Menu
Join Steve Gregg as he delves into a variety of thought-provoking topics on this episode of The Narrow Path. From the question of whether masturbation is a sin to the existence of paradise post-resurrection, Gregg provides insightful commentary grounded in scripture. This episode invites listeners to explore how ancient biblical narratives and teachings apply to our lives today, encouraging listeners to form their interpretations rooted in faith and scripture study.
SPEAKER 09 :
Good afternoon, and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon, taking your calls if you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith, or you have a difference of opinion with the host and want to talk about that, and you want to talk about it here on the program. You can call me during this hour, and we will talk about it if I can get to your call. Our lines are full at the moment. But don’t be put off by that. Just don’t call right now. But if you call in a few minutes, there’s a good chance of – I mean, calls – lines are opening up all through this program. So just call randomly during the hour. Earlier is better than later just because if you call late, you might get far back in line and not have a chance to get on before we’re out of time. We only have an hour, but we’re doing fine. I’m in the – I’m in the Houston area now. I have to remember where I am. I was in the hill country of Texas the last three days, and I just drove into the Houston area. And tonight and tomorrow night, I am speaking. And if you’re interested, if you’re in the Houston area and want to come… you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com, and look under announcements, and you’ll see where those meetings are held. And you’re welcome to join us. Now, as I said, tonight and tomorrow I’ll be in Houston, but the next three nights, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, I’ll be in the Dallas area. One of those is going to be in Arlington. Anyway, I’ll just let you look at the website if you happen to be in the Dallas area and want to come to those meetings. Just go to thenarrowpath.com and look under announcements, and you’ll see where that is. I don’t need to say much more about that. I’ve been talking about it all week long. We’ll go to the phones now and talk to Oscar in Napa, California. Hi, Oscar. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes. Hi, Steve. How are you doing? I enjoy your ministry. Keep up the good work, and God bless you and your family. I had a question. My friend has been struggling with this issue, and he wanted me to ask you, was masturbation a sin?
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, that’s always a hard question to answer because the Bible really doesn’t speak about that subject, and yet it’s such a common subject for people to be concerned about because, frankly… Although people don’t talk about it publicly an awful lot, there’s people who struggle with the temptation a great deal. And so you would think the Bible would say something very directly about it. Now, there’s two ways to look at it. And one of them is if the Bible doesn’t forbid something, then it’s permitted. The other way some people would see it is if the Bible does not permit it directly, then it’s forbidden. And I think, generally speaking, the right approach to Scripture is if God hasn’t said no, then we can’t call it a sin and forbid or condemn others for doing it. On the other hand, that could be forbidden by extension under the general category of porneia, the Greek word porneia. In the King James, that term is translated fornication. Modern translation is usually translated as sexual immorality. And obviously, that’s a general term. That includes a number of things. I mean, there are some named forms of fornication. In the Bible, for example, prostitution, going to prostitutes is fornication. Premarital sex is prostitution. Not prostitution, it’s pornea. It’s fornication. Homosexuality is. Bestiality is. Adultery is. All of those fall under the general label of pornea. Now, what those things have in common is all of them have to do with sexual activity. And some would say, well, you know, then masturbation should probably be regarded as in that category. Others would say, well, one thing different about that from the others is the others all have to do with violating another person. Whereas masturbation doesn’t do that. So they’d see it as different in principle. This is an awfully hard thing to answer from the Bible since the Bible doesn’t really address it. And it’s possible that one would say the fact that the Bible doesn’t address it is significant. It must not be a concern. Or… On the other hand, it might be the Bible didn’t address it because it was considered to be so obvious that it’s not right that it doesn’t have to tell you that. But I’ve never been able to really give a solid biblical answer except to say in principle. The Bible says in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, Paul is talking about, now he’s writing to new Christians in a pagan culture. They’re recently converted out of paganism, and paganism had a lot of sexual deviancy in it and so forth. And so one of the things Paul had to write to Gentile Christians about frequently was, in fact, that they avoid fornication. And he lists lots of different sexual sins. In this one, he doesn’t list specific forms. But he does make a general statement that I think is perhaps relevant. Some might not think so. But it’s in chapter 4 of 1 Thessalonians. And chapter 1, I mean verse 1 of chapter 4. Finally then, brethren. We urge and exhort you in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more just as you have received from us how you ought to walk and to please God. For you know what commandments we have given you through the Lord Jesus Christ. For this is the will of God, your sanctification, that you should abstain from sexual immorality. Then he says that each one of you should know how to possess his own vessel, by which I think he means his own body, his sexual activity, in sanctification and honor. not in passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God. But then he goes on to say that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter. Now, someone quoted that when I was quite young. I heard somebody quote that to say, Well, that would include masturbation because it says you should possess your body or your vessel in sanctification and honor. And what this preacher was saying, and it made sense to me, was that people who masturbate, they don’t feel very honorable about it. I mean, people don’t feel like, well… You know, I’m glad I did that. I want to tell the world, you know, it’s just not it’s not very honorable. And so this pastor was saying, well, you shouldn’t do anything sexually. That seems to you to feel dishonorable and shameful. And to many people, that would be include that. Now, on the other hand, Paul does say, as he’s explaining what he means by fornication, that you don’t defraud your brother in this matter. By that, I suppose it means don’t sleep with your brother’s wife. But the point is he’s referring to fornication in that context of wronging somebody else. And so this is something that is, you know, not easy to say. I will confess that I’ve known pastors who counseled younger people, especially on both ways on this. That is to say, I’ve known some who say, no, it’s a sin. I’ve known others who say it’s not a sin. One pastor I knew said that he counsels young men, usually it’s men who have a problem, not always, but he says just take it as a pressure release valve, and maybe God has given it to people to release sexual pressure. But I don’t know that that, I don’t feel comfortable with that for the simple reason that Paul, when he was advising people to avoid sexual immorality, did not say, you know, if you’re really having trouble with it, There’s this pressure relief that you can resort to. Instead, Paul said, if you can’t contain yourself, marry. In other words, he saw marriage as the way to control your sexual appetite in a legitimate way. He didn’t give any kind of other relief options. So it’s a questionable thing, a very questionable thing. And I would say I personally have never thought that it would be – an honorable thing, I would avoid it because I would not feel comfortable with it in my conscience. But on the other hand, because the Bible doesn’t outright forbid it, I can’t condemn somebody who says, well, I prayed about it and I don’t feel any conscience problems with it. So it’s one of those things that I say is a gray area. And I would say, you know, a person should follow their conscience after seeking the Lord about it in their own life. We don’t have, after all, in the Bible just a list of rules that we just check the boxes. We’re supposed to be walking in the spirit. And if we do anything, you know, in word or in deed, that seems to. injure our conscience or that we feel convicted about it then probably that’s something we shouldn’t be doing probably something we should ask God to give us the grace to overcome but I’m not saying that in a legalistic way because I honestly I can’t do that without having a direct word from God in the scripture about it so that would be the best I can do with that I appreciate your call Ryan from Leander, Texas is next Ryan welcome
SPEAKER 10 :
Hello, Brother Steve. It’s Brian, but that’s okay.
SPEAKER 09 :
Oh, Brian, okay.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yes, sir. Yes, sir. My question is, and I’ll take the answer off the air, does Paradise or Abraham’s bosom still exist, or was it changed after the resurrection? Thank you, sir.
SPEAKER 09 :
Sure. Thank you for your call. Does Paradise or Abraham’s bosom still exist, or did it change after the resurrection? The reference to Abram’s bosom, of course, scripturally comes from Luke 16 in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. And two men died. One was apparently saved and the other was lost. And the one who was saved went to a place called Abram’s bosom. It says he was taken to Abram’s bosom. Now, this place was not heaven, apparently, because he would then have been taken to the presence of God, not the presence of Abram. This is thought to be perhaps where people like Abraham in the Old Testament times who died in faith, they went there when they died, and so did this man. But Jesus, when he’s telling the story, had not yet himself died or risen again. Now, I believe that the Bible teaches in the New Testament that when a believer dies, that person goes to be with the Lord. Paul said, you know, as long as we’re in this body, we’re absent from the Lord, but we’re willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. So he’s speaking about two conditions. You can be in your body or out of your body. If you’re in your body, you’re alive on the planet. If you depart from your body, that’s what death is. It says in James chapter 1, as the body without the spirit is dead. So faith without works is dead. So the body without the spirit of dead is if the spirit leaves the body, presumably that’s death. And and that would be, you know, going to be with the Lord, present with the Lord. Paul said in Philippians chapter one that he actually because of miserable circumstances he was in in prison, he’d be delighted to depart and be with the Lord, which is far better. So he figured that if he died, he wouldn’t go to Abram’s bosom. He’d go to Christ. He’d be with the Lord. So it seems to me, especially Hebrews 10 tells us that Christ, through his death, through his body, has made a new and living way into heaven itself for us, which to my mind means before Jesus died, access to heaven, even for believers, was not really available. But the assumption then is that when believers died, though they didn’t go to heaven, they didn’t go to a place of punishment either. They went to, as the term that is used in Luke 16, is Abram’s bosom. Now on the cross, Jesus told the thief on the cross, today you’ll be with me in paradise. And you’re now asking, you know, you’re using paradise and Abram’s bosom synonymously. And I think that’s the typical way to look at it, that paradise was also this place where the righteous would go before Jesus died and rose again. And even Jesus was going there. And he said to this man, you’ll be with me in paradise today, when they were both dying that day. But since Jesus has risen, he is no longer in paradise. He’s now in heaven. And it does seem that when Christians die, Paul said that we’d go be with the Lord. which I think we could presume, therefore, that paradise or Abram’s bosom, wherever it was, is no longer occupied because Christ has now, as it were, set prisoners free from that who were faithful people when they died but couldn’t go to heaven because God had not opened the way through the death and resurrection of Christ yet. So since he is resurrected, I probably would say there’s no one in paradise yet. Or maybe a better way to put it is paradise is now identified with heaven. I would say that’s probably a better way to put it. Because Paul said that he knew a man in 2 Corinthians 12. He said, I knew a man in Christ Jesus who was, whether in the body or out of the body, he says, I don’t know, but this man was caught up into paradise. He was caught up in, he said, to the third heaven. So I think the third heaven is up where God is, where we go when we die. And he knew a man who, apparently prior to death, Or maybe he died briefly and then came back. But he was caught up into the third heaven, which Paul identifies as paradise. So it sounds like paradise was one place before Jesus died and rose again. And then perhaps paradise has been taken to heaven and all those who were in it, too. So at one time, paradise was not identified with heaven. And now it sounds like it may be. We’re not given many verses about this. All the verses I’ve quoted are just about the only thing we have in the Bible addressing that. So as you can see, it’s a little vague. But my answer would be in the absence of sufficient scripture to reach a different conclusion, I think yes. Paradise and Abraham’s wisdom don’t exist anymore in the place where they were, although they may now be identified with heaven itself. That’s going to be my theory about that. All right. Let’s talk. Let’s see who’s been here the longest. We’re going to talk to Benjamin from Greenville, Ohio. Benjamin, welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
How’s it going, brother? My question today is on Joel 3.2 and 3.12. I just want to know if you need some insight on the Valley of Jehoshaphat, because both places speak of judgment of the nations. And I’ll hang up and take your answer on the radio, though.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right. All right. Thank you. Yeah, in Joel chapter 3, the prophecy that started in chapter 2 continues. Of course, the chapter divisions are artificial, so Joel just kept going at the end of chapter 2. Now, the end of chapter 2 is about the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. Now, that’s one of the things in the Old Testament prophets that we don’t have any difficulty knowing what the fulfillment was because that’s identified for us. That’s where it says in Joel chapter 2 that God’s going to pour out my Spirit on all flesh. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, and on and on, and whoever will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. So Peter quotes that, and Pentecost says this is that. This is the fulfillment of that. So we know that chapter 2 was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, which was 2,000 years ago. Now chapter 3 just flows from that on into more prophecy, where it talks about great numbers of people, in the valley of Jehoshaphat. Now, there actually never was, that anyone knows of, a valley that was called that. So, I mean, I’m not sure exactly why he used that term. It’s a symbolic name for some valley. And it also says they’re in the valley of decision. Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision, verse 14 says. For the day of the Lord is near, the valley of decision. Now, most people… that I hear teach about this chapter, apply it to the end times. And they would say this might be a reference to Armageddon or the last battle with Israel and the nations or whatever. And while I guess it could be, I’m going to say I don’t see any reason to jump that far ahead. Because chapter 2 ends, you know, in the year 30 AD at Pentecost. And there’s no suggestion that chapter 3 has jumped 2,000 years or more ahead of that time. That there would be a huge gap between the fulfillment of chapter 2 at the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3. Simply, there’s nothing there to signal that gap. And chapter 3 begins with the words, For behold, in those days and at that time, Okay, in those days and at that time. What days? That’s the first verses in chapter 3, which means it’s talking about the same days and the same time as the end of chapter 2 it’s talking about, which is Pentecost. So it sounds to me like chapter 3 applies to the first century. And there’s a lot of symbolic language in there. There’s a lot of poetry. It’s all poetry, frankly. And a lot of things are called by symbolic names. I believe the Valley of Jehoshaphat. is a symbolic name for the valley in question. And it’s also called the Valley of Decision, which is obviously symbolic. That’s not a literal name of a valley either. I think what he’s saying is when people are in a valley, there’s two options, two hills, one on each side. And a person who’s got a decision to make, a decisive decision to make, is like a person standing in a valley saying, okay, which hill am I going to climb here? Which direction am I going to go? to get out of this valley. Well, I suspect that what it’s saying is that when Jesus died and when the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, that Israel, the people of Israel, had a choice to make. They were in a valley of decision. They had to make a decision. And the right decision would save them, and the wrong one would doom them. And, of course… That’s not very dissimilar to the imagery of Zechariah 14, which I think is also talking about the same thing. It talks about his foot shall stand on the Mount of Olives, and the mountain will split and cause a valley between the two options. That’s a similar imagery, also symbolic. And I believe that chapter 14 of Zechariah is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., And I suspect that the valley that we’re talking about here is a symbolic position that Israel, after Jesus came, had to decide, will they go into his kingdom or will they go into doom and fall with the rest of the Jews when the Romans come and wipe them out, which they did shortly thereafter. So I’m not going to go verse by verse through this chapter. It’s very difficult because of the poetic imagery and so forth. But my tendency is… to place chapter 3 in the first century rather than the 21st century. I guess that’s the big question. It’s talking about some big battle, some big crisis, and there’s war, and there’s a big decision to be made. And this is either talking about something that hasn’t happened yet in times, which, if so, then we have this enormous gap between the last verse of chapter 2 and the first verse of chapter 3, so that, you know, chapter 2 is talking about 30 AD and Pentecost, and chapter 3 is talking about, you know, the 21st century or something like that, that doesn’t seem likely, especially since chapter 3 begins with the words, For behold, in those days and at that time, I will do such and such. So I think that this is the same days and same time that the Spirit was poured out, which is at Pentecost. And therefore, I would say that this battle that’s being talked about is no doubt the Jewish war. From 66 to 70 A.D., there was a bloody, horrendous war. between Rome and the Jews in Israel. And eventually the Romans wiped them out. And so the Jews, after Jesus came and went, and before Jerusalem fell, the Jews were in a valley between two options, as it were. They could follow Jesus, be part of the true new Mount Zion, or they can go down with the ship at the old Mount Zion. And so I think that’s probably what is being discussed here. That doesn’t make it easy to comment on every verse. But that is, I believe, what is the focus for us here. All right. So let’s talk next to Ryan from Linwood, Washington.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi, Steve.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi.
SPEAKER 02 :
Can you hear me clearly?
SPEAKER 09 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, so I may have just answered my own question, but it’s in regards to in the book of Judges where I know you’re teaching on, you know, doing what is right in their own eyes. Like I’m really well aware of your teaching on it.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
But I’m reading through Deuteronomy 12. Yeah. When he’s talking about you’ll enter the land.
SPEAKER 09 :
Same phrase there.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I looked up the Hebrew, it’s the same. But then I’m reading chapter 9, I mean verse 9, where it says… Oh, sorry, I’ll just go back and read from 8 to 9. It says, you shall not do at all what we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes. So that seemed to, that just made me have to question the teaching. But then it says, for you have not as yet come to the resting place. So that might sound like it is actually proving something. your view. When you enter the land, then do what is right in your own eyes.
SPEAKER 09 :
For those who don’t know what you’re speaking about, of course, Judges a number of times says, in those days there was no king in Israel. And a few times it follows that by saying, and every man did what was right in his own eyes. Now, almost everyone I’ve ever heard of says that was a bad thing. People were doing what’s right in their own eyes, and doing what’s right in your own eyes is a bad thing. Well, I would say it’s a bad thing if what is right in your eyes is in fact a bad thing, if it’s wrong in God’s eyes. But what if what’s right in your eyes is what’s also right in God’s eyes? Well, then that’s not bad. So the question of doing what’s right in your own eyes It doesn’t say you’re doing something good or bad. It depends on what you judge to be right. And if you’re following God’s law and his revelation and you judge the same way he does and you’re doing what’s right in your eyes, you’ll be obeying God. If you’re not listening to God, then what’s right in your own eyes will probably be different. You’ll be doing wrong things. The point is… Doing what’s right in your own eyes meant, in judges, that you don’t have a king telling you what you have to do. There was no king, and so everyone did what was right in his own eyes. That means instead of having a king and you have to do what’s right in his eyes, God has left you the liberty to make your own moral choices, to make your own decisions. Those could be bad or good, depending on how your eyes are adjusted, how your heart is adjusted. If you think that God’s law is good and you’re informed of it, then the things that are right in your eyes are going to be what God said. And by doing them, it’ll be good. But if you’re not, then what’s right in your eyes is likely to go bad. And it was both ways in judges. Sometimes the people did wrong. Other times they repented and did right. But all the time they were doing what was right in their own eyes instead of something a king was making them do. The point is that no one was doing what a king was requiring them to do because they had no king. Now, Deuteronomy says that the people in the time of the wanderings were doing what was right in their own eyes too. He’s not saying that’s good or bad. He’s basically saying, you know, that you’re going to, you won’t have me, but you’ll have the laws to follow. He’s certainly hoping that you’ll voluntarily follow. do what the law says and that that’ll be right in your own eyes. But if he’s predicting that they won’t do what’s right in their own eyes as they were then, then he’s mistaken because judges tells us they did. So, I mean, that didn’t change. It’s a hard thing to know exactly how the two occurrences of the phrase would be understood. But the meaning of the phrase simply means they were not compelled to do something by some king, making them do the right thing. If they did the right thing, it would be their voluntary choice. I need to take a break here. I’m sorry to say our website’s The Narrow Path. I’ll be right back.
SPEAKER 06 :
The Narrow Path is one feature of the teaching ministry of Steve Gregg. Steve’s philosophy of teaching is to educate, not indoctrinate his listeners. He believes that Christians should learn to think for themselves about the Bible and not be dependent on him or any other teacher for their convictions. We hope to teach Christians how to think, not what to think, about the Bible.
SPEAKER 09 :
you’re listening to the narrow path radio broadcast and we have another half hour coming up if you’d like to be on the program if you have questions about the bible Or, Christiane, you want to call in and ask them on the air? The number to call is 844-484-5737. And we have, it looks like one line open right now, so the number is 844-844-4. Let me start over. There’s too many 8s and 4s. 844-484-5737. I kind of wish we had a different number because that’s all pretty confusing, a lot of mixed up fours and eights. But if you’ve written that down, you can get through. All right, we’re going to talk next to Gary from Corvallis, Oregon. Hi, Gary. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 12 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks a lot. It’s great to talk with you, and I really enjoy your program. I was calling regarding the verse in John 19, 18 concerning the crucifixion of Jesus Christ where it says, where they crucified him, Jesus, and two others with him on either side, one, and Jesus in the midst. And my question or my concern or why I’m bringing it up is because I looked in Greek Interlinear where it has the English words and the Greek words, and there’s no Greek word for one. It’s in brackets, and I think it’s one of the few times in the King James Version of the Bible where the translators changed a word but didn’t put it in italics. And I’ve always wondered if the malefactor and the thief were the same. And the words, the Greek words are different. Of course, lestai is robber, at least in the text, and kakorgai, and then it said both thieves cast the same into his teeth. And John, I mean, in… Matthew, and then in Luke, one of the malefactors said, you know, the thieves were saying, if you’re Jesus, you heal yourself, come down off the cross, you help others, etc., etc. And so what I believe, based upon John 19, 18, and also when the soldiers came, because they broke the legs of the first, and the other that was crucified with him and coming to Jesus, he was dead already. And so I don’t think they broke the legs of the first men, walked around Jesus and broke the other legs and then came back to Jesus because Jesus really wasn’t any special person then for the soldiers. They were just crucifying people. But when you read that verse in John 18, 18, without the word one, it reads where they crucified him and two others with him on either side and Jesus in the midst. And so my main question is, is that Have you heard anything like that in any readings or anything? See, I always wondered because I never thought, because a robber or a thief is really a higher degree of crime than a malefactor, at least the definition was. And I just thought it doesn’t make a big difference, but I just look at things as truth is truth.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, I’m a little confused about what you’re suggesting. Are you saying that you’re not sure if Jesus was in between them, or if there’s more than two, or if there’s only one? Can you summarize your statement so I’ll know exactly what you’re inquiring?
SPEAKER 12 :
Yes, I’m saying that there were actually four crucified with Christ. The thieves… Because the malefactors were crucified with Jesus, and then they put up an accusation, they rolled dice for whatever they did for his garments, etc., etc., and then it says, then the two thieves were crucified. So I actually believe that the malefactors in Luke and the thieves in Matthew are not the same. I think that… the malefactors are the malefacts and the thieves are the thieves. And the main thing that convinces me is the fact that that verse in John 19, 18, the word one is not in any of the Greek that the English was translated from. And I just think it’s like an interesting biblical thing for people who like to do those kind of things. And I just wanted for you to heard about it.
SPEAKER 09 :
So you’re taking John 19, 18, where it says they crucified him and two others with him. on either side, whereas the King James says one on either side. You’re saying the word one is not in the Greek, so they crucified two others with him on either side. That is two on one side and two on the other side is what you’re suggesting, right?
SPEAKER 12 :
Correct.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 12 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, you know, I suppose it could be read that way. I don’t necessarily see that as necessary. I mean, one of the arguments you’re making is that malefactors and thieves are not the same thing. Well, a malefactor is just a criminal. You know, so, I mean, a thief is a malefactor. So I don’t think there’s a reason to say, well, the two malefactors in one of the Gospels is not the same as the two thieves in the other. To me, the simplest way of looking at it is that there were just three, you know, one on each side of Jesus. If you feel like, you know, that there’s a case to be made for there being two on each side of Jesus, then I can’t see any harm there. in your believing that, but I don’t see that the passages call for that necessarily. It’s a departure, obviously, from tradition, but we could depart from traditions when the Bible tells us to. I’m not sure, though, that there’s enough scriptural warrant here. to depart from the tradition that’s always been held that there were three. So, Jesus and two others. So, I mean, I’m glad you’re, I mean, it’s fine to be picking through and looking, comparing it and so forth. That’s a very good way to learn things. And you might be seeing something there. When I look at the same data, I’m not seeing a necessity of changing my mind from what I’ve always seen. Now, If it was clearly otherwise, then I would. But I don’t think that the arguments you’re making are compelling enough to change. Thank you. All right. But I appreciate the fact that you are diligently questioning what you’ve been taught and studying the Scriptures for. That’s a good habit. God bless you. All right. Let’s talk to Cody from Baytown, Texas. Cody, welcome.
SPEAKER 11 :
Hey, good afternoon, Steve. Good to speak with you. Yeah, good to have you. Hey, I’m looking forward to seeing you tomorrow night at the gathering. It’s only like an hour, hour and a half from me, so I’m so looking forward to meeting you. Well, great. Hey, my question is about the communion last supper. I’m of the same mind of view that it’s not actually the Catholic transubstantiation that it doesn’t become his body and blood. As William Lane Craig would say, it’s an ordinance, not a sacrament, like something we do in remembrance, a symbol. But I was wanting to ask you, when I read what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians, how he talks about some who do this in an unworthy manner drink and take judgment on themselves, and he goes, for this reason, some of you have fallen asleep, meaning you have passed away. So there is, I pick up some kind of supernatural element there, and I wanted to get your thoughts on it.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, I’ve heard Catholics make that point, you know, that they’re not discerning the body and the blood of Jesus, and therefore they’re taking it unworthily, and therefore there’s a penalty that’s come upon them because they didn’t discern that they’re literally taking the body and the blood of Jesus. I’m not seeing it that way. Paul tells us what they were doing a few verses earlier, where he says that each one, when they come to the Lord’s Supper, was taking their own portion of First, and not allowing there to be enough for everybody so that some people were going away hungry and some were going away drunk. Some got more than their share of wine and got drunk. Some didn’t even get enough of their share of bread. Now, by the way, this makes it very clear that they weren’t taking some kind of a little ritualistic cracker. This was a meal. The early church, the church fathers, as well as the scriptures themselves, make it clear that the communion meal was a meal, a whole meal. The original one with Jesus and the disciples was a Passover meal. And the disciples had what they called an agape feast where they took communion. And that’s what Paul describes there. Now, the point here is, they were eating a communal meal with the other Christians, but they weren’t concerned that everyone should get a fair share. Everyone’s just looking out for their own belly. I want more food. And not concerned about whether they’re leaving enough for others. And he says they’re not discerning the body of Christ. Now, by the body of Christ, he means the church is the body of Christ. They’re not recognizing that the people that they are depriving of food are part of the body of Christ. This is a sin against Christ, not just people. because it’s Christ’s body that’s being wronged. Now, we can be quite sure that when he said they’re not discerning the body of Christ, he doesn’t mean they’re not discerning the body of Christ in the bread, but rather they’re not discerning the body of Christ in the fellowship, that the fellowship is the body of Christ, because he doesn’t similarly say they’re not discerning the blood of Christ. It’s interesting, if he thought that the bread and the wine became body and blood, and it was important for people to know that. Why does he only mention they’re not discerning the body of Christ, but he doesn’t mention they’re not discerning the blood of Christ? Because he’s not really talking about what they’re eating, the elements. He’s talking about the people are the body of Christ. And it’s inconsiderate. It’s unloving. It’s un-Christ-like to take all the food for yourself and let some of your brothers go home hungry. That’s what Paul says. Now, he said, whoever eats or drinks in an unworthy manner. Well, he’s saying they’re having a meal and they’re behaving in an unworthy way, unworthy of Christ. If they’re taking all the food, if they’re just engorging themselves and not considerate of others, that’s not a worthy way to have a love feast, an agape feast. And he said, therefore, there’s been a judgment on the church, and many have become sick and even died because of it. He is saying the church is under judgment from God, but not because they fail to recognize transubstantiation in the bread and the wine, but because they fail to recognize their brothers as members of Christ. And they fail to behave toward them in such a way that a Christian ought to behave. In fact, it’s shameful. He said, when you’re eating this, it’s not the Lord’s Supper, he said, because you’re not eating it unto the Lord. Now, after he says that some are sick and some have died, he says, for if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord that we might not be. condemned with the world. So Paul is saying that the church has come under chastening from the Lord because of this misbehavior toward their brethren. And it’s toward their brethren that is the real issue here, I believe. I don’t think it has to do with the bread and the wine being the body and blood. So that’s how I see it. Following Paul’s train of thought there, I don’t think he’s talking about the elements themselves at all. He’s talking about the manner in which people are treating their brothers and sisters at a communal feast. And that’s the unworthy way that they’re eating the bread and the wine. So that’s my take on that. And I look forward to seeing you at the meeting, Paul. You too, Steve. Thank you. God bless you. Bye now. Linda from Wallingford, Connecticut. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi, Steve. Hi. Excuse me. I was wondering, was there any prediction about on Good Friday the earthquake that happened and the ripping of the…
SPEAKER 09 :
the veil. Were those predicted? Were those predicted in the Old Testament? You mean in prophecy?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 09 :
I don’t believe they were. I mean, obviously, the prophets often speak of earthquakes. And on occasions, I’ve heard people say that in a particular Old Testament passage where it talks about earthquakes, that that’s referring to the earthquake that happened when Jesus was crucified on Good Friday. But I don’t know that they have a good reason to say that. I personally don’t find any Old Testament process specifically would be referring to that earthquake, nor to the veil of the temple being torn. So I think those are just phenomena that happened, along with many other phenomena, some of which were predicted, some were not. I think those two things may not have been predicted before.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, and then the other question is, is, When the veil was ripped, how could the Jewish leaders go, oh, my goodness, somebody ripped it because apparently it was so thick it was not conceivable that it was ripped and that it was ripped from top down, which would mean a human would have had to, if they were going to rip it, they would do bottom up boats.
SPEAKER 09 :
Right. I mean, well, like many things the Pharisees and the priests saw, they saw many miracles Jesus did. They even knew that he raised Lazarus from the dead, but they still didn’t want to believe in him, which proves that seeing miracles doesn’t make people believe. People will believe what they are willing to believe, and they won’t believe what they’re not willing to believe, even if there’s strong evidence against their current beliefs. People will, they can disbelieve anything they want to disbelieve, and those priests did disbelieve it. I don’t know what kind of explanation they gave to it. Maybe they said, well, the earthquake was just so strong, it pulled the curtain at both ends so much, you know.
SPEAKER 04 :
I can’t hear what you’re saying, but anyway, it sounds like… I said thank you.
SPEAKER 09 :
Oh, okay, great. God bless you, Linda. Yeah, I think maybe they would have blamed the earthquake, but I’m not sure. Okay, let’s talk to David from Phoenix, Arizona. David, welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hello, David. Hi. I was wondering about my phone. My question is about the One World Religion Headquarters, which is called the Abrahamic Family House, which came about from a peace covenant called the Document of Human Life.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, all I can say is, if you’ve got a question for me about that, I’ve got nothing to say. I’ve never heard of it. Now, if you’re asking me whether that’s something that the Bible predicts, I don’t think it does. There are a lot of people who think that the Bible predicts a world government under a future Antichrist. Well, there could be such a thing, but I don’t know of any particular place in the Bible that predicts it. I know what verses they use. But when I look at those verses in context, I don’t see them as if they’re talking about the end times. So I believe that the persons that are the man of sin and the beast and so forth, I think those don’t necessarily refer to an end time Antichrist. Though I’m not denying that there could be an Antichrist dictator of the world in the end times. I just don’t see any predictions about it. And I certainly don’t see any predictions about a one world religion. Now, popular eschatology teaching thinks that the Antichrist will rise up and he’ll make everyone worship him. I guess that would be, if everyone has to do it, that would be one world religion. Now, if you’re asking what I think about one world religion, well, as long as it’s Christianity, I wouldn’t mind, I suppose, but… I wouldn’t want to see it imposed. I don’t think it’s going to be. If there’s some kind of institute for one world religion or something that you’re talking about, well, then there’s that. But the only thing I need to know, I don’t need to keep track of those things until someone comes and tells me that I have to change my views about Christ. And if they do, well, I won’t. So it’s pretty easy to know how to deal with that kind of stuff. Nobody has come to my door yet. and said, you know, you need to take a mark on your hand or your forehead, or you need to change your religion and worship this image of the beast in Jerusalem, or, you know, you need to renounce Christ. No one has done that yet. If anyone ever does, I’ll just say no. So my advice is if there’s such a thing going on and you’re concerned about it, I’d just say no, and then it won’t have to be an issue. Okay, let’s talk to… Danny from New Rochelle, New York. Hi, Danny. Welcome. Hey, Steve.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hey, how are you? What’s up, Steve?
SPEAKER 09 :
Go ahead.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, Steve, first I want to say, today’s my birthday.
SPEAKER 09 :
When is your birthday?
SPEAKER 05 :
Today, today.
SPEAKER 09 :
Oh, happy birthday.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Yeah, Steve, today I want to ask you, what exactly is the context and the meaning of Hebrews 11, 13, where it says, after these all died, After these died, they were still living in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and they were convinced and embraced them, and confessed that they were created on programs on earth.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, well, let’s talk about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And it’s saying that they saw the promises afar off, But they didn’t live to see them materialize. They all died in faith. Now, of course, at the very beginning of that chapter, it says faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. So they didn’t see it, but they believed in it. They didn’t give up faith just because it didn’t materialize in their own lifetime. But it does say they were looking for something more than you might think. They weren’t just looking for a promised land to live in. They’re looking for a heavenly country, a city whose builder and maker is God. And he said, and they didn’t look in vain because God has prepared for them a city, which I think in Hebrews it’s very clear that that city is the body of Christ, the community of Christ, the church. Because the very next chapter, in chapter 12, he says, we have come to Mount Sinai, to the city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem. And he calls it the General assembly and church are the firstborn who are written in heaven. So in the writer of Hebrews’ mind, the church is the city of God. It’s the new Jerusalem. And when he says, Abraham, they didn’t look in vain for that city because God has prepared for them a city. That’s not made by hands. It’s builder and maker is God. So it’s talking about the church is the fulfillment of that. But he said that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob didn’t live to see that. But they died in faith, so they didn’t give up hope or give up their faith just because it didn’t happen in their time. But he says, well, God has fulfilled it. Now, you know, he hadn’t done it in their time, but he has now since. All right, let’s talk to Tony in Long Beach, California. Tony, welcome.
SPEAKER 14 :
Hi, Steve. Hi. So in 10 through… And I know you know the portion of Scripture is the prophecy that was given about God changing the covenant and writing his laws on the hearts and on the minds and putting his laws in the minds of the people of God.
SPEAKER 09 :
Before you go further, I need to say your phone cut out several times. And listeners, if it cut out over the air, they may not know that the passage you’re referring to is Hebrews chapter 10, right?
SPEAKER 14 :
Hebrews chapter 8.
SPEAKER 09 :
Oh, 8 and 10. Both quote Jeremiah 31. Jeremiah 31 is where you’re talking about, but it’s quoted in Hebrews 8 and in Hebrews 10. Okay, gotcha.
SPEAKER 14 :
Your question then. Okay, let me do this. I’m sorry. Can you hear me better now?
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, I think you’re still cutting out. Okay.
SPEAKER 14 :
Go ahead and try to question. I just want to know if the writing the laws on the heart and putting it in the mind, does that pertain to all mankind or just the people who come to Christ?
SPEAKER 09 :
Right. The promise is concerning the house of Israel and the house of Jacob, at least that portion of them that enter the new covenant. You know, the Old Testament prophets often prophesied things about Israel, but then clarified elsewhere, we mean the remnant of Israel. Not every Jewish person applies to this, but the faithful Israel is talked about. So when God said, I’m going to make a promise with Israel and Judah… He actually went with the faithful remnant of them. And, of course, Jesus did that with the disciples in the upper room. Now, when it makes promises like this, you know, they shall all know me from the least to the most of them. The law be written in their hearts. This is talking about people who are in the covenant. You know, obviously, it’s a feature of the covenant. Now, when Jesus made the new covenant with the disciples, they entered it. And, you know, on the day of Pentecost, 3,000 more people did. And since then, millions of people have. But not all the Jews did, and not all people in the world did. So the things that he says about it don’t apply to the other people in the world. Because, I mean, the promises are, none of them shall teach their neighbor, and none his brother, saying, know the Lord. For all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I’ll be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities I will remember no more. So these are things that are true of the people who are involved in the covenant. So they are the benefits of the covenant, yeah.
SPEAKER 14 :
Okay, that makes sense, because that explains why, you know, wickedness in the hearts of so many people, myself included, before I knew Christ, without really feeling convicted or maybe having a conscience towards it, but not knowing any better.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, this is listing the benefits of being in the covenant, not people who are not. All right. Thank you, Steve. Tony, good talking to you, brother. God bless. Ron from West Hills, California. Good to hear from you after a long time. Haven’t heard from you for years. Hi, Ron.
SPEAKER 13 :
Hi. Yeah. I had just a comment and then a quick question. The comment was on the call that’s about the… number of people that might have been crucified with Christ. Back in the 70s, early 70s, there was a cultic group called the Way International, and that was one of their doctrines. They believe that because you read different, you know… The Gospels, one says malefactors, one says thieves, one says criminals. They had up to six or eight people that were crucified in Christ. It was just a peculiar doctrine that they had, and they were kind of a house church. And I don’t believe they’re around anymore, but that was one of their doctrines.
SPEAKER 09 :
I didn’t know that. I knew about the Way International, and I think they are still around, if I’m not mistaken, Victor Rearwell’s group. They were like Pentecostal Jehovah’s Witnesses in their beliefs. I love them. I didn’t know that was one of their beliefs. I didn’t know that was one of their beliefs.
SPEAKER 13 :
Okay, my question is in 2 Corinthians chapter 5 about appearing before the Bema seat or Christ’s seat. I guess it’s chapter 5, 2 Corinthians verse 10. We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive the things done in the body according to what he has done, whether good or bad. And, of course, the King James has the things done in his body, the word his in our palates. And in the Greek, it would be the things done in the body. And I believe, maybe this is just the way I read it, I believe that the judgment seat of Christ can only be for those things that we have done since we became Christians. and are in the body of Christ. The things I did before I was a Christian, I may have been charitable or thought I did something right, but there was always, you know, we all had other motives for doing things. Maybe I was impressing a girl by being generous or something. But since we’re in the body, the things that we do, I think that’s where our rewards are going to be, not for the things we’ve done wrong. you know, before we were Christians, and otherwise it makes no sense. Why would you say that for the things done in the body as opposed to things, what, out of the body, the things that we did out of the body?
SPEAKER 09 :
I’ll tell you what I think. I’m not reading it the way you are, though I agree with you that the things that we judged for are not the things that we did before we were Christians because we repented of those. And, you know, they’re washed away. We just mentioned from 1 Corinthians 11 a moment ago, if we judge ourselves, we won’t be judged by God, you know, of those things. So if we have repented, that’s judging ourselves. That’s bringing our problems to the cross. Now, after that, we do things, and we will be rewarded for them. Some are good and some are bad, and we’ll be rewarded either according to what they were. I’m not sure I’m going to go with you about in the body necessarily meaning in the church because the reason I think he was saying things that… I’m going to have to… There’s noise there and I’ve got to get over here quick. I think that what he’s saying is the judgment takes place after we’ve died and we’ve been resurrected and we’re going to be judged for the things we did in our bodies before we died as opposed to at any other point in time. So we… We did things in the body, but the judgment doesn’t come until we’ve left that body and then been probably resurrected in new bodies. But the point is, it’s the things we did in our first body in our lifetime that we’re going to be judged for. That’s how I understand it. Sorry to cut you off, but I’m off the air here, and I’m going to be cut off in 10 seconds. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website’s thenarrowpath.com.
