Join us on a spiritual journey as we unpack some of the most challenging passages from Scripture, ranging from the feminine imagery in Ecclesiastes to the pivotal concepts of faith as debated in Calvinism. With real-time calls, Steve Gregg offers a platform for genuine inquiry and understanding. Whether you’re intrigued by the depths of biblical language or seeking clarity in your faith journey, this episode is sure to provide substantial food for thought.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 09 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, I welcome you to call and raise those things for discussion here on the air in this hour. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. We have a couple of lines open if you call right now. It’s a good time to do it. Our first caller today is Peter calling from Bedford, England. Peter, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 01 :
Steve, I’ve been reading Isaiah and it’s a difficult book just because of all the symbolism and imagery. But my question is based on Isaiah 10, 27. And I’ll just assume that, you know, because it’s quite a popular book. verse which it talks about and the yoke will be destroyed because of the anointing oil growing up in charismatic circles I’ve always been taught that that meant your deliverance will come from a you know an individual who’s anointed but having sort of studied it a little bit I was wondering what an alternative view I came across was that actually the yoke is to do with the Assyrian oppressors and that when it says that the yoke will be destroyed because of the anointing or that the anointing or can also be interpreted as fatness and that I think perhaps the prophet is talking about Israel as becoming fat, fat, so that there won’t be a yoke that could be laid upon Israel, as in you put a yoke on a bull. So I was wondering, does it mean that instead of what I guess I’ve always grown up to be taught, that is talking about deliverance through an anointed person?
SPEAKER 09 :
Right. I mean, the King James Version says the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing. And so the Pentecostal people, of course, They really like the word anointing because that often refers to the anointing of the Holy Spirit. And Pentecostal people and charismatic people typically make more emphasis on the Holy Spirit and therefore on the whole idea of the anointing. And so they usually think of, when preachers in Pentecostal circles speak of this verse, they usually speak of the yoke of, you know, bondage to sin. You know, that you’ll be set free from sin because of the anointing. And like you said, perhaps because of an anointed minister who ministers over you, lays hands on you, or something like that. However, this verse is probably misunderstood by those who are taking it that way. Of course, the anointing oil is something that refers to the anointing of the king, in my opinion. Now, the word in the Hebrew is fat. The yoke will be destroyed because of the fat. Now, fat is where they can boil down oil into fats, fat into oil. And so some people think that this is referring to giving the impression of Judah being like an ox with a yoke on its head, a yoke representing bondage. But because of its being strengthened by God and being fed well by God, being prospered by God, the ox will become so big and fat that it will break loose from the anointing. That’s not necessarily a majority opinion. That’s one opinion. I think a more common opinion, and one that makes sense to me, is that the anointing oil is referring to the anointing on David. Now, because although it does talk earlier in the chapter about Assyria coming against Israel and defeating Israel, It also talks about it coming against Judah and not succeeding. In verse 24, for example, it says, Therefore thus says the Lord God of hosts to my people who dwell in Zion, that’s Jerusalem down in Judah, do not be afraid of the Assyrian. He shall strike you with a rod and lift up his staff against you in the manner of Egypt for yet a very little while. And the indignation will cease. as I will lay my anger in their destruction. Now, their destruction is the destruction of the Assyrians. Now, you’ll remember that Assyria came against Jerusalem, came against Zion, not immediately after they destroyed the northern kingdom, but within 20 years they came down and defeated most of the villages of Judah, but were unable to conquer Jerusalem because Hezekiah, the anointed king, of the house of David, you know, trusted in God, and God sent the Assyrians packing. And so the bondage that would have come upon them from the Assyrians was broken because of the anointing, in other words, because of the promise God made to David and his seed, and because there was a king of the seed of David on the throne, and God did not let it be overthrown at that time. So I think it’s probably referring to that, that the… The yoke that came upon the northern kingdom would almost come on Judah, but would fail to do so. It would be broken because of God’s blessing on the anointed king of the house of David, who happened to be Hezekiah at that time. That’s my impression about this passage.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thanks, Steve. Would you say, Steve, that, especially in charismatic circles, that the understanding of the anointing, there’s more emphasis on, I guess… So more emphasis on kind of miracles and deliverance and really it’s more talking about the Jesus as the anointed Messiah and as part of his body we all just carry, you know, he distributes gifts amongst, you know, all parts of his body. Is that how it should be properly understood when we’re talking about the anointing?
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, yes. The anointing of the Holy Spirit is upon Christ, and we are his body, and therefore his anointing is upon us. Therefore, the church has the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Now, there’s not much in the Bible that speaks about the anointing being associated necessarily with miracles, although one could see it probably. In Isaiah 61, verses 1 and 2, which is quoted by Jesus in Luke chapter 4, where he says, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me. But he’s anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor, to set at liberty those who are bound. It talks about giving sight to the blind and things too, which are miracles. But basically the anointing is associated with preaching. And we also see this in 1 John chapter 2, Verse 26 and 27, it says, And, of course, Jesus told the apostles in the upper room, When the Holy Spirit comes, he will teach you or he’ll guide you into all truth. And John, who recorded that statement of Jesus, also writes 1 John 2, saying that Christians don’t need men to teach them the anointing, meaning the Holy Spirit teaches us. Now, again, the work of the Holy Spirit and the anointing in this particular case is associated with being taught anointing. by the Spirit, not so much being empowered to do miracles. Not that I don’t believe in miracles, but I don’t believe everybody has the gift of miracles. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12 that the gift of working miracles is one of several different gifts, and different people have different gifts, he says. To one is given the word of wisdom, to another is given the word of knowledge, to another, you know, faith, to another, the working of miracles, and so forth. So Paul does not indicate that everyone who has the Holy Spirit will work miracles. But John does seem to imply that everyone who has the Holy Spirit will be taught by the Spirit internally. And so that’s really what the focus would be, more the learning, being learning from the Holy Spirit, being led by the Spirit, taught by the Spirit, rather than being empowered for the miraculous.
SPEAKER 01 :
Oh, that’s completely different. Yeah, well, I’ve… But, no, Steve, I know you’ve got other callers, but thank you so much for being really helpful, and God bless you.
SPEAKER 09 :
I always love hearing from you, Peter. God bless.
SPEAKER 11 :
You too, Steve. Take care.
SPEAKER 09 :
Bye now. Okay, Russ in Las Vegas, Nevada is next. Russ, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, hi, Steve. I have a question for you. I wish I had a British accent like Peter, so I could sound intelligent in this, but I’m going to try to put it into words. I believe that Solomon wrote the book of Ecclesiastes. I’ve been led to understand. Is that right?
SPEAKER 09 :
Your phone broke. Cut out. Did you say Solomon wrote the book of Ecclesiastes?
SPEAKER 11 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, yes, I believe that.
SPEAKER 11 :
Oh, good. Because I understand that he used the feminine form of preacher for himself, herself, itself, theyself. I don’t want to misgender it. But doesn’t that have a… If we do it with Solomon… Van, does that open up a whole can of questions? Why would he use the feminine form of preacher in order to identify himself that way? Does that matter, or what?
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, I don’t know. I don’t know. Maybe koheleth, which is the word he uses, might be a feminine word in the Hebrew language. I don’t know this to be so. Actually, all the times I’ve read commentaries on Ecclesiastes and stuff, I don’t remember that point being made, so I don’t know why, but People often wonder why Solomon used feminine imagery for wisdom. In Proverbs, he refers to wisdom as a woman calling out to men on the streets and offering her wisdom to the simple and so forth. Wisdom is spoken of as a female. Of course, wisdom isn’t specifically a female. It’s not male or female, but it’s in the imagery itself. The feminine is used. There may be some similar reasons for this, but I don’t know. What were you saying?
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, that genitive thing, it goes back and forth. It’s not saying I’m a female. It’s just a form of poetry or a form of making a point.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, I mean, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs certainly are both written in poetry. which means, of course, we have to expect imagery and hyperbole and different metaphor and things like that, which is characteristic in poetry. But in answer to your question, I actually don’t know why a cohelis would be used in a feminine form if there isn’t a choice. I don’t know enough about the Hebrew word to know if it’s itself a feminine word or if it could be feminine or masculine, depending on who the preacher is. You know, I don’t know.
SPEAKER 11 :
Right. I heard you say that the church is mentioned in the Old Testament. Was that the word ecclesia that you were talking about? You said that the church is used.
SPEAKER 09 :
The Greek word ecclesia, which the New Testament translates as church, is also found in the Greek Old Testament. Now, of course, the Old Testament wasn’t originally written in Greek. It was written in Hebrew, but it was translated into Greek long before Jesus was born, like three centuries before Jesus was born. the Jews translated their Hebrew Bible into the Greek language. Now, in the Greek rendering of the Old Testament, the word ekklesia was used. It was used in passages where In our English Bible, you’d normally find the word congregation. Speaking of the congregation of Israel, the Greek word in the Septuagint version was ecclesia. And so, obviously, since the New Testament writers read the Greek version and quoted from the Greek version of the Old Testament quite frequently, when they began to refer to themselves as the ecclesia, which they did. I mean, the New Testament always refers to the Ecclesia as the body of Christ, with one exception. That exception only confirms what we’re saying, though. That exception is found in Acts chapter 7, where Stephen is giving his sermon, and he’s talking about Moses. And he mentions in Acts chapter 7 that he was with the church in the wilderness. Actually, the King James Version has him say he was with the church in the wilderness. Let me see here. Here we go. Where do we have that word there? It’s in Acts chapter 7. Well, let’s see here. It’s a long sermon. I can’t find the verse. What’s that? Well, the King James says that Moses was with the church, the ecclesia, in the wilderness. Now, we actually don’t have… I mean, I’d have to go looking through the book. It’s a little further down than where I’m looking, I guess. It is… Okay, it’s in verse 37. I had to look through that many verses to find it. Acts 7, 37. It says, this is that Moses… who said to the children of Israel, the Lord your God will raise you up a prophet, et cetera, et cetera. I’m sorry, it’s verse 38. It’s verse 38. This is he who was in the church in the wilderness. So ekklesia. So I think that’s the only time in the New Testament that the word ekklesia refers to Israel. But the fact that Stephen uses it means that, you know, his listeners understood that word to be a reference to Israel because Moses wasn’t with the New Testament churches with the Israel. So, yeah, when the body of Christ adopted for itself the name the Ecclesia, the church, they were seeing themselves as a continuation of what Israel had been, you know, God’s people. Now, as far as, I’m sorry, your first question was something else. What was your first question?
SPEAKER 11 :
I was asking about the alternative preacher, yes.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, yeah, I don’t have an answer for you on that. I don’t have an answer for that.
SPEAKER 11 :
But the other thing you said is really interesting because it’s almost like the congregation has been the same. It’s been this continuous congregation all throughout from Moses on. It’s always been part of the same congregation or ecclesia or church.
SPEAKER 09 :
It’s true. It’s true. This is what some people wrongfully call replacement theology. But there’s not a replacement. There’s a continuation. The faithful remnant of Israel were the Ecclesia. They still are. But the faithful remnant of Israel today aren’t following the old covenant. They’re following the new covenant. Because God supplanted the old covenant with a new covenant. Jesus made a new covenant. The Bible tells us that the new covenant makes the old covenant obsolete. So, obviously, Paul in Romans 7, verses 1 through 4, compares it to a woman who’s been married twice. She entered into one covenant with her first husband, and then that covenant ended with death. And then she enters into a second covenant, a second marriage. And so Paul compares that with the old covenant that the Jews were under and then with the new covenant in Christ. But it’s the same woman. It’s not as if there’s a new woman. The woman is the same. She’s just had two different covenants, marriage covenants. And that’s the idea, is that the true faithful of Israel were in covenant with God in the Old Testament times. on terms of the old covenant. But they have now died with Christ, that marriage is over, and now they’re married to another, Paul says in that same passage, even he that is raised from the dead. So the faithful of Israel, and by the way, Israel always included some Gentiles. In the Old Testament, there were Gentiles that were part of Israel too. But the faithful of Israel, Jews and Gentiles, now relate to God on terms of a new covenant, not the old one. And so it’s just the same people, I mean, the same entity, the faithful people who trust in God, you know, but now they have a new covenant, not the old one.
SPEAKER 11 :
That’s fantastic. You’ve convinced me. All right.
SPEAKER 09 :
Whenever someone invites me. Whenever someone invites me.
SPEAKER 11 :
We’re going to set it up for you. Thank you so much, Steve. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right, Russ. Great talking to you. God bless. Okay, Carrie from Fort Worth, Texas. Welcome.
SPEAKER 03 :
Steve, I was in a Bible study the other day, and we were talking about prayer. And the text was the text from Matthew when it talked about asking, seeking, and knocking. The teacher was saying that you can see a progression here. I couldn’t quite agree with him. I didn’t know if I could see a progression more than I could see – something being said, the same thing being said in three different ways. But I also was trying to reconcile that passage, and if what he said was true about a progression, I was trying to reconcile that with how God tells me not to be anxious for anything and that my Father knows of the very things that I need before I even ask. And I was trying to reconcile that for my prayer life. And I was just wondering if you could help me out there. Can you reconcile the two?
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, the fact that Jesus said your father knows what you have need of before you ask him. is not in order to tell you not to pray or not to ask. In fact, the place where Jesus says that is in a chapter earlier than the passage you brought up. Both of them are in the Sermon on the Mount. And so in Matthew 6, 8, Jesus said, therefore, do not be like them. That is, don’t be like the Pharisees. He says, for your father knows the things you have need of before you ask him. In this manner, therefore, pray. And he gives the Lord’s Prayer. So, it’s in that very context. He says, God knows what you need before you ask him. So, pray like this. I think what he’s saying is, in that part, he earlier said, don’t pray like the Pharisees, but then he was saying, don’t pray like the heathen either, because they use many words as if they need to talk God into something. And he’s saying, well, no, God knows what you need before you ask him. You should ask. I mean, God does want us to ask. You know, it says in another place that you have not because you asked not, James said. And so asking is part of receiving. Now, when Jesus said that, ask God. Seek, knock. That’s in the next chapter, Matthew 7, verses 7 through 8. And he’s basically saying that, I don’t know if he’s giving greater intensity, he’s certainly asking, might be considered to be less intense than seeking. I mean, seeking looks like you’re searching for something. You know, if you just ask somebody for something, that doesn’t take much effort. But if they don’t give it to you and you go seeking it, I suppose that’s a little more intensive than just asking. Knocking might even be seen as an increase in intensity, but I’m not sure it would necessarily. I mean, when someone comes in knocking at my door and I let them in, it doesn’t mean they’re knocking vociferously or desperately or more than they would if they were seeking something in their house or lost car keys or something. So I don’t know that we’re supposed to understand this to be an increase in intensity. I mean, there’s that possibility of pounding on the door. If that’s what he means by knocking, then that would be somewhat more intense. I don’t know that we need to understand that way. I don’t know that it adds anything to what he’s saying. I think you’re probably right. He’s just giving three examples of the same principle. Namely, you want something, you ask for it, or you seek it, or you knock on the door if you want it open. That’s what you need to do.
SPEAKER 03 :
One more question, if you don’t mind. In the Lord’s Prayer, when we say, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, is that a declaration or is it a plea?
SPEAKER 09 :
That’s a really good question, Carrie. I have seen it both ways at different times. Because he doesn’t say, may your kingdom come, and may your will be done, but rather, your kingdom come. You know, it’s almost like, like you said, a declaration. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. It’s as if he’s given us the authority to declare those things. I’m sure there are certain people who would emphasize that as its principal meaning. But I don’t know that that’s what prayer looks like. I mean, it’d be one thing if God said, okay, I’m going to give you the right to declare things and they will happen. But that wouldn’t be the same thing as praying. Praying is asking. By definition, praying means asking for something. Um, and so it sounds like we’re asking that his kingdom would come and this will be done because he said, when you pray, pray like this. And then that’s what he tells us to do. Now, you know, I’m not going to be able to be dogmatic about this. I think that simply asking that his kingdom would come and this will be done, uh, is, is adequate if, if we ask in faith. Um, I suppose if you give it more of the sense of a declaration, your kingdom come, almost like a command. It’s not like you’re giving God commands, but it could be like you’re essentially expressing determination and desperation more than if you just say, hey, could you do this? I’m honestly, I don’t know if anyone can answer that for you. And the reason I don’t know is because I’ve been looking into that most of my life, and I’m old, and I don’t know if I can settle that question.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right. Well, thank you again, Steve.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, Kerry, good talking to you. Okay, let’s see. Carolyn from Seattle, Washington. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi. Thanks, Steve. I’ve got two questions on verses, addresses. The verse for the dispensationalist, of God has no unconditional covenants. You said that once, I don’t know if it was in Ezekiel or where. Can you tell me where that is?
SPEAKER 09 :
The best passage for that, it seems to me, is Jeremiah 18, verses 7 through 10.
SPEAKER 11 :
7 through 10, great.
SPEAKER 09 :
But I would also say that as you look at what God says about covenants, Most of them he mentions conditions for them. I mean, obviously in Exodus 19, 5 and 6, they’re certainly conditioned there. Deuteronomy 28, certainly the whole chapter lays out the conditions for God keeping the covenant or for Israel defaulting on it and not receiving it. That would be Deuteronomy 28, also Leviticus 26, pretty much the whole chapter too. So you’ve got these conditions laid out when God makes these covenants. He says these are the conditions. But Jeremiah 18, 7 through 10 is usually what I’m referring to. The Bible says God makes no unconditional promises.
SPEAKER 05 :
Can you say that about all the covenants?
SPEAKER 09 :
Pretty much. Yeah, pretty much. I mean, some people say, well, wasn’t God’s covenant with Abraham unconditional?
SPEAKER 04 :
Not exactly.
SPEAKER 09 :
Because he was asleep, right? Well, I mean, God repeated it several times. Once when he was apparently asleep. But… Yeah, but at first God told him, leave your homeland, leave your father’s house, and I will fulfill these promises to you. And that’s the first time the promises are mentioned in Genesis 12, 1 through 3. But leaving his father’s house was a condition. Later on, he says to Abraham in Genesis 18, 19, God says about Abraham, for I have known him in order that he may command his children and his household after him. that they keep the way of the Lord to do righteousness and justice so that the Lord may bring to Abram what he has spoken to him. So he’s saying, okay, the children of Abram have to keep justice and righteousness so that God can fulfill the promises he made them. It sounds pretty conditional to me. Hey, I’m out of time for this segment, but I hope those were helpful to you. Thank you for your call. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming, but I have to take a break here. The Narrow Path is listener-supported. If you’d like to help us out, you can write to The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593, or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be right back. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 02 :
If you’ve been listening to The Narrow Path for very long, You know how much it has enhanced your study and understanding of Scripture and possibly your whole Christian life. Don’t you think all your friends should benefit from the program as you have? You help to partner with us in impacting the body of Christ when you tell all your friends to listen to The Narrow Path. If you have not done so, visit the website thenarrowpath.com and discover all that is available for your learning pleasure.
SPEAKER 09 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we are live for another half hour, taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith you’d like to ask here on the air, we’ll talk to you about those. If you want to disagree with the host about something, we’ll be glad to talk to you about that as well. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. We’re going to talk to Kurt from Oak Harbor, Washington next. Hi, Kurt. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Hi. How are you doing? Good.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay, so I had a couple things. The first thing was I had a bit of encouragement for you. I recently listened to your Romans 9 through 11 kind of exegesis there you got on the website, and I thought it was just as good as anything I’ve ever heard on that subject. To me, that’s always been kind of a tough area. as far as the Calvinist of it and the dispensationalist of it and all that. So I just wanted to give you some encouragement on that.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thanks. Was that the single lecture on Romans 9 through 11?
SPEAKER 07 :
No, it was the series. I think you did maybe three of them.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, through Romans.
SPEAKER 07 :
Maybe on 9 through 11. It might have been three or even four.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, I’m thinking maybe you were listening to my verse-by-verse through Romans. I’m not sure.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, it very well could have been. I thought it was a great exegesis of that. Anyway, the thing I wanted you to comment on is in Genesis, the first thing that I think God creates by a sort of fiat is he says, you know, let there be light. And I’m sure you’ve noticed before that there’s no actual source for light at that point. In other words, the sun, you know, the sun, moon, and stars hadn’t been created yet. And I sort of had this idea that what God was actually doing right there was putting like the foundational like truth and like the laws on which the universe and everything kind of stands on. into his creation at that point before he started creating the material things of his creation. And I was wondering kind of what you thought about that.
SPEAKER 09 :
So you’re thinking of light as referring to truth? Is that what you’re saying?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, truth is a good way to put it. You know how it says in John that Christ is the light of the world. And I think often in Scripture when it refers to light, it’s talking about like reality, like God’s real truth. I don’t know if I’m describing it well.
SPEAKER 09 :
It’s true that light is often a metaphor for insight or for knowledge or truth. I mean, if somebody’s blind, for example, when Jesus said in John chapter 9, near the end of that chapter, he said, for judgment I’m coming to the world so that the blind may receive their sight and that those who see may be made blind. And the Pharisees said, are we blind also then? And he said, well, if you were blind, you’d be without sin. But because you say we see, therefore your sin remains. Obviously, he’s using the word light there metaphorically of being able to see, being able to, that is, understand, to know. So knowledge, understanding, insight. Yeah, light often does refer to those things. when it’s being used metaphorically, but of course often it’s being used simply to refer to natural light or at least what we think of as light, illumination of a room or of the sky or something like that as opposed to darkness. Now, you know, one thing I will say that usually when truth is representing light, it’s usually because it’s being revealed to somebody. Somebody is seeing the light. Somebody is being illuminated. And when God said let there be light, there was no one there to be illuminated by it. And I don’t think it’s like he’s saying he created truth at that moment because, of course, truth existed. I mean, truth has always existed as long as God has existed. He is the truth. And also Jesus is the light. So, I mean, I don’t think Jesus or truth are created things. I think they are simply phenomena that have always existed.
SPEAKER 07 :
I wonder, though, as he put it into his creation at that point, I agree with you. It’s part of the character of God, so it would have to eternally exist. But I wonder, I guess my theory was more that he made it then part of his creation.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, I can’t say you’re wrong. I mean, I don’t know that you’re wrong, so I’m not going to argue against it. My thought has always been that it’s light. That is, he was able to make the difference between night and day. Remember, he said it had to be light. Then he separated the light from the darkness. And the darkness he called night, and the light he called day. It sounds like it’s talking about that which distinguished between morning and evening, the first day, morning and evening, the second day, and so forth. My feeling is that it is describing the beginning of the process of Earth going through a cycle of night and day. even though the sun, moon, and stars were not there to measure those by. It’s not until the fourth day, it says, that he said let there be lights in the firmament to be signs and seasons and days and years, and he made one great light to rule the day, which would be the sun, and a lesser light to rule the night, which is the moon, and he made the stars also, it says. Now, you could have day and night, whether there was sun or not, as long as you had some source of light that is taking the place the Sun I’ll and in my opinion The reason he didn’t make, I think he needed day and night before he could start doing things like putting plants on the earth and stuff. You know, day and night was the first thing he wanted to create. And that required there to be light because it says prior to that, darkness was on the face of the deep. And, you know, so the earth was dark until God brought light. And when he brought light, then there was daytime. in contrast to nighttime. So I’m seeing this more in terms of visible light. But the reason he didn’t make the sun and the moon and the stars on the first day, even though he wanted there to be light, and he later would make them on the fourth day to be the bearers of that light, is because I think there was a tendency throughout the pagan world to see the sun as the source of all life, to see the sun as the primary god. Among the Egyptians, where Moses, who wrote this, had come with the Israelites. They came out of Egypt, and they still had a lot of Egypt in them. That’s why they made a golden calf and stuff. Egypt, the sun god Ra was the supreme god. And in many Greek and Roman pantheons, I think the sun god was one of the chief of the gods. I think it’s very typical for pagans to worship the sun as the source of light. And what God is showing here is, well, the sun isn’t the source of life. There was life here before there was the sun. Plant life was made on the third day, and the sun was made on the fourth day. So obviously the sun can’t be seen as the source of light or the God that we owe our lives to. then what was the light coming from before? I think it was coming from God himself. You know, the New Jerusalem is described in Revelation 21 as having no need for the sun or the moon or the stars to shine there because the glory of God was the light of it. So to my mind, that’s probably what we’re to see there on the first day, the glory of God illuminated there. the scene and there began to be the turning of the earth and night and day and things like that and then later he made the sun and moon and stars to kind of take over that job only after he had made plants and so forth so he could show that plants could live before there was a sun so he sort of like switched himself on or just sent his light yeah sent his light into the creation yeah
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, and I have heard the sort of polemic against, you know, some of the, you know, the pagan ideas, and I don’t have anything to dispute that. So, all right, well, thanks for your time, Steve.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, Kurt, I appreciate your call. Thanks for joining us. Sam from Oakland, Maryland. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hey, Steve, can you hear me okay on here?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hey, great. Thanks for taking my call. My question is about faith. I actually was a School of Biblical Studies student in YWAM Honolulu, and I got to meet you one time. Wow. Yes. It was ten years ago for me. But since then, I’ve been not studying quite so much as I was in that school, but I’ve really been getting back into it lately. And there are people that look to me, and it’s with great fear and trembling that I extend any kind of teaching. And when it comes to faith, I’m actually having a hard time untangling myself from the post-biblical arguments around Calvinism. And I believe, I think as you do, that most of their language is really coming from a misunderstanding of Old Covenant language being spoken into the New Covenant, like election and chosen and But that said, I’m having a hard time untangling myself from just kind of the verbal baggage when I read these books and in terms of Calvinism and things like that.
SPEAKER 09 :
You mean the books of the Bible? The books of the Bible?
SPEAKER 10 :
Yes. Sorry. Yeah. And I guess, where does faith come from? Because like Cornelius and many other new believers, when they heard the truth, they believed and the Spirit fell upon them. But we also… I think pray for increase in our faith. So I think a Calvinist would say that God does everything. He’s the source of all the faith. So, yeah, what’s a good biblical treatise on that?
SPEAKER 09 :
All right. Well, Calvinism teaches that faith in God is quite different in nature than any other kind of faith because they admit that a non-Christian can trust in their parents when they’re a little child can trust in their husband or their wife when they’re married, can trust in a friend, can trust in the government to take care of them, and can trust in lots of things. I mean, you don’t have to have a special gift of faith in order to exercise trust, which is faith. Now, they say, yeah, but you need to be specially regenerated in order to have faith in God. My thought is, why? Why would that be so? Why does the Bible say, trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. That is, you don’t trust in your own understanding. You trust in God. Now, I don’t know that trusting in your understanding and trusting in God are different kinds of trusting. They’re just different objects of trusting. You know, I’m not supposed to trust in myself. Whatever I would trust in myself, I should trust in God instead. I shouldn’t trust in man. I should trust in God. I should not trust in money. That’s what Paul said. Tell the rich not to trust in their uncertain riches, but in the living God. who gives us freely all things to enjoy. It’s 1 Timothy 6. I forget the verse number. Maybe around 14, but don’t trust me on the verse number. But he says, yeah, tell those who are rich to not be arrogant, not to be high-minded, and not trust in their uncertain riches, but in the living God. So don’t trust in money, trust in God. It didn’t indicate that trusting in God is a different kind of phenomenon than Than trusting in riches. It’s just putting your trust in something different than riches. I think human beings are faith creatures. I think some of the higher animals, too. I mean, in a sense that I think a dog can learn to trust its master. Or a horse can learn to trust its trainer or whatever. I mean, trust simply means that you are going to… going to move forward as though as though something that you’re trusting is reliable just like when you go out into you drive your car on the street as soon as you pull out on the street you’re trusting that there are other drivers that will stay on in their lane and not in your lane and not hit you head on you wouldn’t go out there if you didn’t trust them Now, you can’t always trust them because they’re not always trustworthy. That’s the problem. There are things that are not trustworthy that we sometimes have to put our trust in just because we can’t function. I would never know anything if I didn’t listen to the news or read the news or read books of history. If I didn’t trust them at all, I couldn’t know anything. Most of what we know is faith. And faith simply means crediting some source with credibility. Or as it says about Sarah’s faith in Hebrews 11.11, it says, Because she judged him faithful who had promised. That is, she judged that God was faithful. That’s what faith is. Faith is making a judgment. If, you know, if you have a wife and she comes home later than you expected and you could be suspicious that something went on that you wouldn’t approve of, but she says, listen, I, you know, the car broke down and I had to wait for someone to come help me fix the car or give me a jump start or whatever. Now, you can trust her or not, but if you do trust her, it’s because you judge that she’s an honest woman. If you distrust her, it’s probably because you’re making a judgment that she’s not an honest woman. Trusting somebody means you’re making a judgment of them, which is why trusting God is so essential, why God is so offended by those who don’t. Because it says in 1 John 5, he that does not believe him has made him a liar. See, trust is simply saying, I don’t think you’re a liar. I think you tell the truth. I’m judging you to be honest. I’m judging you to be faithful, trustworthy, a truth teller. And if I don’t trust you, I may not say it in so many words, but I’m saying you’re a liar. If you actually tell me something that you really ought to know the truth about. And I say, I don’t believe you. Then I’m saying you’re lying. So faith isn’t some magical thing that only the elect get. Everybody lives by faith. We trust, you know, we trust the builders who build our houses. We trust the water that comes out of our pipes. You know, we trust the, you know, the people who service food. We don’t know if they’ve poisoned it, but we assume they have not. We’re trusting that they are honest people and that they don’t want to kill us. Everything we do, everything that we can’t prove by personal experience, but we take for granted anyway, that’s faith. Now, we can do that with God, too. We can say, you know what? God has never lied. God, the Bible says, is incapable of lying. In Titus chapter 1, verse 1, it says, God who cannot lie. Okay, well, then I’m going to judge that he doesn’t lie. I’m going to judge that he’s faithful. That means when he says something, I’m going to believe him. When he says he’ll take care of me, I’m going to believe that he’ll take care of me. When he makes promises to me, I’m going to count on those promises being true. That’s faith. But I could do the same thing with somebody else other than God. It’s not like there’s, you know, I can trust my wife, I can trust my parents, I can trust my good friends, but to trust God requires some special magic that only God can provide. Where does it say that in the Bibles? It doesn’t. Now, the Bible does talk about faith as, like you said, when the man said, Lord, I believe, help my unbelief. Well, how does God help your unbelief? Well, I suppose many ways, but I suppose by showing himself powerful. I think the Israelites had little faith when they came out of Egypt, but seeing the waters part and take down the Egyptians kind of helped their faith. Later, they had weak faith again because the waters… We’re not drinkable out there in the desert. And God, you know, made the water sweet. And I think that increased their faith somewhat. I mean, lessons of faith. God can give us demonstrations of his faithfulness. But really, the Bible says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. I think the more we read the word of God and the more we just say, I’m going to believe that. I’m not going to call those authors liars. They’ve never demonstrated themselves to be liars. So I’m going to believe them. Okay, the more I believe the Word of God, the more faith I have. So anyway, faith is not necessarily a supernatural thing, though when we have trust in God, it often will lead to supernatural results.
SPEAKER 10 :
Right. I agree with you, and it’s been a long time, but I did hear you talk about the verse, for by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it’s the gift of God. And I know some people took that to mean like, oh, faith is the gift from God. But I think you did it. You refuted that through the Greek somehow, but it’s been a long time.
SPEAKER 09 :
Right. Well, faith is a feminine word. Pistis in Greek is feminine. So is charis, grace. Grace is a feminine word. But when it says that, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. The word is that and it. are not feminine in the Greek text. They are neutered. Now, typically in Greek grammar, the pronouns are supposed to agree in gender with the noun that is their antecedent. So when Paul says, it is the gift of God, So I believe what he’s speaking of is the whole phenomenon of salvation. He says, by grace you have been saved. That’s the you have been saved is the thing that is the gift of God. You’re not saved by works. You’re saved by grace. God’s gift of grace through faith. Now, you have the faith, and through your faith, God gives the grace, and that whole thing is God’s gift. That is to say, being saved by grace means I don’t have to be saved by my works. If I was saved by my works, as Paul says in Romans chapter 4, if it’s of works, it’s a debt. It’s not by grace, it’s debt. So what Paul is saying in Ephesians 2, the verse you mentioned, the same thing I think he’s saying in Romans chapter 4, that it’s not of works, it’s of grace and through faith. But you still have to have the faith, but that’s not of work. Sometimes people think that when Paul says it’s not of works, it means we can’t and won’t do anything. Well, why would it mean that? Why would it have to mean that? I can’t even imagine why it would mean that. If someone says, listen, I’ll clean your gutters for $10, I’ll say, here, I’ll just give you the $10. You don’t have to work for it, but you do have to put out your hand here. And the guy says, no, I won’t take it. I won’t take it on those terms. Well, then he doesn’t get the money. Not because he didn’t do the work, but because he’s too proud to take the gift. And you do have to do something. You have to receive a gift if you’re going to be saved. And if you’re too proud to do that or too unwilling on those terms, it’s like if the governor issues a pardon to somebody who’s on death row. But the prisoner hates the governor and says, I don’t ever want to receive anything from him. I’m staying right here. I’m going to die here in this prison. I mean, the prisoner still has to do something. The pardon is free, but it’s not forced on anyone. That’s the difference in Calvinism and biblical Christianity. In biblical Christianity, it’s offered and it’s like a coin to a beggar. Unless God will miracle, the beggar can’t put out his hand. It’s like he’s paralyzed. And only God can make him put out his hand. Why? Because otherwise he’s saving himself by putting out his hand. Ridiculous. That’s just ridiculous. A beggar putting out his hand is not saving himself. He could put out his hand all day long. And if there’s not someone there to put a coin in it, he won’t be saved. You know, it’s like saying, you know, if someone’s drowning and you throw them a life preserver, if they grab it, then they save themselves. Well, they had a role to play, but they didn’t manufacture their life preserver. They didn’t throw it to themselves. Somebody else did that. It’s theirs for free. But if they refuse to grab it, they’re not going to be saved. So that’s, you know, Calvinists just, I think they just totally don’t understand the gospel at all, frankly.
SPEAKER 10 :
Right. Well, anyway, Steve, I really appreciate your time and for your help on that matter. I appreciate all you do.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thank you. Okay, Sam. Thanks for your call. Bye now. Timothy from Abingdon, Virginia.
SPEAKER 12 :
Welcome. Hello, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. I’ve been listening to all of your stuff and really appreciate it. Your voice is really muffled. Your voice is really muffled. Are you using your… I’m not using speakerphone. Let me try. Is this any better?
SPEAKER 09 :
No, it’s not much better. I can hear you. Go ahead. We don’t have much time. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 12 :
Okay. So I had a question about kindness. I guess the easiest way to ask is a multiple part question. So should we be kind to everyone as Christians?
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, what do you mean by kind? Because kindness, to my mind, kindness is kind of the opposite of cruelty. We shouldn’t be cruel to anybody. And, you know, so being kind would be you’re not cruel. But it’s not cruel to spank your child if they need discipline. It’s kindness. It’s not cruel to stand against criminal behavior. That’s not cruelty. You can be a kind person. and stand very firmly against criminal behavior, for one thing, because that’s the only way to be kind to the victims. You know, there’s a saying I think the Jews have that, you know, kindness to criminals is cruelty to the innocent. And, you know, so, I mean, kindness just means that we don’t intend to make anyone’s life more miserable than it has to be. But if somebody is doing things that have to be opposed, then… we’re not being unkind by opposing it. Okay.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, thank you.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, well, I’d also point out, you know, probably what Paul said to Timothy is very relevant here. In 2 Timothy chapter 2, Paul said in verse 24 through 26, 2 Timothy 2, 24 through 26, a servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility, correcting those who are in opposition. So you’re going to have to correct people sometimes. But you do it in humility, correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance so that they may, you know, know the truth and may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil. So Paul says, you know, we have to confront people who are in opposition. But you should do it in humility and gentleness because you don’t really, you know, you don’t hate them. You don’t want to be cruel. You don’t want to embarrass them unnecessarily or anything like that. But you just have to be kind.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right.
SPEAKER 09 :
I appreciate your call, brother. Let’s see. Ruth from Surrey, British Columbia. We only have about a minute or two. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 06 :
Oh, Steve, thank you for having me again. I’m 94, and I talked to you a couple of weeks ago. I said I agreed with you about the Jews, and it doesn’t say anything in the Bible that they should be back there in the Holy Land now. It refers to returning after 70 years. Is that what you said?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, well, I agree with that. And I have something else I wanted to say. Okay, quickly, it’s not quickly possible. We only have about a minute or so. Pardon me?
SPEAKER 09 :
I’m sorry, the music’s playing. Quickly, do you have a question?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah. It says in Revelation, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which they are Jews and are not. And what I found on my iPad is Nadia’s father changed their name from Malachowski to a Hebrew name.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, I don’t know anything about that. I do know that, you know, Revelation is saying kind of the same thing Jesus said to the Jewish people who were opposing him. They said they were of their father, Abraham. He said, you’re of your father, the devil, because you’re doing what your father wants to do. And that’s what I think Revelation 2.9 and Revelation 3.9 are saying. I’m out of time. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Have a good weekend. God bless.
