Steve Gregg invites listeners to a captivating episode filled with thoughtful exploration of faith-related topics. Starting with questions about the existence of the Ark of the Covenant and moving through discussions on Psalm 34 and Arminian theology, this episode is packed with content that encourages deep reflection and study. The conversations take a turn toward practical implications with discussions on denominational stances and how they impact believers today. This episode is perfect for anyone looking to expand their knowledge and engage in meaningful theological discourse.
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 with our phone lines prepared to take your calls throughout the hour, commercial free. We’ve got a lot of time together, though not always enough time, because we’re not always, but usually have more calls than we can take. Right now, our lines are full, but that should not discourage you. We possibly could get through all these calls and get to your call if you call a little later. You may catch it just right as these lines open up. The number is 844-484-5737. Now, if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we’d love to hear from you. If you see things differently than the host, you want to challenge something in the Bible or something the host believes, you’re always welcome to do that here. We’d love to have that conversation. The number again is 844- This week, one thing that is happening that I should mention is that Wednesday night being the first Wednesday of the month, we have our Zoom meeting. This is a Q&A meeting on Zoom. Often we’re joined by people from many countries, but you can join us in any case if you’re one of the first 100 to log in. Now, by the way, you might say, well, How hard is that? So far, I don’t think we’ve cracked 100. I think last time we got 99. Very often, we only get about 60 or 70 or something like that. So there’s a good chance that you’ll be able to join us if you want to. That’s Wednesday night, 7 p.m. Pacific time. And you can find out how to log into that gathering by going to our website, thenarrowpath.com, if you look under Announcements. You’ll find by the proper date, which is June 4th, you’ll see the login information for that Zoom meeting, Wednesday night, 7 p.m. Pacific time. All right. And we’re going to go to the phones now, and we’re going to talk to Barbara from Roseville, Michigan. Barbara, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 11 :
Oh, hi. Thank you, Steve. My questions are about the Ark of the Covenant. Does it still exist? I heard a country close to Israel claims to have it. I heard that Israel has it buried. Are there still people of the Levitical priesthood, I guess, that can touch it without dying? And if someone can produce the Ark of the Covenant, what does it mean to me and how should I respond to it? And I’ll take your answer off the air.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Thank you, Barbara, for joining us. Does the Ark still exist? I don’t know. The Bible does not say that it will always exist and, therefore, it might not. It is of no use at this point because the Ark was the only piece of furniture that was in the most holy place in the tabernacle and later the temple, the place where only the high priest could go once a year. Nobody would generally see it anyway except the high priest, and that was only annually. It had very little impact in terms of its actual presence there. on the average Jewish person day by day, and even less on the Christian, because the Christian doesn’t worship at the temple anymore. When Jesus died, the curtain that separated the holy of holies from the common man, or even from other priests, was torn in two, suggesting that we now have access into the holiest place, which is where the ark used to be, except the holiest place we are going into is not there. an earthly tabernacle, but as the scripture says, into heaven itself where God is. We have access to God in a sense that no one ever did before Jesus died and rose again. So that we have this encouragement in Hebrews chapter 10, verse 19 and following says, Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the holiest, that means the holy of holies, by the blood of Jesus. by a new and living way, which he consecrated for us through the veil, that is his flesh, and having a high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith. So he says we can go right into the Holy of Holies where God is now, not the one on earth, but the one in heaven. There hasn’t been a Holy of Holies on earth for 2,000 years. Now some people think the Jews are going to rebuild the temple in the future. They might. or they might not. The Bible doesn’t actually predict it. Some people think the Bible predicts it, but that, I think, comes from them misunderstanding what some passages are actually talking about, but that’s another story. I don’t know whether the Jews will rebuild the temple or not. Some would like to. If they do, they would probably seek to have the Holy of Holies, you know, furnished with the Ark of the Covenant. Now, is the original Ark of the Covenant still in existence somewhere? Maybe or maybe not. You’ve heard a couple of different stories, which are fairly commonly out there. One of them is that there’s a church, a Coptic church in Ethiopia that has, there’s a building there, a windowless building, and no one’s allowed to go in there. And supposedly for centuries, the Ark of the Covenant has been housed there. It’s a tradition, but no one actually can confirm this. So it may or may not be true. The Jews did have a tradition that Jeremiah took the Holy of Holies with him to Egypt. We know at the end of the book of Jeremiah, he went to Egypt with the rest of the fleeing Jews leaving Jerusalem to escape from Babylon’s wrath over the killing of the governor Gedaliah, or Gedaliah. But Jeremiah doesn’t say so in Scripture, but the Jewish tradition is that he took the Ark of the Covenant to Egypt with him. And to Egypt, it may have found its way to Ethiopia. It is not followed. The Bible doesn’t follow it. The New Testament shows no interest in the subject. In fact, the Old Testament, if it were written now, would show no interest in the subject. Jeremiah himself, who we mentioned, gave a prophecy in Jeremiah chapter 3, that the time would come when the Ark of the Covenant was irrelevant. Now, Jeremiah is also the one who told us that God would make a new covenant, and it would not be like the old covenant. The temple, the Ark, all that was part of the old covenant. And Jeremiah said that God’s going to make a new covenant, and the New Testament tells us that that new covenant has come in Christ, and that it makes the old covenant, as the Scripture says, obsolete. But Jeremiah said this as he predicted the new covenant era. In Jeremiah 3 and verse 14 and so forth. Well, let me just, I’ll just say 15 and 16. That’s what we’ll do. He says, I will give you shepherds according to my heart who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. Then it shall come to pass when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days, says the Lord, that they will say no more the ark of the covenant of the Lord. It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made any more. Now, it sounds like in order to have the Ark of the Covenant, it would have to be made again, because it sounds like it was to be destroyed somewhere, and then there would be a new covenant, and they wouldn’t make the Ark again. They wouldn’t visit it. They wouldn’t even remember it. Why? Because the new covenant doesn’t need the temple. It doesn’t need the Ark. It doesn’t need the sacrifices that were associated with it. That’s all gone now because there’s a new covenant. So Jeremiah did say that there would come a time, and that time has come, when the Ark is of no value anymore to us. You say, what would it matter if it was found? It would be an interesting museum piece. Now, you heard another story besides the one about it being in Ethiopia. You heard it was in Jerusalem somewhere. This is the story that Ron Wyatt told, who is an amateur writer. archaeologist, Seventh-day Adventist guy who claimed to have found Noah’s Ark and the Ark of the Covenant and a whole bunch of other things, the true Mount Sinai. This guy, you know, if he really found all these things, well, then he’s one of the greatest archaeologists who ever lived. However, he doesn’t have much respect from the professional community, and it’s not very provable that he found most of these things. Mount Sinai, I think that’s been found. I don’t think he was the first to identify it, but Maybe he was. But I don’t think the Ark of Noah has been found. If so, it would seemingly be available for us to see. Likewise, the Ark of the Covenant. Now, he claimed that he found the Ark of the Covenant in a cavern or a cave underneath Golgotha. Now, you might remember Golgotha is that hill outside Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified. And he said there’s a crack in the hill below the cross. And the blood of Jesus ran down and went down that crack. and landed on the mercy seat, which is on the Ark of the Covenant, which is in a cavern underneath the mountain, which is inaccessible. Now, I don’t know how he got to see it, if it was inaccessible. In fact, I don’t know how he would ever even be able to see blood on the mercy seat, unless he got mighty close to it. But anyway, this is his story, and he stuck with it until he died. And I guess he’ll have to stand before God if he was lying about it. It strikes me that he was lying about it, although I don’t know. simply because if it was there, there would certainly be plenty of archaeologists who would be seeking to confirm that story. It should not be difficult. I mean, we know where the mountain is. I’m sure that archaeologists can find all the caverns under the mountain, just like Ron Wyatt said he did. And, you know, if they can’t extract it, he said it was in such a position it couldn’t be extracted. Well, I’m not really sure how that could be so with modern, you know, extraction techniques and demolition and so forth. So I really think that the Ark of the Covenant, if it was there, would be of great interest to the Jews, if only for antiquity’s sake, and even more so for those who want to build the temple and have an Ark again. But it doesn’t appear that anybody but Ron Wyatt has ever looked there, and that makes it seem very fishy to me. So I don’t believe what he said. I don’t believe he found Noah’s Ark either. I don’t believe he found either of the Arks. And I don’t think, you know, I don’t know much about him. But, you know, the idea that the Ark could be in Ethiopia is a possibility. But it’s like just a matter of curiosity because it doesn’t matter. If they could bring it up, if Indiana Jones could locate it and bring it or could fish it out of that big warehouse in Washington, D.C., where it’s stored away, and open it up and put it on display, it would be very interesting to see it, to see if it looks as much like the pictures of it that people have made from their imagination think it does. But on the other hand, it would just be that, a matter of curiosity. Interesting, just like other artifacts are interesting, but not particularly significant. Jonathan in Tucson, Arizona, good to hear from you. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hey Steve, long time listener, first time caller. Great. I was wondering if you can elaborate on Psalm 34, this poor man, in verse 6. Is it David, Jesus, or someone else? I’m looking at the commentaries. Everybody’s baffled. I’ll take it off the air. Thank you and God bless.
SPEAKER 02 :
Psalm 34, 6 you said? Okay. All right. I’ll take a look at it. Okay, so it says, This poor man cried out, and the Lord heard him and saved him out of all his troubles. This is the psalm of David, and he speaks in the first person throughout the whole psalm, which I think means it’s autobiographical. I think that he’s talking about himself. However, this is not ruling out the messianic character of it, because although this particular psalm is not among them, the New Testament writers quote lots of psalms of David, where David appears to be speaking of himself. And they quote it as if it’s Jesus speaking. And the reason they do is because the New Testament artists saw David, among others, as a type of Christ. That is, he was sort of a pattern of Christ deliberately. God orchestrated many things in David’s life to correspond with those in the Messiah’s life. David is the most famous prophet. you know, well, most universally connected character with the Messiah in the Bible. And so the Messiah was supposed to be like another David. At least that’s exactly what the Jews believed from what the prophets said. I mean, Jeremiah, you know, Isaiah, Zechariah, a lot of the prophets mentioned the Messiah being the son of David. Ezekiel even called him David. In Ezekiel 34 and Ezekiel 37, there are references to the Messiah that call him David. So David is so connected to the Messiah because God made a promise to him in 2 Samuel 7, verse 12, that God would bring the Messiah from his family. There’s a specific promise that the Messiah would come from David’s line. And this made David particularly important in Jewish history. religion and doctrine and so forth. And so, yeah, it’s not too surprising that there’s so much connection between David and the Messiah that the early church and the apostles included often would quote from, well, even on the day of Pentecost, the very first sermon given since when the Holy Spirit came was Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, and he quoted from Psalm 16, where David appears to be speaking about himself, but Peter presumes that this is the words of the Messiah. Now, you know, a Jewish person who doesn’t believe in Christ might see this as a tremendous defect in the use of the scriptures on the part of Christians, because they say you Christians are taking it way out of its original context and making it about something that you, you know, you want it to be about. Well, I don’t deny that we might want it to be about him, but the question is, is it really implied that it is him? You know, Psalm 110, verse 1, is another psalm frequently quoted as Jesus. It’s about Jesus, you know, and yet some people think it was about David. But, you know, it’s just lots of psalms like that. The words of David in Psalm 40, verses 6 through 8, are quoted differently. In Hebrews chapter 10, I guess it is, where it’s said to be the Messiah speaking. It’s a very commonplace. So when David says something in the Psalms, in very many cases, the church saw him speaking as not only himself. It was true of himself, of course. I mean, Psalm 22. My God, my God, what have you forgotten? What’s it? Forsaken me. That psalm, which Jesus quoted, that’s David talking about himself, apparently, but it’s also about the Messiah. So you’ve got all that and more. So when you look at Psalm 34, it is David talking about himself. I mean, it would be very difficult for us to deny that. He says, I, I, I, all the way through, and it’s the psalm of David. But he does stand as a type of Christ in so many places that if someone said, well, I’m seeing this as David speaking as the Messiah or as a picture of the Messiah, I’m not going to argue against that because, frankly, that’s very commonly the place. Now, I guess the only thing that would rule against it is if he said anything about himself here that wouldn’t apply to the Messiah. And I’m not really sure that he does in this psalm. So I don’t think this is about the ordinary man. It’s either about David or the Messiah or both. I’m inclined to say both, like many other what we call messianic psalms, psalms where David seems to stand in as a representative of the Messiah in the things that are said there. So those are my thoughts about it, and those would be the thoughts, I think, of many evangelicals. And so, yeah, perhaps you’ll find commentators that just apply it to David or that just apply it to the Messiah, but I don’t think that that reductionism really works with the Psalms. I think we have to say it is about David, and it looks like it’s also about the Messiah. All right. Let’s talk to Michael in Englewood, California next. Michael, welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thanks, Steve. Go ahead. I’ve heard you speak about Armenianism before, and I don’t really know what that is. So my question is, is there any relation between relation between Armenianism, Armenia and Aramaic? No, no.
SPEAKER 02 :
Aramaic comes from the word Aram, which was the ancient name for Syria. So the Aramaic language is simply the Syrian or Syriac language. The country And Armenia is also not related to the word Arminian. It’s spelled a little different. I think Arminian is spelled with an I in the middle of the word and Armenia with an E in the middle. But it’s kind of hard to pronounce them differently enough to not confuse them. The country of Armenia was like the earliest country in history to become a Christian country. But they were invaded, what was it, over a century ago, I think, by the Turks and wiped out. A lot of the Armenians, because they were Christians, they were actually warned by a prophet to flee from there before the Turks came. And many of them did. I heard that as many as maybe 50% of the people from Armenia came to America, and especially to Los Angeles. There’s a lot of Armenian Christians there. I’ve spoken in some Armenian churches in various places myself. These are not related to the word Arminianism. That’s, again, it’s an ethnic national identification. It’s Arminia. that country that was overrun by the Turks. Now, Arminianism is entirely unrelated to those other two words. It’s based on the name of a man, Jacobus Arminius, or Jacob, or James, Arminius. And Arminius was, in the early time of the Reformation, a generation after Luther, actually, he was a professor at a Reformed college in But he opposed Calvin. It’s not that he opposed Calvin, per se. It’s that his doctrines, he might have been two generations after Luther. Calvin was a generation after Luther, and I think Arminius might have been another generation after that. I don’t recall now. But basically, Arminius was teaching different things than what Calvin taught. And he got run out of the college. And his ideas took on his name. I don’t think he ever created the word Arminian. I don’t think he ever even heard the word Arminian. He was Arminius. But his views after his death, And he died really young, I think at age 49. His nine orphan children believed that he died prematurely because of the way he was hounded to his own grave by the Calvinists who hated him, apparently. But he was a peaceful man. In fact, that’s what has always been said about him by his biographers. He was a very peace-loving man, but there were some very unpeace-loving Calvinists around who hounded him to his grave. And later, those who agreed with him were called Arminians. And so to believe the things that Arminius believed would be to be an Arminian. Now, I don’t think I’m an Arminian, but I don’t mind being called that because I’m aware of how the term is used. The term simply is used today to mean somebody who’s not a Calvinist. I would prefer to say I’m just non-Calvinist because I don’t necessarily want to attach Arminius’ name to my beliefs, not because I have any shame about it or not because I have any objection to Arminius. It’s just I haven’t read enough of his beliefs to know whether I share them or not. I never got any of my beliefs from Arminius or as near as I can tell from any Arminian teacher. I got them for reading the Bible, but where I assume he got his. But I don’t know all the things that Arminius believed, and I’ve read a little of him enough to know that I think there’d be some things he believed on some subjects that I don’t hold to. But on the other hand, Arminianism usually is a reference specifically to the doctrines he disagreed with Calvin about. And his, you know, people who agreed with him after he died put together what was called the the five points of Arminianism, and then there was a Calvinist council that convened to create the five points of Calvinism. Now, neither Arminius nor Calvin reduced their theology to five points, but Arminius had five points in particular that he disagreed with Calvin about, and those became the defining points of Arminianism, and then Calvin had taught on many things, but those who disagreed with Arminius responded to him by coming up with the Five Points of Calvinism, which are very well known today. People don’t know much about the Five Points of Arminius, but actually they were just the opposite of the Five Points of Calvinism. So it’s a theological system. And the name, although it sounds similar, is not related to the Aramaic language, which, as I said, is just another word for Syriac or the Syrian language. And it’s not related to the nationality of the Armenians. It’s simply a theological camp.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thanks, Steve.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, Michael. Good talking to you. Thanks for your call. All right. Kay from Sarasota, Florida. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi there. I’m wondering what denomination or where can you fellowship? I also am not dispensational Christian. And I find that to be almost a stumbling block for most of the churches. And I, too, came from the 1970s, September is when I gave my life to the Lord through Arthur Blessed’s ministry. I went through Chuck Smith, Biola College, ran a Christian bookstore, did the whole smear. We would spend until 2 o’clock in the morning.
SPEAKER 02 :
So you’re wondering where you could find a denomination that would tolerate your non-dispensationalism. There are several denominations that are not dispensational, though some of them are Calvinistic, because Reformed theology is Calvinistic, but it’s also not dispensational. So you may find some solace among Reformed people, especially if they don’t push Calvinism too much, or if you actually agree with Calvinism, then that would be a very wholesome place for you to fellowship. Now, if you’re neither Calvinist nor dispensational, like myself… Then there are some groups. There’s a group called the Church of God of Anderson, Indiana. It’s not just in Anderson, Indiana. That’s just where its headquarters are. It’s called that to distinguish it from the Church of God Cleveland, Tennessee, which is a Pentecostal church. But the Church of God Anderson, Indiana is a smallish denomination. They don’t even call themselves a denomination, but they are. But they typically are not dispensational and not Calvinist, which is, to my mind, two positives. The churches of Christ are that way, too. Churches of Christ, you know, I have a lot of friends in the Church of Christ. They’re not Calvinists, and they’re not Armenians. And then, you know, from time to time, you’ll find some non-denominators.
SPEAKER 03 :
Church of Christ doesn’t allow music, and I play an instrument, and that’s kind of discouraging.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right. Some of them don’t. There’s instrumental Church of Christ. There’s non-instrumental Church of Christ. In fact, there’s quite a variety of churches of Christ, but that is one major problem. divergence in the movement. Some hold to the idea that musical instruments should not be used in worship, and the other group does not mind. And so you have instrumental Church of Christ and non-instrumental Church of Christ. I will say there are some churches of Christ that get a little bit exclusive, legalistic, and things like that, but it’s not an essential part of the Church of Christ. I know churches of Christ that I would not describe that way at all, though there are some that are. So you’d have to kind of Be careful about, you’d have to check. Just know that it’s not unheard of for churches of Christ to be very legalistic, and especially about baptism. It’s also not unheard of for them to be legalistic about musical instruments. And probably you wouldn’t be happy in a church like that. But there are instrumental churches of Christ, and in some cases are not very legalistic. I have good friends of that branch. So those are some things I could suggest. I need to break up here for a brief break. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming up. We are listener supported. If you’d like to help us out, you can check our website, thenarrowpath.com. Everything there is free, but there’s an option to donate if you want at thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away. We have more.
SPEAKER 04 :
Are you aware of the wide variety of teachings available without charge at the Narrow Path website? In several hundred lectures, Steve Gregg covers every book of the Bible individually and gives separate teachings on approximately 300 important biblical topics. There is no charge for anything at our website. Visit us there and you’ll be amazed at all you’ve been missing. That web address again is www.thenarrowpath.com
SPEAKER 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’d like to be on the program with your questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, or perhaps your challenges to the Bible or to the host about anything that the host has said at any time, you’re welcome to join us at this number, 844-484-7000. 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Kevin from River Rouge, Michigan. Hi, Kevin. Good to hear from you again.
SPEAKER 10 :
Good to talk to you, Steve. I wanted to say first, before I ask my question, I’ve done some study on the NOAC program. And, of course, Genesis mentioned in southern Turkey on the Mount of Ararat, there was a guy named Navarro. And I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Malcolm Smith. He knew people, and I guess this guy got a piece, but they found it from satellite. And so I don’t know. I’m not going to disagree with your finding, but I know it’s there. My question is this. I haven’t started the Empire of the Risen Son yet, but I don’t know if you use the words union life or exchange life, which is based on Galatians 2.20 and 1 Corinthians 6.17, the latter meaning we are one spirit with Christ, going to Christ, Galatians 2.20. I’m crucified, you know these verses, so I’m not going to, but my question is, There’s so many people I’ve run into are living their life for God. The implication, they might not agree that they are, but from what I’ve observed and have been part of both Pentecostal and Baptist churches, versus Christ, Holy Spirit, living Christ’s life through them. And my question is, I know that, like I say, I haven’t started the book, but… What is the significance, as far as I’m concerned in my life, and I’m your age, that as far as Christ living his life through me and is my life, understanding him, his ability to keep me humble and to live his life, and not that I always walk in the Spirit, and versus someone and being part of a group that, that is living and doing duties and obligations in the church. I’m going to hang up and listen to you, buddy.
SPEAKER 02 :
Before you go, I just want to ask, the wording of your question makes me wonder, have you read or been associated with the groups that Norman Grubb was a part of?
SPEAKER 10 :
I’ve heard that, no, but I’ve heard that… He wrote a book and implied, I forget the name, but I had family members or ex-family members that said that he believed the idea that Christians don’t sin. I don’t agree with him.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, he was involved with a movement back in the, I’m going to say back in the 80s or 90s, called Union Life, and you used that term. But are you familiar with Major Ian Thomas? Yes.
SPEAKER 10 :
Oh, I love them, yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, okay. How about Bob George?
SPEAKER 10 :
Have you heard of Bob George?
SPEAKER 02 :
I’ve heard of Bob George many times, uh-huh.
SPEAKER 10 :
What did you… Yeah, go ahead.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Well, what I was going to say is that these guys like Major Ian Thomas and even Norman Grubb and certain others have spoken similarly to what you do, and so do the charismatic people, at least that I was first among. At least I… I wasn’t aware of them not being, because I remember from the earliest time when I was baptized in the Spirit, I came to understand the purpose of that was for Christ’s Spirit, who is the Holy Spirit, to live Christ’s life in me. I know a lot of people saw it as mainly to get the gift of tongues or to or to kind of identify some other gifts they had, which became, for some people, kind of a rivalry. You know, I have more gifts than you, or my gift is more important than yours, and things like that. That’s the things that immature Christians talk about. But to me, being filled with the Spirit was the ability given by the Holy Spirit to live the life of Christ, or to have Him live His life through me. So when I later heard people talk about Union Life and things like that, you know, I thought, well, maybe we’ll talk about the same thing I am. But when I read some of the stuff from that source, there was a magazine called Union Life for a while. I don’t know if it’s still out there. It seemed kind of cultic to me. It seemed kind of weird. And I don’t remember all the things because I never got into it enough to even remember all. But they… They seem to kind of blur the distinction between us and God, it seemed to me, and I didn’t care for that. But, I mean, what you’re saying is a distinction that does exist in different people’s mentalities. There are people who live for Jesus because they’ve decided that he’s going to be their king and they’re going to follow him, which is a good thing. But many of them have not really perhaps come to understand That you can’t live the Christ life. Only Christ can live that. Only his spirit can live that. And that’s why his spirit is given to us. So that it’s not just that we’re learning the rules that Jesus taught and following his example the best we can. Although from the standpoint of our felt experience, it might sometimes feel that way. But if we are, in fact, growing into the likeness of Christ, it is because, as Paul says, we’re beholding as a mirror the glory of the Lord and being changed from glory to glory into that image, even as by the Spirit of the Lord, Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3.18. And you mentioned 2 Corinthians 3.17, now the Lord is that Spirit. And where the spirit of the Lord is, there’s liberty. There’s so I mean, you know, I’d have to hear, you know, what the surrounding ideas are that you’re asking about. But to me, it’s never been very radical or very strange to think, well, you know, we don’t live the Christian life. We have to be filled with the Spirit, walk in the Spirit, and the Spirit then lives the Christian life through us. And that is, I guess that’s been my assumption for the past 54 years. But I do realize, and when you bring it up, there’s perhaps people who maybe have never heard that. I kind of realized, I never realized it because I guess I’m around people that are kind of similar to me in some ways. But there are people who just see Christianity as a religion. and there’s a set of rules and beliefs, and you have to check the boxes, and if you check enough of the boxes correctly, then you’re going to be okay. Now, as I understand it, Christ is still living in this world in a body. It’s called the body of Christ, and I’m part of it, and you’re part of it, and it’s still him. It’s still him here. It’s just that he’s not in a single human body. He’s in a corporate body made up of many human bodies. I believe that when Paul talks about us being hands and feet and bones and so forth of Jesus, he’s almost literal. Of course, he’s not literal because I’m not a foot having five toes or something like that. I’m not literally a foot. But it’s an almost literal idea. Just as my human spirit expresses itself through my human body, so Christ’s spirit expresses himself and lives his life through his body. And his body, therefore… is restricted to those who actually possess his spirit and follow that head. That’s what makes you part of the body. So it’s not really joining a religion. It’s being joined as a member of Christ to him and to all of those who are his. And I have to say that, of course, lots of churches maybe not only don’t teach that clearly, but maybe don’t believe that. I’m not really sure. And there may be lots of people in churches of whom that is not true. Maybe they don’t have his spirit. Maybe they’re not born again. But it seems to me being born again makes you a new species, makes you a new kind of human being, which is animated by a different spirit than before. And you’re part of a different body. You’re not part of the fallen body of Adam anymore. You’re part of the body of Christ. So those are the ways I’ve seen those ideas. I’m sure we could go into them much deeper, but not deeply enough. So we’re going to move on to some other callers. But I hear what you’re saying. I don’t know if all the views that you have would be exactly shared by me, but it sounds kind of the basic difference you’re making does strike me as a legitimate distinction that we find. Okay, let’s talk to Frank from Alameda, California. Frank, welcome. Thank you.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, my father’s name is Frank, but I’m Fred.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, well, my call screen thought you were Frank. Maybe he mistook you for your dad.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, yeah. Okay, so I have a simple question. What happens to someone like Gandhi, who is a good and moral person? Can he make it to heaven, or is it just cut and dry? You have to, like as Billy Graham would say, accept Christ, otherwise you’re going to hell.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, the Bible never mentions accepting Christ, in the sense that evangelicals use that term. So I wouldn’t make that the biblical qualification. I’d rather make the biblical qualification be something that the Bible actually says. Although I have to say I grew up using the same expression, except Jesus into your heart, that kind of thing. Although, again, the Bible knows no such terminology. As I understand it, if a person is given over to Christ, he’s his. And he’s his forever, unless a person betrays Christ and goes away and departs and apostatizes. Now, Gandhi was not a Christian. When he was asked his religion, he said, I think he was once asked if he was a Christian. He said, well, I’m a Christian, I’m a Jew, I’m a Hindu, I’m a Buddhist. Which is a way of saying, I’m none of the above. because those are all mutually exclusive belief systems. But what he was saying is, you know, I’m not too particular about my religious beliefs. I’m kind of a generic spiritual God kind of a follower kind of guy. And he did have a picture of Jesus in his room and things like that. He admired Jesus. In fact, I think he got his pacifist ethic from the Sermon on the Mount and things like that. So I know that he thought… in some degree, that he was following Jesus. Now, the way you and I would define following Jesus, I don’t think he was, although I don’t know much about his private life. He definitely was not nailed down to any particularly Christian theology, let’s put it that way. And if theology is what saves a person, then I guess he wouldn’t qualify. Now, I’m not sure that theology is what saves a person. Because every time the Bible talks about the Judgment Day, when Jesus spoke of it, when Paul did, when Peter did, when John did, they always said people would be judged by their works. And so I’m not sure how God is going to interpret those things when somebody, let us say, has devoted their whole life to doing what they believe is pleasing to God, but they don’t know the right theology. well, I’m going to just have to leave that in God’s hands. If somebody says, well, you have to accept Jesus into your heart or you go to hell, therefore Gandhi’s in hell, well, what does it mean to accept Jesus in your heart? I mean, again, the Bible doesn’t use that term, but, you know, the Bible talks about those who are condemned. In John chapter 3, Jesus said this is the condemnation of the world, that light has come, and they love darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. Now, Jesus, that’s what people are condemned for. People are condemned because they received the light. They don’t like the light. They hate the light. Their deeds are evil and they don’t want to be exposed by the light. So they hide from the light. They love darkness. Now, is that something that could be said of everybody who’s never heard of Christ or never understood about Christ? Well, God will help you to judge of that. But he’s the one who said that people are condemned because the light came to them and they didn’t receive it. Now, I can’t tell you how much light Gandhi or anyone else had or to what degree they received or rejected some of the light. So that’s going to be something God will judge. Ever since I’ve really kind of come to understand the gospel in the New Testament differently than the way that I was taught it in the strictly American tradition, I just have to say I’m not going to make the decision about that. I’ll let God decide those things. I do believe there’s a lot of people who would say they’ve accepted Jesus in their heart, who their actions prove they don’t know Jesus from a tortoise. So, obviously, I think the judgment will not go well with them, even if they say they accepted Jesus. And there may be people who’ve never used that extra-biblical terminology, but who, because they are following the light that Christ has given them, even though they don’t know all the right words and the right propositions, Maybe God will say, hey, you’re one of mine. Jesus died for you too, and you seem to have followed the life as the best you understood it. I’m not saying that is true, because my concern is not primarily about who’s going to heaven. That’s going to be what God decides, really. Jesus didn’t talk much at all about anyone going to heaven or hell. He talked some. I mean, there were some references, a few references, but he talked mostly about living to please God. That was Jesus’ real concern, that we bring glory to God in our lives, that we live to please God. That’s what Jesus taught about all the time, was how to please God in the way we live. I mean, just read the Synoptic Gospels and see what’s he talking about there. Is he talking about theology or is he talking about behavior and what pleases God? Well, I’m a follower of Jesus, and I’m not a follower of Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism or any particular denomination. Certainly not of Americanism or American evangelicalism per se. But I am a follower of Jesus, and so I’m going to just say what his emphasis is, is that we need to live for the glory of God. That’s what we’re made for. That’s what we will be very happy that we did if we do it. It is the one thing that makes life meaningful. And it’s the only thing that makes life fulfilling. And so my message is the same as that of Jesus, I think. And that is that we become followers of Christ. And some people, I think, may be following the light that he gives, even if they’ve never heard his name. But I don’t know. God knows. And that’s what God’s going to have to decide. I’m not making that decision for him. All right?
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. Okay.
SPEAKER 02 :
Thank you, Frank. Ron from Indianapolis, Indiana. Hi, Ron. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. God bless, and I really enjoyed the knowledge that you put out for us. Steve, from listening, I’m going to pull over for a second because now I’m on the road. Steve, from listening a moment ago, you’ve almost changed my question, but I want to get back to my question. Steve, I feel like such a failure. I call myself a follower of Christ, but Steve, I’m like the sinner who had to throw himself at the mercy and say, forgive me, because I’m a sinner. I’m a no-good, rotten man who just cannot do any better. And that’s because of what I think I just heard you discuss earlier. when you talked about something. Now, this is something else I want to mention real quick. I think we are supposed to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, love our neighbors as ourselves. I believe we’re supposed to confess the Lord Jesus Christ, that he died and was raised from our sin, confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, and you will be saved. I think that is what the Bible says. Now, this is my question. Steve, there are so many men in the Bible who had more than one wife. I’m not sure that I understand that when it comes to, is that adultery? Or the next worst thing is it seems like Paul, in talking to Timothy, told Timothy at one point, I don’t know if it was deacon or bishop or whatever, but one of the prerequisites was that a man should only have one wife. It seems like a lot of people had more than one wife. Can you expound on that for me, please?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I can expound on that. I’d love to talk about your first point more, but we’re looking at only a few minutes left on the clock, so maybe I’ll take not so much the easier question, but the one that can be answered more quickly, I think. And that is that, yeah, there are numerous people in the Old Testament who had more than one wife, and it’s never forbidden. Was that in itself adultery? It was not considered adultery. It was not considered adultery when Abraham took a second wife because Sarah was barren. It was not the right choice. He was moving ahead of God. It was not a great idea, but it was not a sin. It was not considered to be sinful because when he took Hagar, she became a second wife to him. Now, it’s different to have a second wife or a third wife in the Bible. than it is to sleep with somebody else’s wife. If you sleep with somebody else’s wife, that’s adultery. And we see that in the case of David. David had eight wives of his own. And then when Saul died, apparently some of those wives from Saul’s heron were inherited by David as wives or concubines of his. So he had a bunch. And God didn’t hold that against him because it says that when he later sinned with Bathsheba, who was another man’s wife, God said, hey, I gave you all the wives and the stuff that Saul had, and if that wasn’t enough, I would have given you more. But you aren’t allowed to go after someone else’s wife. So in other words, God indicated that he didn’t have any real complaint about David having the wives he had. At least he wasn’t violating some other man’s rights to his wife. They were presumably widows or virgins when he married them. And so they were available to be married, and he wasn’t. you know, cheating on anybody. You want to say he was cheating on his other wives. Well, you can only really cheat on your wives if you’ve made an oath that you’re not keeping. In those days when a person got married, it was in the Middle East and in most of the Asian world, which is where David lived, you know, there was no assumption that when a man married a woman that he was making some kind of promise that she’d be the only one. Now, that’s different in Christian lands because Christianity is monogamous, not polygamous. And the reason we know that is because Paul said there’s a great mystery that was not made known before the apostolic times. And that is the mystery of Christ and the church. And he said that the picture of Christ and the church, this is in Ephesians 5 at the end of the chapter, that the church is like the bride, and Christ is like the bridegroom. And this was, he said, a great mystery, but he says it’s really about Christ and the church, the marriage. So we realize that marriage has another function besides just finding companionship or having kids and things like that. Marriage has the function of being a portrayal, a microcosm, of the relationship between Christ and his church. People should be able to look at any Christian marriage and say, well, the way he treats his wife, if Christ is like that, that’s pretty good. And they should be able to look at a woman’s submission to her husband and say, well, if I become a Christian, that’s what I have to do toward Christ. I have to be submissive toward him like that. And so, you know, a godly marriage is intended to be a gospel presentation to the world, visual. And that was not known, that was not revealed, that connection, in Old Testament times, but it is now. And because of that, Christianity pretty much abandoned any polygamy. And wherever Christianity goes, polygamy, if it’s already practiced, fades out. Paul did say that the elders of the church must be the husband of one wife, which I believe means not a polygamist. But the very fact that he had to say that suggests there might be some people in the church who otherwise might be considered for eldership, but would be disqualified on this grounds. They have more than one wife. Now, how could that be? Well, because remember, Paul’s writing, almost all of his letters are written to first generation Christians. They’re not people who were raised in the church. They’re people who were raised pagans. And they got saved as adults. And some of them were already married. And some of them already had multiple wives. Now, if somebody’s had several marriages and they get converted, you don’t break up their marriages. You just recognize that’s not normative Christian marriage, but it’s worse to get a divorce. So we’re not going to make that happen. Lots of people, when they become converts, they have things in their life that have marred them. that would make them not suited as Christian examples for eldership or whatever. But there are things that they can’t really be undone readily. I mean, for example, if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, that’s not good. But if she becomes a Christian, it doesn’t require her to get an abortion. You know, the baby’s there. The baby’s there. It’s part of her life now. It may have been a sin at the time or whatever. But becoming a Christian doesn’t allow you to commit another sin. So if people had multiple wives and they got converted in the first century into the church, the church made it very clear this is not normative marriage. But it is marriage. It’s a marriage. There was a legal contract made with each of these women. with their acquiescence in each case. And we don’t want marriage to continue and our communities to be like that. But we’re not going to do something even more sinful and to cause divorce and have this man dump his wives and children who depend on him. and who he’s made promises to. No, Christians aren’t allowed to break their promises. But in the second and third generation, you don’t find any polygamy among the Christians. And that’s because instead of most people getting converted out of pagan backgrounds, they’re getting converted out of, well, a lot of them are being raised Christians. And of course, eventually the Roman Empire was influenced by Christian culture to the point where it just didn’t allow polygamy anymore. So it’s one of those things that grew on Culturally on people as they got more understanding of Christ. But it was not imposed on the Old Testament people. Because it’s not in itself necessarily adulterous. Like I said, David having many wives was not regarded by God to be adulterous. But him taking another man’s wife was. And David was greatly punished for it. Now, that doesn’t mean we should agree with having many wives, because we don’t live under the old covenant. We have the model of Jesus. We know more than they knew, and we’ll be held accountable for what we know. They’re held accountable for what they knew, and that’s a big difference. All right. I appreciate your call. I’m going to try to get one more in before I’m out of here. Malachi from San Jose, California. Welcome.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hey, Steve. Hi. I had a quick question, something that never occurred to me before last week, but, um, I was wondering about Jesus walking on the water. Um, what the significance is of that. I don’t know if that was like a prophecy or like old Testament, um, significance somehow, uh, or what is in, in Matthew 14, talking about a story, like there’s some details kind of leading up to that, like him praying on the mountain and inserting the disciples to go on the other side. Um, Yes, I just wanted to see what your take was on that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, yeah, there may be far more implied in it than what I know, but I will say this. In Psalm 107… It says, and other Psalms, it talks about how God is the one who walks on the waves. God is the one who walks on the sea. And so that Jesus is the only human being, until he allowed Peter to do it, who could do this was his way of saying, you know, showing he’s God. He’s doing what only God can do. Now, the fact that it was walking on the sea is important to my mind. Because walking is a metaphor throughout Scripture of living life. God said to Abraham, walk before me and be perfect, which wasn’t commanding him to really go on a foot trip, but basically to live his life before him. In the New Testament, we’re told to walk in love, to walk worthy of our calling, to walk by faith. And all of these references to walking are referring to living. Life is like walking. So, In 1 John 2, it says in verse 6, He who says he abides in Christ ought himself to walk just as he walked. Well, how can we walk like Jesus walked? His walk was not normal. It was supernatural. Well, that’s just the point. He walked in the Spirit. And walking in the Spirit is a supernatural walk. The Holy Spirit allows you to be like Jesus, allows you to walk or live your life like Jesus. Maybe he won’t have you walking on top of water anytime soon, but Christ walking on water would be a picture of walking in a way that nobody can walk unless they’ve got God’s assistance. So I think that Jesus walking on the water, and even Peter doing so when he had the faith to do it, is a picture of how we are to walk as Jesus walked through the power of the Holy Spirit. I’m out of time. I wish I was not. Sorry about that. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
