Daily Radio Program
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon. Taking your calls. One day this week we will not be live. That must be day after tomorrow. New Year’s. But the other days this week we are live, as we usually are, and you can call in if you have questions you want to raise for conversation on the air about the Bible, about Christianity, anything like that. And our lines are full at the moment, but I’ll give you the number anyway. If you call in a few minutes, lines may well have opened up for you. The number is 844- 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Our first caller today is Paul, who’s calling us from Denver, Colorado. Hi, Paul. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Thanks, Steve. Say, my first question is about Isaiah 46.13. Did you read it, or do you want to? Go ahead and read it. Okay, 4613. I bring my righteousness near. It shall not be far off. My salvation shall not linger, and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory. And my question is, I know you know the Old Testament pretty good, some of these prophetic books, but… How far off was this? It sounds to me like it’s referring to something in the New Testament.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, it kind of is, but actually what it’s really talking about is the return of the exiles from Babylon. At the beginning of the chapter, God is talking about the fall of Babylon to the Medes and the Persians, and this was going to be the occasion for the Jews to be released from from captivity in Babylon. They’d been in captivity for decades, and now God was moving supernaturally through Cyrus, the Persian conqueror, to defeat Babylon and to release the Jews from captivity, and they would be able to go back to Zion and build the temple again, which is what they did. Now, that’s the fulfillment in the foreground. Now, one phenomenon that is in many of the prophets, I’ve made a list of these somewhere, I don’t have it at the top of my head, but There’s many prophets in the Old Testament that speak of this return of the exiles from Babylon, but then they treat it as if it is a type and a shadow of a greater deliverance of God’s people from sin. People who have been Christians a long time may be aware that the exodus from Egypt is is often thought of and used in the Bible as a picture of God saving us from sin. Egypt is like sin, Pharaoh like the devil, you know, passing through the Red Sea. Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 likens it to our being baptized and so forth and getting away, being saved. It’s a fairly common theme in the Old Testament that the deliverance of God’s people from Egypt and bringing them back to the Promised Land was a picture, a type we call it, of salvation in Christ. So it’s a physical, political liberation in the Old Testament, but it’s a picture of the spiritual liberation in the New Testament. Now, later on in Israel’s history, of course, they went into Babylon, and their circumstances were very similar to when they had been in Egypt. Not exactly, because in Egypt they had been put under hard labor. The Babylonians didn’t afflict them in that way, but they just kept them in bondage so they couldn’t go back to their homeland. And God’s prophets said, that just as he had delivered them from Egypt, he was going to deliver them from Babylon. And this is one of the themes that comes up repeatedly in the pre-exilic prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah and some of the minor prophets, that God is going to bring them out of Babylon and restore them. Now, these prophecies that talk about this often, just as you read on, the next verse is following a discussion of that subject. often are morphing into a messianic prophecy, that is, when the Messiah comes and delivers his people. And that’s because there is this subtext that as God delivered people from Egypt, as God delivered his people from Babylon, so he will deliver his people from the bondage of sin through the Messiah. And it’s extremely common in Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel, too, in chapters 34 and 37 and many other places. that the prophets are talking about the liberation from Babylon. And that is, as I say, that is the fulfillment of this prophecy in the foreground. But many things that happen in the Old Testament are what we call types or shadows of Christ. And the liberation from Babylon is treated very generally and commonly as a picture of that. So what happens is a prophecy about that liberation from Babylon becomes additionally a prophecy about a greater deliverance, a greater salvation, a greater liberation that comes about spiritually through Christ’s death and resurrection. And that is true in this passage, I believe, as well as many, many others. So your instincts are correct.
SPEAKER 04 :
I was wondering, though, how far when Jeremiah wrote this, or excuse me, Isaiah, Like how many, was it months or years before this came to pass?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, yeah, the Babylonian exile was still 100 years off when Isaiah wrote. So the deliverance of the Jews from Babylon, when Isaiah was writing, it was about 150 years off, or maybe as much as 200 years, closer to 200 years off from Isaiah’s time. So it was way off. But then, of course, Isaiah lived 700 years before Christ died. So this would mean, of course, that the ultimate deliverance he’s thinking of was, you know, like almost three-quarters of a millennium off.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. Well, thanks for that. And I have another comment. I’ll hang up after this question. And it kind of relates. You know, I’ve been following this, reading up and educating myself a lot on my full preterisms. And this verse kind of came to my mind one day on the Robner timestamps. But my question is, I think I have a good idea of what they really teach, but I’ve come to the conclusion that if full preterism is true, then that would mean that everybody that’s born after AD 70 is born in the same condition that Adam was born, that Adam was created in. except even better, because there is no more sin.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, yeah, they say that in AD 70 the issue of sin death or covenant death was abolished. But, yeah, there are interesting ramifications of full preterism. But full preterism, of course, isn’t true. And… So not all full preterists have thought through what the ramifications are in this respect that you’re talking about. Have you read my book against full preterism?
SPEAKER 04 :
I’ve read parts of it, and I like some of the stuff in there. It’s really good. But like I said, if they believe Adam’s death was only spiritual, and like I said, I’m not a full preterist, but if what they say is true, Everybody born after AD 70 was born in the same condition Adam was created in, except even better, because there is no more spiritual sin.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, yeah, I mean, I guess some of them would probably agree and maybe some would disagree that those were the implications. But the problem with knowing what the implications are of full preterism is that some of the full preterist leaders have very different views from each other as to what death even means and what the resurrection means and things like that and what sin is. So, I mean, you perhaps find some full preterists that that would be true of, and others, maybe they’d say, well, no, that doesn’t apply to my understanding of it. But, yeah, it is a false doctrine which raises questions about many other traditional doctrines. The main thing about full preterism is it never really arose until about the 1970s, and it went against everything that all Christians of all denominations believed. Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, you know, all Christians had believed that there is a future second coming of Christ. But the full preterist decided, well, there isn’t going to be one. It all happened in A.D. 70, whether it was noticed or not. And which is kind of a, you know, to make such a bold claim as that, one should have some very, very good arguments. I mean, you certainly bear the burden of proof in a crushing degree. And they don’t they can’t cover it. They can’t carry that burden of proof, as my book points out. But I appreciate your call, and thanks for joining us, brother. All right, let’s talk to Mark in Mission Viejo, California. Mark, welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hello, Steve. On 12-27 Friday, I called about motivation for a believer to follow Christ.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hey, we’re getting a whole bunch of static on your line. I don’t know what the issue is there, but it’s louder than you are. Okay. Now? Yeah, it’s still there. I don’t think it’s your doing. I think we just have a bad connection. Make it quick, and then I’ll turn your sound off, and I’ll answer you. Okay.
SPEAKER 08 :
Is this a little bit better, by the way?
SPEAKER 02 :
No, it’s not. No, it’s the connection, I’m pretty sure.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. So, on Friday in Matthew 16, 24 through 27, I was saying that Jesus gave us reasons why.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right. Don’t remind us. Just give us your question because this is very irritating, you know, crackling and so forth.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 02 :
Unless you want to call back. I want to call back when I get a better connection.
SPEAKER 08 :
You mean right away?
SPEAKER 02 :
Sure. Go ahead and call back, and I’ll take your call as soon as I see it up there.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. I’ll give it a shot.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, Mark. Thanks. Victor from Denver, Colorado. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hello.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi. I have a quick question. I’m listening to your three-part spiritual bond lectures.
SPEAKER 02 :
I’m sorry. The spiritual what lectures? Oh, bondage? Okay, yes.
SPEAKER 06 :
Spiritual bondage lectures. Yeah. And you had mentioned on there that you had gone to maybe some kind of like exorcisms type meetings or something like that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I’ve not gone to meetings for exorcisms. I have been involved in dealing with demon-obsessed people a few times. Not at a meeting, but at people’s homes and other places that I was called to come. Yeah.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, well, specifically what you had mentioned on there was they handed out paper bags to everybody.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, no, nowhere I’ve been does that. There are deliverance ministries that have done that. Yeah, I’ve mentioned that some people do some kind of crazy things in connection with this, but I’ve never been to a meeting where they did that. I just know of them.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, okay. Maybe I misunderstood what you had said on there because it was something about – And I don’t mean to be gross or anything, but people would throw up during it. And you said that the reason was either that everybody had a demon or they claimed that it was just people reacting to seeing the demonic activity or something like that.
SPEAKER 02 :
No, I don’t have anything profound to say about that habit because I’ve never practiced it, never approved of it. and never actually seen it with my own eyes, but I’ve certainly heard a lot of deliverance ministries do that kind of thing. They’ll pass out barf bags, sort of like you have on airplanes, because there are times when demons are leaving that people have a reaction, apparently, and barf, or at least when people think that’s what’s happening. I cannot defend the practice of handing out these bags, but the rationale behind it is, that when demons are cast out of people sometimes, when they leave, the people vomit or something. Now, I think, I mean, I don’t know what, I’ve never, again, this is not my practice, so I don’t really know, I can’t defend it. And I can’t even explain it fully. But, yeah, some of these deliverance ministers assume that almost everybody has a demon. And so they pass out these bags all over because they assume everyone’s going to need to have demons cast out. I don’t believe that.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, that’s what you’re talking about. I see.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, well, thanks for your call. Mark from Mission Viejo is back. Hopefully we have a better connection than before. Mark, welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Steve. Yeah, so on Friday the 27th, I called about motivation for a believer to follow Christ, and I also called on 423 with a similar topic. Now, on Friday, I was saying, according to Matthew 16, 24 through 27, that that Jesus gave us reasons why it is in our best interest long-term to deny oneself and to follow Jesus. You brought in a new point that the benefit that salvation brings to a believer compared with the benefit it brings to God for a believer to do God’s will is that the comparison is that The benefit to God is more important than the benefit to a believer in salvation.
SPEAKER 02 :
I think you’ve misunderstood my point, and it may be my fault because I’ve heard other people who’ve misunderstood my point. I don’t think I’m unclear, but I can see how people might not quite catch my meaning. My position is there’s inestimable value to the believer to be saved. I’m sure the believer probably benefits more from it than God benefits from it, okay? So that’s the opposite of what you thought it meant. What I have said is it’s not a question of who receives more benefit, us or God, but what our motivation is for coming to God. If we’re doing it because we’re concerned primarily about our own benefit, this is not as good a motivation as if we are concerned about God’s honor or God’s, you know, getting what he deserves, getting what he paid for. You know, in other words, he’s paid for us. He deserves us. He created us. We’re not our own. We’ve been bought with a price, and therefore we should come to God primarily interested that we not be cheating him and that he doesn’t suffer loss at our hands. Now, I’m not saying that whatever loss he suffers, if I reject him, is somehow extremely consequential to him. I mean, there’s a million, a billion more where I came from. If I reject God, he’s got plenty of other options. But it’s not that. I’m not saying that God’s loss is greater than our loss. And that’s what you seem to think I was saying. And others have misunderstood me because I’ve said the best reason to come to God is for his sake. Not because he suffers more than we do if we don’t come, but because it means we’re putting him first instead of ourselves first. If we’re only considering our own benefits and not putting God’s interest first, then we may not be being converted at all. Because conversion means we have reoriented. We’re no longer serving ourselves. That is the problem we have and that we need to be saved from. is our addiction to serving ourselves and choosing everything to benefit us. That’s self-centered. Jesus said, if anyone comes unto me, he must deny himself. And a lot of times when we evangelize people, we don’t encourage them to deny themselves. We encourage them to reward themselves. Get saved. It’s good for you. It’s great for you. Well, it is. I’m not denying that it is. I’m saying that by appealing to those motivations, we are not even in the least challenging situation. the sinful core of self-centeredness, that is their problem that they need to be saved from. People need to be reoriented away from self-centeredness to concern for God, himself, his interests. And so I’m not saying that there’s no benefit to the believer. I’m not saying that there’s a greater benefit to God than there is to us. What I’m saying is, if there was no benefit at all to us, it would still be important and right for us to give God what he has coming to him, to give God his rights. So you’ve misunderstood what I’m saying, and I think I mentioned that the last two times you called. What you’ve done is give scriptures that show that it is beneficial to us to be saved. It is indeed. It is indeed beneficial to us, you know, immeasurably. But you’re missing my point. My point is not who benefits more. The question I have is whose interests are we pursuing, ours or God’s? That’s the point. So it has to do with motivation. It doesn’t really have to do with outcome. And what I’ve said, and I’ve had people challenge me on this too, I think other than you, that even if there was no life after death, even if there’s no benefit to me, If I had the choice to fulfill the purpose I was created for by serving the God of the universe on the one hand and living a life that’s entirely pointless and meaningless on the other, I’d go with God. I mean, in other words, it’s great that there is a life after this. It’s great that there is reward after this. But even if there wasn’t, it’s still a better way to live. It still is more right for us to please our maker. than for us to ignore our maker and seek to please ourselves. That’s my position. So it doesn’t, you know, the point you’re making doesn’t really touch on my position. It’s not really a corrective to it. I think you’re missing it. Pardon?
SPEAKER 08 :
Can I touch on it now?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, quickly.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, so I’ll try quickly. I guess I can call back another time, too. But let me try to touch on it. Now, just to touch on that thing, even if we were… even if we didn’t gain eternal life from believing in Jesus, it’d still be worth it or necessary to give God what he deserves, is what you’re saying. Right. But Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 that, well, if there’s no gain other than in this life, let’s go eat and be merry for tomorrow we die. Right. So if there’s no resurrection, it’s all for nothing.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I believe Paul’s position is that if Jesus isn’t risen from the dead, our message is untrue. That’s what he said. If Christ isn’t risen from the dead, our preaching to you is empty. It is devoid of truth. In other words, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, Christianity is not true. And if Christianity is not true, then yeah, all bets are off. If Jesus isn’t real, if he doesn’t represent God at all, then obviously why would we follow him? God would have no interest in it because he’s not, you know, because the message isn’t even correct. So I believe that Paul thinks that we should follow the truth in any case. But in 1 Corinthians 15, he has earlier said, our message is entirely vacuous if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. And so later he says, so if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, we might as well just eat and drink and be merry. Because after all, there’s nothing, there’s no meaning. There’s nothing in Christianity in terms of validity. So that’s how I think he’s seen it. I don’t think he’s sane. you know, the only reason we should get saved is so we can go to heaven. He does point out, though, that his sufferings as a Christian is a pretty miserable life. In fact, he said if, you know, we are of all men most miserable if there’s no resurrection from death. True. I mean, Paul, I mean, I wouldn’t say that about my life. My life isn’t exactly miserable, but Paul was living a life of persecution, imprisonment, beatings, poverty, you know, betrayal from his friends. He lived in danger every minute. Yeah, I would say that’d be a fairly miserable life, though he said it’s worth it because the gospel is true. And there is, in fact, a resurrection from the dead. Christ is risen from the dead and he will, too. That’s true. I don’t deny that. My life. I can’t say that about my life, though. I can’t say that if there’s no resurrection, I am the most miserable man on earth. That simply has never been true. I’m an American. I have sanitary water coming out of my plumbing. I can drink. I have indoor plumbing. I have lights. I have climate control in my vehicle and in my house. I mean, I am certainly not the most miserable man on earth. But Paul’s lifestyle, I could see him saying that. But saying it’s a miserable life. is not the same thing as saying it’s the wrong choice. You know, even if I had to live a miserable life, but it was a good life, let’s just say we lived in a world where there was no God, and therefore no eternity, no eternal soul, no eternal life. And let’s say it was very difficult for me to, let’s say I was married to an insane wife who made my life miserable. Well, to stay with her would be the better choice. Why? Because I promised to. That’s what wedding vows are about. To make the best of that situation. It might be much more miserable than if I walked away and found someone else to be with, but I wouldn’t be a better person. It would not be the better choice. It would be the more convenient choice. And Paul, I think, is certainly saying there’s a lot more convenient ways to live than the way I’m living. And I’ve chosen a way. that will be rewarded, actually, because there’s a resurrection. But he didn’t say if there wasn’t a resurrection, he wouldn’t live that way. He just said it’s a miserable way to live. But I think what I would say about that is certainly many people do live more miserably because they are faithful to God. And they may well do so with the mind that there is a reward at the end, because there is. Why couldn’t they think of that? But if that’s the only reason they’re doing the right thing, then their motivations aren’t what they should be, in my opinion. Now, I mean, you can disagree with that. Apparently you do, and you’ve called three times to disagree. I’m just not seeing it your way. I mean, if there was no eternal life in heaven or in hell, I don’t think there’s any argument to be made for living an immoral life, a self-indulgent life. If everyone did that, it would be the most miserable world in the world. You can imagine. I think the world’s a better place when people live unselfishly, when people live generously, when people endure suffering at the hands of others without retaliation or without backing down on their commitments to them. I think it’s a better world. And it’s not the only reason to be a Christian, to be sure, but it’s a better reason than living any other way that I know. So following God is always going to be the best thing. with or without regard to reward. But, of course, you can’t really envisage a situation realistically where there’s no reward, because there is. It’s just saying, what I’m saying is, if that reward is all you’re interested in, then you’ll only follow God as long as you think that that reward is more, a better bribe than what the world can offer you.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, it’s the promise, Steve. It’s the promise, though.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, I appreciate that. Thanks for your call. The music playing means we’re out of time for this segment. We have another half hour coming up, and so you can call in if you want. Actually, it looks like our line’s just filled up again, so don’t bother to call right now. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming. We do this an hour a day on weekdays. We are listener-supported. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 925. And, of course, at the end of the year like this, we’re always deciding if we can afford to stay on as many stations as we’re on or whether we can add some or subtract some. That depends on, of course, what comes in in the year. And these are the last few days for us to determine that. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Everything there is free, but you can donate there if you wish at thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
You have been listening to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg, a listener-supported Bible ministry heard on radio stations throughout the United States. If you like what you hear on The Narrow Path Radio Ministry, you can share what you hear with many others by going to thenarrowpath.com and donating your year-end tax-deductible gifts. Your giving will help lift the spirits of Bible-loving people throughout our nation. Thank you and bless you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we take them on the air. You can call if you disagree with the host also, as our last caller did, and you’re always welcome to do that. Right now our lines are full, but if you want to try in a few minutes, you may get through to a line that will open up between now and then. The number to call is 844-484-5737. All right, our next caller today is Russ from Denver, Colorado. Russ, welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. Hi, Steve. Last week, Friday, a gentleman called in whose son had started attending an Orthodox church. He had questions about Orthodoxy generally. My family and I have also been attending an Orthodox church for the past year, and you, this show, your writings have been absolutely invaluable to my growth as a Christian. And previously I shared all the same concerns that you voiced on Friday. I definitely encourage anyone to research Orthodox doctrine on things like projects like Mary and icons. Other people do a much better job articulating the difference than I can, especially as they’re distinct from Roman Catholicism. One thing I did want to get your further opinion on today is your disagreement that the early church was liturgical, particularly because the Orthodox Church makes the exact opposite claim pretty convincingly. For Orthodox Christians, the divine liturgy, which is the typical Sunday service, probably what the gentleman heard when he attended on December 24th, recreates the Eucharist, the Last Supper of Christ, so that the church, the body of Christ, participates with him his apostles the whole church um so the orthodox church believes that the very first liturgy was actually conducted by christ himself in the gospels so um i’m just curious like that that ministering that in greek i think it’s liturgio and i apologize anyone who actually speaks greek for that but that ministering is done in acts and romans and first corinthians so i’m just curious To me, it seems pretty clear that it is fundamental to early Christian practice. I’m just curious of your understanding where your disagreement comes from about this, and if all that makes sense, I will listen to your response off the air.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, Russ, thanks for your call. I appreciate that. Well, the earliest description we have outside the New Testament of a church service, well, I guess the Didache probably is one of the earliest, but also Justin Martyr. described a church service and what they did on Sundays. And basically, he said they gathered together, they sang a hymn, they would read something from the Old Testament or from the memoirs of the apostles, meaning the writings of the apostles, and then the speaker would comment on it, and then they would The deacons would bring the food and they’d have their communion. The deacons would take it off to sick members who weren’t there, take it to their homes for them and so forth. And then I think they’d close with a prayer. Now, to me, that’s not very much liturgy. It’s reading the scripture. It’s singing. It’s commentary on the scripture. And then taking the meal. And they prayed. They also prayed. I mean, I’m not quoting Justin exactly, though I’ve read the quote many times. It’s often quoted. There’s not much there that strikes me as doing more than, let’s say, the things that we sometimes do in our home church, which doesn’t have much of any liturgy at all. So I’m not seeing the early church in the second century, in Justin’s day, as necessarily having much in the way of liturgy, at least from what’s being described by somebody who attended there. As far as going further back than Justin, of course, we have the apostles. We don’t have anywhere an actual description of the church service, although we do have some instructions related to that in 1 Corinthians 12-14. where it sounds like Paul felt like there’d be maybe two or three prophets which had a chance to speak, two or three people would speak in tongues and give an interpretation. He’s not really describing a whole service, so we don’t know too much about it, but there’s nothing, I don’t read very much there, that would suggest a very churchy, religious, you know, lighting candles and the priests wearing robes and doing rituals and stuff. I just don’t see any evidence of it there. And if you go back to Jesus in the upper room, I’m not sure I see him formulating a liturgy. They were at Passover. As far as we know, they were simply taking a Passover meal right up to a certain point. There was nothing unlike. They’re ordinary Jewish Passover observance until certain bread was eaten and one of the cups, there were several cups at the meal, one of the cups was passed around. And Jesus reinterpreted that ritual and said, from now on, when you do this, you do it in remembrance of me. Of course, they had always done it previously in remembrance of the Exodus, where that’s what the Passover is commemorating. He says, well, and this is another example of what I was talking to a previous caller today. The exodus is a picture of salvation in Christ. And so he took that ritual that the Jews followed and said, when you do this in the future, do it in remembrance of me. Well, to my knowledge, I don’t think any church, I don’t think Catholics or Eastern Orthodox or Protestants follow a ritual the ritual of a Passover Seder, I don’t see that happening, unless they’re sitting down to a lamb meal around a table and going through all the steps that the Jews went through. Jesus was Jewish, and therefore throughout his adult life, well, his whole life on earth, he followed the Jewish religion, but that religion has now been fulfilled. And the law, which he more or less followed, I say more or less because he did innovate on it sometimes, you know, it is gone now. And I don’t see Jesus introducing a new kind of liturgical way of doing things. In fact, he didn’t even say how often it should be done. He said, as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, do it to remember me. Now, as often as you do it, I think the most natural way to understand it would be every year at Passover when you do this, when you eat this bread, this Passover bread, and drink this cup at this table. Do it in remembrance of me. So, I mean, I don’t know that anything in his words would suggest even the necessity of doing that every time people got together or every worship service. He didn’t say how often to do it, but it is true. The early church did. they did have this communion meal in the center of their church service. But it’s obvious that when they took the bread and the wine, this was sitting down at a table with a full meal. Paul makes that very clear in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, where he says that Corinthians were being quite carnal in their taking of the so-called Lord’s Supper. He said everyone’s taking their food ahead of everyone else, and some people are getting more than enough, and some are going home hungry because they didn’t get enough, and some are drinking so much of the wine that they go home drunk. That just sounds like a regular meal where it’s kind of every man for himself. And, you know, it doesn’t sound like a highly ritualized thing. thing done unaccompanied by a meal the early church fathers spoke about the agape feast frequently sometimes they distinguished it from the Eucharist the word Eucharist means Thanksgiving in Greek and it’s the way of course Catholics and I suppose Orthodox refer to what Protestants usually call communion or the Lord’s Supper but the meal it was done at a meal initially apparently at the love feast. And then eventually, I think in the second or third century, you begin to read about the agape feast as something they did separately from the Eucharist. So things began to change when they separated the Eucharist from the feast itself. But when they did that, they moved away from the way the apostles did things and the way that Jesus did things. So I guess I’m just not seeing it. Sure, you can go back to maybe the second or third century, I suppose, and find some things that the church was doing that were fairly liturgical. But they already had moved. They already moved from the apostolic practices. For example, we have Ignatius. one of the earliest church fathers in the second century, his letters seemed to testify to a number of things that had changed. For example, in Paul’s churches, there were bishops or overseers or elders appointed in each church. Each church was governed by an eldership, and the elders were also called Episcopal or Episcopal, which is what’s usually translated bishops. And and there were several church. But by the time of Ignatius, about a generation after the apostles had died. the bishops, there was like one bishop overseeing a church or churches instead of a bunch of bishops in each church. And, you know, Ignatius is now saying you can’t take communion without the bishop there. You can’t have a baptism without the bishop there. You can’t have a marriage without the bishop there. Well, none of those things were taught in the Old Testament or in the New Testament. And indeed… The New Testament doesn’t even recognize a bishop of a church. So you can see that by the time the first century ended and the second century was moving forward, already religious and institutional additions to the apostolic practices were intruding. I say intruding. Some people would say that it was just maturing. The church was developing and grew. But A lot of people just see it as a maturing of the church from the Apostolic time. But I believe that when the so-called maturing of the church takes it in a direction that’s different than Jesus and the apostles took it, I’m not sure I’d call that maturing. I might call that corruption. Now, I’m not saying that to be highly critical of Eastern Orthodox or Catholics or anybody. I have my differences with just about every Protestant denomination, too. Whether I have differences with them or not is not what’s important because I’m not the arbiter of who’s okay with God and who’s not. There may be many people who disagree with me on many things who are much purer in God’s sight than I am. I’m not saying that with anything other than full sincerity. I mean, there are better people than me. who have been Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and so forth. So I’m not lambasting anyone. I’m simply saying when it comes to doing church the way the Apostles did it, the way Jesus did it with the Apostles, I don’t move in a liturgical direction. I see that the church did eventually move that direction in the early days. But I don’t think you see that in the New Testament. So that’s just me. I mean, I have a number of friends who have moved from the evangelical church to the Eastern Orthodox Church. And as far as I know, as far as I know, they haven’t departed from the Lord yet. And many of them would say it’s been a benefit to them. And others would probably say that coming out of those movements into a more evangelical faith has been a benefit to them. So we really can’t judge these things by the subjective perspective. impact they have on individuals since everyone’s story is different but I’m more of a I’d say a purist when it comes to looking for pure scriptural practices there are practices that are not mentioned in scripture which some Christians perform which I think are harmless or at least not a hill to die on for me I wouldn’t make it my mission to oppose them but one could hardly persuade me to do them Because I would need scripture for that. And that’s the problem I have with the liturgical churches. I don’t think there’s a scriptural basis for much of what they have added. I appreciate your call, brother. I’m going to talk next to Hank from Raleigh, North Carolina. Hi, Hank.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hello, Steve. Thank you very much for taking my call. My question relates to the creation narrative of Genesis 1. Okay. verse 14 says that that is when the 24 hour days are established and now before verse 14 could it be that the days before the day number 4 could be could be describing long periods of time as this would correspond to scientific findings current scientific findings about fossils, dinosaurs, Neanderthals, etc. You know, this is normally a stumbling block for new Christians as well. How would you advise one should respond if you get a question like that about the, well, really both down to old age versus new?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, younger versus older, Tim, right? Well, let me just say, I don’t fully agree that the fourth day is when the 24-hour cycle began. It’s true that on the fourth day, it says God began to consign the giving of light to the world. to the sun during the daytime and to the moon at night. He doesn’t say it like that. He says he made one a greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night. But I think most agree he’s referring to the sun and the moon being assigned those roles of being the light to the world during day and night, respectively. But there were already day and night. We have day… In verse 4, God saw that the light was good, and God divided the light from the darkness, and God called the light day. And the darkness he called night. So the evening and morning were the first day. Now, of course, there’s no mention of 24 hours, but there is an evening and a morning. There’s a day and a night. And it seems to me if the – and we don’t read of any change in the length of day and night as you go through all six days of creation. But it seems to me if you’ve got day and night – And I’m not a flat Earth person. I’m a global Earth person. I believe the day and the night are caused successively by the turning of the Earth. The light coming from one direction illuminates the globe on one side for half the time, and then the Earth turns and it illuminates the other side while the other side’s in darkness. So each side gets its turn. Now, the length of the day and night, then, would be the length of time it takes for the Earth to make one rotation on its axis, or one revolution on its axis. And so unless the Earth was rotating at a different speed in the first four days, we would have the same length of day and night as in the days following. So I believe since we have day and night from day one, And all we have in day four is the consigning of the duty of illuminating the earth day and night to the sun and the moon. We have to assume that the light that he created on the first day or that he provided on the first day was light from something other than the sun and the moon. I personally think it was from God himself. I think God was the light of the world. Just like we read of the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21, that it has no need of the sun or the moon to lighten it because the glory of God and of the Lamb is the light of it. So I think that God himself provided the light until he delegated that role to the sun and the moon. Now, as far as the age of the earth goes, I don’t have a dog in that race or that fight, I guess is the expression. But I personally think that the young earth is very credible. though if it were proven not to be so, it would not bother me at all because the Bible doesn’t tell us how old the earth is. And although, you know, if we use the genealogies of chapter 5 of Genesis primarily and of chapter 11, you can total up the years of these men’s lives back to Adam and come up with something in the area of 4,000 years before Christ. But But there’s many interpretations of what those genealogies, how they’re supposed to be taken, whether they’re including every generation or leaving out some or just mentioning the major clans in different times, the high points of a genealogy. I don’t know. I mean, there’s different ways to take it. But the Bible never makes an issue of how old the earth is. So while one might get the impression from the genealogies that the earth is only thousands of years old… The Bible does not make an unambiguous claim to it because there are several different ways people have understood things, like yourself, suggesting that the days were longer periods of time. Or one view I’ve heard, the most recent view I’ve ever heard, was from a guy I respect who said they were 24-hour days, but they were punctuating very long periods of time. So the first day of creation was then followed by a long period of nothing, and then there was a second day of creation. Then there was a long day of nothing. And then there was a third day of creation. So that these were, indeed, creation took place in six days. But these six days may have had lots of stasis in between. I don’t know if that’s true. I don’t even care. Because the Bible doesn’t seem to make an issue of how old the earth is. People who do… are, to my mind, focusing on something that’s a distraction. Now, people, like you said, some young believers and unbelievers are stumbled by the whole idea of the young earth because the science that they read tells them the earth is billions of years old. Well, it is true that that is the greater number of scientists who believe that. but a very large percentage of scientists, more than of average people, are what we call materialists. They’re naturalists. They don’t believe in the supernatural. And so all the processes by which you measure the age of rocks or starlight traveling and things like that, all those processes, they assume, have been, you know, the same, that nature’s been the same, and there’s been no interruption, there’s been no difference ever because they don’t believe in the supernatural. Since I do believe in the supernatural, I consider it at least possible that God could cause all these phenomena simply by making a functional universe. Some people call it the appearance of age, but that makes it sound like God’s trying to make it look old. I don’t think God’s trying to make it look old. I think he just made it functional. And if he made the stars to give light on the earth, probably he made the light already reaching the earth when he made them. If that’s what they’re for, why not let them function from day one? Or from day four, as it is. But And likewise, you know, trees, you know, being mature, trees usually take, you know, hundreds of years to grow old. But God could make mature trees to bear fruit in a second. Even human beings were made looking mature. So that if you only knew the natural process of birth and maturity, and you looked at Adam and Eve, you’d think they were at least in their adolescence. They’d been around at least probably 15, 16 years or more. And yet they had been created the previous day. So why? Is God trying to put the appearance of age to deceive people? Some people say, is God trying to fool us? No, I don’t think he’s trying to fool us. He told us what he did. If he’s telling the truth about what he said, then he’s not fooling us. We’re fooling ourselves if we don’t believe him. But it’s simply that there’s no sense in him making a universe that’s non-functional. If he has something in mind for it, he can make it complete and functioning. And we would look at it, if we didn’t believe in supernatural things, as many scientists don’t believe, and say, well, okay, we rule out the supernatural here. Let’s just, how long would it take for natural processes as they are going on observed now? to bring things to this present point. And, of course, they can’t do anything but give it billions of years simply because they have no mechanism. They have no way of calculating how long it would take if God did it instantly because they don’t believe in God doing things instantly. So, I mean, we’re never going to please the unbelievers in this respect because they have a different worldview. To them, the supernatural is absurd. To me, it’s not. To me, to not believe in the supernatural is absurd. So we’re really kind of at loggerheads here. And the point I would make is if they turned out to be right and I turned out to be wrong, I’d say, okay, fine. What does that have to do with me? You know, I don’t care whether God made things, you know, 10,000 years ago or 10 billion years ago. Who cares? I’m here now, and I know what God made the world for, and that has everything to do with what I’m going to do with living my life. I don’t bother myself with things that can’t be determined with certainty that have no impact on the way I live. But some people do, and you’re right. Some people get stumbled by that. But some people get stumbled by saying that Jesus rose from the dead or was born of a virgin. I’d say the same people. The same people who say, well, you know, the earth is proven by science to be old. They would also say it’s been proven by science that virgins don’t have babies and men who’ve been dead in the grave three days don’t come out. But Christians are committed to a different kind of a worldview. That’s much less closed-minded, much less narrow-minded than that of the atheist. And so since I like to be an open-minded fellow, I have to say, well, there is the possibility that some of these things were supernatural, especially if God tells us they were. And so that’s my approach. It’s not everyone’s, but I’m happy with it. I appreciate your call, brother. We need to talk next to Stephen from San Diego, California. Hi, Stephen. Welcome.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes, hello.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi.
SPEAKER 03 :
There’s another Christian call and talk show you may have heard of. It’s called The Jesus Christ Show. I’ve heard it. And this guy, he actually says, I am your holy host. And people call in and say, hello, Jesus. Is that not a sacrilegious or blasphemic?
SPEAKER 02 :
I would say so. I would say so. I mean, without judging the guy’s motives, I believe he is a Christian. I think he might even be a pastor. That doesn’t mean everything he does is something I would approve of. I don’t even approve of people calling themselves rabbi or reverend or things like that, much less calling yourself Jesus Christ. But but there are Christians who don’t have those qualms about that, and I’ll say I’ll let God be their judge. As near as I can tell, and I’ve only heard the show a couple times by accident when I was driving in Cotton, and near as I can tell, the guy is trying, I think he believes in Christ. I think he’s seeking to do his best to kind of give the kind of counsel that he believes in. from the New Testament, I hope, that Jesus would give. But even the little that I’ve heard him, I disagree with some of his approach. I mean, he took sort of a psychological approach to something that I don’t think Jesus would have taken that way. But I think he’s doing his best. Now, I mean, I could lambaste him and say, this is a terrible thing. Don’t do that. That’s blasphemy. I’ll leave that to God to do, if that’s how he feels about it. Because I have learned that I don’t know enough about people’s hearts to know whether they are necessarily offending God, insulting God. In their own hearts, they may feel that this is glorifying Jesus Christ. And I can disagree. I can say, well, I’m not sure that I don’t think you’re accomplishing what you want to, or maybe you are, but I don’t know. I can just say that’s really going to be between him and God. And as far as you think it’s irreverent, kind of. I mean, I kind of do. But, I mean, I’ll tell you this, and this is not an actual one-to-one comparison, but, I mean, a lot of religious people thought that Jesus was being irreverent in the things he did, too. So I have to be careful. We Christians… Because we have the Word of God, and we trust the way that we interpret it. If we didn’t trust the way we interpret it, we probably wouldn’t have any confidence in it. But we feel that we can judge other people by the Word of God who interpret it differently than we do. And I say this, we can have great reverence for the Word of God, enough so that we are determined to obey it, in our conscience the best we understand it, without necessarily saying that everyone who sees it differently than we do is evil or wrong. I mean, they might be wrong, but God’s going to have to judge that because so many Christians see so many things differently. But one thing Christians have to see the same. They have to see themselves as subject to Jesus Christ as their King and their Lord and living their lives as if that is true. And whether this man on that radio station does that or not, I can’t say. My suspicion is that he probably does. And therefore, you know, again, all I can say is let God judge. I’m sorry I can’t be more decisive about that. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let’s talk again tomorrow.
