Daily Radio Program
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. I say welcome back assuming you’ve listened before. If you have not, welcome for the first time to the Narrow Path broadcast. We’ve been on the air daily for about 28 years, so I know that most of our listeners are returning to hear us again, but if you’re catching us for the first time, welcome. We’d like to have you become an addict to the program, as many people have testified themselves to be. The Narrow Path is really a very simple program. You’ll notice we don’t have any announcers at the beginning or the end of the program. We don’t have any advertisements. We have no sponsors. And it’s always been this way. It’s just an hour a day of me taking your phone calls. You ask the questions. I’ll do what I can. to provide biblical answers to your questions about the Bible, about the Christian faith, about whatever you may ask about. If you disagree with my answers, that’s quite all right. We have no interest in having everybody in the Christian world conform to my personal opinions. I’m not here to promote my personal opinions. I’m here to seek to answer questions as honestly as I can. Obviously, my opinions will become evident, but you’re certainly welcome with my blessing to disagree with what I say. But if you have questions and you don’t know who to ask, this is one place you can ask me, but maybe you can get a second opinion or a third if you don’t like what you get here. Let me just give you a phone number. The number is 844- 484-5737. I’m looking at a switchboard that’s about half full, so we have some lines open for you. 844-484-5737. Now, for some years now, we’ve been having a tradition on the first Wednesday night of each month to have a Zoom meeting. And you’re welcome to join us for that. It’s tonight at 7 p.m. Pacific time. You don’t have to live in the Pacific time zone, but you have to be aware that it is 7 o’clock in the Pacific time zone. It might be a different time for you. Now, normally this Zoom meeting is just a Q&A meeting, a lot like this radio program. But from time to time, I’ve been asked if I would speak on a given subject or And so I’m going to do that tonight. I was asked if I would speak on the difference between full preterism and partial preterism. Now, I myself am a partial preterist, as almost all Christians are in some way or another, because partial preterists believe that some prophecies have been fulfilled. And every Christian I know believes that some prophecies have been fulfilled. But the full preterist believes that all prophecies have been fulfilled. That means they don’t believe there’s a second coming or a resurrection or a rapture or a new heaven, new earth or a judgment day in the future. That’s all happened back in A.D.
SPEAKER 1 :
70.
SPEAKER 08 :
So, I mean, that’s obviously a strange view in terms of church history. Nobody really believed it as far as we know until about the 1970s. But it’s a growing movement now. And if you haven’t encountered it, you probably will within your lifetime. And the people have interesting arguments. It’s like when the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to your door or the Mormons. They have their arguments all memorized. And if you haven’t heard their arguments, and if you’re not an expert on the whole Bible, then sometimes you might say, wow, here’s something that my church didn’t teach me that’s definitely got some impressive credentials, so maybe these guys have discovered something that nobody else discovered in the whole world before 1970. Well, if you think that, you’re pretty naive about church history. And you’re also pretty naive about understanding what the Bible says, because the biblical arguments, so-called, that the full preterists bring are very, very deficient in terms of exegesis. If you’re interested, I’m going to be giving – I wrote a book on this, by the way, a couple of years ago. It’s a 300-page book called Why Not? Full Preterism. And so I was asked if I would tonight in the Zoom meeting give a talk. Why not? Full Preterism. What is full preterism? Where did it come from? What do they argue? How would I argue against them? That kind of stuff. And so that’s tonight. on Zoom, anyone can join us, who wishes, at 7 o’clock Pacific time this evening. And if you want to know, well, how do I get on the meeting? It’s really quite easy. Go to the website, thenarrowpath.com. That’s the same as the name of this radio show, thenarrowpath.com. And there will be a tab there that says Announcements. Look there, look at today’s date, and you’ll see the login codes, and you can get right on. And we’ll be glad to see you. And I’m assuming I will finish speaking early enough to take questions from those who are there. I don’t know how many we’ll have because I’m kind of, what shall we say, wordy, some might say. And when I’m trying to teach something, I’m trying to teach it fairly thoroughly. In fact, I try to cover all the bases so that, you know, someone else can’t come by and say, ah, but he didn’t discuss this about it. I wonder what he would say. Well, if you listen to me, you’ll probably know what I would say. Okay, so that’s tonight. Hope to see a lot of you there. I also want to say that early next month, early in March, I’m going to be in Tennessee. I’ve been saying this this week. I’m speaking in Nashville. I think I’m speaking out on the other end of the state, on the east in Chattanooga area and in Churchill, which is a little tiny town in the east of Tennessee, and some other places. So I tell you that because we have many listeners in Tennessee who might either wish to attend one of these places I’ll be speaking or, better yet, you might want to set one up where you live. You can do that. It’s easy to get me to speak, especially if I’m already in the area. So and it costs you nothing. All you need to do is provide a venue. So if you’re interested to be speaking at a venue in your area in Tennessee, you can contact us. You’ll find my email is at the bottom of our main page of our website. web page, thenarrowpath.com. Contact us, and we’ll do what we can to set something up. Otherwise, you can just go to our website and look under announcements to see where I will be speaking and join us there. All right, that’s enough blather for now. We’ve got a bunch of people waiting to talk, and I want them to get a chance to talk. I try to get everybody in if I can. Let’s talk to Ryan from Brighton, Michigan. Ryan, welcome.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, good afternoon, Steve. I just wanted to ask another question on Daniel 9, if you don’t mind, 26 to 27. Well, in this question, I wanted to ask on Daniel 24 first, if that’s okay. But I’m speaking with a premillennialist right now, and his argument is kind of like, well, hey, these things haven’t actually happened as the amillennial view would have that occur. And I think he’s referring to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, bring everlasting righteousness. In my opinion, this is fulfilled in Christ.
SPEAKER 08 :
If he says they haven’t happened, he’d better get a different New Testament.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, and there’s also part of it to seal up vision and prophecy. So I don’t know if maybe that – I still need to kind of speak with him on this in more detail because it’s just through text. But I don’t know maybe if that’s the part he’s hung up on, the sealing up of vision and prophecy. And quite honestly, I’m not quite sure what to make of that. Mm-hmm.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, the phrase to seal up vision and prophecy is not exactly unambiguous. The word to put a seal on something means to verify its authenticity, you know, like a seal on an official document or something like that. To have something sealed in biblical times was simply a way of saying it’s got the seal of authenticity upon it. Now, of course, to seal up prophecy could mean something else. And this is one of the things we don’t know for sure until we know what the prophecy is talking about. Obviously, if we had no idea what the prophecy is about, we could say, well, maybe it means to bring an end to the prophetic gift. You know, there are people who think that the gifts have ceased in the apostolic age. And so they might say, well, sealing up prophecy, vision of prophecy, would simply mean that the time will come when there are no more visions and no more prophecies. And a cessationist would say, well, that happens sometime in the messianic age. But to seal it up could also mean to fulfill the last one. The last prophecy gets fulfilled, and then there’s going to be no more. So another is to fulfill all prophecy, which, you know, I don’t take it that way either. The word seal obviously has multiple possible meanings. And so you can’t just say, okay, I’m going to take it this way, and then I’m going to make the whole prophecy one. fit the way I’m taking it. I think the other way to go is to understand what the whole prophecy is talking about and see how the wording of one line can be taken so as to fit the prophecy in general. And that’s what I would do. In fact, that’s what we do all the time when we read scripture. If we have an ambiguous statement, We look at the context to see which of the possible meanings of this statement makes sense in the context. Now, the period of time that is mentioned extends from something that happened in Old Testament time, a decree to rebuild Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. That decree, which was either the decree of Cyrus or one of the two decrees made by Artaxerxes, Those happened hundreds of years before Christ. Cyrus’ decree was like 538 B.C. Artaxerxes’ first decree was about 455 or something close to that B.C. His second was 445 B.C. So we’ve got, you know, the earliest possible date for this to start is in 538 B.C. The last possible date it could begin is in 445 B.C. And again, arguments, scholars make pretty good arguments for each of these. So to say, to be sure about when it begins is not easy. But we can say if the whole period of time from its beginning is 480 years, then whether you use the first, second, or third of these possible decrees, you’re going to wind up somewhere close to the time of Jesus. I mean, the full range of difference between these decrees is only a difference of about 100 years from the earliest to the latest. So any time within a century of Jesus, you know, is when we’re talking about here. Now, the prophecy does mention the Messiah will be cut off and that the temple will be destroyed and Jerusalem will be destroyed. So we know after… this prophecy about the Messiah is fulfilled, there will be a destruction of Jerusalem. Now, we know when that happened. That happened in A.D. 70 when the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem. That’s not even questionable. No one disputes that. So sometime within, let’s just say, a century before the destruction of Jerusalem, Got to have the Messiah. Well, in fact, Jesus came 40 years before that. So he’s right in the middle of that period. People can discuss and dispute which of the dates they want to start it at. But no matter which one they use, you’re pretty much stuck with Jesus being the fulfillment because there’s no other candidates of Messiah that have any credibility in that general time period. So I don’t worry about too much the fine points. But what is supposed to be accomplished during that time? Well, this is going to be accomplished by the Messiah, as it turns out. It says he’s going to finish the transgression and make an end of sins. Okay, well, the Bible indicates that Jesus paid the full penalty for sins. In fact, on the cross he said, it is finished. He made an end of sins and transgressions claim upon humanity. Now, of course, humanity, in order to be out from under that claim, has got to become followers of Christ, but he brought an end to the reign of sin and of transgression. Well, what about this? To make reconciliation for iniquity. Well, did Jesus make reconciliation for anything? That’s exactly what he did. That’s what the word atonement means. The word atonement means reconciliation. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and he committed to us the word of reconciliation, and we speak in his place to be reconciled to God. The whole gospel message is about reconciliation for iniquity. So we’ve gotten through three of the six, and clearly they apply to what Jesus did. To bring in everlasting righteousness. Okay, well, that too. Did Jesus bring in righteousness? Are you and I righteous more than we would have been if Jesus hadn’t come? Of course. We experience the righteousness of God in him. The Bible says also in Second Corinthians five. So is that is that righteousness that we have received from Christ? Is that everlasting? I dare say no end of it is mentioned in Scripture. And certainly the impression I have is it’s everlasting. Can anyone argue for an alternative view to that? So there’s four out of six. How about to seal up the vision and prophecy? Okay, now that one’s ambiguous. We don’t even know what that phrase necessarily means. We’ll have to understand it in some way that fits the whole context. But then the sixth one is to anoint the most holy one or the most holy. The Hebrew can be read the most holy one, which would be the Messiah. Or the most holy place. It just says the most holy, so it’s not sure if it’s referring to a person or a place. But if it’s a place, did Jesus anoint the most holy place? Well, read Hebrews 9 and then answer that question. Hebrews chapter 9 mentions that Jesus, the high priest, has gone up into the most holy place and has anointed it with his own blood and has cleansed it. Yeah, it sounds like it. I mean, at least that’s how the early church understood it. Jesus had done that. Now, if it’s the most holy one, will that be Jesus himself? Was he anointed? Absolutely, he was anointed. At his baptism, the Holy Spirit came upon him and God said, this is my son in whom I’m well pleased, anointing him as the Messiah. So, in other words, everything in there, with the possible exception of to seal up the vision and prophecy, is unquestionably said to have been accomplished by Christ. Now, is there any way that the first coming of Christ could, that the sealing up of the vision of prophecy could somehow be applied to his first coming? Well, he said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. In fact, Paul kind of does say it a little more like the way, let me see here. Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch. Paul in Romans chapter 15, verse 8. Romans 15, 8, Paul said, Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promise. That’s the promises that were in the prophecies. To confirm the promises made to the fathers. Okay, so did Jesus confirm as valid the promises made to the fathers? I think so. I think he did. And I think Paul thought he did. So if a dispensation says, well, these six things have not happened yet, so this must be in the 70th week, must be in the future. Well, on what basis do you say those six things haven’t happened? The New Testament tells me all of them have. And if there’s someplace in the New Testament that says all of them have not, I’m certainly eager to see it. But, you know, remember, dispensationalists can’t win the argument simply by saying, well, I don’t think you’re right. You know, if we read these six things and say, is there anything in the Bible that tells us that this has happened? Lo and behold, there is. The New Testament tells us these are the things Christ accomplished. Now, the next question is, is there anything in the New Testament that says these have not happened? Well, I’ll guarantee you there aren’t anything. So if you have a choice, you can say this prophecy has either been fulfilled in the past or not. And the idea that it was fulfilled when Jesus was here the first time has abundant scriptural testimony. And the idea that it wasn’t, that it didn’t happen, has no scriptural testimony to say that. You know, just all other things being equal, I’m going to go with what the Bible says.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thanks. Yeah, I appreciate that very much. Just real quick, if I could ask one real quick question.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I saw your text, and I’ll answer it, or your emails. You sent me something about 26 and 27. I don’t want to take more time here with it because the lines are full, but I will get back to you on that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay. I appreciate that. Thanks a lot, Steve.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, Ryan. God bless. Okay, let’s talk to Daryl from Compton. Hey, my brother. How are you doing? I’ve got him activated. Hello, Daryl, are you there?
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey, man, I’m sorry. Steve, can you hear me now?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, I can.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, praise God. I miss you and hope to see you soon and hope Dana’s feeling well. I’ve got a quick question, Steve. I’ve got a two-part question on divorce. Now, first of all, this is not pertaining to me because I would never consider divorce, but I was preparing for Bible study and I was looking at Matthew 19. when the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked him about it being lawful for any reason to divorce. And then Jesus responds, you know, what God has brought together, let no man separate. But then they asked a follow-up question about why did Moses command divorce. And then Jesus goes on to say in verse 9 of Matthew 19, whoever divorces his wife except for immorality and marries another woman commits adultery. That word immorality, pornea in the Greek, I believe. Yeah. And it speaks of spiritual and physical adultery. I kind of even look at that where maybe it could even entail idolatry, putting anything before your spouse that, My question, my first question, Steve, is anything that one puts before their spouse considered, could that be considered grounds for divorce, such as like parents or a job or a friend? That’s my first question. And then the second question would be if a married couple, a Christian couple got married, and one of them divorced for not adultery-type reasons and married someone else. Now, in the eyes of God, I know that that would not be considered a marriage to God. Can one repent of that, and how would that look? Can that marriage ever be validated in the eyes of God? if one got into a situation like that. So I hope you understand my two questions.
SPEAKER 08 :
You mean, can the second marriage be, or can the original marriage be restored?
SPEAKER 06 :
The second marriage, could that be validated in the eyes of God? And if so, what would need to take place?
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, brother. As for the idolatry thing, obviously God told Israel that when they worshipped idols, that this was like they were committing adultery against him. But that’s because it was a spiritual marriage they had to him, and it was spiritually unfaithful to him to have idols. It was common in the early Christian world, and Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians 7, for a person to be converted out of a pagan background, but they’re already married to a pagan, and though one person gets converted, the other one doesn’t. So you’d have a Christian who is now married to a pagan. Now, pagans, by definition, were idolaters. I mean, all pagan religions were idolaters. And yet Paul did not see this as grounds for divorcing. He said, if your spouse divorces you, then fine, you’re free. But if they want to stay with you, I assume he means in terms of you being a Christian and they want to fulfill their marriage duties, well, then you should stay with them. Only if they depart should you leave. So clearly the idea that the spouse is an idolater was not grounds for divorce in Paul’s mind. Now, I will say that a spouse who we say is putting someone else ahead of their husband or wife, is certainly doing an evil. It’s an evil. And I guess the real question would be, they need to be confronted and asked, do they want to still be in the marriage? And do they want to be in the marriage on the terms of marriage, on the terms of the vows they have taken? uh… because generally speaking if people get married in this country at least they’ve made vows that say that they will forsake all others and cleave only to their husband or their wife and uh… And yet, some people, when they get married, they maintain loyalties to their parents or to, you know, adult children who are, you know, trying to interfere with the new marriage or maybe friendships or whatever. I mean, now, a person, when they get married, have got to be realizing. They are forsaking all others in order to become one flesh with their partner. Now, this, you know, if there’s a spouse who’s putting somebody else between, well, ahead of their husband or wife, that person needs to be asked, do you want to be a husband and wife or not? Are you content to be in a marriage? Or do you want to just kind of make your own definition of marriage and make me the victim of it? You know, I mean, when people get married and make vows, they’re supposed to both keep them. They’re supposed to be devoted to each other uniquely. And if one is committed to it and the other is not, then they’re victimizing their spouse, the last person that they should be willing to victimize. So it seems to me that, you know, I may be. not in the majority about this. I’m against divorce, by the way. I’m basically against all divorce, but I do believe there are some justifiable divorces. I just don’t think it’s ideal to get divorced. But I think that this is a question of is your spouse willing to remain as a spouse? Or do they just want to kind of make up their own kind of ad hoc relationship where they can do what they want, unrelated to the definition of being married. And even though you’re stuck with the actual definition of marriage, they’re just making their own up as they go along. Obviously, I don’t think that a person is obligated to stay with a spouse that doesn’t want to be a spouse. That’s really what it comes to, Paul said. So, I mean, if you remain faithful, or if someone else you know is in a marriage and remains faithful and their spouse doesn’t, And by doesn’t, I mean, of course, obviously sexual immorality is not okay. But also, you know, they don’t keep their vows and they don’t want to keep their vows. That’s the point. I mean, if somebody breaks their vows, I don’t think the marriage has to end because of that. Even if the spouse commits adultery, I don’t think the marriage has to end. There could be forgiveness and reconciliation. But if a person says, I don’t want to keep my vows anymore. I made promises, but I’m not willing to keep them. Well, then that’s a very different thing, I think. And so it seems to me like that is them not being willing to dwell with their partner. Now, don’t go away because I have a break coming up here. And I know you had a second part of your question. But I don’t think it’s grounds for divorce if a spouse seems to put someone ahead of someone else. But it is grounds for confrontation and saying, are you interested in being married to me or not? And if not, why are you keeping me, you know, tagging along here? That would be part of your question. That would be one of your questions, as I would answer. After our break, I will come back and speak about the other one you mentioned. You’re listening to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. We are listener supported. You can go to our website and take anything you want from there. Or you can donate, if you wish, at thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds, so don’t go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we were talking before the break to Daryl from Compton, California, and he had a couple of questions. His second question, Daryl, I assume you’re there still. Your second question was, if someone has been wrongly divorced, Let’s say they divorced their spouse wrongly. They didn’t have grounds. And they remarried. Okay, obviously Jesus said if you divorce your spouse and you didn’t have proper grounds, if you remarry, you’re committing adultery. That’s what Jesus said. And you’re taking that for granted to be true. I am too. But you’re wondering, okay, once somebody has done that, are they stuck in the second marriage? I mean, should they go back? How can you fix it? Can you turn the clock back? Can you undo the damage? The answer is you can’t undo all the damage. But there are many sins that when we commit them, we can’t undo the damage. Some damage has been done. There’s just nothing you can do to undo that. However, when we repent of sinning, we desire as much as possible to undo the damage we did. simply because we hate the sin and we hate the consequences that we brought on other people because of our sin. And therefore, there’s this thing called restitution. In the Old Testament, for example, if a person robbed somebody or stole something and they were caught, they had to not only give back what they stole, but they had to give back double as restitution. If they stole a lamb, They’d have to give back four lambs. If they stole an ox, they’d have to give back five. So making restitution is simply the way of saying, I not only repent of what I did, but I want to do everything I can to make it up to you so that you don’t suffer continuing damage from me. Now, Zacchaeus in the New Testament says, When he had Jesus over dinner, he was a tax collector and had been dishonest in his collection of taxes. He had wrongful gain that he’d gotten by dishonesty. He stood up and announced, I’m going to give half my goods to the poor, and if I’ve wronged anyone, I’m going to pay them back fourfold, four times the amount I took. And Jesus’ response was, salvation has come to this house. In other words, Jesus recognized this man was a truly repentant man because he realized that he not only had to stop robbing people, but he had to have an entirely different course, and he had to pay back, even with interest, the people that he had wronged. So making restitution is a biblical thing, both in the Old and the New Testament, and it would simply make sense anyway, even if the Bible said nothing about it. If I rob a bank and then I later repent and wish I hadn’t done it and ask God to forgive me, Obviously, I can’t now live on the money that I stole. I have to give it back. That’s restitution. Now, if somebody steals from their spouse by divorcing them, now, this is stealing because, of course, you promised that they would have access to you and have ownership of you, basically, and you of them until one of you dies. And so if before one of you is dead, one says, I’m out. I’m out. I’m not doing this anymore. Well, you can’t just break a contract like that and not have any debt. You can’t just walk away from a covenant and say, okay, I’m out, and there’s no debt. No, you still owe it to the person to fulfill your promise. And so if you have left your spouse… and they were not unfaithful, there was no good reason to leave them, then that, of course, is a heinous sin. And to make it right would be to, if possible, to go back and fulfill the promise you made. Now, there would be some cases where that probably could not be done. One of them would be if the spouse that was abandoned says, I can’t trust you anymore. I don’t want you back. Now, the spouse in that case, of course, has grounds for divorce because their spouse has moved on and committed adultery by remarrying, as Jesus said. So the innocent spouse that was initially abandoned can say, no, I’m done. You’re free. Go on. I don’t want you back. Don’t come back. In which case, I think the sinner, after having repented, is free to move on. because there’s no possibility of making restitution for the damage. They can’t go back. Another situation may be, of course, if their innocent spouse has moved on and is now in another marriage. If the innocent party is in another marriage, that’s a valid marriage. And there’s no way that you could take that person back or that they could come back to you. So obviously in that case, restitution can’t be made. So there are cases like that where it can’t be fixed. It can’t be undone. But when it can, it should be. Now, what about the case where the sinning spouse, the one who committed adultery and married when they shouldn’t, they’re now married to someone else. Does that mean they can’t go back? Well, different people would answer this differently, but I would answer it that Jesus said the second marriage in that case was adultery. Jesus said if you divorce your spouse without proper grounds and marry another, you’re committing adultery. Now, adultery is not marriage. The state may give you a license and call it a marriage, and they do it all the time, but the state doesn’t determine if you’re in marriage or in adultery. God does. You know, Jesus is actually describing a person who has gotten a legal second marriage, but he’s calling it adultery. So what the state calls marriage in some cases may be what God calls adultery. And adultery is not okay. Now, as long as your first spouse has remained faithful and desires to have you back, then I don’t think you can stay in an adulterous relationship, even if the state has licensed it. I don’t think the state has the competence to license adultery or murder or stealing or any other thing. I mean, they may do it because the state’s so out of touch with God. But as far as a Christian is concerned, we’re going to stand before God, not the state, ultimately. So I would say that even a second marriage, if it was adultery when it began, remains adultery. Now, here’s a deal. If a person has done that and they find themselves in a second marriage, and they want to repent of that, what can they do? Well, first of all, they can inquire whether their first spouse has moved on. If their first spouse has been with other people, that is, in a romantic or sexual relationship, or has remarried, then I would say you owe them nothing. They’ve moved on. They have taken care of themselves and they’ve gone on and they’ve taken their rightful option to remarry or be with someone. And therefore, no, it wouldn’t do no good to leave the second marriage, but you should repent of it anyway because it was adultery. People should repent of adultery. But I think then, since the first marriage is over, literally over, because the innocent spouse has remarried, then I think you should just kind of reestablish this second marriage on godly terms. But it can’t be on godly terms as long as there’s an innocent first spouse who has a claim for life on the disobedient spouse. So, you know, this sounds very complicated. It’s really quite simple. I have, by the way, a lengthy article about divorce and remarriage at our website, which you can read for free if you go to thenarrowpath.com. There’s a tab that says topical articles, and one of them is divorce or marriage. And I go into every detail about this from Scripture. But it’s really more, I mean, there’s complicated scenarios. But the simple answer is this. Do I still owe something to someone that I am depriving them of? If I would leave my wife without grounds, I’m depriving her. Or if a wife leaves her husband without grounds, she’s depriving him. And yet what they’re being deprived of is something owed to them because of a vow, because of a covenant. There’s a contract there. Okay? Now, on the other hand, if both parties have said, I care nothing about this covenant, I care nothing about this contract, and the one who didn’t break it moves on to do something else and releases the other, then there’s nothing owed. I mean, to me, it’s that simple. Now, if someone says, but wait a minute, what if the second marriage, what if there’s kids and stuff? Well, in the second marriage, yeah, what if there are? There is such a thing as children who are born in adultery from adultery. And what about the first wife’s children? Now, I realize something. I say, well, me and my first wife didn’t have any kids, and me and my second wife do. Well, I mean, then your first wife will probably be glad to release you. That’s up to her. You still owe it until she’s released you from that. But a lot of people say, well, it’d be merciless to break up a second marriage where there’s children in it. Well, do they care as much about the children of the first marriage that were victimized by the thing? I mean, the legitimate wife and her children are the legitimate family of the man. And so, I mean, it’s possible to have children from a legitimate marriage and also children from an illegitimate marriage. Well, one’s a legitimate family, the other’s an illegitimate family. Of course, you’re responsible for both of them to care for them. But it seems to me that the first claim on the father are the children of the legal wife as opposed to his children. mistress who he happens to have gotten a marriage license to live with but uh anyway those are it’s it shouldn’t be that complicated once you get i i realize it sounds very unemotional if you let emotions rule on this you’ll just be in a hopeless a hopeless uh morass of confusion so many situations have been confused by sin by remarriage by breaking up again i mean The truth is you kind of have to step back like a judge would in a court of law because this is a legal matter before God. Sit back and say, okay, all emotions aside, who is being wronged here? And what is being owed? And anyone who can put their emotions aside for a moment and ask that question and come up with a reasonable answer will know the right answer. But again, all these scenarios, I talk about them in my article on divorce and remarriage. You can get that at The Narrow Path dot com under the tab that says topic articles. Darrell, I’ve got lines full. I need to move on. But I hope that’s helpful to you, brother. Praise God.
SPEAKER 06 :
Thank you, Steve. Hope to see you soon. All right.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. Let’s see. We’re going to talk to Joni from Napa, Idaho. Napa, Idaho. Hi, Joni. Welcome.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi, Steve. Hey, I would just like your thoughts on this subject, on baptism. I’m wondering, because I’ve read two different things, are we to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
SPEAKER 08 :
You know, I think that question came up and we discussed it yesterday, if I’m not mistaken. Oh, dear, I missed it. Okay, to make it really short. I believe that the expression, the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which Jesus used that expression in Matthew 28, 20 or 21. Yep. I believe that is synonymous with the name of Jesus. And in the book of Acts and all other places that talk about baptism in the New Testament talk about being baptized into Jesus or in the name of Jesus. So I personally believe that Jesus and the apostles did not contradict each other. or that the apostles did not ignore and disobey what Jesus said. I think that they understood the name… singular of the father son holy spirit is identified with the name of jesus so either one would be equivalent and and so uh you know people who were baptized simply in the name of jesus well there’s apostolic precedent for that that’s fine if there were people who were baptized in the name of the father son holy spirit i believe that’s the same thing and and there’s certainly nothing to be criticized in that since jesus commanded it but um I think people are often hung up on exact formulae, and I don’t think that’s necessary to be. The question is, who is it we’re talking about here? Who are you being baptized into? If it’s Jesus, then that’s the right person.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, Joni. Thanks for your call. Good talking to you. All right. Let’s talk next to Patty in Carmichael, California. Hi, Patty. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thank you, Steve, for your time. I just like your opinion on something. I don’t know if I’m being oversensitive, but in Bible study at church, this lady started reading out of the Amplified Bible. And to me, that was like adding words that you’re not supposed to. I mean, when I study, I keep my dictionary and my concordance right at hand and look things up. But they just, I mean… The words went on and on, and I thought, am I being oversensitive, Steve?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, probably. Let me say this. I don’t care for the Amplified Bible for that very reason. Not that I think it’s wrong to add words to the translation, but because it is so wordy, it takes forever to read through a passage. Whoever made the Amplified translation thought they would do a service to the body of Christ by including every nuance, of every Greek word that had multiple nuances, and not just picking between them. See, most translators, if they take the word for perfect, okay, the word in the Greek for perfect can mean also mature. It can also mean complete. Well, the word is used all those different ways in different passages. But suppose I said, well, I don’t really know or care which way it was used here. I’m just going to give all three of those in this place. I find that Greek word I’m going to put in, perfect, mature, and complete. Now, most translations simply choose between those words. They’ll either use the word perfect or mature or complete, depending on what they think is intended in the passage. The Amplified Bible just sticks them all in there. This gets particularly burdensome reading the Beatitudes at the beginning of Matthew 5, you know, where it just says blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are those who mourn, blessed are the merciful, and so forth. It’s not just blessed in the Amplified Bible. It’s blessed, fortunate to be envied, happy. are, you know, these people. Then that list again. Not exactly always the same list. I mean, but it’s mostly the same list. But it just takes forever to read through it. I don’t think you need to have all that in a translation. But am I opposed to it in the sense that you’re talking about, that they’re adding words? It’s not so much that they’re adding words. I mean, in a sense, every English translation, even if it’s the King James, is adding English words to the Bible. The Bible was not written in English. It’s written in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic. So any English translation you’re using is adding English words. Hopefully they are good English words that represent the meaning of the original language. But to add multiple English words to express the meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word, there’s nothing irreverent about it. I think it’s certainly not necessary for me, and I don’t appreciate it. I mean, not that I’m opposed to it. I just don’t appreciate having someone do that for me. I’d rather just have a more readable Bible. And I agree that it’s burdensome. It’s burdensome reading the Amplified Bible for that reason. But some people have found it useful. I mean, some people maybe don’t know anything at all about the Greek, and it’s good for them to see several different possible versions. English words that could be implied there. Everyone’s got to pick their own Bible for the, you know, in a sense for the one that gets the truth to them in their language they understand best. So I would suggest, Patty, that you don’t get an Amplified Bible. I think I have one on my shelf, but I don’t use it. I’ve been familiar with it for many decades. But, yeah, I think you might be, I mean, to object to it, that might be being a little too sensitive or maybe too critical. But I don’t think it’s violating some principle. I think it’s just violating my taste in literary style, I’d say. All right. Thank you for calling. And Mike from Houston, Texas, is next. Mike, welcome. Hello, Mike.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, I’m waiting for you. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, my question is, and I think this is going to be a benefit for the body of Christ.
SPEAKER 08 :
Just give me the question. We’ve got a lot of people waiting, and I’m running low on time.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, the question is, when do we draw a line of, you know, like letting a teacher teach us, if Jesus said that I shall send you the comforter that will teach you all truth? It’s kind of like saying with the Pharisees and the Sadducees, when Jesus told them, you don’t even go in and you don’t even let them come in. Because you’re getting in front of the Spirit to teach them all truth. And I understand that we’ve got to listen, right? But what line do we put?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I would say I believe it’s absolutely essential that we are taught by the Holy Spirit. Well, we have to recognize that the Holy Spirit can teach us through lots of ways. The Holy Spirit opened the mouth of a donkey to rebuke Balaam, and it would have been foolish for Balaam not to receive it just because it came through a donkey. You know, the fact is, God can speak through a child. In fact, the Bible says, Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise. So, I mean, the Holy Spirit, if you’re thinking the Holy Spirit teaches us only by direct download, that he has sort of a port that he plugs into our head and just downloads information, and that’s the only way we learn anything from him. I think maybe you’re not taking into consideration all the biblical understanding that prophets spoke by the Holy Spirit, but people who have the Holy Spirit still should listen to them. There is such a thing as a gift of teaching, a spiritual gift. Paul talks about the gift of teachers and teaching, and therefore the Holy Spirit can teach us that way. Teachers may write books, they may preach from the pulpit, and wherever we hear a teacher, or anyone who’s not a teacher, we need to ask ourselves, is this something that the Holy Spirit… is trying to get across to me. I personally think that Christians need to be incredibly teachable because we are so prone to being wrong about things or ignorant that we need to always be subject to correction. Now, the Bible itself is the standard by which I would measure all teaching to know whether it could be from the Holy Spirit or not. Because if something is taught in a book or from the pulpit or from a radio broadcast like this, If something is taught that is contrary to Scripture, I would say clearly what is being taught is not from the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture. He doesn’t disagree with himself. On the other hand, you know, I mean, there are teachers who speak pretty faithfully to Scripture, and I’ve learned a lot from them. As far as drawing the line is concerned, what we draw the line at is – whether someone who’s speaking or writing, if they’re not speaking according to the Word of God, that is the Scriptures, then I would… I draw the line there and say, sorry, you’re going against what God said, so I can’t believe you’re saying what God was saying. You know, it says in Isaiah chapter 8, it says, if they do not speak according to this word, it is because there’s no light in them. That’s Isaiah 8.20. If they’re not speaking according to the word of God, there’s no light in them. And if there’s no light, it’s not the Holy Spirit. So that would be essentially where I would go. or I would draw the line about accepting someone’s teaching or not. Okay, let’s talk to Jose from Las Vegas, Nevada. Jose, welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 07 :
My question is, what are the words I have to say about Christians practicing Freemasonry or wanting to join organizations as such?
SPEAKER 08 :
You know, the Bible doesn’t mention Freemasonry, though it’s been around for hundreds and Now, see, I’ve never been a Mason, and I’ve never really been a close or intimate friend with anyone who was a Mason, so I don’t know anything by first-hand or even second-hand. What I do know is that many Christians have endeavored to expose Freemasonry as being an occult organization and so forth. Now, having said that, I will say that there are also many good Christians who, who have told me that their pastor or their father or uncle or great-grandfather was a very godly man and was a Freemason. So all I know is some people are saying that Masons teach stuff or hold standards that a Christian cannot approve of. At the same time, others say, well, I know wonderful Christians who you’d hardly expect to be compromising at all and who you’d expect to recognize. if something was contrary to Christianity, who have been, you know, whatever it is, 32nd degree Masons or whatever it is. I will say this. If Masonry is occultic, then certainly the Bible says we shouldn’t have anything to do with it. Also, and I get different ideas. I hear from different people who are insiders. I know that Charles Finney, the great revivalist, had been a Freemason. And he left that organization and wrote a book against Freemasonry. I haven’t read it. But he seemed to think it was inconsistent for Christians to be in it. My own approach to anything like that is I believe that we as Christians are the body of Christ collectively and that we should endeavor to do good works in the name of Jesus as a Christian body. Now, the Freemasons don’t do anything in the name of Jesus per se. They’re not a Christian body. And Paul indicated we shouldn’t be yoked together with unbelievers. Now, yoking together means working together on the project, God’s project. We don’t want to yoke unbelievers in on the project with us, nor do we want to join unbelievers in a project that duplicates or competes with the body of Christ’s ministry. I think that there’s lots of social clubs and service clubs and things like that which non-Christians are in that do a lot of the things that Christians are supposed to do. Not all the things, but some things. Helping the poor, helping the sick, things like that. But which don’t do it in the name of Jesus because they’re not Christians. And Paul said in Colossians 3, whatsoever thing you do in word or in deed, do all in the name of Jesus. I believe it’s important that we Christians do the works of Christ, do the works of God, and do them in his name so that he gets the glory. The idea is not just to do something that’s good to have done, but to do something that God will be glorified by. And so I don’t know that God has given the glory for the things that the Shriners and the Masons and some of these other groups do. I’m not saying that the works they do are all bad or that they aren’t doing good works. They may be. To me, it’s not enough to do a good work. If I do a good work, I want to make sure I’m doing it in the name of Jesus so that God and Jesus are lifted up and get the glory for it. And so I wouldn’t, frankly, myself, join a club that wasn’t part of the body of Christ, that wasn’t That was doing some work that Christians are supposed to do, but doing it without any reference to Jesus. Now, you know, Christians are in the Masons. Should they be? Should they not be? I’m not an insider. I can’t say. Someone might want to look for Charles Finney’s book on Masonry. I haven’t read it, but he was an insider. And there are, of course, modern Christians who have been Masons before and have come out and said it’s got occult aspects and so forth. So I’m no expert on the Masons. All I know is that I don’t join any organization that’s going to provide a godly service unless it’s going to be done in the name of Christ. Because lots of religions do good deeds and lots of secular people, even atheists, do good deeds. But It’s not enough that a good deed is done. It’s good that a good deed is done, but it’s not enough. It should be done for the glory of God. And only a Christian organization acting in the name of Christ can be said to do that. That would be my take on it. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. As I said earlier, we are listener supported. We pay for radio time. We have no commercials or sponsors. You can write to us at TheNarrowPath, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California. or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. We’ve got a Zoom meeting tonight. You’re welcome to join us.
