up portals for Satan in our own spiritual life through things we do?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, correct. If we engage in some... Yes, I believe so.
SPEAKER 08 :
I believe so. In fact, it specifically says in Ephesians chapter 4, Do not give place to the devil. Now, that's in connection with, he says in Ephesians 4, 26, be angry and do not sin. Do not let the sun go down on your wrath, nor give place to the devil. That's verse 27, 26 and 27. So, Paul indicates that we need to be careful not to give place to the devil. And I believe by that he means in our own lives. Now, there is a possibility that that he means not to give the devil a foothold in the Christian community, because if we remain angry at people, it can cause, you know, grudges and bitterness and so forth, which compromises the Christian community. And that is a possible way of understanding it also. But Paul tells the Corinthians also, in 2 Corinthians 2, he says in verse 10 and 11, Now, whom you forgive anything, I also forgive. For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your sakes in the presence of Christ, lest Satan should take advantage of us. For we are not ignorant of his devices. That's 2 Corinthians 2, verses 10 and 11. So Paul says that forgiveness, or perhaps unforgiveness, we know the devil's devices enough to know that he can use that. He can get advantage over us. And, of course, in Ephesians, I mentioned before, staying angry at someone. Now, both of these things have to do with forgiveness. not maintaining our relationships in the Christian community properly, staying angry, not forgiving someone. We are commanded to forgive people. And if we don't do that, we may open some kind of a door to Satan. But it's not clear whether Paul means that that is a door that's opening to Satan to come in and disrupt the church and its testimony through the conflicts between parties. I know the devil is a disruptor in that sense. He tries to turn Christians against each other. You know, when an evil spirit came on Saul, it turned him against David, who previous to that was a friend and hero of Saul's. So, I mean, the devil does like to disrupt relationships. But we can also take that to be that we're giving the devil an advantage over us individually, too, and giving place to the devil. I don't think we could rule out either of those interpretations. In fact, I think one would imply the other. So... Yeah, I think there are things we can do that would give place to the devil. I specifically think that anyone who gets involved in the occult, goes to seances, gets involved in magic and sorcery and things like that, involvement in the occult would appear to open portals for demons to get advantage over people. I say that partly because, I mean, the Bible warns very strongly against getting involved in those things and says that these are the things that demon worshipers do. And, you know, it doesn't specifically say that by doing these things the demons will come into you, but there's often in Scripture a connection. between somebody who has this evil spirit and they're having clairvoyant powers or occult powers, like the Witch of Endor or the woman, the slave girl in Philippi who spoke by the power of demons, but she was also able to tell fortunes. There's a connection between occult things and demons, and it would appear that getting involved in the occult can compromise your own spiritual defenses to the point where you can become, can come under their power, including and up to and including being demon-possessed. There are famous cases. I mean, the story, the movie The Exorcist, which came out back in, what, the 60s, I guess, or 70s, it's based on a true story. And I've read the true story from the priests who were involved in the exorcism. And the boy, it was a boy in the true story. It was a girl in the movie. But the boy was a normal Lutheran boy, actually, not a Catholic. He was a Lutheran boy in a Lutheran family. He was 14 years old, and he and his grandmother got involved in the occult. I forget if it was tarot cards or Ouija boards, something like that. Got involved just for fun. And then these demons took possession of him, and he had horrible experiences until he was, in fact, delivered. I've read numerous testimonials of that kind of thing, where people seemingly, through involvement in the occult, have given place to the devil. So that would be something to be aware of. The truth is we're in a warfare. The world we live in as Christians is a war zone. It's a spiritual war zone. We have the Holy Spirit. We have angels. We have our own armor. and weapons of our warfare that are spiritual, but the demons are up there and resisting too. And Paul says we shouldn't be, we can't be ignorant of his devices because otherwise he'll get advantage over us. So, yeah, I mean, if you say, well, would watching certain television shows give place to the devil? Well, the Bible doesn't mention television shows because they didn't have television back then, but I would say you ought to be mindful of anything you watch. You know, David said, I think it was in Psalm 111, he said, I will place no evil thing before my eyes. And, you know, in Deuteronomy, God told the Jews not to bring any abomination into their house. Now, I don't think a TV in itself is an abomination, but I think some things that you could bring into your house through it are abominations. I remember David Wilkerson had a book years ago called, I think it was called The Vision, and One of the chapters was about television, and he was talking about how, you know, the sodomites pretty much are running Hollywood to a very large degree. And he said, you know, when the sodomites tried to get into Lot's house, we don't think of Lot as a very righteous man. We see him as a very compromised man. But at least he kept the sodomites outside the house. He said many Christians, through bringing TV into their house, they brought the sodomites into their house. Which is an interesting note. Now, I don't think that by having a TV or bringing demons into your house, but there certainly are lots of things you could watch on TV that could compromise your spiritual mind and your spiritual purity. And I think people need to be mindful of that. We need to take every thought captive. And you can't take every thought captive if you're not really noticing anything. the things you're allowing yourself to think about and be exposed to. This is a war zone. I mean, we sometimes think it's a casual walk in the woods, but it's, I mean, the devil is seeking to get advantage. So I would just say every Christian needs to be mindful of what things they engage in, whether it's their cult or whether it's, entertainment that has a similar effect on the mind, or unforgiveness and anger left overnight without repentance. There's lots of things that perhaps may give place to the devil, and I think Christians need to be careful not to compromise on that. So the answer is yes.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, because I'm trying to be careful what my kids see in the TV.
SPEAKER 08 :
That's a very good idea. When I was raising my kids, we didn't have a TV, but we did have a – back then they had videotapes, so we had a VCR. And we'd have a very limited number of videotapes we would allow our kids to see. We didn't want them to be totally unaware of the technology, but we also had to guard their minds. And most people who were homeschooling, as we were, did the same. It's a good idea. You can only protect them once in their childhood. It's like you have to win every battle raising your kids against the devil. The devil's reaching out to get them from every side. You've got to win every battle. The devil only has to really win one. If he gets a hold of your kids, they usually stay held for a long time unless someone does some serious spiritual warfare effectively. Anyway, yeah, guard your children's purity. They only have it once.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, so very quickly, Steve, that you are planning some translation in Spanish for your books or your apps because, you know, I'm just watching your content here, but I'm trying to translate the family. So I wonder if there's some access in the Spanish version or something like that.
SPEAKER 08 :
There is. There is a Spanish version of the first Empire of the Risen Sun book, which I think is the most important book that I've written. So it's published in Spanish. If you go to Amazon, let me see here. I cannot speak Spanish. I can't even pronounce the title of my own book. It's Imperio del Hijo. Yeah, I know. It's called... Resucitado or something like that.
SPEAKER 02 :
I know. I got it. Yeah.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Yeah, if you look it up at Amazon, you'll find it's in Spanish there, and it's... I think it's a good translation. It's gone through a lot of proofreaders, Spanish-speaking proofreaders, who approved it to be released. And the second book, I think, is being translated to Spanish right now by a missionary organization in Costa Rica. I think it is somewhere down in Latin America. So they asked if they could translate. I gave them permission. I don't know how they're doing on the project. But the first one, is definitely available now at Amazon.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, it's a great book, and I'm planning to give to my mom this book in Spanish version, so it's amazing. That's wonderful. Thank you so much, Steve. I really appreciate it.
SPEAKER 08 :
Great talking to you, Emmanuel. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 02 :
God bless you.
SPEAKER 08 :
You too. Bye now. Okay, let's see here. Our next caller is going to be Thomas from Phoenix, Arizona. I'm looking at the clock here, and I think we're going to have to take him after the break. At the bottom of the hour, by the way, we have other calls waiting, too, but there's one line open right now. If you want to get on, we have another half hour coming up. That line just got filled. If you want to take down this number and call it randomly over the next half hour, you may get in because lines do keep opening up and then filling up. But the number to be on the air here is 844-484-5737. And I will say that right now it looks like all the lines are full. So I'm just going to let you know that The Narrow Path is a listener-supported ministry. You can listen every day and you'll never hear a commercial because there's nothing to sell. We don't sell anything and we don't let other people sell stuff here. This is simply... By the way, if you do hear a commercial, then that's not supposed to be happening. We bought the time so that we won't have to have commercials. And if a station is playing commercials, that is wrong. They're stealing from us. So just let them know to stop doing that if they play commercials during our program. The Narrow Path is listener supported. If you'd like to write to us, the address is The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. That address again is The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. And you can also donate from the website. Now, the website's loaded with resources, and they're all free. When I say resources, I'm talking mostly about MP3 audio files of over 1,000 lectures on biblical topics, including verse-by-verse through the whole Bible. And other stuff you can download. Everything can be downloaded for free. You can even listen to my audio books for free. There. That's at thenarrowpath.com. Thenarrowpath.com. Listen, we're going to take a break and we'll be back for another half hour. I'll be back in 30 seconds. So don't go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
As you know, the Narrow Path radio show is Bible radio that has nothing to sell you but everything to give you. So do the right thing and share what you know with your family and friends. Tell them to tune in to the Narrow Path on this radio station or go to thenarrowpath.com where they will find topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all the radio shows. You know listeners supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg? Share what you know.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Podcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we're live for another half hour taking your calls. Right now our lines are full. I'm not going to give out the phone number again, but some of you have it on your speak dial already, and you can call any time during this half hour. But the lines being full, I don't think there's any reason to give out the number because it may take the whole half hour to talk to all these people. I do need to make this announcement, though I need to start making it now, although it's only the end of January. In three months from today, which is April 27th, is the date I'm talking about, I will be speaking in Dallas, Texas area, in a church there. And whenever I go to Dallas or any other place in Texas, I figure, why go just for one thing? Once I'm in Texas, I can drive around, and I do. Last time I was in Texas, I had events in Dallas and in Houston and San Antonio and wherever else. I know Texas is a big state, but when I go someplace, when I fly in there, I like to use my time efficiently and have no time off. So from about April 18th to April 28th, if you're in Texas and you'd like to set up for me to speak somewhere near you, when I say near you, I'd say if you're in the Dallas-Fort Worth area or the Houston area or the San Antonio area or most anywhere else that can be driven to in a few hours from one of those places. Get in touch with us. We'll be glad to come. Now, this would mean if you want me to speak at a church event. I'm not necessarily looking to speak on Sunday mornings. I don't expect many pastors to give up the pulpit for that. But evening meetings, Q&As, lectures on subjects that you may choose, home meetings. Yes, even those are good. You know, I don't charge anything. I just need somebody to say, here's the address, show up at this time. If you want to be on our itinerary, my wife is currently setting up that itinerary, and we're talking about dates from April 18th to April 28th, pretty much, if you want to get in touch. I'm not sure the best way to get in touch. My email is at the website, yeah, at thenarrowpath.com. You can email me. Or you can go on Facebook at our ministry page, which is Steve Gregg, The Narrow Path, and you can message through that, too. You can either email or message and just say, hey, we're in such and such a town. We'd like to set something up here sometime during that time, and we'll juggle all those dates and try to get something that will work out for you. That's coming up at the end of April. All right, now we need to get back on the phone, talk to these people. One of them is Thomas from Phoenix, Arizona. Next in line. Hi, Thomas. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, Steve. Okay. I got a couple things. First, have you or would you debate an Orthodox priest on Sella Scriptura?
SPEAKER 08 :
I would. I would. You know, I've just been reading a book about Greek Orthodoxy. A friend of mine who's Greek Orthodox sent it to me, and I've been trying to read it. It's a little hard to read for me. The main thing that the Greek Orthodox mention is that in their phronema, which means their state of mind or their way of thinking, debate doesn't really play a major role because they emphasize much more spiritual experience. And some of the Orthodox people, the older type, they don't even think it's a good thing to be debating theology because... they think that's a Western way of handling things. And so a lot of Eastern Orthodox don't want to debate. Now, some do, and even the book I'm reading kind of complains about that. So there are some Eastern Orthodox that do debate. But they say, basically, it's not so much that you have to prove your belief when you're Eastern Orthodox, you just know it kind of thing. You just experience it. But on the other hand, yeah, if an Eastern Orthodox priest wants to talk about Sola Scripture, I'd be glad to talk to him.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. Yeah, I know a guy. So, okay. Just a thought. Um, and also, the main reason I called, okay, so, uh, like yourself and so many of American Christians, I, uh, my mind on dispensationalism and everything surrounding that has changed a lot, especially recently. Um, one thing I've always wondered about with that, uh, I think you can help me out, um, Okay, if Israel is just a secular nation, right, and they're not necessarily special in the way a lot of us were taught to think, then how do you explain the fact that they've been protected, that they're like the oldest nation, supposedly, that they're still a nation after being dispersed several times? And it would seem to me that there has been a providential hand there. It could just be I was taught that. I hope you know what I'm asking, but how would you explain that part of it?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, first of all, you don't have to be a dispensationalist or even think that Israel is God's chosen people in order to believe in divine providence. I mean, I think God has providentially done many great things. I think of Britain's conquest of the Spanish Armada, how the weather caused Britain not to lose its empire to the Spaniards, and I think that's a good thing. I think that was very providential. I believe the finding of America was very providential In other words, I believe God works in history, but neither of those things would suggest that either England or America are God's chosen people. God actually seems to providentially have acted to save the Mormons in Salt Lake City the first year they had crops there. They were about to starve. And about the time they wanted to harvest their grain, a plague of locusts came and threatened to eat all their grain. And they had no other food out there in the wasteland there. And they prayed. And I would say God sent a bunch of seagulls, of all things. And they ate the locusts and saved the crops. Now, I think Mormonism is a false religion. But I believe God's a good God. I believe that there are times that people want to show mercy on people, maybe because they're the underdog, maybe because they're looking to him even though they don't know him. I don't know. So I'm not going to rule out that God's providence could be somehow involved in some of the things that have happened in the preservation of Israel. However, that doesn't mean that God favors Israel necessarily. At one time, God may favor Israel in a particular situation, and another time he may favor their enemies because there is no nation in the world that is specially God's people. It was the case, of course, under the old covenant. God said that if Israel would obey his covenant and keep his word, he said this in Exodus 19.5, that they'd be a holy nation to him. They'd be his own special people. Yeah, but they didn't. He still gave them more chances even when they didn't. And eventually he just said, okay, that's it. The kingdom of God is taken from you and given to someone else. That's what Jesus said in Matthew 21, 40-something, 43, 44, somewhere like that. Now, so, I mean, we can't decide how God feels about a nation by whether they prosper or not. America has prospered. in the past 200 or so years. I'd say more than any other nation in that period of time. And yet there have been times when our nation was really against God. And there's times when we were for him, more or less. But in other words, the prosperity of the nation can't be attributed to the fact that we are somehow God's chosen nation. And I feel the same way about Israel. To decide if Israel is God's chosen nation or not, we need to go to Scripture. Because that's the only place we get God speaking about the subject. You know, I mean... We can interpret things, like an earlier call today was asking about the fires in Los Angeles. Could these be connected to some apocalyptic thing or not? I don't believe they are. Now, are the fires a judgment on the people of Los Angeles? I wouldn't say so. I'm sure there are people who think that way. Sometimes tsunamis are interpreted that way, too, in New Orleans or Indonesia or somewhere like that. People say, oh, that's a judgment from God. Well, I don't know how they know that. How do we know if it is? I mean, I know how God feels about things, about individual nations at any given day, only if the Bible tells me how he feels about it, because that's where he speaks about such things. I mean, Rome was very pagan, but God prospered that nation for many centuries above all the others. So I just don't have any – I'm not prone to make judgments about whether Israel is God's chosen people by the fact that they've prospered. It's been amazing, some things that have happened, that's for sure. But some of the things that people say are amazing aren't that amazing. I mean, a lot of the victories Israel has had – They are represented to us by dispensationalism. Oh, this is miraculous. When you really read about the facts on the ground... It wasn't that miraculous. But dispensationalists sometimes say, well, Israel's the only nation that has survived through the centuries, you know, without a homeland. Well, I don't know if that's true or not. I've heard that the gypsies have never had a homeland in Europe, and yet they consider themselves a nationality. They've existed for centuries and centuries without a homeland. So, I mean, sometimes in their zeal, to make what's happening in Israel an astonishing, miraculous thing, people sometimes misstate facts or interpret facts in ways that they don't have to be interpreted. So I'm not against Israel. I'm not necessarily for Israel. I'm for Christ. I'm for Jesus. And I'm for his people. Now, I'm also for everybody because God loves the world. He causes his son to rise on the evil and on the good. and causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. So God is good even to those who are his enemies, Jesus said, which is why he tells us to be good to our enemies. But that being so, it suddenly becomes impossible for us to decide whether a nation is God's enemy or friend simply based on whether he's good to them or not, whether he's been merciful to them or not, whether he's preserved them or not. We don't know what he's preserved them for. Now, the dispensationalists think that God has preserved Israel and is bringing people back to Israel so that when the Antichrist comes, I mean, this is one reason that they expect to happen, the Antichrist will kill off two-thirds of the Jews in Israel. Now, that doesn't sound very pro-Jewish to me. I don't want Jews to be killed off. I'm not a murderer. I'm not a racist. I'm not an anti-Semite. I hope the Jews live and prosper and find Jesus. I hope that for the Arabs, too, and for everybody else. So to favor one nation over another or to even interpret their prosperity as some kind of a mark of God's favor simply is to express an opinion from facts on the ground. And in many cases, especially when Christians are talking about Israel's facts on the ground, they got the facts wrong or they don't have all the facts. There's a lot of things that have happened in Israel. That would be things that dispensationalists would be happy to cover up because they don't fit into the general idea that Israel is God's chosen people. But I'm not here to debunk Israel. I don't have any personal grudge against them. I think every nation, Jewish or Gentile. needs to be righteous before God. And I don't know that they are. I don't know that they're not. I'm not over there. All I can get is Internet memes and stories and things, which are often very hard to know which one's telling the truth. If you're interested in, for example, modern Israel, and whether it's a miracle or not. I have some lectures at our website. I don't know if you've heard them or not, but I have a series at thenarrowpath.com under the topical lectures tab called What Are We to Make of Israel? I think they're listed alphabetically under Israel. Israel, What Are We to Make of Israel? And there's 12 lectures, and I think two of them are about the founding of the modern state of Israel. And I present there a lot of facts, historical truths, lots of witnesses, lots of historical sources that indicate that things didn't happen exactly the way dispensationalists would like to think they did. So, I mean, if you're interested, and if you haven't seen it, if you go to thenarrowpath.com and you look under topical lectures, There's a series called Israel, What Are We to Make of Israel? And I think it's the last two lectures are about the modern state of Israel, though I recommend listening to the whole series. But as far as the survival of Israel into modern times, against all odds, as some people would say, how can we explain that? Well, actually, those lectures do something toward explaining that. I explain the effects of Zionism, the effects of America. and dispensationalism in America that had something to do with that, had a lot to do with Jewish terrorism prior to 1948 in Israel, and things like that. I mean, those are the things that many Christians have never heard. But they're there, and I document all of them. So I suggest maybe you check that out, and it might help you to see a broader picture of all that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I'll check that out.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, thanks, Thomas. God bless. Okay, let's talk to James from Jamesport, Missouri. Hi, James.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Okay. So my wife and I recently listened to your series again on the title Sun Assembly Required. It's really good. It really helped us. I noticed as a healthcare professional, I see a lot of patients who are becoming disenfranchised with the institutional church, and yet they feel kind of alienated and almost outcast. They genuinely seek fellowship, and a lot of them are still involved in the institutional church. They're willing to let people be persuaded in their own mind about things, but they just feel like they're quenched, the Holy Spirit's quenched when they're in there And I feel the same. And I'm wondering, do you know of a good book that I've looked into some books that talk about this, about, you know, the institutional church versus the body of Christ, but most of them are reformed or there's some other issues. And I'm wondering, do you know, other than your series that I can recommend people listen to who I have and it's blessed, do you know of a good book on the topic?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, you know, as I look at my shelf, I've got about a dozen or more books about organic church or home church, alternatives to institutional church. Some of them actually critique the institutional church. One that was very popular years ago. and is still in print, I'm sure, is called Pagan Christianity, which tells about how the institutional church adopted many of its present practices, including the Protestants. I haven't read that book, but many people have told me what's in it. I had already taught my series on Some Assembly Required, where it sounds like that book points out a lot of the same things I do. I mean, my impression is I'm on kind of the same page with it. So that would be a book that, from what I've heard, would be good. There are books, if you go on Amazon or something, look up the term organic church. or house church or home church. I mean, those are subjects that lots of books have been written about. And I would just say don't, you know, accept everything these books say as gospel truth. Be a Berean and see if what they're saying is more scriptural than what the institutional church is saying. I think you have to be discerning because, I mean, if people say, well, we need to honor the institutional church, I think, which one? They don't honor each other. You know, certainly the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants, they don't honor each other. They're a little friendlier toward each other than they were a century ago. That's true. You know, it's more politically correct to be nice to people and so forth. But still, all of those are institutional churches. And, you know, and they all have things they criticize about the institutions of the others. So, you know, we can't just say, well, just you need to support your local church. Well, OK, support it if it's worth supporting. I'm for that. But the next question is, which one? Which one does the Bible talk about? And in my opinion, the Bible doesn't talk about institutional churches. I think it talks about the body of Christ. I think it talks about the family of God. I think it talks about meetings, gatherings of the church, where they worship together and edify each other, but more that the life of the church has a lot to do with what happens when they're not in these meetings, how they interact with each other, how they love each other, how they support each other, how they step up and bear one another's burdens in real life situations. I think that's more what the church was in the book of Acts. Anyway, there's a lot of books, like I said, I have a lot of them on my shelf. I haven't read most of them simply because I don't have time to read all my books that I've got, but there's been a lot written. I think a lot of them would say a lot of the same things. A lot of these are written by people who've got you know, a gripe about the institutional church. And when you read a book like that, you also need to look out for people who've got a chip on their shoulder, you know, because sometimes people are angry at the institutional church because they had a bad experience. I'm not. I'm not angry at the institutional church. I just don't find much in them that is edifying to me. And, you know, so I'm involved with home church.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah. Yeah. Real quickly, last thing. One of the reasons why I say this is because in our particular area, this Nine Marks organization has literally taken over so many of the institutional churches around here. And whether they're dispensational, Reformed, Anabaptist even, Mennonite, I mean, this Nine Marks ministry, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, has literally caused so much division in our county. It's just unreal. Have you heard of this? Organization 9 March?
SPEAKER 08 :
No, I'm going to look it up. I've never heard of that movement. Is it global? Is it national?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, and it's Mark Beaver is his name.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, I've heard his name, sure. I've heard his name, yeah.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, so anyway, you might look into that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Yeah, I think I will. That sounds significant. I'm sorry to hear that. You know, the problem is institutional churches. I think their main problem is they're being institutional. And I think that being institutional is hard for them to get out of. They've got a 501c3, so they're a corporation. They've got, in many cases, a mortgage to pay. They've got sometimes salaries, usually, to pay. And they have to operate like a business. Whereas I don't think the early church did that at all. And I think that the more the church has become like a business, like a corporation, the more it's unable to be the simple family of God. They have leaders who are like CEOs. They have elders that are like board of directors. I mean, you really can't have a 501c3 without having that. And that means you can't be a corporation. And by the way, The Narrow Path is a corporation. We have a board of directors and so forth, but we're not operating as a church. We're a radio ministry. But churches are a different thing. Anyway, some people are very critical of churches for this. I'm sympathetic. I was raised in institutional churches. I've been an elder in institutional churches. I've been in dozens of different institutional churches as either a congregant or a leader. And I know that most institutional church leaders I've known have been very sincere and have a right heart. But I think in many cases they're trapped in a system that they don't even know is not supposed to be. But anyway... Yeah, there's lots of books you can get. I haven't written a book on it, so just my series, Some Assembly Required, which you've heard.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, and it's great.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thanks for your time, Steve. Okay, James. I appreciate your call. I'm sorry for the frustration you're having there. Lots of people are with you. That's it. All right. Bye now. Matt from Liberty, Maine. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. Love the program, and I appreciate you fielding my question. Sure. I'm currently reading through the Bible for the first time in a year. in my life, and it's bringing up what many might feel are some basic questions. The question I have is related to Cain and Abel. Once Cain kills Abel, and he's responding to the Lord's punishment, and he states basically, this is more than I can bear. If I'm in the land, whoever finds me will kill me. My question is, my understanding for years has been that it was just Cain and Abel at this time, so I'm curious who those folks are that he's afraid it will kill him. And a quick follow-up to that is the verses that follow that reference his wife. And I've just been curious as to where she came from.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right. And that's been a classic question many people have had as they read the Genesis. I think it comes from not really thinking about the story very much. I mean, no offense. I think most people read it without giving it too much deeper thought. But we are told that when God made Adam and Eve, He told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, which we believe they did. In Genesis chapter 5 and verse 3, it says, or actually verse 4, Genesis 5, 4 says that Adam, in addition to the sons that are named for us, had other sons and daughters. Now, when did he start having these sons and daughters? Well, from Genesis 4, 1, I have the impression that Cain was the very first son. And it looks like Abel was probably the very second. There could have been others in between, but we're not told about them. But there were clearly children born whose names are not given to us. And when they were born is not told either. But Cain certainly didn't kill Abel while they were toddlers. Cain no doubt killed Abel while he was an adult. In fact, there's evidence that they were probably almost 130 years old when Cain killed Abel. Why? Because at the end of chapter 4, of Genesis, it tells us about the birth of Seth. Now, the word Seth means appointed. And when this son was born, it says, Eve said, God has appointed. That's the word Seth means appointed. God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed. Now, Eve mentions that Cain had killed Abel. And she saw this son born was apparently a replacement for Abel, who had apparently recently been killed. Now, that means that Seth was born probably the first son after the death of Abel. And yet in chapter 5, verse 3, we're told that Seth was born when Adam and Eve were 130 years old. Okay, so put this together. Seth was born when Adam and Eve were 130 years old. And this was probably the first son born after Cain killed Abel. So that Cain and Abel were almost 130 years old. Apparently, they had been born much sooner. And so between the birth of Cain and Abel and the birth of Seth was almost 130 years. Now, when God had told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and he gave them no birth control, but I'm sure he gave them very fruitful biological machines. I'm sure that they were having a lot of kids. It'd be very strange if they didn't have at least one a year. So they could have had two a year. You know, who knows? Lots of people have multiple sets of twins. And God wanted to fill the whole earth with them. So they may have had twins and triplets. Who knows? But even if they had only one child a year, by the time Cain filled Abel, there could be 125 people besides him and his dead brother in the time that had elapsed. Now, 125 people would be enough to be concerned about because they would want to avenge their brother's death, their brother Abel, who had been killed by their brother Cain. And that's what he's concerned about. He probably grabbed one of his sisters, too, for a wife. God intended for Adam and Eve's children to marry and have children, so they would have to, of course, marry siblings. So I don't think there's a problem there. There was a population there, and the Bible allows for that. Adam and Eve had sons and daughters, we're told. I'm sorry I'm out of time. I wish I wasn't. You've been listening to The Narrow Path? Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Let's talk again tomorrow. God bless.
